Brilliant and well said. I agree 100%

For your well written and correct take down of this petulant critic. While IC is not perfect it appears that this author, and many of Kony2012's other critics, have not even taken the time to watch the video and give accurate criticisms.

Thank you!!!! Very well written and informative. Regardless of motive,means or skepticism of this campaign, at least it has folks discussing a situation that a majority of us didn't know about prior to this video. I appreciate the dialog and spotlight on Mother Africa.

Well written and concluded with a Billy Madison quote. Outstanding!

After reading this criticism against Kony 2012 campaign I had a lot of things I have to say but then I read your comment and you said it all that was on mind and you have wrote it very well. Thank you!

Really? Are you serious? Your criticism of this post proves you have not read the Post in it's entirety and is only making prejudiced comments against this particular journalist due to your advocation of the movement.

Stop being blind.

Firstly a 30 min length film is pretty much feature length, aka not a short video. 30 minutes(or 27 minutes of actual content) is more than enough to spread what actually needs to be known.

-Kony is not expanding to other country to terrorize them, he is fleeing to other country to not get slaughtered by one of the great powers. (Which was by no means explained in this video, which was a point of criticism in you. Not the expansion but the fleeing. Hence one part of your post is now rubbish because you obviously did not get the point- Kony is now on the run, not building power, which seemed to be what the video is implying on by using "expand" instead of "flee")
-Uganda is now mostly safe.
-The campaign aims to use free speech and not money to promote notoriety of Kony and spread his name. To spread awareness of the number 1 criminal. So that the people care enough to pressure the govt to not withdraw troops from Uganda. (Which btw, they did a good job doing this. Spreading their purpose and all. Which again the article states blatantly "a good purpose" so I don't know how you are so misinformed as to say the article state the purpose is not clear. The post above does however state that what is unclear is their intent for what the money is to be used for. Which again you blindly did not get.)
-Explain what the money is used for.( which they did not. At all. Shady to say the least. )

If you had bothered at all to use your genius mind you would've understood the point of this post is to critique a shady organization that is making used of whatever good nature there is of the Americans to heighten their revenue, NOT to provide a solution. Indeed it's an armchair criticism, we all are doing it. You, too. As long as you are on the Internet debating, that metaphor applies. That is why we do not have a solution, because we have to entrust our monetary assets to a shady organization that has been rated poorly by perhaps every single experienced charity watcher there is in order to help. However the point of debate is to come up with a solution, to debate for truth. Because you need to discuss anything to reach anywhere on a topic. So might I ask you to not look doWn on what you call "armchair criticism" again? Because it's something of utmost importance since this might decide if a couple of us use our money to spoon feed a couple of well fed elite, or the children in need. Because right now in this day and age you can donate thousands just click a mouse on an armchair. And yes, I know I am taking away the meaning of the metaphor for a more physical representation. But everything has it's purpose and that's what I am telling you.

Also, it is but the truth that charity is just another form of trade. You put in your money to so that they can sell you the comfort that you've helped someone, to sate that feeling of guilt that you've done nothing to help once they have "criticized" you of it, in a very subtle tone. I study psychology and as evil as this sounds, it's really just another form of bond people have that is very easily manipulated using situation.

So returning to the post, this article was pretty well written IMHO, it brings people to the attention of what really are they going to do with their donations since really, the agenda of spreading notoriety is practically free on our part and this campaign needs not millions of dollar.

And they are getting well over some millions. With lack luster financial statements for a charity organization at that.

I have seen people say 30-50% is fine. But I wonder what people would think if they knew half or more their money is being used to spoon feed the rich. How they would react if the video stated that fact. You'll have to agree the general public opinion on charity drives is that it's "non-profit" and that their money is going to fully help those people in need.

Which is blatantly never true.

Rebuilding a couple of school? Engineering a communication gimmick? Certainly such simple things are more than just helpful and infact life saving, but they could do so much more with their money and they aren't. Buildings costs not millions to make if not for land prices, FYI. And they don't have that to worry about.

