imgladisaidit

while all of that is true, it's actually an excellent question.

For one, it goes right to the heart of the issue. He's already been convicted of securities fraud. Now he's back in a position of leadership. That's a big thing.

Not only does the question need asking by anyone using the organization, but in general.

By being asked it services a purpose (several actually). First, it gives the man chance to answer it directly rather than remaining the elephant in the room. Second, it gives him a chance to screw up early. If he lies on an ama like this, it trashes his credibility and reduces any damage he might do.

But I think most relevant is that that very kind of question surrounds anyone convicted of a crime. If Mr Bronson is legit, then what he's trying to do addresses a major flaw in our system.

We're supposed to be rehabilitating, not just punishing. Think about it, there are people arrested and convicted every day of something as minor as a bag of weed. They do their time, get out, and suddenly they're unable to find a useful job (if they can find one at all, the bigger the crime, the bigger the barrier). That spikes recidivism higher than it otherwise would be. It's one of the most common reasons (excuses if you prefer to be harsh) given for returning to criminal activity. It perpetuates the cycle.

If the venture is to succeed, if it is to be viewed as legitimate, the issue has to be addressed, and publicly.

Now, opinions may vary as to how legitimate the venture is, whether it's just exploitation being done in a different way. But without asking, without getting an answer, the question becomes a fog surrounding it.

I sincerely hope Mr Bronson is legitimate in his drive to turn the problem of post release employment into something positive, profitable and possibly changes the way we deal with the problem as a society. It seems like he is, but if the questions don't get asked, there's no way to find out how legitimate his goal is.

If he can do something as dirty as what he did, actually learn from it and do something positive, that's what is supposed to happen.

And asking the question is the first step in letting him have the chance to do that.

Besides, it's an ama. If people can ask dumb things about ducks and horses in these things, then an on topic question is certainly worth asking.

Due diligence comes after asking, not before. You get the answer, then find out if it matches his actions (and so far they do). You look to see if the entities he's working with are solid enough that their due diligence is acceptable (and so far they are afai could find).

Alright, this is going to be a rather harsh sounding question here. But please understand that I'm not bashing you.

So, how do you view your return to working in light of the massive disparity between Caucasian and African Americans both in incarceration rates and success after release?

In other words, if you weren't Caucasian and with the background you had before being convicted, do you think that you would have been able to achieve the relative return to normalcy in an executive position?

As a secondary question to that, how do you think we as a society could improve that disparity?

Wait. You're saying that instead of including the most universal audio connector there is, it's now not even just a dongle? That just seems, well, greedy and dumb.