What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Make a Wish turns 5 year old into Batkid. (1 Viewer)

I just saw the following Gawker article referenced in a one of those 'Worst of 2013' lists.

Renowned ethicist Peter Singer (he who advocates being allowed to kill your child up to twenty-eight days after birth) argues that the Batkid episode was a horrible waste of resources. The Gawker author agrees that the spending money on making Batkid's dream come true was immoral.

How Many People Died Because of Batkid?

Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.

The Make-a-Wish foundation reportedly sought more than $100,000 to reimburse the city of San Francisco for what it spent making the Batkid dream of little leukemia patient Miles Scott come true. Writing in the Washington Post today, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer points out the uncomfortable fact: that charity money could have done a lot more.

"It's obvious, isn't it," Singer asks, "that saving a child's life is better than fulfilling a child's wish to be Batkid?" Yes. It is just as obvious as obvious can be. Even a five year-old could see that it's obvious. But that will not stop this line of argument (and our perhaps overly provocative headline) from enraging those who prefer to luxuriate in a bath of warm and fuzzy emotional validation, rather than to think about this simple fact: In a world of scarce resources and limitless need, it's just common sense (and common decency) to direct our charitable resources to those who need it the most. It is not moral to pour charity money into non-life-and-deathcauses when that money could be used to actually save human lives.

According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their ######s and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.

Though it is not considered polite to say it, the fact is that most of the charity money we give to less important causes represents money not given to more important causes, and that means fewer lives saved, simply due to our own whimsical preferences. That's not nice.

Peter Singer recommends some good charities here. And here, he explains why people in poverty deserve our support. There's nothing better to read at Christmas than this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just saw the following Gawker article referenced in a one of those 'Worst of 2013' lists.

Renowned ethicist Peter Singer (he who advocates being allowed to kid your child up to twenty-eight days after birth) argues that the Batkid episode was a horrible waste of resources. The Gawker author agrees that the spending money on making Batkid's dream come true was immoral.

How Many People Died Because of Batkid?

Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.

The Make-a-Wish foundation reportedly sought more than $100,000 to reimburse the city of San Francisco for what it spent making the Batkid dream of little leukemia patient Miles Scott come true. Writing in the Washington Post today, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer points out the uncomfortable fact: that charity money could have done a lot more.

"It's obvious, isn't it," Singer asks, "that saving a child's life is better than fulfilling a child's wish to be Batkid?" Yes. It is just as obvious as obvious can be. Even a five year-old could see that it's obvious. But that will not stop this line of argument (and our perhaps overly provocative headline) from enraging those who prefer to luxuriate in a bath of warm and fuzzy emotional validation, rather than to think about this simple fact: In a world of scarce resources and limitless need, it's just common sense (and common decency) to direct our charitable resources to those who need it the most. It is not moral to pour charity money into non-life-and-deathcauses when that money could be used to actually save human lives.

According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their ######s and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.

Though it is not considered polite to say it, the fact is that most of the charity money we give to less important causes represents money not given to more important causes, and that means fewer lives saved, simply due to our own whimsical preferences. That's not nice.

Peter Singer recommends some good charities here. And here, he explains why people in poverty deserve our support. There's nothing better to read at Christmas than this.
Agreed.

 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.

 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Economist/philsopher Dan Arielly discusses this phenomenon in "The Upside of Irrationality" and theorizes that the human mind is more apt to give when a case is individual and humanized. They conducted experiments and studies and the results were pretty darn clear: people give way more money to a slightly less morbid, cause with an individual person experiencing something abnormal.

For example, more people would prefer to give money to help get one little girl out of a well she fell into than to save a thousand children in Uganda.

 
www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html

Highly recommend you watch the above Ted talk. The presenter started a company properly marketing charity events to make them more popular and to inspire more giving. He was demonized and forced out of business - after being wildly successful at getting people to dive deeper into their wallets. His rationale that non-profits should operate according to proven business models that promote growth is well delivered and compelling. Especially his example of why a rationale Ivy League MBA grad would be better off sitting on the board of a hunger charity than being the CEO - and how someone who makes $50m making violent video games for kids can be celebrated on the cover of Wired, while if we were to recruit the best-of-the-best minds and pay them 500k to run a Malaria charity and save many lives, that person would be treated like a parasite.

 
I just saw the following Gawker article referenced in a one of those 'Worst of 2013' lists. Renowned ethicist Peter Singer (he who advocates being allowed to kid your child up to twenty-eight days after birth) argues that the Batkid episode was a horrible waste of resources. The Gawker author agrees that the spending money on making Batkid's dream come true was immoral.

How Many People Died Because of Batkid?

Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.

