Kony 2012

[Nick]

Any movement takes money, 59% of last years budget was spent on front end, I personally find their travel and office budget excessive - but think they skimmed out on lobbyist and video production, probably meaning they did leg work in regards to both on their own before budget stuff.


Getting people who are good at what they do, to commit ALL of their time to a cause requires you pay them at least close to competitive.

Medical doctors do good work that saves people, and they get paid well for it.

I find it more humorous that people expect 100% of their money to magically end up in the children's hands. These problems are not simple or quick to fix, and someone putting $10 in- well that's a quick and easy approach, add in the related self righteous talk to follow ... Ugh. Anyways.

Email, phone and visit your local government rep, MLA and/or mp - that would mean the money others donated on the front end of this project is successfully mobilizing our tax dollars towards this movement.

[KapG]

Sure it seems like a small percentage but really is 31% worse than 0% ? I understand the reservations in donating money you have worked for if you feel it may not be going where its supposed to. But at the same time the organization does need to market itself and maintain itself in order to continue to spread the word, and be be taken seriously enough to influence change.

That's not really the best of arguments...

And actually its a pretty good argument. Money can't just be thrown at a problem to make it go away. Its very very expensive to make sure that money donated to a charity organization actually goes to the people it is trying to help. More often than not organizations send money to countries wherein corrupt government officials simply pocket it, leading to disillusionment on the part of the Westerners who donated the money, and resentment on the part of the needy for not receiving what is there's. I'm not saying everybody on the forum needs to donate, my point is that its easy to look at statistics on the website and claim its not worth your time or money, and to be critical. It's much harder to actually act and enact a change in the world.

Maybe I am in my own little world (staring at dewey decimal numbers all day), but this is what came to mind when I read your comment that 31% is better then 0%...

Corporations will often outsource labour to foreign countries so that they can build/produce stuff at a much lower cost. A lot of the time this is frowned upon. With that being said, without these low paying jobs a lot of these people would likely have zero income because of a lack of employment oppurtunities.

So, is making a sweat shop wage better then making nothing? Yes, just like 31% is better then 0%, right? The thing is, both of those numbers should be higher. The corporations are taking advantage of foreign workers just like the people who run a lot of these charities take advantage of a certain social situation to line their pockets. They don't all do this, but it is one of the problems with "charities", more often then not the majority of the money you are donating doesn't even go to the cause.


not sure if any of that makes any sense...probably doesn't.

[kimmer]

Safe to say, that I'm probably not even going to watch this

[Sensfanjosh]

Sure it seems like a small percentage but really is 31% worse than 0% ? I understand the reservations in donating money you have worked for if you feel it may not be going where its supposed to. But at the same time the organization does need to market itself and maintain itself in order to continue to spread the word, and be be taken seriously enough to influence change.

That's not really the best of arguments...

And actually its a pretty good argument. Money can't just be thrown at a problem to make it go away. Its very very expensive to make sure that money donated to a charity organization actually goes to the people it is trying to help. More often than not organizations send money to countries wherein corrupt government officials simply pocket it, leading to disillusionment on the part of the Westerners who donated the money, and resentment on the part of the needy for not receiving what is there's. I'm not saying everybody on the forum needs to donate, my point is that its easy to look at statistics on the website and claim its not worth your time or money, and to be critical. It's much harder to actually act and enact a change in the world.

Maybe I am in my own little world (staring at dewey decimal numbers all day), but this is what came to mind when I read your comment that 31% is better then 0%...

Corporations will often outsource labour to foreign countries so that they can build/produce stuff at a much lower cost. A lot of the time this is frowned upon. With that being said, without these low paying jobs a lot of these people would likely have zero income because of a lack of employment oppurtunities.

So, is making a sweat shop wage better then making nothing? Yes, just like 31% is better then 0%, right? The thing is, both of those numbers should be higher. The corporations are taking advantage of foreign workers just like the people who run a lot of these charities take advantage of a certain social situation to line their pockets. They don't all do this, but it is one of the problems with "charities", more often then not the majority of the money you are donating doesn't even go to the cause.


not sure if any of that makes any sense...probably doesn't.

No you have a point, and for the most part I'd agree. I was more so pointing to what Nick mentioned above, and that is that the cost of making sure the money is being used in a beneficial manner is expensive, but that in the end providing a means to improving a situation is worth the cost, i.e. getting 31% is better than people complaining about the cost and not donating at all. The corruption is on both sides of the Atlantic, both with 'charities' pocketing a fair share, and with corrupt governments taking a little (or a lot) off the top. The problems in Africa and around the world can't be solved simply by donating money either and I realize that.

