AMA (YYW)

is it okay if the children are brown-skinned? I don't think so. It's not even a case of tactical human shielding like between Israel and Palestine that Hamas do. This is cases where clear options were available and they opted for the one that was fasted to pull-off and killed the most children in exchange.

Kill 22 people where only 3 are 'bad guys' and 6-7 are children, 'hee haww I'm Bush and I can do what I want.'

He should be tried before Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq's governments for crimes against humanity.

Come along propaganda machine, defend it as 'necessary evil' bullcrap. I know what is 'necessary evil' in a war where you justify going along with a family grudge against Hussein by getting your own people killed with an inside job and even though Saudi was to blame for it (and possibly Israeli intelligence) what you do is blame Iraq for having nukes (logic broken amirite?) and go after them. 

Not to mention, Saudi stays your closest ally throughout the entire presidency. (suspicious much?)

How fucking dare you have the gall to compare Clintons, who are corrupt to help the world find peace, maintain good relations with Iran and taming Hezbollah, to Bush and his putrid warmongering? You support Trump against 'crooked Clinton' too? Don't be a sheep, you're better than this.

I don't think you have a lucid understanding of what I do or do not support.  The issues you raised in relation to drone strikes are collateral to what I said in the foregoing posts discussing Bush.  Moreover, Bush really didn't use drone strikes as the technology was just coming on the scene at the time he was leaving office.  Obama's foreign policy, on the other hand, was characterized by the use of drone strikes.

Now, there is some discussion on whether drone strikes are a good thing, or at least less worse than the available alternatives and that's fair enough, but that's mostly collateral to any assessment of Bush's presidency.  Even still, insofar as the label of "war criminal" implicates far more than drone strikes, there's a lot more that has to be talked about before a term like that can meaningfully be tossed around.

That said, my criticisms of Bill Clinton's foreign policy is so lengthy it could not be reasonably described here.  I could give some highlights... maybe, but that will take some time.  Same with Hillary Clinton, although for different reasons... the mistakes she made were more relatively more grievous (with one exception) but less frequent than her husbands. 

>Should I take your response above as to say that things like this do not happen as a general rule?

Most people, generally, do not cheat on their taxes.  Those who do are rare, but the wealthier you are the more likely you are to engage in some mischief.  What you are describing comes perilously close to about 10 different kinds of fraud I can think of off the top of my head.  You'd have to be incredibly stupid to engage in something like that. 

Bush loved his drones less than sending his own men to torture the enemy and die like the worthless bodybags they were in his eyes, that's true. Obama prefers to drone strikes inhumane dictators and doesn't lie about the reason for the war (although he may be lying about OTHER REASONS for the war).

Hillary Clinton was the most efficient, single best Secretary of State ever and most likely won't be outshone for the next century at least.

If the mass-destabilization of the Middle East under her watch, at least 30 CIA agents getting busted by Iran and subsequently murdered under her watch, and the Benghazi attack under her watch are the marks of the "most efficient, single best Secretary of State ever...(who) most likely won't be outshone for the next century at least" then the federal government is incompetent as fudge. I'm not sure how else to tell you that.

Hilarious where you got the notion that it wasn't right-wing implanted agents revealing things to ruin the reputation of the left-wing that led to that mass-reveal.

Anyway, would you like me to go into just how much she helped to mend, avoid and excel at? Great reward requires great risk and she knew how to balance it.

Sure. Try to defend her record as SoS if you can. I highly doubt that "right wing agents" caused the mass CIA failure of Obama's first term. More like a lack of sophisticated online methods by the CIA at this time caused it (not necessarily Obama's fault but still). I certainly hope they've gotten better since then, but the fact that this was covered up so that it didn't come to light until friggin' 2018, whereas every little blunder Trump's made (or possibly never made at all) hits the limelight virtually as soon as it happens (or is alleged to have happened) is quite telling. What else happened from 2009 to 2017 that we don't know about? Are we really in any position to judge the former president's administration as being objectively better than that of the current president, with the information available to us right now?

