MERGED: The Politics Thread

[SamV]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't public sector employees also pay taxes too?

And if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it would seem these striking public employees are then against themselves.

[TysonWarm]

Unions were useful during Upton Sinclair's time when working conditions were horrible.  Sinclair was a journalist that went undercover in the meatpacking plants and reported on the horrible working conditions.  Unions were organized to improve these terrible conditions.  Unions are bad now because they reward lazy workers and punish good workers.  The bad workers don't have to fear for their job.   And if a promotion comes up, the worker with the most seniority will get it.  No matter if he is a good worker or a bad worker.  Also, unions became too powerful and are causing more jobs to go overseas.  For example, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. has closed ten domestic manufacturing facilities over the last thirteen years.

[Robin_K]

By this logic, diabetics who find relief by taking insulin no longer have to once their conditions have stabilized, because they are now cured.

[rtpoe]

So, you're saying that we don't need unions anymore because Corporations will look out for their employees and make sure that they have a safe place to work? You really think we can always trust corporations to do the right thing in regards to their employees, and not just pay them a decent wage?

Sure, unions may make it hard for bad workers to be fired. But they also make it hard for good workers to be fired without just cause.

Yes, I agree that unions do need to readjust their pension and other benefit programs as the nation's demographics change. But that's no reason to get rid of them entirely.

[TheZookie007]

Unions were useful during Upton Sinclair's time when working conditions were horrible.  Sinclair was a journalist that went undercover in the meatpacking plants and reported on the horrible working conditions.  Unions were organized to improve these terrible conditions.  Unions are bad now because they reward lazy workers and punish good workers....

Quick, someone tell this to the people at Foxconn!

[SwitcherX]

By this logic, diabetics who find relief by taking insulin no longer have to once their conditions have stabilized, because they are now cured.

That's quite a jump there

[3deroticer]

Quick, someone tell this to the people at Foxconn!

My computer is made from foxconn, the motherboard is from China. Took me awhile to figure you meant Foxsnooze?
But I love this notion that we even have diligent investigative news reporter in the media anymore. Protecting us the people from corporate shenanigan.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/fda-refuses-to-test-fish-for-radioactivity-government-pretends-radioactive-fish-is-safe.html
Just as FDA refuse to have testing for GMO food, which recently they agreed to have one soon, even though the genie is already out of the bottle.
Oregon just recently received a Japanese dock that wash up the shore and the govt says there is no sign of radioactivity from the dock. I can't believe them! Not when almost every member of the FDA are former corporate CEO of corporation known for violating human safety. DOW Chemical, Bayer, and Monsantos former boss are now member of the FDA agency.

Any politician running for office have a fat chance of winning unless they get endorse by the corporation, unless one step forward like in Greece to promise to tax the wealthy! As long as we are still debating about the values of one of the 2 party system that we have, I don't see much change in the future. I am more incline to see it like George Carlin and predict to see a bloody revolution. I think when are fighting for clean water it will happen then.

[TheZookie007]

My computer is made from foxconn, the motherboard is from China. Took me awhile to figure you meant Foxsnooze?

No, I meant FoxConn, the people who make Apple's products in China and who have no unions within their company...in a communist country. That was the irony I was trying to highlight.

Anyhoo...

[SwitcherX]

`

[DruulEmpire]

If thirteen points like those (and I'm not even buying all of them) had been all there was to say about Dubya, I would never have minded him nearly so much.  Especially if he had pretty well wiped out al-Qaeda.

[mastert]

The private sector IS doing fine! I don't know how that's a lie?

[Siliconex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XekkQ3HG2lg&feature=related

[DruulEmpire]

All I can say is that my father has taught history for half a century and is in no way a dumber-downer.

[rtpoe]

So I've been casually following the polling numbers, taking a mild interest in the reactions to every percentage point shift in the results.

"Obama leads Romney, 47.3% to 45.1%! Romney outpolls Obama on the economy, 48% to 46%!" And more of the same.

What doesn't get mentioned in the headlines is the statistical error that is *built in* to the pollings by their very nature. Typically, it's about four percent. So any polling where the difference is less than 4% is basically a dead heat!