The Make-a-Wish foundation reportedly sought more than $100,000 to reimburse the city of San Francisco for what it spent making the Batkid dream of little leukemia patient Miles Scott come true. Writing in the Washington Post today, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer points out the uncomfortable fact: that charity money could have done a lot more.

"It's obvious, isn't it," Singer asks, "that saving a child's life is better than fulfilling a child's wish to be Batkid?" Yes. It is just as obvious as obvious can be. Even a five year-old could see that it's obvious. But that will not stop this line of argument (and our perhaps overly provocative headline) from enraging those who prefer to luxuriate in a bath of warm and fuzzy emotional validation, rather than to think about this simple fact: In a world of scarce resources and limitless need, it's just common sense (and common decency) to direct our charitable resources to those who need it the most. It is not moral to pour charity money into non-life-and-deathcauses when that money could be used to actually save human lives.

According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their ######s and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.

Though it is not considered polite to say it, the fact is that most of the charity money we give to less important causes represents money not given to more important causes, and that means fewer lives saved, simply due to our own whimsical preferences. That's not nice.

Peter Singer recommends some good charities here. And here, he explains why people in poverty deserve our support. There's nothing better to read at Christmas than this.
There are no such things as "charity dollars." Dollars are dollars. What is better for the author, the new car he just bought, or saving the lives of children? How about his latest vacation? Why is he going to see Anchorman 2, when those dollars could be used to help save a child? Whimsical preferences indeed.Perhaps the author could write an article titled "How many people died because I bought a home?"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.
It wasn't only spent making one kid happy. It made his family happy. And it made the hundreds of people who participated happy. And it made a bunch of the residents of San Francisco happy. And it made hundreds of thousands of people who watched the story unfold happy. On top of that, it brought a ton of publicity to a great charity that does amazing things, thus increasing charitable giving in the aggregate (IMO, charitable giving isn't a zero-sum construct).

 
What BB said.

Although I'll admit when it went down that I wondered about tax dollars being spent on it.... but ultimately, it was such an amazing thing, #### it.

 
I was expecting to open this thread and find bad news about batkid. Glad that is not the case. It takes a real scrooge to poo-poo the make a wish foundation. 100k is peanuts compared to the frivolous things the government and citizens spend money on. If this kind of community event occurred more often we might have a happier and healthier country.

 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.
It wasn't only spent making one kid happy. It made his family happy. And it made the hundreds of people who participated happy. And it made a bunch of the residents of San Francisco happy. And it made hundreds of thousands of people who watched the story unfold happy. On top of that, it brought a ton of publicity to a great charity that does amazing things, thus increasing charitable giving in the aggregate (IMO, charitable giving isn't a zero-sum construct).
Thank you BB.

 
I just saw the following Gawker article referenced in a one of those 'Worst of 2013' lists. Renowned ethicist Peter Singer (he who advocates being allowed to kid your child up to twenty-eight days after birth) argues that the Batkid episode was a horrible waste of resources. The Gawker author agrees that the spending money on making Batkid's dream come true was immoral.

How Many People Died Because of Batkid?

Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.

The Make-a-Wish foundation reportedly sought more than $100,000 to reimburse the city of San Francisco for what it spent making the Batkid dream of little leukemia patient Miles Scott come true. Writing in the Washington Post today, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer points out the uncomfortable fact: that charity money could have done a lot more.

"It's obvious, isn't it," Singer asks, "that saving a child's life is better than fulfilling a child's wish to be Batkid?" Yes. It is just as obvious as obvious can be. Even a five year-old could see that it's obvious. But that will not stop this line of argument (and our perhaps overly provocative headline) from enraging those who prefer to luxuriate in a bath of warm and fuzzy emotional validation, rather than to think about this simple fact: In a world of scarce resources and limitless need, it's just common sense (and common decency) to direct our charitable resources to those who need it the most. It is not moral to pour charity money into non-life-and-deathcauses when that money could be used to actually save human lives.

According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their ######s and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.

Though it is not considered polite to say it, the fact is that most of the charity money we give to less important causes represents money not given to more important causes, and that means fewer lives saved, simply due to our own whimsical preferences. That's not nice.

Peter Singer recommends some good charities here. And here, he explains why people in poverty deserve our support. There's nothing better to read at Christmas than this.
There are no such things as "charity dollars." Dollars are dollars. What is better for the author, the new car he just bought, or saving the lives of children? How about his latest vacation? Why is he going to see Anchorman 2, when those dollars could be used to help save a child? Whimsical preferences indeed.Perhaps the author could write an article titled "How many people died because I bought a home?"
Extremely :goodposting:

 
I just saw the following Gawker article referenced in a one of those 'Worst of 2013' lists. Renowned ethicist Peter Singer (he who advocates being allowed to kid your child up to twenty-eight days after birth) argues that the Batkid episode was a horrible waste of resources. The Gawker author agrees that the spending money on making Batkid's dream come true was immoral.