The problem with this type of campaign is that it is all too easy nowadays for someone (corporation or otherwise) to finance and produce a documentary, post it on youtube and suck-in millions of "viewers" to leap enthusiastically on the band wagon... Is Kony (now or ever) a major problem in and around Uganda ? - who knows ? ... i certainly don't (although it seems likely that a decade ago he was) and follow-up internet searches do not seem to be very enlightening in this regard. As a result, I personally applaud a balanced view that might enlighten me (and you, should you chose to jump off the wagon long enough to listen) as to the legitimacy of this campaign...)
At this stage, though I carefully watched the film and am acutely aware of (and concerned about) the child-soldier concept (depicted in "Blood Diamond" for example) that pervades parts of western and central Africa, I still remain unconvinced that this is a legitimate cause and to be quite honest, there is nothing in your diatribe that shows that you have any more insight than your own "armchair" rather rabid opinion...
I say let the journo's do their job ! - god knows the value of a clear, non-propaganda critique on a group that certainly has yet to prove any level of legitimacy, either in ideal or operation, that may well save you and millions of others a great deal of embarrassment. This group is already making a lot of money that has not been shown to be used to any valid purpose.
At this stage it would seem that the independent assessors have doubts as to their legitimacy and it seems quite apparent that you do not have any factual information in this regard (and if you do, then you should probably not be applying you own propaganda to this forum) so do us all a favour and keep your rabid views to yourself, while allowing the rest of us access to information that enables us to decide for ourselves.

I wouldn't consider this s smear piece but a pretty good critique of the campaign. It is too simplistic to think that 100 US "advisors" are the determining factor in this war. The UPDF and SPLA have been major players in fighting the LRA since before SOuthern Sudan became independent. The effectiveness of these two armies led the LRA to flee beyond Southern Sudan into DRC and now mainly CAR. This area is very remote and lacks effective control. Not even the UN forces have managed to maintain order in this area. LRA has about 200 combatants but as a result of abductions has human shields, innocent civilians who cannot be considered collateral damage. LRA is at its weakest and the support from the US would be a boost but not the key factor in ending the war which will end.
Northern Uganda does have new problems. After 20 years of war, people are settling down and need support to restore their farmlands and the society needs to be rejuvenated. The crises of nodding disease and HIV are real, and a further blow to a society that was so badly devastated and that lived so far from their homes in camps where they had no chance of achieving a basic reasonable livelihood. That is what we are working on while the military solves the conflict. If anything,beyond the publicity and the feel-good factor, what many would like to see is not talk and euphoria but plans and solutions to African problems which we are working on.
PS. The journalist mentioned is not a token journalist but would be one of the foremost authorities on Uganda and the great lakes region of Africa...some respect should be accorded.
About the video being simplistic, here is a similar campaign mounted by Congolese citizens, very graphic but in 30 minutes, you do get detail on what is going on, since the honest truth is as much as we may want to, the vast majority are not going to get information beyond what's in the video. http://congojustice.org/
I'm in Uganda and somebody from the US told me that she had a "feeling" the that it was only a fake rumor that northern Uganda is peaceful, and she really believed her opinion.
That said, since you are probably doing research on the crisis, please share it in the context of 2012 at you Kony2012 event and increase awareness of the situation as it is.

I could not agree more with your response to this piece of drivel. It's easy to complain and do nothing. That's what most people do.

