The Title Card Has Been Announced

[astonmartin708]

Those organizations are much less integrated and not under as direct of authority and the auspices of the parent organization, as the Knights of Columbus. So no, you did not make your point.

That would be like saying that if a Franciscan Friar were appointed to a position within the government or the Pope gave a special dispensation for an Augustinian Friar to receive the same appointment, that he could be denied that position, based purely on him being a member of that group within the church, without taking away his constitutional rights.

You cannot question any of those candidates based on religious beliefs, any more than you can question a Catholic judge who is a practicing member of the church. She had no right to question the candidate because of him being a member of the Knights of Columbus. She could have questioned him on issues that were law, without mention of the church. But she stepped out of bounds when she mentioned the organization.

You are a little out of your depth here. A Canon lawyer would tear you apart on this argument.

That’s like saying you have no right to question a person who was a member of ISIS who was nominated for an office. There is no guarantee that your affiliations with groups tangential to religious denominations can not be questioned in an interview. That would be like saying I couldn’t question a Boy Scout of America’s CEO on his time heading an organization during a time that saw the molestation of children simply because the organization at large professes Christian beliefs. Just because an organization is slightly more engrained in the church (but still not actually under the church’s control) doesn’t make it invulnerable to questions in interviews.

I think this has more to do with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Which there have to be exceptions to. For example, it would be ridiculous for a Baptist Church in Kentucky to be disallowed from asking a candidate if they’re Christian when trying to select a new minister when the candidate they’re interviewing arrived wearing the garb of a Muslim. I also think there could be exceptions for lines of questioning when you are a candidate for an office that has legal or judicial authority over people who may not share your Religious belief system. After all, religion seems to come up quite a bit in elections which are basically just job interviews for politicians.

Moreover I don’t think having a religion that the interviewer might not agree with should be an acceptable disqualifying characteristic, but the interviewer should be allowed to ask are you able to separate your personal religious beliefs from those of the conglomerate group of people you are about to represent?

 

[astonmartin708]

The following is an excerpt of an article shortly after Harris and the Hawaii Senator ganged up on the Catholic nominee for Judge:

"In considering the confirmation of Brian Buescher to a federal judgeship last month, Harris and Hirono submitted written questions that raised alarms about his membership in “an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men.”

“Were you aware,” Harris asked, “that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And: “Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?” And: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

For those who know the Knights of Columbus, this is a bit like accusing your Aunt Harriet’s knitting circle of being a Mexican drug cartel.

In most of the country, the Knights are a respected fraternal organization consisting of men who hand out coats to needy children, promote devotion to the Virgin Mary, support crisis pregnancy shelters and protest doggedly each year in the March for Life."

The particular candidate had joined the Knights when he was 18 years old. It was also years before Roe v. Wade. He answered with that information. There are many Catholic Federal Judges. There are even several at our Federal Courthouse in Tulsa. The Supreme Court is made up of 5 Catholic Justices. Judges are bound to follow the Constitution and legal precedents. Those concepts are somewhat fluid sometimes.

The Constitution prohibits a religious test to hold office. Shortly after the Harris/Hirano episode the Senate passed a Resolution with unanimous consent that it would be unconstitutional to conside4r membership in the Knights of Columbus as a disqualifying criteria for public office. Unanimous consent means that no one, including the Democrats objected.

Harris and Hirano were either naive and uneducated about Catholics, the Knights of Columbus etc. or they are Anti-Catholic.



Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/...xf0WWng1OmA94WTmOIXvZQ4kEphRL8c#storylink=cpy

I think it’s pretty crappy for a candidate to be put up for nomination (At least partially) based on his religious beliefs but not to be able to be questioned about them when his religious beliefs will have an inherent and irreversible effect on millions of people who don’t share his beliefs.

I don’t believe that was the intent of an religiously open minded Jefferson when he proposed the bill of rights, and if it was then it was a flawed ideal.

