Kony 2012

[skateboardnorth]

Screening of Kony 2012 in Uganda. 

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/africa/2012/03/14/ugandans-react-anger-kony-video

[floop]

what the fuck?

http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/16/kony-honcho-arrested-for-allegedly-masturbating-in-public/

[Goblinshark]

i guess he wanted to free his "invisible children"

[sleepypancakes]

Why'd the other thread get locked down? Wanted to hear more about the finances and things of that nature. I guess we could put it in here, but still, why?

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

The dude seems to have lost his mind with the pressure. Kinda tragic.
As far as the finances thing goes, the last claim in the other thread is dead wrong. If a charitable organization is able to give 90% of proceeds directly to the cause then they are running an amazing operation. Their donation number was low, but not as low as some make it out to be comparatively. I remember during the haiti crisis a lot of criticism was out there because the red cross was doing that text to donate thing and it turned out to be only like 10 or 20% of it actually going to the haiti crisis itself.
The better a charity does, the more it can afford to give to the cause. The problem with IC is their imperialist and seemingly misdirected solutions that they offer. The % going directly to the cause makes them weak, but not like evil or anything.

[j....soy.....]

what the fuck?

http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/16/kony-honcho-arrested-for-allegedly-masturbating-in-public/

I'm not familiar with that technique...

[busey]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!

[happenstance]

The dude seems to have lost his mind with the pressure. Kinda tragic.
As far as the finances thing goes, the last claim in the other thread is dead wrong. If a charitable organization is able to give 90% of proceeds directly to the cause then they are running an amazing operation. Their donation number was low, but not as low as some make it out to be comparatively. I remember during the haiti crisis a lot of criticism was out there because the red cross was doing that text to donate thing and it turned out to be only like 10 or 20% of it actually going to the haiti crisis itself.
The better a charity does, the more it can afford to give to the cause. The problem with IC is their imperialist and seemingly misdirected solutions that they offer. The % going directly to the cause makes them weak, but not like evil or anything.

I have been told by multiple people that work in the field that 90% programming, 3% fundraising and 7% salaries is the ideal ratio to strive for. Not that all quality non-profits function on that level. The non-profit I intern for is just shy of this ratio. I guess it is hearsay so I could be wrong.

Sleepypancakes - Too tired (and tipsy) to look for their financials right now but I remember they were significantly deficient from these numbers. Their argument they released in defense of their financials was basically saying their ratios were not bad (as most have no context of what would be good numbers) and that the high cost of making their films is basically part of their programming (The value of this work is of course debatable [efficacy of 'slactivism', paternalistic attitudes, etc, etc]).

This and some of the other issues with the organization are mentioned throughout this thread and sources can be easily tracked down through a few google searches.

[oyolar]

With regard to ^^^, one of the worse things they do is give some of their money in support of the Ugandan National Army, which some reports say is not much better than the LRA. It just has government backing.

[brycickle]

The dude seems to have lost his mind with the pressure. Kinda tragic.

I'm pretty sure that there's some PCP involved.

[floop]

another take on it

http://www.vice.com/read/kony-baloney

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

The dude seems to have lost his mind with the pressure. Kinda tragic.
As far as the finances thing goes, the last claim in the other thread is dead wrong. If a charitable organization is able to give 90% of proceeds directly to the cause then they are running an amazing operation. Their donation number was low, but not as low as some make it out to be comparatively. I remember during the haiti crisis a lot of criticism was out there because the red cross was doing that text to donate thing and it turned out to be only like 10 or 20% of it actually going to the haiti crisis itself.
The better a charity does, the more it can afford to give to the cause. The problem with IC is their imperialist and seemingly misdirected solutions that they offer. The % going directly to the cause makes them weak, but not like evil or anything.

I have been told by multiple people that work in the field that 90% programming, 3% fundraising and 7% salaries is the ideal ratio to strive for. Not that all quality non-profits function on that level. The non-profit I intern for is just shy of this ratio. I guess it is hearsay so I could be wrong.