Whether paid or not.
This man has devoted his life to a worthy cause.
As soon as the world recognises allowing these people to continue to commit atrocious crimes is not ok, the world will be a better place.
If this is all one man can achieve in his video, congratulations.
But I think he will achieve so much more.
As for your article, all it says to me; is put it in the too hard basket.
Congratulations, You've acknowledged nothing, remembered for nothing, But still at best; Your a true "Critic".

thank you.. for putting that in the right order RLIV104.. the article is horror show for future civil engagement

how can you dare to call charity another form of trade?
maybe like that for many.. but are you seriously saying that its a general fact?

answer one question: how should anyone in this world ever help someone else.. no matter if your sister, friend or any stranger in the street or on another continent.. how the hell can you dare???

how can it be important if Kony is a major problem, a problem of mid range or low range????
doesnt everyone have the right to dedicate his charity and support to whatever problem and issue he likes?
isn't it important enough when people are dying and children are abducted to be soldiers or sexslaves..? does it really matter whether its about 500 or 30000?????

i think the narrator in the video made it very clear.. everyone should care, because its about kids like our kids.. out of empathy and worry..
seems some people around here more than lost theirs..

Thank you, Rubber Room.

If my $30 will help ONE CHILD (or one semi-adult) in - or out - of Uganda, please take it. Take more if it will help TWO children. I look at the beautiful marred faces of the innocents portrayed in the documentary knowing I cannot go to Africa to find the survivors - no matter how old or where they are - and care for them. I can ask the world, however, to understand there is a monster in our midst and we must not rest until he is found - no matter WHERE HE IS - and pays for what he has done.

If Koby is no longer kidnapping and maiming children, do we accept that and move on, with no more thought to what he has done? Do we brush it off because our skin is not the same color, because our children are home safe in their soft comfortable beds each night, because Koby is not in our neighborhood? Do we turn away because his atrocities have not impacted our little American world? No, I say - NO! It is our duty as HUMANS to stop this, to make his life unbearable by exposing his deeds to everyone we can, and to be sure it doesn't happen again in our lifetime.

How dare anyone criticize any originization who is trying to stop even the killing of 1 child, let alone thousands. So since the LRA is "fleeing" as opposed to "expanding", we are supposed to just accept it and now relax. Disgusting. If that happened here in the states, it would have been handled by now. But since it's not in your backyard and these are nameless, faceless children to you, you criticize the effort to stop a man who is clearly evil. I don't care if he did this to 1 family...1 is too much. And with your kind of journalistic criticisms of people just donating with a false sense of assisting, you are half the problem. It only takes 1 person to make a difference. So I donated. And got involved. Because 30 bucks to me is well spent even if it is just to make a polished movie. It brought recognition to a man who desperately needed to be outed to the universe. And now he is. Do you think his numbers would have dwindled do desperately if this movement hadn't been initiated? No way. You say he only has 100's in the LRA. That number undoubtedly includes many children whose family's have been destroyed and/or killed as a result. And that, regardless of the fact that the numbers are far smaller than they were years ago, is UNACCEPTABLE. If it was someone in your family that you loved, this criticism would never seen the light of day.

You didn't even get the financials bit correct, so I consider your post invalid. Expenses break down as follows:

Total Revenue: $13,765,180
Administrative: $1,444,570

1,444,570/13,765,180 = ~.1049, or ~10.5% administrative costs, relative to revenue. Administrative here includes all of the money required to run the organization, including salary. Next line item: Program expense: $7,163,384. This is what was actually spent on advocacy and direct charity. So, if we compare administrative expense to program expense, we arrive at:

1,444,570/7,163,384 = ~.2016 or ~20% expense relative to functional money. This is very good and in line with most charities. In fact, it's better than the American Red Cross generally reports.

They had a big pile of excess money, which is reported as assets below, and not spent. This is basically carry-over to use in the next reporting period. It's a large carry-over, but that's because donations have skyrocketed recently. Next reporting period is where things will be interesting, but really...their financials are good. Here's the complete summary below, also available at the link below. Bottom line: having lots of extra is good because it means they have carry-through when donations dry up, say for instance a Reddit troll ruins life for them. Excess = savings account.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12429

REVENUE
Total Contributions $10,334,060
Program Service Revenue $3,423,351
Total Primary Revenue $13,757,411
Other Revenue $7,769
TOTAL REVENUE $13,765,180

EXPENSES
Program Expenses $7,163,384
Administrative Expenses $1,444,570
Fundraising Expenses $286,678
TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES $8,894,632

Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $4,870,548

Net Assets $6,584,811

Nice response, I'm also not sure why anyone would criticize a group whose goal is to promote awareness of a mass murderer and war criminal. The article could have at least offered some balance. Clearing up misunderstandings is one thing but this is a hit piece.

