In the staff opinion column ("Bracelet craze shows fashion takes over charity" Wed., Dec. 1) Laura Michalski, in short, argues that the bracelet craze that started with Lance Armstrong's LiveStrong has become more of a fashion icon than a vehicle for charity and therefore should stop. I agree that the bracelets have become a fashion statement, but they are for a good cause, helping cancer patients. Isn't that more important than whether it is considered pretentious? I have to say the first time I saw one I thought it was kind of obnoxious, but like Michalski said, it has raised millions of dollars for cancer research. Earlier in her column she stated, "Why do you have to wear generosity on your wrist like a label?" She actually bought a LiveStrong bracelet when they first came out. Hypocrisy? I do believe so. Many people have marketing strategies to make money for themselves in the business world. Doing the same thing for a charity is a novel idea in which everybody wins. High school students and college kids have found a way to be "cool" for only a dollar, while cancer research institutes have received $20 million! Moreover, as these bracelets have become widespread I think it has forced adolescents to think about giving to charity. Even if it is only that $1 they give to charity, that is simply one more dollar they normally wouldn't have donated.