If you are initially elected / appointed based upon your religious beliefs then you should certainly be open for questioning on those beliefs when seeking a higher office tasked with more power over more constituents who never chose you. That’s why we have confirmation power in the first place.

In fact, I would argue that disallowing congress from asking about a person’s religious beliefs (or more appropriately, a person’s ability to create and interpret law in a manner separate from their religion) furthers one party’s desire to effectively establish a national religion be repeatedly nominating candidates for office, to make and interpret laws, based on religious views they share.

 

[HuffyCane]

The following is an excerpt of an article shortly after Harris and the Hawaii Senator ganged up on the Catholic nominee for Judge:

"In considering the confirmation of Brian Buescher to a federal judgeship last month, Harris and Hirono submitted written questions that raised alarms about his membership in “an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men.”

“Were you aware,” Harris asked, “that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And: “Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?” And: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

For those who know the Knights of Columbus, this is a bit like accusing your Aunt Harriet’s knitting circle of being a Mexican drug cartel.

In most of the country, the Knights are a respected fraternal organization consisting of men who hand out coats to needy children, promote devotion to the Virgin Mary, support crisis pregnancy shelters and protest doggedly each year in the March for Life."

The particular candidate had joined the Knights when he was 18 years old. It was also years before Roe v. Wade. He answered with that information. There are many Catholic Federal Judges. There are even several at our Federal Courthouse in Tulsa. The Supreme Court is made up of 5 Catholic Justices. Judges are bound to follow the Constitution and legal precedents. Those concepts are somewhat fluid sometimes.

The Constitution prohibits a religious test to hold office. Shortly after the Harris/Hirano episode the Senate passed a Resolution with unanimous consent that it would be unconstitutional to conside4r membership in the Knights of Columbus as a disqualifying criteria for public office. Unanimous consent means that no one, including the Democrats objected.

Harris and Hirano were either naive and uneducated about Catholics, the Knights of Columbus etc. or they are Anti-Catholic.



Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/...xf0WWng1OmA94WTmOIXvZQ4kEphRL8c#storylink=cpy

They knew exactly what they were doing and they were doing it because they took the money.

 

[shon46]

Harris is smarter than I thought! She knows she polls horribly in the African American Community (much like the other troll Booker) and is really hitting the Indian American community hard for support. I think if you are a conservative, her being announced as the VP was a gift to another 4 yrs in office! (Snapshot of historical polling numbers for Harris)

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Everybody is projecting on her what they want to see. Wait a couple of four weeks before assessing her assets to the candidacy.

 

[shon46]

I predict she will tank Biden this week. That’s on top of Biden tanking Biden this week. The worm has turned.........the only scenario left for the Dems is to hope Cali, Oregon, Wash decide to threaten to secede, forcing either Trump to resign/ be thrown out by military or the Union to split!

 

[noble cane]

I predict she will tank Biden this week. That’s on top of Biden tanking Biden this week. The worm has turned.........the only scenario left for the Dems is to hope Cali, Oregon, Wash decide to threaten to secede, forcing either Trump to resign/ be thrown out by military or the Union to split!

Hmmm the west coast seceding.. imagine Trump presiding over that reconstruction..

 

[shon46]

Hmmm the west coast seceding.. imagine Trump presiding over that reconstruction..

We are talking worst case scenario but The Dems are War Gaming that scenario.
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...st-secession-possible-civil-war-john-podesta/

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I predict she will tank Biden this week. That’s on top of Biden tanking Biden this week. The worm has turned.........the only scenario left for the Dems is to hope Cali, Oregon, Wash decide to threaten to secede, forcing either Trump to resign/ be thrown out by military or the Union to split!

You sound just like Rippen.

 

[Bendman]

Here we go. The real fun starts this week. Trump is planning a massive ad buy just before the Dem's convention which will feature Kaisich and other Republicans supporting Biden. Yikes. Think of the ads we will be inundated with.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...congresswoman-set-speak-for-biden/5600304002/

 

[shon46]

You sound just like Rippen.

I backed up my statement with facts. Did you read the article which was originally published by the Times?