Apologies, my critique was directed at anormalguy, not the first Rubber Room post.

As to this claim that Invisible Children has never been audited by an outside agency?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12429

Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses 80.5%
Administrative Expenses 16.2%
Fundraising Expenses 3.2%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.02
Primary Revenue Growth 23.3%
Program Expenses Growth 6.3%
Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.74

Program Expenses:

This measure reflects what percent of its total budget a charity spends on the programs and services it exists to deliver. Dividing a charity's program expenses by its total functional expenses yields this percentage.

Program Expenses less than 33.3%:
Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive a 0-star rating for their Financial Health. (Invisible Children: 4/4 stars)

(They have actual numbers of dollars spent toward what along with graphs, which is nice)

Compensation of Leaders (FYE 06/2011)
Compensation % of Expenses Paid to Title
$88,241 0.99% Ben Keesey Chief Executive Officer
Other Salaries of Note
$89,669 1.00% Jason Russell Co-Founder, Filmmaker
$84,377 0.94% Laren Poole Co-Founder, Filmmaker

They pretty much have high marks in everything except they lose points for not having Independent Voting Board Members. I imagine the reason being that they dont want people like Mr Keating destroying everything they worked hard to create... In their defense, its a tough to decide not to have this independent board because its important:

"Independent Board:

The presence of an independent governing body is strongly recommended by many industry professionals to allow for full deliberation and diversity of thinking on governance and other organizational matters. Our analysts check the Form 990 to determine if the independent Board members are a voting majority and also at least five in number.

If a charity has less than 5 independent voting members of the board or if the independent members do not constitute a voting majority, then 15 points are deducted from the charity's Accountability and Transparency score."

AMEN! Everything you say here is founded and backed with some logical reasoning, unlike the rash criticisms people are having about this project. Firstly, I think everyone is missing the MAIN point of this campaign. It's not the money, it's not the donations, but its the power of knowledge. I have recently been doing research projects about how UNAWARE and UNINTERESTED the youth in specific, and the population as a whole is with these types of political problems. You cannot deny that the Kony2012 campaign has done exactly that, informed. I enjoy the typical comments of the ambiguity of where the donations are going and how this is deterring people from donating. If you took the time to visit the website, all funds are public and the program is not scamming anyone. In addition, this project was the wishes of the children involved in the project. I think it is fair to assume that if the children thought there was a different approach they would sure as hell suggest it. I also appreciate your attention that in a world where we are in debt right now donating money is the only way to make the US more willing and comfortable towards taking action. I have been a Darfur activist since I was in high school and have had the SAME debate, what can make the United States finally pay attention and make this problem part of their national agenda. However, I am not one to point and say why not Darfur, why just save 30,000 kids and a suffering country from an evil dictator and save the thousands of people suffering in a neighboring country. That argument is so hollow and just so wrong. I also would like to piggy back on that the author of this article makes the century old (and highly unoriginal) criticism that this type of propaganda is only going to "do more harm than good" for Uganda. While all in the same breath saying the political situation in Uganda is beyond saving and we should focus our attention on the health issues in Uganda. So thank you, you hit every single point on the head.

Whatever your intentions, qualifications and support, the soldiers are not there for peace, love and harmony.

LOTSA OIL IN UGANDA GUSY

I am not a representative of charity navigator. In fact I actually want to put the notion out there from a piece of an article about "The dangers of using off-the-shelf charity ranks" by Gus Romano

The idea being that, ranking charities, "create a smokescreen that would eventually cause more damage than good"

For example, "many standard rankings available from different sources fail to differentiate input from output."