Sure, the details of these pollings help the campaign strategists. But the only poll that really, truly matters is the one that takes place on November 6 this year.

And you'd be surprised at the things that can affect how you vote.

Where your polling place is. Polling places in churches influence people to vote more conservatively. Need to pass that school budget? Make sure the polling place is in a school.

Weather. That old saw about Republicans praying for rain on Election Day seems to be true...

Sports. Did your football team score a huge upset over its hated rival the weekend before the election? You're more likely to re-elect the incumbent.

Natural Disasters. It may have been an Act of God, but its the incumbent's fault!

And if you look, really look, at the history of presidential elections, it's surprising (or shocking) to see just how close some of them were. Mike Sheppard at MIT has done the detailed analysis to answer the question: What is the smallest number of total votes that need to be switched from one candidate to another, and from which states, to affect the outcome of the election? (link)

So don't get too caught up in the poll numbers. There's a long way to go. And it could be a nice, sunny day across the nation on November 6....

[mastert]

I work in higher education part time and did for a few months at the high school level. Here's my take on the "failed" school system.

The school system hasn't failed anybody. It is a larger symptom of what has happened in this country, the erosion of family unit and parents taking on the role of parent. This is the ONLY thing I agree with Rick Santorum on.

The education system is plagued by apathetic parent(s). I put the s in parentheses because many of the students, at least here in the suburban megalopolis in the northeast US, come from broken homes. I could almost successfully pick out the children of single parents. They usually have behavioral or truancy issues. A result of the parent trying to be a friend to their **09** and not their parent.

There's a reason for the saying, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree." When I taught HS, we were required to be at "back to school night" (a night early in the school year, parents come in to meet with their **09**'s teachers).  I noticed a correlation between the parents and the **09**. The parents who were late for the conference had **09**(ren) who were late for class. The parents who spoke to me with disrespect had children who spoke to me with disrespect. The parents who didn't show up generally had children who didn't care about school.

On the other hand we get the other extreme opposite: the helicopter parent. Most teachers dread this kind of parent because it usually requires a daily conversation with the parent about their **09**'s status in class. Many times these parents continually question your qualifications in the classroom, question what you're teaching, and Monday Morning Quarterback (For those not familiar with American football, this means you question the decisions after the fact). There are two root causes for this: Parents not allowing their children to do anything for them selves and trust issues between parent and **09**.

Many administrators in schools should NOT be in the position they're in. A Principal in a school in an 1850 context was the lead teacher, the person who was THE best teacher in the school and who actually taught. Granted that's when life was simpler. Now Principal has taken on a different context. This is the person carrying out the directives of the Superintendents and Board of Eds, hiring and firing of teachers, and evaluating those teachers. Many teachers become principals for the money only. Unfortunately, these Principals themselves were not great teachers. Granted, I don't blame them on the money issue. These are the people who go into your **09**'s classroom and evaluate that teacher.

Continuing the theme of regulations. In my state, the law states that if enough time is given to interview candidates for a teaching position (the summer), the administration MUST interview 15 candidates. Yes...15. While I'm sure it's to find the most qualified person possible, I find this a waste of time. NOBODY in the private sector interviews 15 people for a job.

While bullying IS an issue and has been an issues for probably as long as schools have existed, state legislators once again have gone over the top trying to regulate it. You hear about schools monitoring students FBs and punishing students for incidents that don't occur within their jurisdiction. What you may not know is that faculty can now be punished (see suspended/fired) if they don't report the bullying that goes on, which, especially with girls, may not be able to be witnessed.

I believe punishment in schools aren't enough to get parents' attention. in an extreme case, I remember when I was in HS myself and as a teacher in a high school, a student had attacked a teacher. In each case the student had been suspended for only 10 days. I feel this is a travesty. Schools have been less willing to suspend students for longer than 5 days, even for fighting. This is because there is a state rule that says if the student is out of school for longer than 2 weeks, the district must provide schooling in the student's home. I feel for attacking a teacher, those students should be expelled and the onus of educating your **09** should fall on the parents (punishing them for what's ultimately a result of bad/neglectful parenting).