 

[astonmartin708]

Harris is smarter than I thought! She knows she polls horribly in the African American Community (much like the other troll Booker) and is really hitting the Indian American community hard for support. I think if you are a conservative, her being announced as the VP was a gift to another 4 yrs in office! (Snapshot of historical polling numbers for Harris)

You forget that Biden polls exceptionally well with Black voters as evidenced by his decisive primary victory in South Carolina. His gaff about 'you ain't black' probably necessitated that he reaffirm his commitment to the AA community though. I think having Harris + Obama campaigning for him will be a + for Biden among AA's.

 

[Bendman]

You forget that Biden polls exceptionally well with Black voters as evidenced by his decisive primary victory in South Carolina. His gaff about 'you ain't black' probably necessitated that he reaffirm his commitment to the AA community though. I think having Harris + Obama campaigning for him will be a + for Biden among AA's.

And Bernie is coming out stronger this year too.

 

[shon46]

You forget that Biden polls exceptionally well with Black voters as evidenced by his decisive primary victory in South Carolina. His gaff about 'you ain't black' probably necessitated that he reaffirm his commitment to the AA community though. I think having Harris + Obama campaigning for him will be a + for Biden among AA's.

Bueller, what fictional world do you live in? Why would Bernie beg his supporters to vote for Biden Harris unless his supporters already told him they won’t endorse them? Both sides point to a huge problem for the Dems! Wake up Bueller!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-san...ressive-criticism-trump-must-defeated-1525394
Bernie supporters, progressives trash Biden-Harris ticket: A 'middle finger' to the base
[URL]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-supporters-progressives-journalists-trash-biden-harris-ticket


[/URL]

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I backed up my statement with facts. Did you read the article which was originally published by the Times?

That article doesn't validate that statement. Both the Republicans and the Democrats war game for extreme situations that never happen. Both the Republicans and Democrats want to be prepared for scenarios like that, if against all odds, that occurs. Your statements of doom and gloom massive changes from week to week, are incredibly similar to Rippin.

'You don't know what's coming and you can't do anything about it... It will happen. Bla, bla, bla., militia reference, catch phrases in initials format' Just paraphrasing Rippin cuz he hasn't made a statement like that recently, so it wasn't easy to search for. When you talk of Biden's tanking, and possibility of states seceding as being imminent, it sounds like Rippin.

 

[shon46]

That article doesn't validate that statement. Both the Republicans and the Democrats war game for extreme situations that never happen. Both the Republicans and Democrats want to be prepared for scenarios like that, if against all odds, that occurs. Your statements of doom and gloom massive changes from week to week, are incredibly similar to Rippin.

'You don't know what's coming and you can't do anything about it... It will happen. Bla, bla, bla., militia reference, catch phrases in initials format' Just paraphrasing Rippin cuz he hasn't made a statement like that recently, so it wasn't easy to search for. When you talk of Biden's tanking, and possibility of states seceding as being imminent, it sounds like Rippin.

When was the last time the Republicans war games a scenario like this?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Both parties do it all the time. I'm not going to research it for you. Would take up too much of my time. That would be a long search, unless you remembered some specific detail of a specific scenario to search for. I don't. I just remember having seen similar scenario's by both parties, with no details in my head.

 

[shon46]

Both parties do it all the time. I'm not going to research it for you. Would take up too much of my time. That would be a long search, unless you remembered some specific detail of a specific scenario to search for. I don't. I just remember having seen similar scenario's by both parties, with no details in my head.

The significance of this war gaming scenario is that it has not been documented as happening prior to this election cycle in recent history by either side. I don’t preach gloom and doom. These are actual scenarios our politicians are planning for. Talking about what’s happening is not fear mongering or talking conspiracy. This is fact!

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The significance of this war gaming scenario is that it has not been documented as happening prior to this election cycle in recent history by either side. I don’t preach gloom and doom. These are actual scenarios our politicians are planning for. Talking about what’s happening is not fear mongering or talking conspiracy. This is fact!