Obama is a joke puppet who never should have beaten Hillary for President, that we agree on. Obama is a centrist pussy who didn't make a single bold move other than Medicaire evolution which got protested into the Ground from day 1 so ti turned into nonsensical 'Obamacare' that didn't help the poor at all.

Anyway, do you first accept that most of her excellence was in taming Iran and using that alliance to then tame the rest of the Middle East WHILE NOT pissing off Iran's main enemy; Saudi, in the process?

We must begin there, admiring just how severely she prevented Bush's aftermath leading to pure loathing of the US resulting in non-stop terrorist attacks and severe destabilising of the Middle East (it still happened, I know but far less than it otherwise would).

Coal, how is it, that, speed-of-radiation{ photon | can be a constant to all observers, irresepective of their speed towards, or away from a photon?

Photon Speed ------> Observer Speed Away from Photon --->

Photon SPeed ---> <--------Observer Speed Toward Photon

That's a fairly good question, and very different than the sets of questions I've received before.  This would be easier to explain with a chalk board, but since I don't have one of those, this medium will have to do.

So we've got to be clear from the start that a photon is more or less the most basic unit of light; similar to the relationship between atoms and matter.  The term appropriate to describe the smallest unit of light is called a "quantum".  A photon is a quantum of light in the same way that an atom is a quantum of matter.

The reason light appears the same to all observers is because the speed of light is the fastest anything in the universe can move.  

Thoughts on the prison system?

That is a great question.  It's going to require a long, long answer, though.  

Do you think we can reduce recidivism, or is the prison system so fucked, criminals are SOL?

You've said that you were once a teacher, so:

In regards to the earlier stuff about unpaid internships, is it true that at virtually any high school where somebody applies (after being certified, of course) they have to spend a year working without pay in an intern capacity before they're let onboard to be paid as an assistant teacher? If showing a decent amount of prior teaching experience is good enough to waive this, could somebody spend that year instead getting paid to teach English overseas (with a simple TEFL certification plus the normal teaching certification he already had), and then upon their return flout that on their resume to get hired right away?

(I'm asking for myself, kind of at a career path crossroads right now and teaching high schoolers sounds like a pretty solid source of income for a guy with a degree that isn't known to get people very far in the real world.)

(Nevermind. Further research, though I'd done a fair bit beforehand, shows I don't know what I'm talking about.)

I'm actually at a crossroad myself.

Oh? What's on your mind? You considering a career choice? Or what do you mean?

>Thoughts on the prison system?

By "the prison system" I am going to assume that you are referring to the American prison system, rather than any other prison system, because of the context in which your question is asked.  My answer will be limited to that.

Nearly every aspect of the American prison system is a failure.  People are sent there for misguided reasons, remain there for too long, and all of this is done on a perverse and provably baseless theory of "justice" that has caused more consequential harm to the American people in general and the lives of individuals in particular.  Obviously, detailing the scope of these problems cannot be done in one place, but we'll begin with the basics: retribution, and rehabilitation.

The "retribution" theory of criminal justice begins from the premise that 'society' must be defended.  Here, the focus is on the state acting against an individual.  The theory proposes that when a crime a committed, two relevant entities are harmed: (1) the victim; and (2) society.  The state acts on behalf of society and in place of the victim to punish the offender.  Punishment is the focus, for the harm done both to the victim and to society, in retribution for the offense committed.  In the past, and largely before the enlightenment, retribution would have involved torture, physical punishment, or public humiliation.  Foucault describes, for example, a "spectacle of the scaffold" which details how that might unfold, in the first chapter of Discipline and Punish.  Now, district attorneys or their equivalent prosecute those believed to be offenders for the same purpose, and with the objective of doling out an appropriate amount of prison or other punitive measure.  Prison, for the most part, is the only means that the state has at its disposal to retaliate against criminals.  The underlying assumption is that without this scheme, crime would overtake human civilization. 