Don't get me started about No **09** Left Behind. Republicans abhor socialism, but this is about as socialistic as it gets. It treats students as a homogenous group, which as you know is a total crock and teaches to the lowest common denominator. Same goes with Race to the Top. While I get rewarding states who try to innovate, it's once again puts the onus on the school districts and not on the parents. This is why I believe the education department needs not to be dissolved, but needs to be scaled back (Say except regulating multistate for-profits, federal financial aid, etc.)

Schools are THE number 1 battleground for politics in this country. This is why teacher's unions exist. The idea is that the union protects the teacher from the political ramifications of what's taught in the classroom, which is why the unions are a political football in this country (Are there problems with the union, sure, but its one or two issues). After all, you are dealing with peoples' most precious possession, their children. In Kansas, the debate is whether teachers who hold science degrees should have to teach Creationism in their class. Textbook publishers usually write textbooks based upon curricula based on the largest states (their largest customers http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html) People are quick to blame their parental shortfalls on somebody else, and since their kids spend the most time at school, blame it on the school. If the schools don't do anything about it, threaten the legislators during the next election cycle and you're guaranteed to get some reactionary overreaching regulation that further handcuffs the school from doing its job.

I'll save my solutions to this problem for later. And I'll write something on Community Colleges as well. As you've seen I can write several books on the subject.

I'm happy to see many intelligent people on this board (makes me wonder if all smart people are breast men...lol). I'm sure most of you can attribute your upbringing to good parenting.

[mcgarp]

Thanks, I enjoyed reading that well thought out post.  I'm only 32 and I agree with you on society.  I could be wrong, but it seems worse today that even when I was a kid 20 years ago.

[SwitcherX]

 

[TheZookie007]

Continuing the theme of regulations. In my state, the law states that if enough time is given to interview candidates for a teaching position (the summer), the administration MUST interview 15 candidates. Yes...15. While I'm sure it's to find the most qualified person possible, I find this a waste of time. NOBODY in the private sector interviews 15 people for a job.

Not true. They interviewed 36 people before I was chosen for my most recent job.

[TheZookie007]

I will have to crunch the numbers myself but I thought this was interesting.

[rtpoe]

It should have been an easy one. By now, everyone who has bothered to pay attention knows that the case known as "Citizens United" has been quite the disaster for fairness in elections. When rich white guy Sheldon Adelson doesn't care who knows that he is ready to spend up to $100 million to defeat Obama this November (note: not in support of Mitt Romney, but to defeat Obama), because there's nothing anyone can do to about it when he launders it through the corporations he owns into various "superPACs", there is something Not Quite Right.

In Montana, they've had their own campaign finance rules for a century. They had some real experience back then with mining companies buying state and local elections, with all manner of resulting corruption. So when they had the chance, the state legislature passed a voter initiative called the Corrupt Practices Act in 1912. That wasn't the end of it, though. A few years ago, a group calling itself "Western Tradition Partners" was engaging in shady campaign contributions. When a suit over the matter made it all the way to the Montana Supreme Court, that court ruled that WTP's actions were in violation of the state's campaign finance laws.

WTP and others appealed up to the Supreme Court, claiming Montana's laws violated the decision of Citizens United.

Given how people of all stripes are realizing just how big a screwup Citizens United was, this should have been an easy one. Not just a batting practice pitch, but a Home Run Derby slow, fat one. Allow states to have their own finance laws. Call it a "states' rights" issue if you want.

But no.

Even though 22 states and DC came out in support of Montana, the usual suspects (the five conservative Justices) all said in their ruling in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock that Citizens United applies to the states, too.

Justice Steven Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, lamented that though he'd really like to use the opportunity to revisit Citizens United, he didn't see any chance at all that "given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration."

So it's going to get worse. Corporations can now buy state governments, too.

Montana's Attorney General Steve Bullock and Governor Brian Schweitzer aren't giving up. They've posted a video on YouTube, pushing for a constitutional amendment to control campaign financing again. ""Corporations are people?" said Schweitzer. "I'll believe that when Texas executes one."

American Tradition Partnership, meanwhile, is praising the announcement, adding that Montana's top officials should resign for "unlawful misbehavior".