No your conclusions are the gloom and doom. Just because they wargame doesn't mean they think it will happen. That is simply a worst case scenario that they are preparing for. It's been done before, by BOTH parties. Their is no imminent possibility of states seceding either.

 

[shon46]

No your conclusions are the gloom and doom. Just because they wargame doesn't mean they think it will happen. That is simply a worst case scenario that they are preparing for. It's been done before, by BOTH parties. Their is no imminent possibility of states seceding either.

In Government, we prepare for the most likely scenario. It’s a waste of time to prepare for the worst case scenario bc it’s too elaborate and ultimately costly to scope. The scenario you plan for is always the middle ground. A good tool to use when you research or want to know the pulse of the people is socialbearing. Type in Secession & Oregon, Cali, and Wash and see what’s trending and by who. There are up to 20 articles written and counting.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

In Government, we prepare for the most likely scenario. It’s a waste of time to prepare for the worst case scenario bc it’s too elaborate and ultimately costly to scope. The scenario you plan for is always the middle ground. A good tool to use when you research or want to know the pulse of the people is socialbearing. Type in Secession & Oregon, Cali, and Wash and see what’s trending and by who. There are up to 20 articles written and counting.

That is BS. They war game for extremely unlikely situations all the time, such that they are prepared for them if it happens.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

When was the last time the Republicans war games a scenario like this?

Here is the only article I could bring up with minimal time researching war gaming political scenarios. It talks about how none of them have any bonafide threats as being imminent. It also details both parties having war gamed similar scenarios. They are military war games, but it has been done by both sides on internal situations as well. The military has war gamed many situations, because of the mercurial nature of Trumps decisions.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

For someone who works for the government, and rely's on that fact repeatedly in arguments, you don't seem to have much knowledge on war gaming.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You can argue all day long on the negatives from both countries. Internment camps.

That doesn't change the validity of realizing the other sides justifications, whether they are propaganda or true facts. There is always both, coming from either side. Seeing those arguments is always good preparation when going to the table with another country. Understanding them from propaganda and fact is beneficial. Understanding motivation is a tool of disarmament.

 

[shon46]

In Government, we prepare for the most likely scenario. It’s a waste of time to prepare for the worst case scenario bc it’s too elaborate and ultimately costly to scope. The scenario you plan for is always the middle ground. A good tool to use when you research or want to know the pulse of the people is socialbearing. Type in Secession & Oregon, Cali, and Wash and see what’s trending and by who. There are up to 20 articles written and counting.

For someone who works for the government, and rely's on that fact repeatedly in arguments, you don't seem to have much knowledge on war gaming.

interesting perspective! I will take the high ground on that.

 

[astonmartin708]

Why even model things if all you're trying to model is the most likely scenario?

In simulations of public safety, outliers and realistic unforeseen consequences are important. It's why it's been so hard for major tech companies to create AI for driverless vehicles. The models they're creating are really good at predicting what to do on streets and highways when traffic is flowing and they need to change lanes, or stop when a car in front of them does....but when BAM!!! an animal or a child runs out into the road, or a car runs a red light at an intersection their models don't tend to work as well because there's less data to train it on and their standard reactions aren't necessarily sufficient anymore.

That's why we shouldn't just train for the "most likely scenario", because sometimes the least likely scenario can be the most dangerous to people.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

interesting perspective! I will take the high ground on that.

With no mention of the article I posted.(War gaming on Iran.)

 

[shon46]

Why even model things if all you're trying to model is the most likely scenario?

In simulations of public safety, outliers and realistic unforeseen consequences are important. It's why it's been so hard for major tech companies to create AI for driverless vehicles. The models they're creating are really good at predicting what to do on streets and highways when traffic is flowing and they need to change lanes, or stop when a car in front of them does....but when BAM!!! an animal or a child runs out into the road, or a car runs a red light at an intersection their models don't tend to work as well because there's less data to train it on and their standard reactions aren't necessarily sufficient anymore.

