To Whom It May Concern:

I have read so many blogs over the past week of people’s personal views demonizing the Kony 2012 movement. So I figured, “what the hell!” I am a 20 year old undergraduate student at a decent university, I might as well get my opinion out there rather than continue gritting my teeth every time another anti-KONY 2012 post pops up on my news feed. This post differs from a few other blogs I have read in that up-front I will tell you that this is my opinion. I hope you look objectively at the issue and decide for yourself. But I will tell you that my opinion is guided by my moral compass and that I strive to look at the good in the world, therefore it would never be my natural tendency to look at a charity and think I should spend hours researching reasons not to support it. And those who have done so with Invisible Children should look at other charities as well, not just the one that is blowing up their news feed.

Thus my opinion unfolds:

1. Supporting Invisible Children monetarily is distinctly different than supporting the KONY 2012 mission.

—I am not interested in looking up Invisible Children’s (IC) spending habits. In the KONY 2012 video that is circulating right now some IC projects (financed by them) were noted. In blog post battling KONY 2012 it has been cited time and time again that the majority of IC money has gone toward travel, merchandise, and speaking engagements. This fact should in no way be surprising, considering the over-arching theme of KONY 2012 and the video has been to spread awareness. Therefore, money going toward tours, posters, videos ect. is to be expected. One might argue they would rather their money go toward a higher percentage of action in Africa. That should be considered when you pull out your check book. But lets not forget that hitting share next to the youtube video, or writing a congressmen, or making a poster, or hash-tagging KONY 2012 is all free. So if IC has come up short in providing monetary direct relief in Africa, has it come up short in inspiring youth to get involved in something, has rid of a little apathy in America?

2. Do Politicians study fads and trends on the Internet?

—YES! Any one who has taken a political science course, a mass communications course, or just watched the news, can logically deduce that analysts working for politicians study what is trending on twitter and facebook. In order to gain appeal to their constituents, politicians have to know what their constituency cares about. Why do you think there has been a current war on internet privacy and file sharing rights as of recently? Because the internet is powerful and fast-working, because one idea can reach millions instantly and the people can be mobilized. Big Brother is always watching, so why not show him what we really care about, instead of just ‘“pregnant-Snooki” memes. By re-posting, re-blogging, changing profile pictures, emailing…ect. you are pushing the idea of KONY 2012 to the foreground of what analysts will see. If you don’t believe that the government learns about public opinion and public habit from the internet go shop around on here and see if you are one of the statistics. (http://www.pewinternet.org/)

3. What is KONY 2012 all about??

—It is a campaign to spread public awareness. It is not asking for more troops, or more money for victims. It simply wants to reach as large an audience as possible. By spreading awareness of Kony’s activities it is inherently playing on the heart strings of Americans. You might argue that the circulating video is one-sided, that it neglects the horrifying nature of the Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, and the Ugandan military, which itself has been know to commit crimes against humanity. Not to condone any past military campaigns (in the Congo notably) by the Ugandan government, but it is also known that Uganda has been a volatile nation for a very long time and under the current president’s rule has found relative economic growth and HIV/AIDS relief. The movement to uproot Museveni from power is another bridge to be crossed independent of KONY 2012. As a head of state Museveni is able to be manipulated through UN sanction and trade barriers, therefore his crimes will never amount to that of Joseph Kony. Kony is country-less man, he has no nation or people in mind while committing his war crimes. Kony only wishes to remain in power. He is a delusional man, warping nationalism and Christianity into a muck of irrational reason for pillaging, mutilating, enslaving, raping, and killing countless innocents.

4. So what does Kony 2012 want people and politicians to do??

—I am by no means a spokesperson for this movement, but from general observation it seems KONY 2012 wants people to take notice, to just know what is going on so that if the US pulls out its relatively small number of troops (in Uganda just to train special forces, committed to combating the LRA) the people will respond. KONY 2012 wants people to repost, hang posters and talk about the LRA and Kony so that by being informed and showing support for the efforts to arrest and try Kony, politicians will know there constituency is okay with continued spending to support current intervention in the matter.

5. Was the video demeaning to the public?

—This response is due solely to my anger at how moronic some people can be. By explaining to his child in lame-mans terms what Joseph Kony does was not done because Jason Russell thinks that all the viewers are idiots, it was more so another ploy on the viewers emotions, to show that childish innocence cannot reasonably grasp the full nature of Kony’s actions. Because he is so evil, so unnaturally grotesque the concept of what he does is unfathomable to children. It was also to bring up the question of what we as adults must do in order to never have to explain such things to our children, we should work to rid the world of evil so that those we love never have to know such darkness.