How Many People Died Because of Batkid?

Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.

The Make-a-Wish foundation reportedly sought more than $100,000 to reimburse the city of San Francisco for what it spent making the Batkid dream of little leukemia patient Miles Scott come true. Writing in the Washington Post today, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer points out the uncomfortable fact: that charity money could have done a lot more.

"It's obvious, isn't it," Singer asks, "that saving a child's life is better than fulfilling a child's wish to be Batkid?" Yes. It is just as obvious as obvious can be. Even a five year-old could see that it's obvious. But that will not stop this line of argument (and our perhaps overly provocative headline) from enraging those who prefer to luxuriate in a bath of warm and fuzzy emotional validation, rather than to think about this simple fact: In a world of scarce resources and limitless need, it's just common sense (and common decency) to direct our charitable resources to those who need it the most. It is not moral to pour charity money into non-life-and-deathcauses when that money could be used to actually save human lives.

According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their ######s and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.

Though it is not considered polite to say it, the fact is that most of the charity money we give to less important causes represents money not given to more important causes, and that means fewer lives saved, simply due to our own whimsical preferences. That's not nice.

Peter Singer recommends some good charities here. And here, he explains why people in poverty deserve our support. There's nothing better to read at Christmas than this.
There are no such things as "charity dollars." Dollars are dollars. What is better for the author, the new car he just bought, or saving the lives of children? How about his latest vacation? Why is he going to see Anchorman 2, when those dollars could be used to help save a child? Whimsical preferences indeed.Perhaps the author could write an article titled "How many people died because I bought a home?"
:goodposting:

Then he can follow that up with one detailing how many people died because he wrote an article making charitable people feel like crap, leading them to be less charitable next time around.

If he had praised the charity while at the same time drawing attention to more life-saving charities, I would be all for it. "You know how good you felt giving towards Batkid and then watching the result? Just think how you'll feel saving a life or two next time you give!"

 
I just saw the following Gawker article referenced in a one of those 'Worst of 2013' lists. Renowned ethicist Peter Singer (he who advocates being allowed to kid your child up to twenty-eight days after birth) argues that the Batkid episode was a horrible waste of resources. The Gawker author agrees that the spending money on making Batkid's dream come true was immoral.

How Many People Died Because of Batkid?

Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.

The Make-a-Wish foundation reportedly sought more than $100,000 to reimburse the city of San Francisco for what it spent making the Batkid dream of little leukemia patient Miles Scott come true. Writing in the Washington Post today, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer points out the uncomfortable fact: that charity money could have done a lot more.

"It's obvious, isn't it," Singer asks, "that saving a child's life is better than fulfilling a child's wish to be Batkid?" Yes. It is just as obvious as obvious can be. Even a five year-old could see that it's obvious. But that will not stop this line of argument (and our perhaps overly provocative headline) from enraging those who prefer to luxuriate in a bath of warm and fuzzy emotional validation, rather than to think about this simple fact: In a world of scarce resources and limitless need, it's just common sense (and common decency) to direct our charitable resources to those who need it the most. It is not moral to pour charity money into non-life-and-deathcauses when that money could be used to actually save human lives.

According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their ######s and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.

Though it is not considered polite to say it, the fact is that most of the charity money we give to less important causes represents money not given to more important causes, and that means fewer lives saved, simply due to our own whimsical preferences. That's not nice.

Peter Singer recommends some good charities here. And here, he explains why people in poverty deserve our support. There's nothing better to read at Christmas than this.
There are no such things as "charity dollars." Dollars are dollars. What is better for the author, the new car he just bought, or saving the lives of children? How about his latest vacation? Why is he going to see Anchorman 2, when those dollars could be used to help save a child? Whimsical preferences indeed.Perhaps the author could write an article titled "How many people died because I bought a home?"
:goodposting:

Then he can follow that up with one detailing how many people died because he wrote an article making charitable people feel like crap, leading them to be less charitable next time around.

If he had praised the charity while at the same time drawing attention to more life-saving charities, I would be all for it. "You know how good you felt giving towards Batkid and then watching the result? Just think how you'll feel saving a life or two next time you give!"
Bingo. Article was written by someone incapable of pulling his head up long enough from his theories to understand human nature.