Sleepypancakes - Too tired (and tipsy) to look for their financials right now but I remember they were significantly deficient from these numbers. Their argument they released in defense of their financials was basically saying their ratios were not bad (as most have no context of what would be good numbers) and that the high cost of making their films is basically part of their programming (The value of this work is of course debatable [efficacy of 'slactivism', paternalistic attitudes, etc, etc]).

This and some of the other issues with the organization are mentioned throughout this thread and sources can be easily tracked down through a few google searches.

Their claim is that the videos are advocacy, which I suppose they are. You have to give them some credit in actually making Joseph Kony become part of the national conversation. Hell, the problems with their campaign have probably kept it there. Again, the problem is what they are advocating for (not even what they are advocating against).

Maybe 90% going to programs is ideal, but again, you'd have to run an amazingly productive charity. Based on your percentages let's look at how that would be in hard numbers. Let's say you are a small charity, and only 2 people work there for the small salary of about $35K a year. Those two people would have to raise about a million dollars  to go directly to the charity a year without any other help or support staff. That means no accountants, secretaries, or other roles that often are necessary for a basic small organization. That's a pretty intense amount of fund raising for just two people. Of course, that doesn't count renting an office, and other expenses to keep things running. If you can grow your organization to a huge scale, economies of scale will make things more efficient, but it takes a lot of work to get to such an efficient rate. I'm not saying their numbers are good, but I don't think you have to have 90% going directly to the cause for a charity to be worth donating to.

[CUDDLEMONSTER]

Their claim is that the videos are advocacy, which I suppose they are. You have to give them some credit in actually making Joseph Kony become part of the national conversation. Hell, the problems with their campaign have probably kept it there. Again, the problem is what they are advocating for (not even what they are advocating against).

Maybe 90% going to programs is ideal, but again, you'd have to run an amazingly productive charity. Based on your percentages let's look at how that would be in hard numbers. Let's say you are a small charity, and only 2 people work there for the small salary of about $35K a year. Those two people would have to raise about a million dollars  to go directly to the charity a year without any other help or support staff. That means no accountants, secretaries, or other roles that often are necessary for a basic small organization. That's a pretty intense amount of fund raising for just two people. Of course, that doesn't count renting an office, and other expenses to keep things running. If you can grow your organization to a huge scale, economies of scale will make things more efficient, but it takes a lot of work to get to such an efficient rate. I'm not saying their numbers are good, but I don't think you have to have 90% going directly to the cause for a charity to be worth donating to.

i think this a problem with any charitable organization whose main goal is to "raise awareness." it's always a good thing to educate people about a problem but if that's where your charity ends than you're doing something wrong. making people aware of a problem should be the first step in your program, not the only step. otherwise you're just selling tshirts to smug douchebags and not actually doing anything to help the people who's awful lives are keeping the pity money train rolling.

the real problem i have with invisible children and organizations like them is that they twist reality to make a narrative that will maximize donations. this is doubly worse when you consider that they think their main mission is educating the public about the problems in uganda. joseph kony is obviously a bad dude but even if he was magically eliminated the systems of unfair trade agreements, post-cold war weapon dumping, and crippling debt that have wrecked africa and allowed a man like kony to exist would still be in place. by focusing on a boogey man you make it easier to condense a world wide and systemic problem into an easily consumable narrative (one that convienantly eliminates the US and the West's involvement in practices that make people like kony possible). either way you certainly aren't "raising awareness" in any real sense and are probably doing damage to your cause. 

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

You have a valid point. But this one has lead to the appropriate conversation coming to the surface a lot despite their framing. Again, I'm not defending them, I'm just saying 90% directly to the cause would be a pretty amazing feat. 20 something percent still isn't, but I think the average is somewhere in the high 30s to 40s. I think I even pointed out that they are putting money in the wrong places and claiming the wrong roots of the problem, but I've been able to have some great conversations with kids who come to me asking what I know about this Kony thing thanks to that video.

[happenstance]

Gip - Your points are valid but I am not just pulling this out of my ass. I did a google search that did not contain the number 90 and found this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090322195530AAkD8t0
I know that is the least trustworthy source possible. Again, just want to prove I am not making this up.