The "rehabilitation" theory of criminal justice begins with the premise that 'society' must correct a 'criminal nature' which characterizes all offenders.  Here, the focus is on the state acting both against the offender and for the benefit of 'society', or so it may seem.  The theory proposes that when a crime is committed, an individual is expressing an underlying proclivity based on who he is as a person, and that the commission of a crime is a sufficient indicator of one's greater criminal predisposition.  Therefore, the state's role is to 'correct' that criminal nature by removing the individual from society in general, for some appropriate length of time such that he can be "rehabilitated".  Of course, prison is the means by which this so called "rehabilitation" takes place.  The underlying assumption is that there is such a thing as a criminal nature, and that such a criminal nature can be reformed by means of prison.  

Both of these theories do not even rise to the level of idiocy. 

Retribution presumes that an appropriate amount of prison time can be imposed on an individual, and the variances in sentencing for identical crimes under identical circumstances alone obviate how arbitrary sentencing is, and to that same extent, how absurd the proposition is that prison sentences are anything other than arbitrary acts of violence by the state against subjects of the state's power; the nature of which is functionally indistinguishable from acts of retaliation by a sovereign pre-enlightenment.  The only thing that has changed is the means by which that violence occurs.  If we begin from the proposition that justice should not be arbitrary--which is, without exception, the bedrock assumption of justice in any liberal democracy--then it is indisputable that the justice system has failed to that end.  Now, are there any better alternatives?  Yes.  Reforming the presumption that decades in prison is a justifiable response to crimes of nearly any kind would be a good place to start, especially given that there is absolutely no indication that longer prison sentences deter crime in any form. 

Rehabilitation is even more preposterous.  First, there is nothing in anything even vaguely resembling academic literature (which most research on "criminal justice" does not even approach) to indicate that such a thing as a "criminal nature" or a "criminal predisposition" exists, or that if it does, that its existence is anything more than metaphysical speculation, and normative prognosticating.  That's a pretty weak basis to be doling out violence in the name of the state.  Second, even if there was such a thing as a criminal nature or criminal predisposition, there is not only no evidence to indicate that prison actually corrects such a deficit in human nature, but there is ample evidence (in the form of recidivism rates) to indicate the exact opposite (that there is no relationship between a person's proclivity to commit crimes and the time they have served in prison), or worse (that there is strong evidence to believe that the longer a person spends in prison, the more likely they are to re-offend).  Of course, there is also plenty of evidence out there that the conditions in prisons around the country -- in contrast with the conditions in less stupid countries like Germany or Norway -- solves nearly every one of these problems, and others; yet, in this country, nothing changes for the better.  One has to wonder why that might be.  (Hint: there's big money involved in locking people up.)

So now that we've covered the theoretical basis for penal institutions in the United States, the next step will be to discuss the mechanics of how they work. 

Career choice, mostly.

What do you think of this speech?

I already gave you chalkboard version{ education } and you have not the ability to grasp this mystery yet ---mystery to all scientists---, even with diagrams presented to you. 

Merely stating a known fact for some 100 years or more, adiation{ photon } is top speed of energy does not even begin to address of constant to all obsers question posed to you, ergo, your still clueless as is most scientist in regards to that mystery.

You like the typical male stero-type, who believe they have to give an answer even it it is incorrect or just plain BS, instead of saying they have no idea.

Blocked.

Thoughts on Yang?

How is rehabilitation idiotic? If your reply is 'how is it not' you will have dug yourself a hole so deep that I will bring forth reasoning you cannot refute as to why it's the only element of justice that's actually Just, the rest is pragmatism and pleasing egos.

The arrogance of your response offends me, and disinclines me to post anything approximating what I would consider to be a sufficient response.  

As a rule, if you want others to treat you with respect, or at the very least not wholly dismiss you outright for reasons that any objective reading of your post would clearly indicate, you will be well advised to refrain from ever speaking to me in that way in the future. 

Let me be explicitly clear: by that I mean, if you ever speak that way to me again, you will have dug yourself a hole so deep that I will never acknowledge your presence in this or any other forum again. 

Now that we have set the rules for our future interactions, do you wish to try that question again?