Charity Navigator proposes to report output, but metrics like "program expenses" are weak as reported program expenses are hardly ever what you think they are ie. food getting into that hungry kids mouth, or in this case the resources going toward locating and capturing Joseph Kony.

Another point Gus makes is that it costs money to get audited, and where is that money coming from but from the charitable contributions.

There are other points in the article, you might find it useful, you might not. I agree to some extent with the premise, and the sentiment that we should quit scrutinizing and essentially eviscerating the good in the world and go after the obvious evils that we just accept as a part of life on this small planet. Then we can worry abut whether good is really good or a faux-good. lol smh

http://www.quantacitizenship.com/the-dangers-of-using-off-the-shelf-charity-ranks.html

I concur! Could NOT have said it better. The principal's comment from Billy Madison is pristinely accurate...May I add, referring to Mr. Keating's negative rambling criticism, "everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12429

It's pretty clear that IC's agenda includes the increased armament of Uganda's military, which should be troubling to anyone who has even the remotest understanding of Museveni's government. Throwing weapons at an already unstable region is not in anyone's best interest. I don't think the point of this article was that people shouldn't be activists for "invisible children," merely that there are better ways of going about it than providing weapons to soldiers notorious for abusing Ugandan women and children themselves. I'd recommend going to CharityNavigator.org if you'd like to find a more reputable organization with a less militant agenda to donate to. PlayForChange.org is also great.

The only reason I could find for writing this pointless, nit-picking article is that the author considers himself the foremost authority on the issue and is bitter that others have stimulated the discussion. THE WAR IS NOT IN UGANDA ANYMORE SO EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS A FABRICATION! What a waste of time.

you're a douche!

Well done sir...truly amazing

RLIV,

You appear to be quite young and therefore don't seem to get it: there is, for all practical purposes, no Lord's Resistance Army. To the extent that there are some handfuls of fighters, the damage they do in Uganda is far less than sickness and disease.

(And, it should be noted, are far less destructive than various and sundry Islamic terror/insurgent group, groups that have killed 85,000+ people in 18,000+ attacks worldwide over the last 10 years.)

The reason for the campaign by the interest group Invisible Children about an issue that isn't so ("Kony is basically Adolf Hitler" -- please.): in order to get young people like you to write checks to them.

Sorry if you donated, but you've been taken.

You call this video brief and say there wasn't time to repeat facts?

It's almost 30 minutes long, and most of it is the director's son, clips of other famous YouTube videos, and then the same points being made about social media all with very expensive and useless special effects. I wanted to learn about Kony and it's not until 8 minutes in that the name is even mentioned. They barely tell the story. It's basically the director's love letter to his son and himself.

To say there wasn't time to get the facts right in this video is ridiculous. The video itself is so poorly done that I nearly turned it off out of boredom and disgust at the self-righteousness of it minutes before it even made the case for why action should be taken against Kony.

Maybe IC should have spent less time showing videos of the director's son being born and showing off their prowess with Adobe After Effects and more time getting the facts out there. But why bother? The whole point of the movie is summed up near the end:

"I want to be just like you dad!"

I don't think anyone disagrees that this man needs to be caught or that he is guilty of horrible crimes against humanity. I think the problem is that we have a company that is profiting from this. How many millions does it take to capture him and is any of the money being pledged (or being sent to purchase the bracelet kits) actually going toward the cause or into the pockets of those running Invisible Children? I picked up my teenaged daughter last night and all she could talk about was sending money for this 2012 bracelet kit. People are jumping on the bandwagon to send their money and they don't even know where it is going. I see on the company's website financials for 2010 and 2011 and this new campaign is Kony 2012. Does this mean that each year there will be a new campaign with new documentaries and new bracelets? Last year they took in 8.7 million dollars! (I even noticed 8300 dollars for 'entertainment') Are they interested in catching him or making him a legend while lining their pockets? I would like to see a fund set up to aid in his capture and possibly to help those whose lives he may have ruined not to fund documentaries about him.

