Random Thoughts That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Go Here

[cartman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Instead of looking at the "Christian" website that likely has some agenda

I have seen references to this from some of my hardcore religious friends, that they blacklist ALS research because some of it involves stem cells.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

I have seen references to this from some of my hardcore religious friends, that they blacklist ALS research because some of it involves stem cells.

hadn't even thought of that - i just assumed it was some formula to rate the charities that they derived so they could give poor ratings to pro-choice type charities, but that makes good sense too.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Instead of looking at the "Christian" website that likely has some agenda (be it with regard to ALS, or - and this is probably more likely, be it with regard to creating a weighting system that makes certain charities (pro-choice, etc) that they disagree with the message of look bad), why not look at the gold-standard in Charity Navigator Arles?

The breakdown of spending money isn't "Christian", it is just numbers. I think most people are very surprised to learn that only 27% of donations goes to actual ALS research. The Charity Navigator site is very misleading. Here's a great example: The Susan G. Komen for the Cure charity is given a 81.96/100 rating (ALS got a 90.73), yet only 36% goes to cancer research. They do the same song and dance as ALS in saying that cancer research isn't their only goal and they do more outreach and education....

However, a very good charity organization for cancer research (Gateway for Cancer Research - Demand Cures Today) spends 99 cents of every dollar donated for cancer research. They, however, are not rated by Charity Navigator because they don't play the "lobbying/promotion" game and help fund Charity Navigator (which is also a nonprofit that takes tons of donations from charities that it "surprisingly" gives good grades to). The Breast Cancer research Foundation (The Breast Cancer Research Foundation | BCRF ) is another good one that is large enough to pay a minimal kickback to Charity Navigator, but they only have a slightly higher score than the Susan G Komen charity - even though a vast higher percentage goes to research grants (over 70%).

So, yeah, I'd rather look at the actual money going to research grants and actual medical research vs admin/fundraising - not just think because Charity Navigator says they are good that they must be good.

Is it because you're only interested in the outcome being what you want it to be, rather than going with the widely-accepted standard?

No, I simply want more of my donations to "disease X" research to actually go towards research grants/funding. Maybe I'm just odd that way and we all should be content seeing only 25-30% of actual money going to research because they doing some amazing public education, fund raising and administrative fees worth that 50-60% they spend.

But I will even use the Charity Navigator numbers and still show how poor ALS is in comparison. ALS association spends 28% solely on fundraising and Administration (according to Charity Navigator). That should be a red flag as some of the better charities Breast Cancer Research Foundation (8%) and UNICEF (8%) spend a fraction of that. Again, maybe people are fine with almost 30% going to overhead and only 27% going to research. But other charities with similar goals only spend 8% on overhead with over 70% going to research. It's just an interesting comparison to me.

[molson]

When did this idea start that direct research is the only thing that matters?

Why are fundraising expenses vilified? Unless you can show that they're actually losing money in those efforts, spending money to make money isn't an inherently bad thing. If a charity uses my $1 to make more than $1, great.

Lobbying isn't inherently bad either. Isn't it a good thing for these causes to have influence within the legislature and state and federal agencies? And it make sense that the bigger organizations with clout would spend money on this and the small ones wouldn't. They have different roles. Again, it seems like it would be a case by case thing. What have those lobbying efforts actually produced (like in this case, stuff like the ALS Registry Act)?

Of course, there's a million charities and you can support whatever ones connect with you, but the whole premise of the original link was obnoxiously disingenuous. There's obviously some angle there, and the stem cell thing makes sense.

[Arles]

Let me also say that I'm not necessarily against a certain percentage going to advertising and even salaries for leader in the charity - as long as a healthy percentage ends up in either research grants or directly helping the cause. A great example is the Boys and Girls Club. They spend close to 20% on advertising/fundraising and Administration - yet they still spend 70% on programs and activities directly related to helping kids.

There's a report that in 2012, just 7% went to research from the ALS. One of their big issues is all the local chapters with their own local administration and fees. I just want people to check out charities before they donate - and not just follow the herd:

[molson]

Here's how the ECFA ranks charities:

http://www.ecfa.org/Content/Standards

The most important thing is:

Standard 1 - Doctrinal Issues

Every organization shall subscribe to a written statement of faith clearly affirming a commitment to the evangelical Christian faith or shall otherwise demonstrate such commitment, and shall operate in accordance with biblical truths and practices.

Edit: Which, I actually think is kind of cool, that if you're a certain kind of Christian that's the intended audience there, there's a website that helps you figure out which charities are consistent with your faith and beliefs and such. But nobody should be calling charities which don't pass that biblical test as generally "fraudulent".

