several people, myself included, have pointed out the potential downside to the ice bucket challenge, and we have not been appreciated for doing so.
here locally, vince tornado, of news radio station 610 WTVN in columbus, ohio, is enduring fans' wrath and threats to boycott his show - because he said that he hates ALS, he loves raising money to find a cure for it, but he isn't so sure the ice bucket gig is the best way to go.
CRUFICY HIM!
like mr. tornado (not sure if he pronounces it "tore-NAH-doe," or "tore-NAY-doe," although the latter certainly is more apt in this instance), i pointed out some things about the challenge that didn't quite sit right with me, either. and i learned something from having done so: don't ever criticize something that raises money for a good cause.
also like mr. tornado, i am concerned that the focus of this challenge is less on the disease and more on the person dumping cold water on his head. if that's not true, then why don't any of the pictures/videos that i've seen of the people getting cold-soaked include a factoid about ALS, for example - to help educate all of us? or a remark about someone they know who is suffering from the disease? or why don't any of the pictures/videos include an update about the total amount of money raised so far? not to mention, give us the address of where to donate, for pete's sake! but, no. the pictures/videos that i have seen (i'm sure there are exceptions) are only about the person doing the stunt. i think there's something wrong with that, um, picture. video.
this also has the feel of the "WWJD" bracelets that were so popular a few years back. what may have started with good intentions quickly melted into just the next fad.
mostly, though, i wanted to engage others in a discussion of whether or not doing a good thing for a wrong - or partly wrong - reason matters. i think it does!
i think there are times - and this, actually, may in fact be one of them - when the benefit of doing something good with wrong or partly wrong motives does outweigh the wrong motives. do i think it is better to raise more than 41 million dollars for wrong - or partly wrong reasons - to solve a hideous disease than to not raise any money at all? of course, i do.
do i think it is better - and an ideal for which all of us, (goodness gracious, myself most especially included) ought to strive (and to take a really good look at ourselves about) - to raise money solely for the benefit of the benefactor? and that all of the warm fuzzies that we get when our facebook fans chuckle at us and give us high-fives be damned?
yes.
of course, i do.