Here's the Supreme Court decision if you are interested in reading it.

[DruulEmpire]

to rtpoe above: we may be seeing the beginning of a one-party state.  Some yahoos will figure "But hey, it's OUR party, so who cares, and only some whiny losers will mind."  In this non-reflective way they will embrace all the wonders that a one-party system has done for, say, the former Soviet Union -- and they're setting themselves up for a future in which they will want their say back, and can't have it.

In other news: I knew he was a nice enough guy when he started KIND, Kids in Need of Desks.  Then my opinion of him as a fellow man skyrocketed when the word got out that he is dating Tamron Hall.  Now the point he's been making -- that the health care "mandate" amounts detail by detail to virtually no real compulsion at all -- has been cited in the decision by Chief Justice Roberts.  At long last, I have to tip my proverbial hat to MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. 

[rtpoe]

I love how Roberts fooled everyone (especially FOX and CNN!) when he came out in support of the Affordable Care Act.

Not because Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, like everyone expected, but because in the end, it's tax. And Congress has the right to levy taxes....

[TheZookie007]

In other news: I knew he was a nice enough guy when he started KIND, Kids in Need of Desks.  Then my opinion of him as a fellow man skyrocketed when the word got out that he is dating Tamron Hall.  Now the point he's been making -- that the health care "mandate" amounts detail by detail to virtually no real compulsion at all -- has been cited in the decision by Chief Justice Roberts.  At long last, I have to tip my proverbial hat to MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell.  

Is that for real??? Larry is banging Tamron??? Damn!

(two thumbs way up)

And since he was a professor of constitutional law, I'm not surprised that Pres. Obama's legislation was deemed constitutional in the end.

[SamV]

Now if the Prez can cut though all the muck and lies the Repubs and their proxies originally spread, and continue to disseminate, (death panels? ) about the ACA bill so that more of the American people understand what this legislation is truly all about. Current polling shows 52% opposed to it (down from 66%), with 36% in favor of it. Obama needs to present both the good and bad aspects in a reasoned manner and avoid the usual histrionics from the political extremes.
 
Of course having old Mitt as the front man on this and calling it bad policy seems rather hypocritical seeing that the Massachusetts bill he passed as Governor was the model for the federal bill that was ultimately passed. So tell me Governor, why did you sign the Mass bill in to law? Wasn't if bad policy too? Or perhaps, it's more about how you can keep kissing the asses of your far-right billionaire and Tea Party supporters for the Nov. election.

---
By the way, in his remarks Mitt keep harping on how 20 million people will lose their health care coverage. Personally I would like to know exactly who these people are? 

Then again, if by some estimates 30 to 40 million of the current 50 million uninsured (I'm one of them, since 2002) manage to get coverage under this legislation, and should Mitt's statement prove true, IMO the country would still come out ahead, by at least 10 million more people with health insurance.

[DruulEmpire]

Is that for real??? Larry is banging Tamron??? Damn!

(two thumbs way up)

Now now now, I don't know for certain that bangitude has been achieved -- not everyone out there is as hotblooded as we are -- but if only for having made it to the very top of the the list of Men Who Actually Have a Shot at Tamron, that alone gets a respectful nod from me.

I'd love to see O campaign by saying that (Romney's former state of) Massachusetts has been enjoying "Obamacare" for a while now.

[mastert]

I'm glad the ACA got the green light from the SCOTUS. This is like doing donuts in a parking lot with an aircraft carrier. Government doesn't move fast, but wow.

I would love to see a single payer health system. This being a step in that direction.

It's sad that in the USA a kid and his/her parents who lost the DNA lottery have to pony up 10s of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to make sure that their **09** is cared for. Some may choose abortion to avoid the cost, but that's sacrilege many on the right. It's also sad that people can't afford simple preventative medicine. Instead of paying $120 for a dental cleaning and checkup, many will visit the ER to have a tooth extracted for $1000, which they can't pay. I could go on and on.

If I were President, I think I would have proposed this instead to appease both the left and the right which might have depolarized this issue somewhat. Turn the boat more slowly.