The organization I intern for is actually doing better than the financial ratio I mentioned:
92% programs
3% fundraising
5% admin
http://www.rescue.org/about/financial-information (there is an easy to read graph at the bottom of the page)
But as you stated, they are a large organization so it is much easier to do so for them.

Edit: And again, I said it was the ideal. Not that you shouldn't donate to an organization that doesn't reach these financial goals.  I couldn't really find a legit source that agrees with me. I concede to you but still assert that I am not just making this up!

[able]

there's footy

Jason Russell nude 'meltdown' on streets TMZ Video

[sleepypancakes]

there's footy
Jason Russell nude 'meltdown' on streets TMZ Video

Stackin clips

[daddy]

there's footy
Jason Russell nude 'meltdown' on streets TMZ Video

I really want to see him videotape himself explaining this to his kid.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Gip - Your points are valid but I am not just pulling this out of my ass. I did a google search that did not contain the number 90 and found this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090322195530AAkD8t0
I know that is the least trustworthy source possible. Again, just want to prove I am not making this up.

The organization I intern for is actually doing better than the financial ratio I mentioned:
92% programs
3% fundraising
5% admin
http://www.rescue.org/about/financial-information (there is an easy to read graph at the bottom of the page)
But as you stated, they are a large organization so it is much easier to do so for them.

Edit: And again, I said it was the ideal. Not that you shouldn't donate to an organization that doesn't reach these financial goals.  I couldn't really find a legit source that agrees with me. I concede to you but still assert that I am not just making this up!

I'm not saying it can't happen, but its really amazing if it does. Its great that you work for an organization that does so well. Assuming you aren't working for a non-profit that has reenacting dead baby jokes as its mission, that's rad that you are a part of it.
I checked out charitynavigator.org and I think some of it also has to do with what the overhead actually is in general. The top organizations are almost all food banks. Those have a pretty low overhead. You put out some bins at the right places, sponsor drives, and keep the place running and that is pretty much the brunt of the costs. I would guess a group that has international missions and actions would have higher overhead. I'm sure there are organizations that put their money to better places and are more effective at putting money toward the same goal than IC though still.
Completely unrelated rant not aimed at any poster:
I guess I kinda feel bad about this guy's meltdown. It seems like if you try to be an active person in our current society you are dragged through the muck. Honestly, it goes with any activism. Whether its the tea party on the right or occupy movement on the left, if you are an average person and get involved in political issues today you are the subject of insults and epithets that aren't even related to the issue a lot of the time, and often are put under more scrutiny than the people they are protesting, its fucked up. Again, not saying his work is perfect, but society would be better served if guys like Joseph Kony or  these big corporations could be under that scrutiny instead. Don't agree with this guy's solution? Fine, let's talk about other solutions, don't turn the issue into whether the people who made the documentary did a good job or are good people, turn it into a discussion about the fact that there are a lot of problems that we aren't facing up to in Africa. Our society is better served with an active populace, the elites are better served with the repression of activism instead of the opening of conversation around it. I feel like its a shame this conversation, which started about how we deal with the Kony's of the world and how we don't turned into a circus around this dude.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

also, that dude kinda looks like tom cruise, as in "complete lunatic".

[Eschaton]

Why did he do this? Was he on drugs or something?

[Wall of Nausea]

Why did he do this? Was he on drugs or something?

He had a shame summon by being a evangelical type, lost his shit, and in a sense became a PCP superhero through blowing/fucking his own mind. PCP acting, maybe not taking. But his outburst is some grown man turned toddler. So who really cares, if he can care about kids who don't affect his bottom line whilst exploiting a cause without foresight he became a product of ramifications from being a douche ass fuckwit.

Way to bury the legitimacy of a "cause", return those boxes doofs.

