Did you watch Kony2012 and post a link to the video on your Facebook page? Did you tweet about the film using #StopKony on Twitter? This was a truly amazing example of film-making, marketing and journalism in one; that is indicative by the true emotional response that the film triggered in most of us. But, are you guilty of "slactivisim" (misinformed or, in the case of Kony2012, partially informed activism) like I am? I went to Invisible Children's website to purchase a bracelet and an Action Kit for $30 knowing  that the campaign probably wouldn't realistically result in Joseph Kony getting arrested, yet assuming that my funds would be used wisely by this non-profit. After doing further research on the Ugandan/ LRA conflict and Invisible Children's plan to improve the region, I wish I would have been more educated and donated my funds differently.

Pros to Invisible Children's  Kony2012: using social media as a tool to expose atrocities against humanity, getting the 83 million viewers on board to maybe further become educated on something bigger than what the mainstream media is talking about and potentially prompting people to learn more about the historical context of the LRA in Uganda and the surrounding countries in Africa. These pros are good for the Facebook Generation and good for mankind.

However, here are the most sound counter arguments to the Invisible Children campaign that I've seen yet, courtesy of Aljazeera.com:

• Dangerous ignorance: The hysteria of Kony 2012 - The video qualifies as irresponsible advocacy by prompting militarisation and detracting from Uganda's real problems.
• 'Kony 2012' and the Future of Activism - Should charities freely use the power of social media to shape public opinion around the world?

What do you think? -ABA

How do you suppose the smartest guys in the room care about animal rights? I'll give you a hint: about as much as the guys at Enron cared about the energy consumer in California during the scandal.

In Iowa today, Governor Terry Branstad  signed a bill that outlaws whistleblowing in factory farms. See the raw and uncut version of the bill at the iowa.gov website  here: x.co/HF589Iowa.

The House File 589 Bill is easy to pass if one looks at an animal like an economic token for state revenue. Agribusiness is not about emotion or ethics; unfortunately it's about the dollar in Iowa. This is business and government at its worst. Iowa is basically legalizing animal cruelty and then hiding it from the public, cowering at the thought of what people may think if these morbid practices were transparent.

More to the point, if Iowa is going to legalize animal cruelty in industrial factory farming, why hide the nature of business operations from the public?  The Branstad Administration could argue that it's to protect industry secrets and that there are already regulatory entities ensuring "legal" practices within the walls of these industrial factory farms. Rather, it is cowardly to hide the mistreatment of animals in the rearing and slaughter process in the name of "good business" for the state of Iowa.

Bigger picture, a lack of transparency in Agribusiness will also lead to a loss of credibility in other areas of state government: state fuel tax, education planning, urban development, job creation, allocation of federal grant money and administration of the legal system to name a few. Trust in the Branstad Administration surely will be dwindling after this bill is discussed in social media. -ABA

"Chest thumping triumphalism won't help you secure America's interest or ideals in a world populated by powerful new players. You can call this new century whatever you like, but it won't change reality. After all, just because we call it the World Series doesn't actually make it one." -Fareed Zakaria

For more, watch "Zakaria: Age of U.S. dominance is over," updated Sun February 5, 2012. CNN's Fareed Zakaria gives his take on Mitt Romney: http://x.co/fareedcnn

Foreign policy and global economics are the issues that I care about most in the upcoming election because the way in which we handle our role in a frantically globalizing world will directly impact our level of success as a country in the coming years. I like what Fareed argues here about Mitt Romney's need to change his approach to international affairs because as Fareed says, and I quote, "This is not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else." I commend Mr. Romney for his patriotism and his desire to "win" this game of national prowess. I will also point out that each of us as Americans need to take a look at the rise of our international neighbors, acknowledge those countries' relevance that didn't exist in recent history and have a game-plan for being a player amongst competition that is successfully training to be in our same weight class. Our ingenuity and our willingness to accept globalization will allow us to stay relevant.

I like the Chinese example to justify why we need to better adapt to globalization. China has already filled a void that we're simply not capable of filling back up with the way we're equipped: I'm talking about manufacturing. Unless you've been cut off from the world and been living in a shack somewhere in Yellowstone, you know that a majority of what you buy says, "Made in China." You may even have gone as far as turning to your friend and saying, "Man! Why does China make everything? That's weird. I've never even been there..." However, even though most of us have never been to China, it is certainly not a fairy-tale land, either. China will have the largest economy in the world per GDP by 2018, as Fareed points out, because the very phone or computer you're reading this note on was manufactured in China most likely. The clothes on your back and the fork you ate your eggs with this morning may have ties to China as well. Our toys, our tools, our tech gadgets our lamps and our tables were made at such a massive scale and at such a low cost that we cannot compete with. We have lost the manufacturing game to globalization. If we're not careful we will be losing the game of education, too.

Education teaches skills for jobs. Jobs are a big issue in this election. Let's take a look at not job creation, but filling existing demand. A solution to lowering our national unemployment rate is to figure out where all the jobs are and then put an emphasis on education to tech those skills. We cannot build a long-term, skill nourishing country in just a few years. It could take a child 16 years of schooling before he or she would be able to contribute to our GDP in the technology sector. Alas, to pursue math and science is the child's choice. This is not a dictatorship; this is purely economics.

Romney claims that he can fix the job crisis in the country. He also wants to decrease taxes so there is more money to stimulate the economy. He wants to cut governmental spending to decrease the national budget deficit. This is all economically sound for the short term. However, what happens when we cut spending to  our education programs? In the long run, countries like China and India will "win," as Governor Romney puts it. We had better start looking at long-term solutions to these problems now. You know why? China and India already have that on lock down. Your move, America. -ABA