[Nick]

@bobraeMP: Kony video good but out of date - he's left Uganda, many LRA members have signed ceasefire - he's in Congo, UN and African Union involved

[Arian The Insider]

don't support this crap..

There are tons of things happening in Africa that are as bad as this, yet people are supporting a charity that seems pretty shady. What about all of the other bs there? Hell, the Ugandan government is no better than the LRA and have violated many human rights themselves. It's retarded how people let the emotions they get from watching that video control them. Stopping Kony, who has been avoiding capture for a while now, is barely going to make a difference. They should be showing everyone that the whole country is fucked up, but obviously it's easier to blame one terrorist for everything and gain publicity for it.

[anton]

don't support this crap..

There are tons of things happening in Africa that are as bad as this, yet people are supporting a charity that seems pretty shady. What about all of the other bs there? Hell, the Ugandan government is no better than the LRA and have violated many human rights themselves. It's retarded how people let the emotions they get from watching that video control them. Stopping Kony, who has been avoiding capture for a while now, is barely going to make a difference. They should be showing everyone that the whole country is fucked up, but obviously it's easier to blame one terrorist for everything and gain publicity for it.

the general public tunes out when you go too in-depth into all the different problems a country faces. they need a target, an enemy, a face to put on the issue.

if labelling kony as the bad guy is what it takes to get people involved in helping then what's the issue?

[Arian The Insider]

don't support this crap..

There are tons of things happening in Africa that are as bad as this, yet people are supporting a charity that seems pretty shady. What about all of the other bs there? Hell, the Ugandan government is no better than the LRA and have violated many human rights themselves. It's retarded how people let the emotions they get from watching that video control them. Stopping Kony, who has been avoiding capture for a while now, is barely going to make a difference. They should be showing everyone that the whole country is fucked up, but obviously it's easier to blame one terrorist for everything and gain publicity for it.

the general public tunes out when you go too in-depth into all the different problems a country faces. they need a target, an enemy, a face to put on the issue.

if labelling kony as the bad guy is what it takes to get people involved in helping then what's the issue?

my point is that they are making kony the issue as if that's all they need, rather than the country's powers and military as a whole. It just seems like only goal here is to capture kony and not punish the Ugandan government and military. Not to mention that child soldiers are used everywhere in Africa, yet they're only focusing on Kony's use of them. Why should Uganda be the priority over many countries with similar situations? It just seems like a charity looking for publicity. What I find interesting is that the Ugandan GOVERNMENT actually put Invisible Children at the top of their fraudulent activity list. These are the same people who were fighting against Kony.

[kimmer]

Shit, first few serious posts arian posted in a long while yo

[Lee]

I was going to buy an action pack but reading the comments on the items really annoyed me.

Also, it's not that we don't care about what's going on, for the most part it's just that we don't know. Change needs to start somewhere, why not at the top of the list?

[Sensfanjosh]

Arian I get what you're saying but its pretty difficult to convince people to donate money to generally 'save Africa' attempt to take on every problem, every war lord, or every corrupt government in one sweep. Again not saying I support Invisible Children in particular, but the message is a good one, even if presented in an exaggerated manner. If their campaign was targeted at solving all of the problems in Uganda top to bottom, then people would question why Uganda and not the Congo, if they choose to tackle child hunger people would ask why not child soldiers. As I mentioned earlier in the thread its very easy to poke holes in something and to rationalize to find reasons not to do something, but that energy is better spent in a productive manner in my opinion.

[Chris]

Man, I posted an item about this whole thing on Facebook -- here are some of the comments:

Mark, the video is brilliant marketing -- it appeals to basic human instincts to protect and nurture. However, it avoids the core points of what they plan to do with that money. Instead of discussing it, they prop a malnourished black child in front of a camera and has him go into the excruciating details of his fears. In fact, it took me all of a few minutes to track down one important detail: Invisible Children actually pays off Ugandan military officials -- who are exceedingly corrupt -- to accomplish nothing. Kony has been at large since 2005.

I also discovered that an Invisible Children's employee was killed when he made a trip to Uganda. He wasn't killed by Kony, or any of his Lord's Resistance Army soldiers, but by Ugandan troops.

I'm not denying there's a multi-dimensional cause to all the troubles that ails Africa, but giving your money to uncooperative organizations for the sake of appeasing your own ethic and moral guilt over events half a world away only serves to perpetuate the problem. Mass donations will not solve sociopolitical issues that have been ongoing since the turn of the 19th Century.