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

When did this idea start that direct research is the only thing that matters?

Why are fundraising expenses vilified? Unless you can show that they're actually losing money in those efforts, spending money to make money isn't an inherently bad thing. If a charity uses my $1 to make more than $1, great.

Lobbying isn't inherently bad either. Isn't it a good thing for these causes to have influence within the legislature and state and federal agencies? And it make sense that the bigger organizations with clout would spend money on this and the small ones wouldn't. They have different roles. Again, it seems like it would be a case by case thing. What have those lobbying efforts actually produced (like in this case, stuff like the ALS Registry Act)?

I think you need to have a healthy percent directly impacting the cause you are championing - otherwise it's a little disingenuous. I could go out and say I am raising money to help the homeless and spend 10 cents of ever dollar given to me directly helping the homeless. Even if another 60 cents is going to "helpful" activities, aren't I being misleading with my message?

Of course, there's a million charities and you can support whatever ones connect with you, but the whole premise of the original link was obnoxiously disingenuous. There's obviously some angle there, and the stem cell thing makes sense.

I was more referencing the chart in the article (from another source) - not the guy's take on it. There are plenty of people with angles and axes to grind. My point is when your actual documentation shows between 7 and 27% go to actual ALS research on any given year, I would want more information on where the other 73-93% is going.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think you need to have a healthy percent directly impacting the cause you are championing - otherwise it's a little disingenuous. I could go out and say I am raising money to help the homeless and spend 10 cents of ever dollar given to me directly helping the homeless. Even if another 60 cents is going to "helpful" activities, aren't I being misleading with my message?

But awareness and education and helping patients and their families is part of the cause this organization champions. I think I read that pie chart, or a version of it, is on that group's website, it's totally transparent.

Why is "research" the only thing that matters? (I hear the same thing when it comes to cancer charities, that anything other than "research" is basically unethical spending). What if an organization wasn't focused on research at all, but only assisted patients and families, promoted awareness, and engaged in grass-roots local fundraising and events to support bigger organizations. And they're transparent about all of this. Is there something unethical about that just because it's not "research"?

How they end up using all that money will be an interesting decision/challenge. I think it's safe to say you can throw all those pie charts out the window, for this one windfall anyway.

How will the ALSA spend all the ice bucket money? - Fortune

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Why is "research" the only thing that matters? (I hear the same thing when it comes to cancer charities, that anything other than "research" is basically unethical spending). What if an organization wasn't focused on research at all, but only assisted patients and families, promoted awareness, and engaged in grass-roots local fundraising and events to support bigger organizations. And they're transparent about all of this. Is there something unethical about that just because it's not "research"?

This, basically.

[Arles]

Here's another interesting angle in should we be donating this much money to ALS given the minimal impact it has compared to other issues/diseases:

[molson]

That's exactly why spending on awareness, fundraising, etc. is so important. Charities compete for donation money. The ALS association is a huge over-achiever right now.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

But awareness and education and helping patients and their families is part of the cause this organization champions. I think I read that pie chart, or a version of it, is on that group's website, it's totally transparent.

Why is "research" the only thing that matters? (I hear the same thing when it comes to cancer charities, that anything other than "research" is basically unethical spending). What if an organization wasn't focused on research at all, but only assisted patients and families, promoted awareness, and engaged in grass-roots local fundraising and events to support bigger organizations. And they're transparent about all of this. Is there something unethical about that just because it's not "research"?

Again, I think that's for everyone to decide. We know per the ALS data that they spend between 7 and 27% on research and 15-19% on "patient and community services" over the past 3 years in their financials. So, even if you assume that the entire patient and community services went to "assisted patients and families", they are still spending over 55% on "other". I would prefer to know more about that 55% before donating and also decide if my money is best spent helping cure ALS (which impacts a minimal % of society) or other more impactful issues like hunger, clean water, heart disease, other forms of cancer and so forth.

At the end of the day, none of these questions were asked by the masses and my fear is many good and necessary organizations will lose out on much needed donations because people instead donated to the ALS association to look cool on Facebook. I just wish there was more awareness and perspective by people and the media before giving into this ice bucket craze.

[molson]

Ya, definitely up to the donor, so transparency is the most important thing.