I would set up a model where you can buy subsidized health care but it wasn't mandatory. I would caution those who are uninsured that if you have a major medical problem and you do not have the insurance, the hospital will not treat you. That would of course hinge on the taking away the mandate that hospitals must treat anybody that walks through the ER.

There are models for the same type of "insurance" in rural areas of the southeast that became high profile recently. To cut budgets and taxes, rural towns have been combining services like the fire department. Residents can pay a fee to have fire services come in case of fire. Conversely, if the resident doesn't pay a fee, the fire department will not put out the fire and your house and belongings are gone.

Now this may anger people saying things like, "how can you compare a human life to possessions."

Last thing I would have proposed is extremely harsh penalties to those who commit fraud. For doctors, mandatory prison, loss of licensure (though this would be tough since this is a state issue), and fines. For patients, loss of coverage, mandatory fines, and possibly prison.

It'll be an interesting next 4 or so years when the entire bill goes into effect. What will happen to conglomerates like UnitedHealthcare et. al? What will be the response be when the fines that people will have to pay for not having it go into effect? How will Republicans try to defund ACA? How will Obama defend his hypocracy on the campaign trail by telling Americans that this wasn't a tax, but arguing to the SC that it IS a tax?

[TheZookie007]

For a rather complete summary of just what is in the PPACA, you could do worse than check out this thread on reddit.

[rtpoe]

Well, the Republicans are at it again. Not content with buying elections, they are also taking steps to keep anyone who just might be likely to vote Democratic away from the polls.

Since last year, some 17 states have passed laws that in some manner restrict voting. Favorite tactics include making it harder to register new voters, or requiring valid ID in order to vote.

One might think these are justifiable, but even the most cursory analysis shows that virtually all of these methods target the poor, the young, the elderly, and minorities. Just the sort of people most likely to vote Democrat.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps

(OK, I agree that Mother Jones is so leftist that if they went any further, even dyed-in-the-wool liberals would call them Commies, but they do have a very good summary of the matter, complete with references)

The PA Dept. of State found that a voter ID law currently being challenged there could keep over 9% of registered voters from voting, since they lack either a driver's license or a state photo ID card. It’s even worse in Philadelphia, where the number is closer to 18%. It isn’t *that* big a deal, since there are other forms of ID that can be used, and there is some question about the validity of their numbers. But you really don't need anything more when the state’s House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R- Allegheny) flat out stated that his party had achieved one of their legislative goals for the year with the law:

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." –  Turzai at the Republican State Committee meeting, June 2012

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/id-law-could-impact-10-percent-pennsylvania-voters/

Can it really be so difficult to get one of the required IDs? The suit in progress in Pennsylvania says it is. The lead plaintiff in Applewhite v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been voting regularly since the 1960's without a driver’s license. 93 year old Viviette Applewhite has tried three times to get a copy of her birth certificate so she can get an ID card, but despite having paid the fee, hadn't received it by the date the suit was filed.

http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-rosa-parks-voter-id-faces-down-gop-144545505.html;_ylt=A2KJjanAlP1POysAebvQtDMD

For most people, getting an official ID means taking a full day off from work to go wait in line at the DMV. Surely a fair price to pay in order to ensure the security of the voting process, right?

Except that anytime anyone has ever looked, there are virtually no cases of voter fraud by impersonation. There are more cases of people being killed by falling furniture in one year than credible cases of in-person voter impersonation over a ten year period.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/07/05/exploding-toilets-more-common-than-voter-fraud

(OK, it's likely that there are cases that go unreported. But the only way I can think of a case going unreported is if the legitimate voter stays at home and doesn't vote, so the poll workers have no way of knowing if the person who does show up is the real McCoy. But whose fault is that? The voting laws, or your own? If you cannot be bothered to vote, why should you care what happens?)

And it also helps if there's a DMV that you can easily get to.

Hispanics in Texas, who vote solidly Democratic, are not only more likely to lack ID compared to white voters, but will have a harder time obtaining the voter ID required by the state. There are DMV offices in only eighty-one of the state’s 254 counties. Not surprisingly, counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have the right ID. Hispanics in Texas are also twice as likely as whites to not have a car. "During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a driver’s license office," wrote DOJ.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168784/discriminatory-texas-voter-id-law-challenged-federal-court#

This is quite clearly a case of a solution in search of a problem. Look, there are almost always going to be problems with voting. But the ones we need to be watchful for are crappy record keeping with the voter registration rolls and shenanigans with the actual vote counting. Not doing things that make it hard for real American citizens to vote.