6. Conclusion:

Dear Bloggers,

Take a step down from your high-horse. Focus your moral lens and stop criticizing what others are doing (no matter how little) to rid of Joesph Kony. Because ultimately, people caring enough to give time and money, to replace their profile picture which they spent 2 hours getting the lighting right for, or to buy a damn bracelet is only a sign that people are still appalled by evil. And after what the world has seen, all the evil it has endured it should be taken as a very good sign that the public has not been numbed, that despite all of the corruption, greed, and immorality in the news today—the average-joe still knows a sociopathic-tyrant when it sees one.

It makes me feel kind of bad that I continue to follow people on here and be friends with them on Facebook because they are just so awful. I get a sick enjoyment from reading their moronic ideals in short blurbs. Their pages are basically cartoon strips for me.

leftcoastjane:

This UC Davis prof,

Bob Ostertag

Composer, historian, journalist, and Professor of Technocultural Studies and Music at UC Davis

responds to the violence on the Davis campus, I saw it via OhPauline and alyson-noele, it appeared first in HuffPost.

alyson-noele:

Yesterday, police at UC Davis attacked seated students with a chemical gas.

I teach at UC Davis and I personally know many of the students who were the victims of this brutal and unprovoked assault. They are top students. In fact, I can report that among the students I know, the higher a student’s grade point average, the more likely it is that they are centrally involved in the protests.

This is not surprising, since what is at issue is the dismantling of public education in California. Just six years ago, tuition at the University of California was $5357. Tuition is currently $12,192. According to current proposals, it will be $22,068 by 2015-2016. We have discussed this in my classes, and about one third of my students report that their families would likely have to pull them out of school at the new tuition. It is not a happy moment when the students look around the room and see who it is that will disappear from campus. These are young people who, like college students everywhere and at all times, form some of the deepest friendships they will have in their lives.

This is what motivates students who have never taken part in any sort of social protest to “occupy” the campus quad. And indeed, there were students who were attacked with chemical agents by robocops who were engaging in their first civic protest.

Since the video of the assault has gone viral, I will assume that most of you have seen the shocking footage. Let’s take a look at the equally outrageous explanations and justifications that have come from UC Davis authorities.

UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi sent a letter to the university last night. Chancellor Katehi tells us that:

The group was informed in writing… that if they did not dismantle the encampment, it would have to be removed…  However a number of protestors refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal.

No other options? The list of options is endless. To begin with, the chancellor could have thanked them for their sense of civic duty. The occupation could have been turned into a teach-in on the role of public education in this country. There could have been a call for professors to hold classes on the quad. The list of “other options” is endless.

Chancellor Katehi asserts that “the encampment raised serious health and safety concerns.” Really? Twenty tents on the quad “raised serious health and safety concerns?” Has the chancellor been to a frat party lately? Or a football game? Talk about “serious health and safety concerns.”

How about this for another option: three years ago there was a very similar occupation of the quad at Columbia University in New York City by students protesting the way the expansion of the university was displacing residents in the neighborhood. There was a core group of twenty or thirty students there around the clock. At the high points there were 200-300. The administration met with the students and held serious discussions about their concerns. And after a couple of weeks the protest had run its course and the students took the tents down. The most severe action that was even contemplated on the part of the university was to expel students who were hunger striking, under a rule that allows the school to expel students who are considered a threat to themselves. But no one was actually expelled.

Remember when universities used to expel students instead of spray them with chemical agents?

We should also note that at Columbia, a private university, the campus police carry no arms and no pepper spray. This is what Columbia University police look like when arresting students:

This is what the police at Davis, a public university, looked like yesterday:

It is worth noting that in the Columbia photo, the one without helmets, guns, or chemical assault weapons, the student is being arrested for selling cocaine. In the Davis photo the students were defending public education.

Could Chancellor Katehi please explain what “serious health and safety concerns” were posed at Davis that were absent at Columbia? The only thing that involved a “serious health and safety concern” at Davis yesterday was the pepper spray. I just spoke with a doctor who works for the California Department of Corrections, who participated in a recent review of the medical literature on pepper spray for the CDC. They concluded that the medical consequences of pepper spray are poorly understood but involve serious health risk. As with chili peppers, some people tolerate pepper spray well, while others have extreme reactions. It is not known why this is the case. As a result, if a doctor sees pepper spray used in a prison, he or she is required to file a written report. And regulations prohibit the use of pepper spray on inmates in all circumstances other than the immediate threat of violence. If a prisoner is seated, by definition the use of pepper spray is prohibited. Any prison guard who used pepper spray on a seated prisoner would face immediate disciplinary review for the use of excessive force. Even in the case of a prison riot in which inmates use extreme violence, once a prisoner sits down he or she is not considered to be an imminent threat. And if prison guards go into a situation where the use of pepper spray is considered likely, they are required to have medical personnel nearby to treat the victims of the chemical agent.

Apparently, in the state of California felons incarcerated for violent crimes have rights that students at public universities do not.

Amazingly, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza attempted to justify this crime.