I know I'm way too cynical in the other direction where I'm down on "research" spending. I know this isn't correct and I'm sure someone could tell me why I'm wrong, but at a base cynical level, that research hasn't cured shit in decades. In terms of disease-based charities, I connect much more with those that aim to improve the lives of patients and their families. There's one in the northwest that just sends poorer families with terminally ill children on vacations to the oregon coast and stuff. Just so they can build memories and have some time away from their tough realities. A few hundred dollars can help support a once-in-lifetime experience for one family. A few hundred to "research" just feels like a bottomless pit. (Edit: My brain tells me that it's not really a bottomless pit, but I'm more generous when I can connect better and more personally with something.)

[thesloppy]

I've always wondered about the 'research' side of charities in the first place...like, I wonder how many charities actually have a site and team of scientists/researchers, and how many are basically just handing over that money to universities, in the form of research grants. I'd assume that the former is actually pretty rare, and that the great majority of research is actually being done by schools.

If you've got your own research site & staff, it seems like increased revenue could be pretty easily turned into increased research, by simply increasing your staff, but I wonder how it works when factoring in the schools. Does that further dilute your research contribution? Since the number of students, and available space/equipment are all somewhat static & finite, and out of direct control, does that further contribute to the idea that one charity's actions/contributions could be actively taking away from another? Could donating directly to a specific school/program actually be more efficient in such cases?

[Draft Dodger]

the discussion about how charities works is fascinating...and completely out of place in a random thoughts that don't deserve their own thread thread

[terpkristin]

I travel a lot and always used the Bose QC15 over-ear headphones. I love the noise-canceling but they make my head and ears feel weird, like I have a head cold or always need to pop my ears.

I recently was near a Bose store so tried their in-ear noise-canceling buds. HOLY CRAP. No wonky feeling and some pretty impressive noise-canceling. Bought them on the spot.

Say what you will about Bose in general (and I could say a lot, given my current headphone favorites), but their noise-canceling headphones are unmatched in my experience for noise cancellation.

/tk

[Easy Mac]

Went to use the smoker this morning to make some pulled pork. Took off the cover, and out fell a lot of tiny black pellets and two giant cockroaches. It seems they decided to shack up on top of the smoker under the cover. Took a while to get it clean. Those things shit a lot.

Just took the cover off the grill to make some burgers. Right on the front of the lid is a sand nest for some sort of flying insect. I didn't see any wasps around, so I destroyed it. Saw a few very big larvae in the nest.

Not a great cooking day for me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

I just wish there was more awareness and perspective by people and the media before giving into this ice bucket craze.

I believe you're asking for far more than most people are willing to invest.

Right, wrong, good, bad, I think that's the real bottom line truth.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

the discussion about how charities works is fascinating...and completely out of place in a random thoughts that don't deserve their own thread thread

+1

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Went to use the smoker this morning to make some pulled pork. Took off the cover, and out fell a lot of tiny black pellets and two giant cockroaches. It seems they decided to shack up on top of the smoker under the cover. Took a while to get it clean. Those things shit a lot.

Just took the cover off the grill to make some burgers. Right on the front of the lid is a sand nest for some sort of flying insect. I didn't see any wasps around, so I destroyed it. Saw a few very big larvae in the nest.

Not a great cooking day for me.

You have me beat. I was just under the gun with rain all day and not being able to get my grill down cool enough.

SI

[bhlloy]

Neighbors house is on fire - haven't seen any flames but a shit ton of smoke and they are cutting a hole in the roof right now

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Went to use the smoker this morning to make some pulled pork. Took off the cover, and out fell a lot of tiny black pellets and two giant cockroaches. It seems they decided to shack up on top of the smoker under the cover. Took a while to get it clean. Those things shit a lot.

Just took the cover off the grill to make some burgers. Right on the front of the lid is a sand nest for some sort of flying insect. I didn't see any wasps around, so I destroyed it. Saw a few very big larvae in the nest.

Not a great cooking day for me.

Found a hornets nest on mine this spring. Thank Christ it was still small.

[Suicane75]

Ummm. Did I imagine posts that are no longer here?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, I think that's for everyone to decide. We know per the ALS data that they spend between 7 and 27% on research and 15-19% on "patient and community services" over the past 3 years in their financials. So, even if you assume that the entire patient and community services went to "assisted patients and families", they are still spending over 55% on "other". I would prefer to know more about that 55% before donating and also decide if my money is best spent helping cure ALS (which impacts a minimal % of society) or other more impactful issues like hunger, clean water, heart disease, other forms of cancer and so forth.

At the end of the day, none of these questions were asked by the masses and my fear is many good and necessary organizations will lose out on much needed donations because people instead donated to the ALS association to look cool on Facebook. I just wish there was more awareness and perspective by people and the media before giving into this ice bucket craze.

It fells like you are rooting for ALS at this point.

[PilotMan]

The internet might break today.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The internet might break today.

