Shared publicly  - 
We don't take enough time out of our days to consider how we can help bring awareness to the atrocities that are happening around the world today. We talk about the horrible events and people over history, but it's still happening today, and we have the power to stop it. Please, take the time to learn about Invisible Children. +Invisible Children
Matt Butcher's profile photoshea reinke's profile photoAli H's profile photoСергей Утриванов's profile photo
My concern about that article is that it conflates two issues (even while purporting not to).

On the one hand, it is an ad hominem attack on the organization Invisible Children, while on the other it suggests that the mission is not worth pursuing (note that the article issues contrary points: yes, Kony is bad, no, Kony's not that bad).

Four points on the referenced article:

First, there is a staggering claim made. Stopping Kony won't fix anything? Really? That's a rather bizarre claim. Even if violence is endemic in that part of the world, stopping him is definitely an improvement. The UN issued an indictment (, and Interpol issued a warrant. This isn't a small-time crook unfairly vilified by an extremist activist group. (

Second: The best outcome -- for the U.N.'s Ocampo above all -- is to capture Kony and try him in the UN court. This is a really big deal, as it will help set an international precedent for war crimes prosecution. As you will notice, though, the warrants do say "dead or alive". This is indeed one step toward halting systemic war crimes.

Third, the picture painted of Invisible Children is unduly bleak. Take a look at the report cited in the article: Since when did a 3 out of 4 stars rating become a sign of gross failure? The cited article by Dr. Blattman is hardly a damning indictment against Invisible Children. Rather, it raises some excellent points about the dangers of sending unprepared individuals on missions to Africa. And neither does the FA article directly support the article's claim. It's a good examination of policies having to do with this sort of action (IC gets only one mention among a litany of other charities.

Finally, the solution proposed seems to be to that providing education and medical supplies is the true route forward. While I wholeheartedly endorse and financially support those sorts of ventures, they clearly do not address the problem of endemic violence in that region. Stopping violence of that magnitude will indeed require some sort of military/police action. And let's be pragmatic: Waiting for ideal military, moral on all accounts, is not practical.

As the author of that article urges, please do your fact checking. It's important. But an additional caution is in order: Don't let a sense of moral superiority (and perhaps a squeamishness about punishment) halt action. The cause is good, regardless of Invisible Children's accounting practices (of which we know very little -- don't jump to conclusions there). This isn't a made up story. This is real, and this is bad.
Ali H
That's not true at all +shea reinke - there are two sides to every story, and the Daily What blows some things out of proportion and actually lies in their little spiel there. It says "The rest go to line the pockets of the three people in charge of the organization" which is patently false. The Yale Professor essentially tells us all that if we're white we can't support any cause in Africa- seriously? Really? Come on. IC has NEVER advocated sending American troops "armed to the teeth" at any point.
The IC response to these points is succinct and really refutes all the armchair activist blog posts telling the world how bad IC is, because of points that are really not relevant to the IC methodology (hey, these guys are about awareness, not infrastructure - they make films to raise awareness, they do NOT build schools as their primary goal. There are charities that do just that, and they raise awareness as a side part of their goal. There's a difference.) and instead pounce on the fact that they actually pay their people and reinvest in what they use to achieve their goal - awareness.
+Ali H "Participation in BBB's program is voluntary-- we are choosing to wait until we have expanded our Board of Directors, as some questions hinge on the size of our Board." <- quoth the article given. Quoting other articles ( written by neutral third parties ) the media creation budget shown in your selection as 7 percent is actually 70 percent.. in other words - Kony ( described as a 'warlord' by PBS of all people ) is ..ahem.. doing this thing we call 'lying your ass off ' with that little promotional item. Participating in the BBB is very simple and suggests that the information you are presenting to the public is accurate - not participating in the BBB has zero to do with the size of your board of directors and everything to do with lying your ass off.

Yes - the causes espoused by the public face of this group are positive and worthwhile. The neutral reporting agencies do indicate that as much as thirty percent of revenues collected are used for charitable purposes - but there are other faster means of assisting the people that you want to help without lining the pocket of war lords who misrepresent their spending with propoganda such as the item shown at that private data storage locker - that was clearly created by Kony themselves.
OOps. Never let it be said that I wont admit I am wrong. I am totally misreading something here - looking into things with more thoroughness - up until five seconds ago I was under the mistaken impression that the Kony 2012 campaign was being funded by the man named Kony - not against him.

Err.. now I am confused. Who are the people behind the Kony 2012 campaign then...

:read read read: ok - three dudes. They want to be filmakers and sepn 8 out of 13 dollars on making the films. Sounds fine - I was getting angry ( see above ) because I was mistakenly under the impression that the Kony guy was running charity campaigns to support people he was persecuting - how I got that idea from reading that stuff - I dont know - doesnt change the fact that the three guys are misrepresenting their numbers, but eh - now that I know that it is a couple of filmakers instead of the warlord guy - I honestly dont care that much anymore ( I mean cmon, a warlord running a charity for the people he is persecuting? how can that not annoy you - sorry for the confusion ).
Ali H
I just went through all of their 2010-2011 financial statements (they're all online, public, and easily available via that link I provided) and it makes complete sense to me. I'm still not sure where the sexist part comes in to play, but I know that I for one did my homework on this cause and still support it 100 percent. They aren't profiteering at all, and that's easily proven by the financial statements put out by the accounting firm that handles their books. I don't understand all the hate on these guys who are trying to make a difference, who are actually doing something to stop a horrible person from doing horrible things.
Add a comment...