That's why we shouldn't just train for the "most likely scenario", because sometimes the least likely scenario can be the most dangerous to people.

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r350_28.pdf
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp5_0_20171606.pdf
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/exercises/hseep

 

[Gmoney4WW]

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r350_28.pdf
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp5_0_20171606.pdf
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/exercises/hseep

I didn't read all of that, too long for me to want to read it all. But it all seemed like practical application stuff. The stuff we're talking about never gets to practical application documents. The stuff I'm talking about, is documents extremely senior staff go review if an extreme situation happens. Practical application guidelines for that kind of thing get written after the fact, for reasons of efficiency. But they still do the war gaming for extreme situations.

 

[shon46]

I didn't read all of that, too long for me to want to read it all. But it all seemed like practical application stuff. The stuff we're talking about never gets to practical application documents. The stuff I'm talking about, is documents extremely senior staff go review if an extreme situation happens. Practical application guidelines for that kind of thing get written after the fact, for reasons of efficiency. But they still do the war gaming for extreme situations.

We create those documents from the most likely scenario to happen which in itself is a very complicated process on how to settle on a scenario to war game with. We even have jobs titled Exercise planners that you can see posted on USA jobs in all 6 Combatant Commands. In the Government we go to SAMS to learn how to do that. We also have planning models and tools to assist. After you educate yourself, come back and we can chat!

 

[TUMe]

We create those documents from the most likely scenario to happen which in itself is a very complicated process on how to settle on a scenario to war game with. We even have jobs titled Exercise planners that you can see posted on USA jobs in all 6 Combatant Commands. In the Government we go to SAMS to learn how to do that. We also have planning models and tools to assist. After you educate yourself, come back and we can chat!

"WE" do you have a frog in your pocket?

If what you say is true, which I very much doubt, you should be arrested for spying. My ignorant guess is that they have plans for war with France, surrender to Russia, and everything under the Sun, and the rebirth of Woodstock. They got this big 5 sided building with hoards of people who write all sorts of plans for most likely, least likely and everything in between.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

We create those documents from the most likely scenario to happen which in itself is a very complicated process on how to settle on a scenario to war game with. In the Government we go to SAMS to learn how to do that. We also have planning models and tools to assist. After you educate yourself, come back and we can chat!

I don't need to be educated, as I said, the extreme situation stuff never gets to practical application before the fact. It's after the fact. You never even address this. You still have not addressed the article on Iran.

You want to use your documents, and ignore the ones I post. That is a one sided argument that is silly. Go educate yourself and read the article I posted. You always do this, expect us to read every bit of your evidence you post, but never address what the other person posted. That's not a debate when you never address the other persons 'facts'.

Seeing as how long the stuff you posted is, that's WATU style posting. You might post excerpts from it, that disproved what I got from skimming the first page or two, if you really wanted a debate. Alas you don't even seem to do that. Threw with this argument.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

"WE" do you have a frog in your pocket?

If what you say is true, which I very much doubt, you should be arrested for spying. My ignorant guess is that they have plans for war with France, surrender to Russia, and everything under the Sun, and the rebirth of Woodstock. They got this big 5 sided building with hoards of people who write all sorts of plans for most likely, least likely and everything in between.

 

[shon46]

"WE" do you have a frog in your pocket?

If what you say is true, which I very much doubt, you should be arrested for spying. My ignorant guess is that they have plans for war with France, surrender to Russia, and everything under the Sun, and the rebirth of Woodstock. They got this big 5 sided building with hoards of people who write all sorts of plans for most likely, least likely and everything in between.

If you would have read the public documents I provided, you would know how they are created just like I encouraged you to do. Nothing secret about that. Having a plan is one thing, War Gaming it is quite another!

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Oh, brother. Bizarro reading list of rightofcenterShonWatu.

 

[astonmartin708]

What I'm talking about is the precision vs. recall ability of any given model (war game, program, etc..) to actually fit reality in a manner that we find useful.