I think it already did last night.

Twas awesome.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think it already did last night.

Twas awesome.

very mixed feelings about that. feel a bit creepy looking at them

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It fells like you are rooting for ALS at this point.

It really is a bizarre thing to draw a line in the sand about...maybe Arles needs to search for the things in those posts that got deleted to take a load off.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It fells like you are rooting for ALS at this point.

Yes, I am rooting for a terrible season to stay active in society

I think it's appropriate that people affected by or know others who have been affected by ALS support the ALS association. I even think it's great if some other people read about it and end up donating because they think it's important. What I don't like is when a facebook craze comes out where many influential people who have other, more personal charities they support feel strong-armed to donate to this society (at the expense of being called out on social media). If donations to other important organizations that provide services and research that impact a lot more people/communities than ALS DON'T get reduced this year - then I will fully admit I was being the old man screaming "get off my lawn" to some kids playing. However, if these organizations do get short changed because the masses decided it was more important to look cool on facebook than do their due diligence on investing in charities that matter to them - then that will be a shame.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The internet might break today.

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think it already did last night.

Twas awesome.

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

very mixed feelings about that. feel a bit creepy looking at them

?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yes, I am rooting for a terrible season to stay active in society

I think it's appropriate that people affected by or know others who have been affected by ALS support the ALS association. I even think it's great if some other people read about it and end up donating because they think it's important. What I don't like is when a facebook craze comes out where many influential people who have other, more personal charities they support feel strong-armed to donate to this society (at the expense of being called out on social media). If donations to other important organizations that provide services and research that impact a lot more people/communities than ALS DON'T get reduced this year - then I will fully admit I was being the old man screaming "get off my lawn" to some kids playing. However, if these organizations do get short changed because the masses decided it was more important to look cool on facebook than do their due diligence on investing in charities that matter to them - then that will be a shame.

The best response to the ice bucket I've seen yet was an online acquaintance in the music business who essentially posted politely but firmly that he:
1) wasn't doing a video
2) wasn't dumping water, iced or otherwise
3) would be making the challenged donation to local charity X because he felt that had more impact for his money & that it was closest to his heart

He got nothing but support from his followers (he's a public figure within his niche).

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Lathum

?

"The Cloud" got hacked and a bunch of celebrity nudes were posted on 4chan. (I think it started on 4chan, but it's obviously now spreading faster than the ice bucket challenge).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

It really is a bizarre thing to draw a line in the sand about...maybe Arles needs to search for the things in those posts that got deleted to take a load off.

I think this was like many internet arguments and became more about individual points than the entire forest. On a high level, I'm glad more people donated to charity, but I thought the idea of doing a stunt to avoid donating and then promoting it was weird. Then, when reports came in that donations to other charities may decrease, that's when I got more upset and started to look more critically at ALS.

Now that the dust has settled, I've seen many reputable sources stating that a second "phase" of the ice bucket challenge has started where people choose the charity of their choice and use that instead (which could be the ALS association for some people) - much like Jon posted above. This change appears to have offset my base fear (that other charities would end up suffering). A Yale economist just said as much:

In fact, preliminary evidence suggests that due to moral licensing, the ice bucket challenge has crowded out contributions to other charities. The recent trend of ice bucket participants donating to charities other than ALS may, however, temporarily counteract this trend.

So, at the end of the day, I probably was harder on this challenge than was warranted. Sometimes being the sole dissenter is good to offer perspective, other times it makes you look more radical on an issue that really isn't that big of an issue in the grand scheme of things.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The best response to the ice bucket I've seen yet was an online acquaintance in the music business who essentially posted politely but firmly that he:
1) wasn't doing a video
2) wasn't dumping water, iced or otherwise
3) would be making the challenged donation to local charity X because he felt that had more impact for his money & that it was closest to his heart

He got nothing but support from his followers (he's a public figure within his niche).

Thats kind of my feelings on it. If you are getting strong armed into donating to ALS instead of the charity of your choice you really don't care much about the charity of your choice. I have yet to see anyone on my FB feed give anyone a hard time about anything surrounding the challenge.

[Matthean]

I still can't figure of why celebrities think it is a good idea to put a naked images of themselves on any digital format these days.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The best response to the ice bucket I've seen yet was an online acquaintance in the music business who essentially posted politely but firmly that he:
1) wasn't doing a video
2) wasn't dumping water, iced or otherwise
3) would be making the challenged donation to local charity X because he felt that had more impact for his money & that it was closest to his heart

He got nothing but support from his followers (he's a public figure within his niche).

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Ummm. Did I imagine posts that are no longer here?

