KONY 2012: A Credible Source?

The infamous “KONY 2012” video, having now been released for about two weeks, at this moment has 82,282,426 views. In the past 14 days, the video has brought in millions of dollars, the director has been arrested for “sexual misconduct,” and has just been named the most viral video in history. That’s quite a lot to handle in just two weeks.

I think it’s fair to say that since the release of this video, the words “KONY 2012” have shown up everywhere in the media. Newspaper, magazine, radio, television, and computer sources are all constantly releasing praise, criticism, rumors and more concerning the KONY 2012 campaign.

While this complete worldly obsession with KONY 2012 is a bit overwhelming,

what I find more troubling is the tremendous amount of obliviousness that surrounds this issue with Kony. As mentioned in the video, most people didn’t even know who Kony was before viewing the video. However, now, after watching a 30 minute video on YouTube, people seem to think that they know everything there is to know about the atrocities that Kony is committing.

While the video appears to do a solid job of summarizing what is going on, it is still only one subjective source. If you only acquire knowledge (and base your opinion) of the situation from this single source, you risk having a biased viewpoint.

The Kony 2012 video went viral because it tugged at humans’ heartstrings; it was emotionally captivating. And once you are drawn in, it is so easy to believe everything you see/hear. Emotions get mixed in with reality, and suddenly there is no middle line anymore.

People are so quick to deem what they’ve seen in the Kony video as “the whole truth” that they don’t bother doing research on their own. I am not discrediting the information in the Kony video, I am just saying that the creator of the video must have included certain things and excluded certain things in order to better his argument, and the public should be aware of this. I don’t know for sure whether the information in the KONY 2012 video is accurate, I just think it is important to note that it is a complicated issue that one video cannot possibly cover.

It’s important that we take it upon ourselves to take that extra step and further investigate for ourselves to help gain a better, more complete knowledge of Kony, his actions, and the situation in Uganda and its neighbors. While the KONY 2012 video may be a good place to start, it should not be the end of our exploration of the topic. 

The Power of the Password

My parents have always made it very clear to me: do not share your password for Facebook, e-mail, or school with ANYONE. Not your best friend or your sibling. Your password is personal, and it is for you and ONLY you. If your password ends up in the wrong hands, the consequences could be horrible and follow you your whole life. So basically, be careful.

With this notion so instilled in my brain, I was shocked to find out that numerous colleges and employers actually demand that prospective students/employees hand over their usernames and passwords so that the colleges and employers can investigate the students'/employees' online activities as part of the application process. It is not a choice; there is no option. No password equals a rejected application.

A police department in North Carolina demanded a username and password in order to apply for a clerical job. The Maryland Department of Corrections also asked applicants to turn in their password and username. However, in response to this example, the ACLU stepped in and declared it unconstitutional.

Eric Zorn, a blogger for the Chicago Tribune, wrote a brief post on this topic. He feels that requiring a password is overstepping a boundary of privacy that most people feel comfortable with. I agree with Zorn. While I understand a college's or employer's interest in knowing an applicant's basic background, I think that requiring them to turn in a password is a complete invasion of privacy.

Zorn makes a good point. "If employers really want to find out about an applicant's social media presence,  they can run a Google search like anybody else." Information on Google is public to everyone; therefore, if employers find something they don't like from a Google search, at least they obtained the information in the same way anyone else could. Since entering an applicant's e-mail or Facebook account is not something that anyone can do easily, if an employer were to find something unsatisfactory, it wouldn't be fair because the rest of the public doesn't have access to that kind of information.

I think this is an outrageous rule. Employers should not be able to receive special privileges that allow them to see more than the public can. A password is a private piece of information, and requiring its disclosure oversteps all reasonable boundaries. And frequently a person's Facebook or Twitter password is the same as their password for banking or credit cards, so if that password fell into the wrong hands or wasn't safeguarded properly by the employer or college, it could lead to financial disaster. The ACLU is working to pass laws that would make this type of request illegal.

If right now a password is required for applications, what will it be in 10 years? Are we on a path to destroy our privacy completely?

TV Tokenism

HOUSE

SOURCE

House, on fox, forms each episode's plot around Dr. House. The sub-plots are mainly about House's personal life, and House is the one to solve the diagnosis correctly 99% of the time. He is a rude, demeaning character with no filter, yet he is the center of every episode. House's boss is Cuddy (pictured to his left), and although her position is of higher ranking in the hospital, she is only on screen for on average 5 minutes of the 42 minutes the show is on. Perhaps a more prominent example of the "token minority" is Dr. Foreman, the Assistant Department Head of Diagnostics Medicine, yet he only receives approximately 8 minutes of screen time per episode. He is often the victim of little rude and racist jabs from House.

What's Necessary During Chaotic Times

A little over a month ago, the Costa Concordia, an Italian Cruise ship, sailed too closely to shore, hit a sandbar, and proceeded to capsize. The passengers on the ship panicked, a normal and expected reaction to such an event. However, instead of being guided by the captain and his crew, passengers were instead left on the ship in chaos, as the captain and some of his crew escaped safely to shore on life boats, and the crew that was left on board were too inexperienced to handle this kind of emergency and/or didn't even speak Italian.

But the passengers remaining on the ship struggled to reach their life boats. With so much crew missing, everyone had trouble getting on life boats in an organized and safe fashion. In the process, 25 passengers died. Now, the captain of the ship has been charged with manslaughter. It was his and his crew's job to remain on the ship in order to protect the lives of the passengers. However, most of the crew fled the scene as soon as they could, only worrying about saving themselves.

This situation reminds me specifically of a passage from "White Noise."After the declared necessary evacuation of Blacksmith because of the Airborne Toxic Event, Jack and his family quickly pack up some of their belongings and flee their home. While on their way to a safer place, Jack notices how the police have halted all traffic coming in the opposite direction back towards Blacksmith. He calls this an "encouraging sign," explaining that "what people in an exodus fear most immediately is that those in positions of authority will long since have fled, leaving us in charge of our own chaos." (117).


I agree with what Jack says here. We feel some sort of comfort knowing that our authority figures have uncomfortable and scary situations under control. When a little kid is upset, they cry for their mommy. Once mommy comes and is calm, suddenly everything is comfortable and ok again.

What the passengers on the Costa Concordia lacked was their "mommy" of sorts. Once the people they depended most on had gone, everything seemed that much more out of control and scary. At that point, the passengers were impossible to console. It was necessary that each person fend for themselves, and it became a savage fight for survival. Unable to think clearly and rationally, it was every man for him/herself. Staying alive in any way possible was everyone's only thought.

If the captain would've remained on the ship to fulfill his duty of guiding his passengers to safety, he would be facing not only less severe charges, but also less severe criticism from the public. It should've been his first priority to help these people, and he failed to do so. He failed to provide the necessary comfort and guidance that human beings under his watch require in order to avoid chaos in similar situations.