In a simplified example, precision, is the ability of a model to predict the correct outcome given an assortment of outcomes. Like, if I was pulling red and blue marbles out of a jar and I wanted to predict which marbles were red. If my model predicted all of the red marbles while telling me that none of the blue marbles were red it would have 100% precision. If it told me that ALL the marbles in the jar were red, even when they weren't, it would only have 50% precision because it told me all the red marbles were red and all the blue marbles were red.

That's where recall comes in. Recall is the ability of a model to predict a correct outcome given the combined value of all the true outcomes it accurately predicted and all of the true outcomes that it negatively predicted. So, in a jar of 20 (10R, 10B) marbles... if your 'red marble' model tells you that 5 red marbles are red, and it it tells you that 5 red marbles are blue, then it only has a 25% recall rate: 5 true-trues / (5 true-trues + 5 false-negatives)

In cases of public safety, where lives are viewed as worth large amounts, recall becomes super important because you want to minimize the number of times that your model incorrectly tells you a false outcome. Like you want it to predict how many nukes that a country has based on geographic images.... you don't want it incorrectly labeling images of silo's as having 0 nukes when they actually have 1 nuke.

Precision and recall in any given model come at a tradeoff. To increase one means you decrease the other. The only way to improve both is to make a better model that has more data and a greater learning capability to predict correct values and minimize false negatives.

False negatives in military or civilian safety mean lives. They mean your war game is telling you that something WON'T happen, when it actually will. Like... the virus won't be able to break through the quarantine measures we have in the United States.... or the Japanese won't bomb a Naval group in Pearl Harbor.

The optimal war game is one that achieves the maximum possible Precision and Recall.... correctly identifying as many outcomes as possible, while minimizing the outcomes it incorrectly predicts at the fringes of its capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall

 

[Gmoney4WW]

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r350_28.pdf
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp5_0_20171606.pdf
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/exercises/hseep

Doc 1: 30 pages
Doc2: 50+ pages

 

[shon46]

What I'm talking about is the precision vs. recall ability of any given model (war game, program, etc..) to actually fit reality in a manner that we find useful.

In a simplified example, precision, is the ability of a model to predict the correct outcome given an assortment of outcomes. Like, if I was pulling red and blue marbles out of a jar and I wanted to predict which marbles were red. If my model predicted all of the red marbles while telling me that none of the blue marbles were red it would have 100% precision, but it if told me that ALL the marbles in the jar were red, even when they weren't, it would STILL have 100% precision because it told me all the red marbles were red and all the blue marbles were red.

That's where recall comes in. Recall is the ability of a model to predict a correct outcome given the combined value of all the true outcomes it accurately predicted and all of the true outcomes that it negatively predicted. So, in a jar of 20 (10R, 10B) marbles... if your model tells you that 5 red marbles are red, and it it tells you that 5 red marbles are blue, then it only has a 25% recall rate (5 true-trues / 5 true-trues + 5 false-false)

In cases of public safety, where lives are viewed as worth large amounts, recall becomes super important because you want to minimize the number of times that your model incorrectly tells you a false outcome. Like you want it to predict how many nukes that a country has based on geographic images.... you don't want it incorrectly labeling images of silo's as having 0 nukes when they actually have 1 nuke.

Precision and recall in any given model come at a tradeoff. To increase one means you decrease the other. The only way to improve both is to make a better model that has more data and a greater learning capability to predict correct values and minimize false negatives.

You don’t war game every scenario to collect data. The outcome of that would inevitably be war!

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You don’t war game every scenario to collect data. The outcome of that would inevitably be war!

Whut??? D'oh!

 

[shon46]

Whut??? D'oh!

If we were to war games a beach landing of marines off of the coast of Novo Scotia or Vancouver, the Canadians would probably be pretty upset. If we did that to another near peer it could very likely lead to war. You simulate certain things with a computer but you will always have limited data to use in the sim. The less provocative but more likely scenarios are physically war games. Every year the national guard publically announces a domestic exercise. Every year people think the government is invading their area. The exercise only physically war games the less provocative piece and the rest is simulated.