Apparently they were hacked off iCloud as well.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Ummm. Did I imagine posts that are no longer here?

I thought it was pretty over the top when people started directly linking to pictures and posting them in the middle of the thread.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought it was pretty over the top when people started directly linking to pictures and posting them in the middle of the thread.

Really? People did that here?? Seems silly when there's a whole subreddit devoted to it.

I'd expect some boxings in that case.

[NobodyHere]

I lost a post

[sabotai]

PEOPLE LOST POSTS!?

[Dutch]

I stopped caring when I reached a bazillion.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I stopped caring when I reached a bazillion.

Only 19 posts from Grizzled Vet status.

It's only taken 12 years.

18 NOW!!!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Aaarrrggghhh.

Another f'n "Parents Night". 3+ hours, including schlepping up & down & over & around the campus so that we can go to every class our kid will have -- with about half the teachers being ones he's had previous -- isn't a "parents night" afaic, it's an endurance test.

Next to last Spartan Death March we'll have to do, and it can't end soon enough.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Logan

Thanks guys. What's extra sad is that if it is FIP, it could be as little as a couple months between diagnosis and when he goes. And this is something that's very possible he's already had for a couple months and we just didn't realize.

Unfortunately, yesterday was the day we said goodbye to little Leo.

He had definitely been slipping a bit the last couple weeks. Didn't want to take his pill, was eating less, and seemed even more lethargic than he had been. We were starting to see more of his skin as his fur was sort of standing in different directions. We were going out of town over the weekend, and had a pet sitter coming by to check in on him and his brother, give them food/water, give Leo his pill, etc and it seemed to be going well as she actually got him to take it each time. When we got home Sunday, he seemed okay but it was more of the same of what we had seen earlier.

Then yesterday morning, he was sitting quietly in his little cubby when all of a sudden he darted out of it and began sprinting around our apartment. He hadn't done so much as walked at a decent pace in months, so this was shocking and scary. After a few seconds, he fell down onto his side and was clearly having a seizure. I was just trying to pet him and keep him calm, while my wife was hysterical and trying to do the same, and after about 30 seconds, he came out of it. Cried a bit, then got up and seemed to be scared but overall okay. For a few minutes we watched him and he kept looking okay. As I was making calls trying to find an animal ER open on Labor Day, he went to the litter box, tried to crap, and looked shocked that nothing came out. Then he left some kind of clear, mucus-y discharge on the carpet after he came over and sat down.

Got to the ER and thankfully had a great vet looking at him relatively quickly. She thought he was stable for the time being and could do some more tests on him to see what caused the seizure, or more tests to determine how far his condition advanced, or we could start giving him anti-seizure meds, etc. But my wife and I had pretty much already decided on our course of action by the time the vet came in. He just wasn't the same as he used to be, it was clearly only going to get worse, and keeping him with us longer was only going to be selfish. And we couldn't stomach the thought of him having another seizure when we were at work, when he'd be so scared. The vet agreed with us that it was a very fair option at the time.

We said our goodbyes which was really hard. I mentioned this in my first post on the topic...I never had pets and never wanted cats. I couldn't believe how I was feeling saying goodbye to the little guy. I'm so glad we got both him and his brother, even if it was so hard losing one after not even a year. But my wife and I are both in a good place, and we knew what we were doing was right.

I just made the below picture into a phone case for my wife. We called it his 18th century portrait (with color) and always had a laugh over it, how he seemed to be so serious and standing at attention. I probably won't give it to her just yet, but I'm hoping the picture choice will allow it to be a happy/funny memory and not just a visual that reminds us he's gone.

I got a lot of really nice words/advice/PMs when I first posted about this and wanted to thank everyone for them.

RIP little buddy. Thanks for hanging out and fighting the good fight.

[Lathum]

Sorry to hear but it sounds like you made the right choice. It's so easy to want to hang in for out own selfish reasons when it is time to let go. Had to do it a few times over the years. Never easy. RIP Leo.

[Blackadar]

Sorry Logan, but that sounds like it was the right thing to do. My condolences.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Aaarrrggghhh.

Another f'n "Parents Night". 3+ hours, including schlepping up & down & over & around the campus so that we can go to every class our kid will have -- with about half the teachers being ones he's had previous -- isn't a "parents night" afaic, it's an endurance test.

Next to last Spartan Death March we'll have to do, and it can't end soon enough.

Nobody told you about Parents' Weekend at college, or were you just not planning on attending that?

[Kodos]

R.I.P., Leo. Always tough losing one of your pets.

[Logan]

Thanks guys.