Cynics can't shoot down the Ice Bucket Challege

The Huffington Post has published an article by one Ben Kosinski criticizing the Ice Bucket Challenge for being ineffective. In this same article he points out how effective the Challenge has been. Nice strategy there. The guy points out that donations to the fight against amyotrophic lateral sclerosis – known most commonly as ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease – have increased fourfold since the start of this effort compared to the same time period a year ago.

Since he torpedoes his main point right there, he naturally must back it up with some ideas that might actually support his opinion. They don’t. They’re ridiculous, and they’re unoriginal.

He argues, for instance, that our participation in the Challenge (I use “our” because I did it) is less about raising awareness as it is filling our social-media-fueled need to share our life experiences. This is an idea that has been written about so many times, Kosinski should be ashamed for pulling it out again. Even worse, it’s completely misplaced. Not that it isn’t true. It is. It’s pretty sad knowing how many people out there feel the need to film and post all their life experiences. A vacation isn’t a vacation unless you can post it to Facebook.

That has nothing to do with the Ice Bucket Challenge, which is not a life experience. It’s something that takes five minutes and exists solely within social media. Social media, itself, is a pretty sad excuse for a life experience, but if you use it, you might as well do some good with it.

“Instead of donating, we are posting,” Kosinski writes. No. We are doing both. As Kosinski pointed out, donations are up fourfold. Did it not occur to him that people who take the time to douse themselves with ice water also are donating?

Here’s my favorite part: “What if the thousands of people who spent money on buying one or two2 (sic) bags of ice actually gave that money to ALS?” Brilliant. Instead of making a nice donation and encouraging others to do the same, calling attention to it with a little self-deprecation, I should have just donated $1.98.

And once again, this logic has been beaten to death. Every October, a few souls bash the NFL for its displays of pink for awareness of breast cancer. I’m one of those folks. The NFL outfits its roughly 1,600 players in all new uniforms, home and away, for one month. Coaches and officials, too. That’s a lot of money that could be put toward research, and it’s hard not to be cynical about the NFL’s motives, knowing the regard in which the league holds human health. And still, the effort surely is at least somewhat effective.

A bag of ice? A dollar ninety-friggin-eight. You, Ben, are suggesting I write a check to the ALS Association for $1.98. I have a better idea: you do that, you cheap bastard. The rest of us are actually making real donations and sharing a silly laugh through social media, which is how many of us share such laughs with friends from afar.

Nice try anyway, Ben. Seriously. I really enjoyed reading about the Ice Bucket Challenge “generating immediate and heightened awareness but lacking any actual donations” and “the ALS Assocation (sic) has seen as much as four times as many donations.” Way to back up what you’re saying with facts.

I hope everyone will keep up this lack of actual donations by visiting www.alsa.org and donating today. And, over Ben Kosinski’s objections, have a little fun with it.

We've got replay. No more managers on the field.

I am dead-set against the use of video review in baseball. In fact, I am dead-set against the use of instant replay in any sport, but the use of it in baseball bothers me the most. My reasons? I’ll save those for another column.

If, however, we are stuck with replay in baseball forever, and I’m certain we are, replay must replace all discussions between managers and umpires on reviewable plays. There was an unnecessary stroll from the dugout to second base by Baltimore manager Buck Showalter in the third inning of today’s Yankees-Orioles game, and the intent of it was so obvious it was sad.

Ivan Nova picked off Steve Lombardozzi on a very close play at second base. Showalter walked out to second in a way that, from 1839 up through last season, indicated an intent to argue with the umpire (a gambit that has never served any purpose but entertainment for the fans or motivation for the manager’s team, but whatever).

With replay now in effect, of course, there is nothing for Showalter to argue. Instead, as Orioles play-by-play man Gary Thorne narrated in real time, Showalter was stalling for time to allow the coaches in the dugout to get word to determine whether the Orioles should challenge the play. Showalter, when he got to the umpire, actually turned to face the Baltimore dugout while conversing with the umpire.

What possibly could he have said to the umpire? Whatever it was, it was complete nonsense, unless it was, “I have nothing to say to you; I’m just looking at my coaches to see if they think you’re wrong. OK, they don’t think so.”

Can we just dispense with the charade of managers walking out to say nothing to umpires? Not only does it look stupid, it stalls the game, because then we have to wait for the manager to walk back. If there’s any chance of a challenge, just have the next batter stop right before reaching the batter’s box and tell the home-plate umpire, “Just give us a second; we might challenge.” The rule should be this: if the manager comes out of the dugout, it is either A) a visit to the pitcher’s mound (meaning the next such visit means the pitcher is gone; or B) he is challenging the call, and if he’s wrong, he loses a challenge.

But replay still has to go. Again: another column, another time.