Which part of this went to trying to capture Kony?

I don't see why people don't see through this. Financials are listed for 2010 and 2011 and now we have the Kony 2012 campaign. Do you think they have the 2013 campaign planned yet? If he is caught over this year what will they do?

The point is that you don't know if your money is going to help one child or semi child or just those who run Invisible Children. We are too quick to send our money before checking into these organizations. If Kony is caught are they finished?

After reading the article I was a little upset at Invisible Children but failed to try and look at the topic from the other side. After Reading your response I was brought back to reality and have to agree with you 100%

This article looks more like a smear campaign than an intellectually written article that covers both sides of a story. I am quite disappointed with Mr. Keating

Ben

Very well thought out response, thanks for posting. The cynic in me has been wondering what the real story might be here, and you very logically and intelligently pointed out the holes in the cynical view. Well said.

I am in love with your response. So whole-heartedly agree. We should be unifying... not attacking one another.

Thank you so much for posting this! As I read through the comments I repeatedly see "I don't understand how twitter and facebook is taking action" Well its a lot more then those sitting on their butts criticizing the people trying to help a cause that to them is important. I could write forever about how ridiculous this is but you have already done that for me.

someone famous once asked this question, and i think it should be asked about this campaign, as well. yes, it appears as though the film simplifies the situation and compiles facts to support fundraising. when you're making an argument, complexity can sure get in the way.

but in this case, what are the facts in a nation so remote and far from our own? whose information can you trust in this era of media saturation? it reminds me of a term applied to complicated board games, the dreaded "analysis paralysis." this organization has made a film that has a focused argument with an identifiable villain, a simple narrative that you can explain in the length of a twitter post. no paralysis there.

is it the truth? well, you could argue it's one of many. but how do you choose the correct one? this is not something that will be revealed with facts from africa. it's going to be answered here, at home, in front of your computer, by what you choose to believe.

who is served by the truth portrayed in the film? the charity, of course, and without a doubt, the hope of a lot of people that they can actually make a difference. it's a great message, feeling, and i prefer this narrative. i just hope this narrative has a good ending.

the more complicated "truth" may be overrated. it leads to hopelessness, inaction and of course the dreaded analysis paralysis. the complicated truth i imagine is dark and unknowable like joseph conrad's jungles. it will not reveal itself.

but do the ends justify the means in the film, which is really all i know of the movement?

i'm finding it hard to trust the "ends" when the "means" seem to be the manipulation of information in a way that aggrandizes not only Kony but also the work of the charity and some hallmark moments between the filmmaker and his son while ignoring the complex realities on the ground.

but this is not a documentary film made by a journalist. it's an activism film, i.e. "yes, we can!" i'm not sure why anyone would take a fundraising campaign by a charity as unbiased.

great activist film. great campaign. great cause. but questionable morality. i support the campaign with the hope the charity will do the right thing, even though the film does not make the organization seem credible.

but i do believe in humanity and our ability to make a difference. even though i have issues with the film, which i enjoyed. my hope is that the charity will respond to the realities on the ground, despite the oversimplified and misleading campaign.

so now we've started act 1. is it one of fiction or documentary? does it matter?

I appreciate the critique of the #stopKONY video. I traveled to Gulu 10+ years ago and met local leaders who risked their lives to go out into the desert and begin the peace process. Here's their take on the 100 US advisors. Spoiler alert, it does more harm than good.

http://www.arlpi.org/response-to-the-deployment-of-us-military-advisors-to-lra-affected-regions

I also met the women of Isis-WICCE who were working to help abducted children re-integrate into their communities. Here's what they have to say: http://rosebellkagumire.com/

I appreciate the efforts of the film makers -- I struggled with what I should do, having witnessed the war in Northern Uganda. However, their brand of paternalism actually hurts the leadership on the ground in Gulu, is irresponsible and counter productive. It undersells the local leaders who have done powerful work. These leaders personally inspired me to go back to my own country and work to make it a more just place -- not pretend that I had anything to teach them, or could - by making a $700K video, fix their country.