If you look at the video you are going to see that there were 200 people in that quad. Hindsight is 20-20 and based on the situation we were sitting in, ultimately that was the decision that was made.

Yes, there were about 200 people in the quad. It is a piece of grass that was placed by the designers of the campus to be an open, central meeting place for the university community. But somehow, 200 students in the quad has become a problem. A huge problem. A problem so big that, well, yeah it was too bad those kids got pepper sprayed, but hey, there were 200 people in the quad.

Like the chancellor, Chief Spicuzza justified the assault by saying that the protest was “not safe for multiple reasons,” none of which she specified.

How is it that non-violent student protest has suddenly become “unsafe” in the United States?

Just to jolt us back to reality for a moment, remember Amy Carter, daughter of former President Jimmy Carter. In 1985 she was arrested in an anti-apartheid demonstration at the South African Embassy in Washington. Like the Davis students, she was arrested when she refused an order to disperse. But she wasn’t sprayed with a chemical weapon, or bodyslammed to the ground. She was handcuffed and led to a police car, telling reporters, ”I’m proud to be my father’s daughter.” The following year she was arrested again, this time at the University of Massachusetts protesting CIA recruitment there.

In short, Amy was just the sort of student that the administration of the UC is panicked about. She moved from place to place. She was arrested multiple times. She was not a student at UM at the time of her arrest there. She was a sophomore at Brown. This is the big fear the UC leadership keeps raising about today’s campus protests: the protests can’t be allowed because they might involve “outside agitators” who are not students. Well, the former president’s daughter was just such an outside agitator. She even brought Abbie Hoffman to get arrested with her at a university where she was not a student! The sky didn’t fall. No one was injured. No weapons were used. And Amy was acquitted of all charges, successfully arguing in court that CIA involvement in Central America and elsewhere was equivalent to trespassing in a burning building.

Now fast forward to today. Last week, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau issued a statement justifying the brutal use of police batons on student protesters like this:

It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience… the police were forced to use their batons.

Perhaps the Chancellors of Davis and Berkeley have never seen this photo of people with linked arms. It is an iconic image of non-violent civil disobedience in this country.

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau thus joins the likes of Bull Connor, the notorious segregationist and architect of the violent repression of the civil rights movement in Birmingham, Alabama, as some of the very few people who view the non-violent tactics of Martin Luther King as violent.

Most people disagree, which is why King was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

Throughout my life I have seen, and sometimes participated in, peaceful civil disobedience in which sitting and linking arms was understood by citizens as a posture that indicates, in the clearest possible way available, protestors’ intent to be non-violent. If example, if you look through training materials from groups like the Quakers, the various pacifist organization and centers, and Christian organizations, it is universally taught that sitting and linking arms is the best way to de-escalate any confrontation between police and people exercising their first amendment right to public speech. 

Likewise, for over 30 years I have seen police universally understand this gesture. Many many times I have seen police treat protestors who sat and linked arms when told they must disperse or face arrest as a very routine matter: the police then approach the protestors individually and ask them if, upon arrest, they are going to walk of their own accord or not the police will have to carry them. In fact, this has become so routine that I have often wondered if this form of protest had become so scripted as to have lost most of its meaning.

No more.

What we have seen in the last two weeks around the country, and now at Davis, is a radical departure from the way police have handled protest in this country for half a century. Two days ago an 84 year old woman was sprayed with a chemical assault agent in Portland in the same manner our students at Davis were maced. A Hispanic New York City Councilman was brutally thrown to the ground, arrested, and held cuffed in a police van for two hours for no reason at all, and was never even told why he was arrested. And I am sure you all know about former Marine Lance Cpl. Scott Olsen, who suffered a fractured skull after police hit him with a tear gas canister, then rolled a flash bomb into the group of citizens trying to give him emergency medical care. 

Last week, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper published an essay arguing that the current epidemic of police brutality is a reflection of the militarization (his word, not mine) of our urban police forces, the result of years of the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror. Stamper was chief of police during the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999, and is not a voice that can be easily dismissed.

Yesterday, the militarization of policing in the U.S. arrived on my own campus.

These issues go to the core of what democracy means. We have a major economic crisis in this country that was brought on by the greedy and irresponsible behavior of big banks. No banker has been arrested, and certainly none have been pepper sprayed. Arrests and chemical assault is for those trying to defend their homes, their jobs, and their schools.
These are not trivial matters. This is a moment to stand up and be counted. I am proud to teach at a university where students have done so.

READ NOW.

Easier to run, knees spread.

Naked feet slapping pavement.

Sin-thanked melodrama,

And “this won’t hurt.”

Naked feet slapping pavement.

Hope gone out with afterbirth.

And “this won’t hurt,”

His bloody take.

Sweat licked tears

And a few missing buttons.

Naked feet slapping pavement,

And always—the cement slaps back.