I challenge you to dedicate 30 min. to watch this video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

Thank you for sharing...what a very powerful video!

I challenge you to read this after you've watched it.

 

BagOnuts comments on Why the Kony documentary and Invisible Children are one-sided - please read.

I don't care what it is, I'm not going to sit in front of a computer and watch anything a half-hour long at random. I've got too short an attention span and don't much care for internet video. Since this seems to be a contentious issue from both sides of the political spectrum, please give me a link for something I can read that summarizes the issues at hand.

Jim, this should summarize it a bit more concisely. I watched the whole thing, and you can get the gist of it pretty quickly.

 

Who is Joseph Kony? - ABC Melbourne - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

I challenge you to read this after you've watched it.

 

BagOnuts comments on Why the Kony documentary and Invisible Children are one-sided - please read.

 

I think that would have been a lot more fruitful if they stuck to the military intervention angle or if it demonstrated a knowledge of the region or facts that this media campaign glosses over to push an agenda. But, this seemed oddly personal toward the organization and was almost catty.

Jim, this should summarize it a bit more concisely. I watched the whole thing, and you can get the gist of it pretty quickly.

 

Who is Joseph Kony? - ABC Melbourne - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

 

Sounds like some regrettable stuff done on both sides of this issue, both Kony and his oppressors. This guy may have beefs with the Ugandan government, but that doesn't excuse his methods. Sounds an awful lot like what went on in Rwanda a couple generations ago, where there were few heroes on either side.

I think that would have been a lot more fruitful if they stuck to the military intervention angle or if it demonstrated a knowledge of the region or facts that this media campaign glosses over to push an agenda. But, this seemed oddly personal toward the organization and was almost catty.

 

No disagreement here, and I'm not saying that I am against activism for things like this. I just have beef with people who believe after watching a 30-minute video promoting propaganda that they are suddenly all-knowledgeable about issues in Uganda and with Invisible Children. Some couldn't tell you if Uganda was a city or a country, let alone choose it on a map. The guy isn't even IN Uganda anymore, for crying out loud. It's a situation where most don't look any further than this Youtube video and are fooled into thinking that making a Facebook status will change the world.

No disagreement here, and I'm not saying that I am against activism for things like this. I just have beef with people who believe after watching a 30-minute video promoting propaganda that they are suddenly all-knowledgeable about issues in Uganda and with Invisible Children. Some couldn't tell you if Uganda was a city or a country, let alone choose it on a map. The guy isn't even IN Uganda anymore, for crying out loud. It's a situation where most don't look any further than this Youtube video and are fooled into thinking that making a Facebook status will change the world.

 

Now that I agree with. I floated the name Idi Amin around the office a few weeks ago, and it was met with puzzled looks and had to explain his historical significance, as well as the running joke about him on the SNL news in the golden age of the show.

Now that I agree with. I floated the name Idi Amin around the office a few weeks ago, and it was met with puzzled looks and had to explain his historical significance, as well as the running joke about him on the SNL news in the golden age of the show.

 

Seriously???

Yeah, I think it's a great idea to send troops to Uganda to have a firefight with children.

I challenge you to read this after you've watched it.

 

BagOnuts comments on Why the Kony documentary and Invisible Children are one-sided - please read.

 

From your link...this is pretty damning:

 

Invisible Children has been condemned time and time again. As a registered not-for-profit, its finances are public. Last year, the organization spent $8,676,614. Only 32% went to direct services (page 6), with much of the rest going to staff salaries, travel and transport, and film production. This is far from ideal for an issue which arguably needs action and aid, not awareness, and Charity Navigator rates their accountability 2/4 stars because they lack an external audit committee. But it goes way deeper than that.

From your link...this is pretty damning:

 

Invisible Children has been condemned time and time again. As a registered not-for-profit, its finances are public. Last year, the organization spent $8,676,614. Only 32% went to direct services (page 6), with much of the rest going to staff salaries, travel and transport, and film production. This is far from ideal for an issue which arguably needs action and aid, not awareness, and Charity Navigator rates their accountability 2/4 stars because they lack an external audit committee. But it goes way deeper than that.

 

Is it? I read ominous tones and "big" numbers in that quote, but little context to put it in. I think any large-scale non-profit is going to have a substantial amount of overhead and infrastructure. That's typically a problem for non-profits, international varieties especially, as most people want to donate to the latest crisis or disaster, but it's usually the less sexy operational side that needs the cash. Even the Red Cross recommends you don't tether your donations to a specific issue. And especially for one that's chief mission seems to be raising awareness I'm not surprised they've invested a lot in filmmaking. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be upset about here.

Is it? I read ominous tones and "big" numbers in that quote, but little context to put it in. I think any large-scale non-profit is going to have a substantial amount of overhead and infrastructure. That's typically a problem for non-profits, international varieties especially, as most people want to donate to the latest crisis or disaster, but it's usually the less sexy operational side that needs the cash. Even the Red Cross recommends you don't tether your donations to a specific issue. And especially for one that's chief mission seems to be raising awareness I'm not surprised they've invested a lot in filmmaking. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be upset about here.

 

I'm sure there is plenty of overhead involved in their non-profit process. I don't have any doubts there. Still...I have been involved in charitable and non-charitable non-profits to a minor extent. Although I admittedly haven't done much for them in the grand scheme, I have seen how the books worked in all three organizations. Surely there are no two non-profit organizations that are the same, but for the two charitable non-profits I volunteered for, neither of them spent any more than 40% of their intake on salaries and overhead.

I'm sure there is plenty of overhead involved in their non-profit process. I don't have any doubts there. Still...I have been involved in charitable and non-charitable non-profits to a minor extent. Although I admittedly haven't done much for them in the grand scheme, I have seen how the books worked in all three organizations. Surely there are no two non-profit organizations that are the same, but for the two charitable non-profits I volunteered for, neither of them spent any more than 40% of their intake on salaries and overhead.

 

But, the author didn't really provide us anything to compare that to here. They've lumped in salaries, travel, and filmmaking into an arbitrary category and compared it to expenses on "services." That seems odd, particularly since the organization appears to focus on raising awareness over service. It seems that the author is more against the idea of this particular organization and has cobbled together evidence to support that belief. It's probably why I ultimately found it unconvincing. Maybe "Invisible Children" is a shoddy, self-serving organization, but I don't think they've proved it here.