I appreciate the critique of the #stopKONY video. I traveled to Gulu 10+ years ago and met local leaders who risked their lives to go out into the desert and begin the peace process. Here's their take on the 100 US advisors. Spoiler alert, it does more harm than good.

http://www.arlpi.org/response-to-the-deployment-of-us-military-advisors-to-lra-affected-regions

I also met the women of Isis-WICCE who were working to help abducted children re-integrate into their communities. Here's what they have to say: http://rosebellkagumire.com/

I appreciate the efforts of the film makers -- I struggled with what I should do, having witnessed the war in Northern Uganda. However, their brand of paternalism actually hurts the leadership on the ground in Gulu, is irresponsible and counter productive. It undersells the local leaders who have done powerful work. These leaders personally inspired me to go back to my own country and work to make it a more just place -- not pretend that I had anything to teach them, or could - by making a $700K video, fix their country.

That's a post quite as long as the article itself. Wish you'd read up on Ugandan history before posting it though. Or even on what the Ugandans want now. They are not helpless people with no resources or will to fight Kony (who isn't even a threat for them right now). Plenty has been done and is still happening - why didn't the 'Invisible' Children highlight those local efforts? Why make it seem like if America doesn't help, Uganda will definitely fail? And why not a single mention of the Government/Army atrocities in Uganda? Instead we are to arm the very same army that commits the same crimes as the LRA and Kony with more arms? Did you bother going to Uganda, or even googling it before writing this? Well I did. Both. And trust me, buying a bracelet from a non-profit that spends just over 30% of its money on actually doing something, is not helping anyone.

Read any of the below if you need any more information.

http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/post/18890947431/we-got-trouble

http://rizzysdiary.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/an-open-letter-to-the-founders-of-kony-2012-stopkony-please-read-and-share/

http://africasacountry.com/2012/03/07/phony-2012-risible-children/

http://writerdelic.blogspot.in/2012/03/great-brouhaha-kony2012-debacle.html?m=0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/uganda/9131469/Joseph-Kony-2012-growing-outrage-in-Uganda-over-film.html

I Agree totally - The Killing of Children in unacceptable.

But if the US sends support to train the Ugandan army, and they do indeed go out and hunt Kony won't they have to combat his child soldiers somewhere in the process and won't they sort of be...you know killing children?

I think the campaign has a great intention. However, I am very honestly concerned about what will happen if pressure from the US leads to the Ugandan army fighting a bloody battle against Konys armed ''rebels'' / (abducted children).

The question is, would it be better to try and empower the Ugandans without foreign intervention - easier said than done, I appreciate.

On a personal note, I did find the video a little too Black and White for my liking, but each to their own.

Very well said. Even if they can not put a stop to the 30,000 children that have been brain washed. They can start with one.

Agree. Not a very impressive critique. Anyone who watched the video was informed that the LRA left Uganda. I also assume that I'm not the only one who then went online to read up more on the situation. To insinuate that people aren't going to do this is unfair and incorrect.
The last time I checked, this is an awareness campaign.

Great points in this critique about how US politics works as well.

you saved me all that typing.
when a commentator actually starts with an erroneous implication **in the headline** you know what's coming down the pipeline after that is likely more horsepucky. And indeed, he did not disappoint.

I created an account just to say thanks for your well-written response!!

Mr. Keating is surely a fine, fine man! Trying to save us nice people a trip to Uganda. Thank you, sir! We would have ended up in the wrong country in our head-hunting mission. I can only hope the US advisors know better than this...

But seriously, what is this that "after stopping Kony, then what?" All right, now, Mr. Keating, you will have to make up your mind on this. First you give us valuable information on Kony's secret hideout and "then what"???? Do you read your own words?

+1