NOTES

Non-citizens can get a driver's license… if they are here on a work or student visa, for example. And if you really wanted to commit this sort of impersonation fraud on a scale likely to influence the outcome, you’d use mail-in or absentee ballots.

More hints that this is a ploy by Republicans to disenfranchise their opponents? Texas offers numerous alternatives to a driver’s license or state ID. A student ID from an accredited university is not among them, but a concealed carry permit is...

And don't go shouting "ACORN" at me. If you followed the story all the way through, you'd know that the problems with ACORN in the 2008 election were revealed by the organization itself, and they resolved the matter of duplicate and bogus registrations to the point that on Election Day, there was not a single instance of someone trying to vote using one of those bad registrations.

[pedonbio]

Thank you for that, rtpoe. I would just add one quirk-The use of alternative identification is freakishly random. For example, Wisconsin enacted a law which permits the use of only state i.d.; a U.S. passport, the gold standard of i.d., is not permitted. No military i.d. is permitted.

The vote fraud meme is utter nonsense. In my state (Washington) in the past ten years the have been zero vote fraud convictions; there was one civil suit challenging an election in which it was found that thr had been four illegal votes cast: Three Republicans and a Libertarian.

[TheZookie007]

The Rachel Maddow Show: "Romney paid as a do-nothing president at Bain?"

So, let me get this straight...you continually say you left Bain Capital in Feb. 1999...yet your records show that you were still being paid for the work that you did even past that date...talk about "nice work if you can get it"...

[SamV]

Some big muckity-mucks in the corporate world have "golden parachutes" upon leaving; so perhaps the reason the Rom man is loathe to publicly release his past tax returns is that they would reveal when he (supposedly) left Bain he had a parachute made of platinum. 

Sam "for most of the jobs I left, I (like many) was given a lead parachute, if not a lead anchor" V 

[rtpoe]

I understand that back when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, his "resume" indicated that he was working at Bain up until 2002.

So now he says he was in charge "in name only" after 1999? Conveniently before Bain started sending jobs overseas (so I understand it) and ran companies into bankruptcy?

Sorry, Mitt. But if you're the captain of the ship, when things go wrong, you're the one ultimately responsible no matter who was on the bridge that day.

[Siliconex]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-boaz/obamas-accomplishments_b_1654836.html

Truth?

[DruulEmpire]

Offhand I see nothing too controversial about that column.  Boaz can spin it any way it amuses him to, but the bottom line is that the American auto industry is back and a world leader once more.  If Boaz wants to call that bad, or if he wants to claim there was a much better way, I wish he'd just say so.

As to the other issues, it is no surprise at all to some of us left-of-center folk that on many issues Obama is a lot tougher than he is generally given credit for.  It's not as if we're suppressing that, though -- we complain about that pretty regularly, if anyone would listen.

I rather wish that criticisms of the President were more along this line, noting his reluctance to show any hint of softness on a number of issues.  However, I suspect the usual criticisms will try to claim more the exact opposite.

[SamV]

Romney (along with many on the right) has argued about Obama's lack of skill at being a leader. But then what about Mitt's own skills?

Consider that all during the primaries Romney faced criticisms from his primary opponents about his business experience, his leadership of Bain, and his refusal to publicly release his tax returns. So what made Mitt think that when he began to campaign for the general election he wouldn't face the same charges from the Obama campaign, especially when Chicago political campaigns are well known to be a full contact sport?

Mitt had a window of opportunity to come clean about his background and his asset wealth between the last primary and the start of his run for the general, but he chose instead to ignore this sword dangling over his head. So if one leaves a potent weapon on an earlier battlefield that your adversary can pick up and use against you in the next battle, I think a valid question can be asked as to what kind of leader they are, if they can't see a known danger to themselves and don't/won't take action to dull that sword?