Personally, I'm pessimistic because I can't imagine an organization passing off 31% of its $8.9M 2011 funding to capture a fugitive in control of over 3,000 armed and well-equipped soldiers who have been known to rape, pillage, mutilate, and eat human beings. Thing is, Kony isn't the only Christian extremist leader in Uganda and Sudan. There are at least two other groups, both with smaller numbers if I remember correctly. It's a classic case of cutting off one head to see it sprout back.

I think what's been bothering me is how many people are spouting off about an issue they never heard of until this video came up. It's great people are talking about it -- it's a lot worse people are demanding intervention without taking a harder look at the issues surrounding Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, etc. Removing a handful of the LRA's leaders isn't going to solve a problem -- it'll literally exacerbate it and maybe create power vacuums.

Right, but now these same people who have those choices to ignore, donate, or complain to their MP are largely demanding government intervention when (for example) the US rightly chose to avoid conflict because it's not an urgent or direct matter of national security. Not sure if you were aware, but Obama actually sent in troops to try and capture Kony -- they obviously failed. So IC is paying off Ugandan officials to capture Kony on their behalf. Except a tiny problem -- Uganda military cannot very well encroach on a sovereign nation's soil just to capture a fugitive for the same reason Canadian soldiers cannot cross into the US to capture a fugitive.

The money donated to IC or similar organization will go nowhere.

I know what the message is, Ali. I get that. I support local organizations that actually try to effect positive changes like Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Ride to Conquer Cancer, Covenant House, and many more. The issue, at least for me, is that organizations like Invisible Children are taking a one-dimensional (i.e., militant) approach to a multi-dimensional problem -- and hiding from it. Why shouldn't I be skeptical about these organizations?

Sorry for patting myself on the back here. I was surprised by the reaction of some friends on this topic.

[Arian The Insider]

Arian I get what you're saying but its pretty difficult to convince people to donate money to generally 'save Africa' attempt to take on every problem, every war lord, or every corrupt government in one sweep. Again not saying I support Invisible Children in particular, but the message is a good one, even if presented in an exaggerated manner. If their campaign was targeted at solving all of the problems in Uganda top to bottom, then people would question why Uganda and not the Congo, if they choose to tackle child hunger people would ask why not child soldiers. As I mentioned earlier in the thread its very easy to poke holes in something and to rationalize to find reasons not to do something, but that energy is better spent in a productive manner in my opinion.

They're saying its a campaign to ARREST kony. That's all. Why should anyone pay money to arrest a guy? it isn't going to make a difference. Terrorist groups have trained guys who can easily take a leader's place.

[Arian The Insider]

Shit, first few serious posts arian posted in a long while yo

lol it's been a while for sure

[Chris]

Why does it matter, if Invisible Children was funded by controversial donors? Two reasons - one, we can assume those donors thought IC aligned with their agenda - which is antagonistic to LGBT rights. Two, it fits an emerging pattern in which Invisible Children appears selectively concerned about crimes committed by Joseph Kony but indifferent to crimes, perhaps on a bigger scale, committed by their provisional partner, the government of Uganda - whose president shot his way into power using child soldiers, before Joseph Kony began using child soldiers. Like Kony, the government of Uganda was also indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2005, for human rights abuses and looting in the DRC Congo (PDF file of ICC ruling against Uganda). Like Kony, the Ugandan army preys upon civilians and is currently accused, by Western human rights groups, with raping and looting in the DRC Congo, where it is hunting for Kony. In the late 1990s, Uganda helped spark a conflict in DRC Congo that, by the middle of the next decade it is estimated, had killed up to 5.4 million civilians, more than any conflict since World War Two. See appended "Resource" section for more information. For a very different perspective on IC, Kony, and Northern Uganda, see this editorial by Milton Allimadi, of the NYC-based Blackstar news service

Link to blog-post: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/201 ... ian-right/

Oh, and one of the co-founders of Invisible Children Inc. was just caught on some kind of illegal substance and masturbating in public.

[Lee]

To be fair, who hasn't that happened to?

[MSP4LYFE]

Not sure if you guys knew this, but Kony isn't even in Uganda, he was chased out into exile by American troops in 2006, and has been in hiding since.

[kimmer]

Not sure if you guys knew this, but Kony isn't even in Uganda, he was chased out into exile by American troops in 2006, and has been in hiding since.

Yes, I explicitly knew that.

[Chris]

Not sure if you guys knew this, but Kony isn't even in Uganda, he was chased out into exile by American troops in 2006, and has been in hiding since.

Yes, we know this. I mentioned it several times in this thread.

[Mash]