[Cadillac Ranch Dressing]

there's footy
Jason Russell nude 'meltdown' on streets TMZ Video

http://www.therundown.tv/videos/wtf-files/drugs-are-bad-naked-guy-goes-crazy-in-the-streets-of-nyc/

[Wall of Nausea]

Gip - Your points are valid but I am not just pulling this out of my ass. I did a google search that did not contain the number 90 and found this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090322195530AAkD8t0
I know that is the least trustworthy source possible. Again, just want to prove I am not making this up.

The organization I intern for is actually doing better than the financial ratio I mentioned:
92% programs
3% fundraising
5% admin
http://www.rescue.org/about/financial-information (there is an easy to read graph at the bottom of the page)
But as you stated, they are a large organization so it is much easier to do so for them.

Edit: And again, I said it was the ideal. Not that you shouldn't donate to an organization that doesn't reach these financial goals.� I couldn't really find a legit source that agrees with me. I concede to you but still assert that I am not just making this up!

I'm not saying it can't happen, but its really amazing if it does. Its great that you work for an organization that does so well. Assuming you aren't working for a non-profit that has reenacting dead baby jokes as its mission, that's rad that you are a part of it.
I checked out charitynavigator.org and I think some of it also has to do with what the overhead actually is in general. The top organizations are almost all food banks. Those have a pretty low overhead. You put out some bins at the right places, sponsor drives, and keep the place running and that is pretty much the brunt of the costs. I would guess a group that has international missions and actions would have higher overhead. I'm sure there are organizations that put their money to better places and are more effective at putting money toward the same goal than IC though still.

Completely unrelated rant not aimed at any poster:
I guess I kinda feel bad about this guy's meltdown. It seems like if you try to be an active person in our current society you are dragged through the muck. Honestly, it goes with any activism. Whether its the tea party on the right or occupy movement on the left, if you are an average person and get involved in political issues today you are the subject of insults and epithets that aren't even related to the issue a lot of the time, and often are put under more scrutiny than the people they are protesting, its fucked up. Again, not saying his work is perfect, but society would be better served if guys like Joseph Kony or� these big corporations could be under that scrutiny instead. Don't agree with this guy's solution? Fine, let's talk about other solutions, don't turn the issue into whether the people who made the documentary did a good job or are good people, turn it into a discussion about the fact that there are a lot of problems that we aren't facing up to in Africa. Our society is better served with an active populace, the elites are better served with the repression of activism instead of the opening of conversation around it. I feel like its a shame this conversation, which started about how we deal with the Kony's of the world and how we don't turned into a circus around this dude.

um... people pay other people/influence to diminish and suppress ideas infinitely.

not disregarding your points at all, the are good ones. are you a transplant to CA out of curiosity?

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Gip - Your points are valid but I am not just pulling this out of my ass. I did a google search that did not contain the number 90 and found this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090322195530AAkD8t0
I know that is the least trustworthy source possible. Again, just want to prove I am not making this up.

The organization I intern for is actually doing better than the financial ratio I mentioned:
92% programs
3% fundraising
5% admin
http://www.rescue.org/about/financial-information (there is an easy to read graph at the bottom of the page)
But as you stated, they are a large organization so it is much easier to do so for them.

Edit: And again, I said it was the ideal. Not that you shouldn't donate to an organization that doesn't reach these financial goals.� I couldn't really find a legit source that agrees with me. I concede to you but still assert that I am not just making this up!

I'm not saying it can't happen, but its really amazing if it does. Its great that you work for an organization that does so well. Assuming you aren't working for a non-profit that has reenacting dead baby jokes as its mission, that's rad that you are a part of it.
I checked out charitynavigator.org and I think some of it also has to do with what the overhead actually is in general. The top organizations are almost all food banks. Those have a pretty low overhead. You put out some bins at the right places, sponsor drives, and keep the place running and that is pretty much the brunt of the costs. I would guess a group that has international missions and actions would have higher overhead. I'm sure there are organizations that put their money to better places and are more effective at putting money toward the same goal than IC though still.