 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.
It wasn't only spent making one kid happy. It made his family happy. And it made the hundreds of people who participated happy. And it made a bunch of the residents of San Francisco happy. And it made hundreds of thousands of people who watched the story unfold happy. On top of that, it brought a ton of publicity to a great charity that does amazing things, thus increasing charitable giving in the aggregate (IMO, charitable giving isn't a zero-sum construct).
Incredibly great point here. That's why I never understand why people complain about the "rich" being able to use charitable donations as a tax write-off.

 
I take it as being similar to Newton's Law. For every action there is an equal opposite reaction. Or a yin yang scenario.

The FFA is a good example of this. Rarely is there a subject where every member is in agreement.

There is a need for wrong, to recognize what is right. Or the need for bad, to define what is good. Both need the each other to maintain existence.

I don't believe the authors opinions will exact any change, so it's a non factor.

 
A lot of corporate and corporate-sanctioned philanthropy is zero sum. :eftheunitedway:
Could you please explain? I'm not attacking you here or being contrarian, I just don't know how you are getting to that conclusion.

 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.
People who donate to Make-A-Wish understand the charity doesn’t support the research of childhood diseases.

 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.
It wasn't only spent making one kid happy. It made his family happy. And it made the hundreds of people who participated happy. And it made a bunch of the residents of San Francisco happy. And it made hundreds of thousands of people who watched the story unfold happy. On top of that, it brought a ton of publicity to a great charity that does amazing things, thus increasing charitable giving in the aggregate (IMO, charitable giving isn't a zero-sum construct).
The author doesn't agree that make a wish is an awesome charity that does great things. He's trying to encourage people to give to charities he deems more worthwhile. I don't really have a problem with that. The headline and some of the article seems too antagonistic, though.
 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.
It wasn't only spent making one kid happy. It made his family happy. And it made the hundreds of people who participated happy. And it made a bunch of the residents of San Francisco happy. And it made hundreds of thousands of people who watched the story unfold happy. On top of that, it brought a ton of publicity to a great charity that does amazing things, thus increasing charitable giving in the aggregate (IMO, charitable giving isn't a zero-sum construct).
The author doesn't agree that make a wish is an awesome charity that does great things. He's trying to encourage people to give to charities he deems more worthwhile. I don't really have a problem with that. The headline and some of the article seems too antagonistic, though.
And that's fine. My point was simply that it's erroneous to suggest that the only benefit of the event was to bring happiness to one child for a day.

 
And really how big a doosh do you have to be to try to make your tired point by raining on this particular parade?

 
SAN FRANCISCO — The city of San Francisco is being rescued from paying the cost of staging the "Batkid" fantasy that captured the nation's imagination.

Philanthropists John and Marcia Goldman are picking up the city's $105,000 tab for allowing Miles Scott, a 5-year-old Northern California boy with leukemia, to fight villains and rescue a damsel in distress as a caped crusader on Nov. 15.

Maria Kong of the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation confirmed a San Francisco Chronicle report Sunday about the couple's gift.

City officials say most of the $105,000 in public funds went toward renting a sound system, video screens and other equipment to accommodate the surprisingly large crowds that turned out to see "Batkid," who became a social media darling.

The elaborate fantasy was arranged by the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
 
Charitable donations have been stuck at about 2% of GDP since the 70s. Maybe a better tack would be not comparing the Batkid donations to other uses of that 2%, but to other uses of disposable income. I would like to think that people, when moved to, give more.
Yes. Until they realize that $100k was spent on making one kid feel happy for a day instead of saving the lives of 10 other children. Then they'd be much less likely to donate.
Yeah, nobody in SF cared.

 
Batkid was awesome and I realize it's great publicity for a great charity, but it'd be nice if some other kids could get the spotlight too.

 
Scoresman said:
Batkid was awesome and I realize it's great publicity for a great charity, but it'd be nice if some other kids could get the spotlight too.
plenty of kids out there, pick one and get to work.

 
Scoresman said:
Batkid was awesome and I realize it's great publicity for a great charity, but it'd be nice if some other kids could get the spotlight too.
plenty of kids out there, pick one and get to work.
If you're implying I should go out and help MAWF, I've already donated a few hundred at least in the form of a charity FFL. I play for the greater Bay Area chapter.

 
So glad to read that he is in remission. I almost didn't open this thread out of fear that he had taken a turn for the worse.

 
Scoresman said:
Batkid was awesome and I realize it's great publicity for a great charity, but it'd be nice if some other kids could get the spotlight too.
plenty of kids out there, pick one and get to work.
If you're implying I should go out and help MAWF, I've already donated a few hundred at least in the form of a charity FFL. I play for the greater Bay Area chapter.
"just hacking on you Billy"

 
Wow...saw the bump and got teary and worried. Watched the video and have all different kinds of tears.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top