Completely unrelated rant not aimed at any poster:
I guess I kinda feel bad about this guy's meltdown. It seems like if you try to be an active person in our current society you are dragged through the muck. Honestly, it goes with any activism. Whether its the tea party on the right or occupy movement on the left, if you are an average person and get involved in political issues today you are the subject of insults and epithets that aren't even related to the issue a lot of the time, and often are put under more scrutiny than the people they are protesting, its fucked up. Again, not saying his work is perfect, but society would be better served if guys like Joseph Kony or� these big corporations could be under that scrutiny instead. Don't agree with this guy's solution? Fine, let's talk about other solutions, don't turn the issue into whether the people who made the documentary did a good job or are good people, turn it into a discussion about the fact that there are a lot of problems that we aren't facing up to in Africa. Our society is better served with an active populace, the elites are better served with the repression of activism instead of the opening of conversation around it. I feel like its a shame this conversation, which started about how we deal with the Kony's of the world and how we don't turned into a circus around this dude.

um... people pay other people/influence to diminish and suppress ideas infinitely.

not disregarding your points at all, the are good ones. are you a transplant to CA out of curiosity?

I know, and that's total bullshit.
Yeah, I'm a CA transplant. Went to college and grad school out here.

[Wall of Nausea]

Gip - Your points are valid but I am not just pulling this out of my ass. I did a google search that did not contain the number 90 and found this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090322195530AAkD8t0
I know that is the least trustworthy source possible. Again, just want to prove I am not making this up.

The organization I intern for is actually doing better than the financial ratio I mentioned:
92% programs
3% fundraising
5% admin
http://www.rescue.org/about/financial-information (there is an easy to read graph at the bottom of the page)
But as you stated, they are a large organization so it is much easier to do so for them.

Edit: And again, I said it was the ideal. Not that you shouldn't donate to an organization that doesn't reach these financial goals.� I couldn't really find a legit source that agrees with me. I concede to you but still assert that I am not just making this up!

I'm not saying it can't happen, but its really amazing if it does. Its great that you work for an organization that does so well. Assuming you aren't working for a non-profit that has reenacting dead baby jokes as its mission, that's rad that you are a part of it.
I checked out charitynavigator.org and I think some of it also has to do with what the overhead actually is in general. The top organizations are almost all food banks. Those have a pretty low overhead. You put out some bins at the right places, sponsor drives, and keep the place running and that is pretty much the brunt of the costs. I would guess a group that has international missions and actions would have higher overhead. I'm sure there are organizations that put their money to better places and are more effective at putting money toward the same goal than IC though still.

Completely unrelated rant not aimed at any poster:
I guess I kinda feel bad about this guy's meltdown. It seems like if you try to be an active person in our current society you are dragged through the muck. Honestly, it goes with any activism. Whether its the tea party on the right or occupy movement on the left, if you are an average person and get involved in political issues today you are the subject of insults and epithets that aren't even related to the issue a lot of the time, and often are put under more scrutiny than the people they are protesting, its fucked up. Again, not saying his work is perfect, but society would be better served if guys like Joseph Kony or� these big corporations could be under that scrutiny instead. Don't agree with this guy's solution? Fine, let's talk about other solutions, don't turn the issue into whether the people who made the documentary did a good job or are good people, turn it into a discussion about the fact that there are a lot of problems that we aren't facing up to in Africa. Our society is better served with an active populace, the elites are better served with the repression of activism instead of the opening of conversation around it. I feel like its a shame this conversation, which started about how we deal with the Kony's of the world and how we don't turned into a circus around this dude.

um... people pay other people/influence to diminish and suppress ideas infinitely.

not disregarding your points at all, the are good ones. are you a transplant to CA out of curiosity?

I know, and that's total bullshit.
Yeah, I'm a CA transplant. Went to college and grad school out here.

If I can touch upon, where you're from be it transplant satus? Before your CA move, I'm just a bit curious. Not attack type measure.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

it scares me that i know gipper is from chicago

[floop]

not that it matters of course but Kony guy seems to be extremely gay to me

[Hercules Rockefeller]

[ScreamingHand]

i havent seen Kindu on here in a while. I wonder what he thinks about all this