RedSpawn

On one side of the equation you have the problem, "Today, 97 percent of transportation fuel is petroleum based." http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/330167-national-security-experts-agree-bust-up-big-oil-monopoly On the other side of the equation you have the US petrodollar issue, http://faculty.georgetown.edu/imo3/petrod/define.htm Then, you have billionaires who can control Big Business in oil industries who can influence U.S. policy out of Washington D.C. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/03/04/americas-oil-and-gas-billionaires/#28f6b3837df5 You can rest assured that plenty of career politicians cater to constituents whose assets total at least 10 figures in front of the decimal point. We need cheap clean energy NOW to change this dynamic!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40336501 And the Qatar crisis continues and the media still is begging the question... why...which means no one is talking about the energy $ angle.... https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/world/qatar-accuses-neighbours-over-hacking-that-led-to-crisis/ar-BBCXwGN And they have almost solved the Qatar media hack mystery...no new surprises

Oh where, oh where are we on this political map? Should we be afraid of Trump or Big Business and Wall Street that seem to heavily influence (control) Washington D.C. policy at the expense of the body politic? Are all of these parties a great threat to our constitutional republic? https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=261042&d=1389003001

Just food for thought.... http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Left-And-Right-Wings.jpg

Agreed. Very good analysis. Thank you for correcting me. I totally forgot that the Presiding Officer of the trial is the Chief Justice and he will determine the rules of evidence for the impeachment trial. He will rule in matters regarding the materiality, sufficiency, reliability, and redundancy of evidence presented in the case. And as you correctly stated impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, but a political act designed as a safeguard against corruption or misconduct while in office. Therefore there is no trial by jury. Instead, the Senate is transformed into a quasi-judicial body who will hear the case and vote on the articles of impeachment to determine guilt or innocence. The rules of procedure for this trial are fundamentally different than a plain vanilla criminal trial. And the final question on impeachment is what vote is in the best interest of our country, of our nation, and our people. But as you have mentioned, impeachment can get very partisan very quickly as demonstrated with President Clinton's proceeding. The Senators probably factor the impact of their votes on their midterm elections because it's all about politics and containing political fallout.

Well these terror groups need additional funding from somewhere. Oh where, oh where could they get such funding? https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html While it's not intentional, we must be careful.

I hear you, but we are nation of laws not men. We also have intelligence services that conduct seemingly ubiquitous world-class surveillance on a large swath of the population. If Congress or the intelligence community has the irrefutable, damning evidence to impeach President Trump that adheres to the judicial system's rules of evidence, then let the Law & Order episode begin with the articles of impeachment. It appears Congress has thrown several types of spaghetti against the wall to determine which charge might actually stick to President Trump or any of his alleged henchmen. Also, I have seen a lot of pathos appeals from the media to try to sway the public to endure the winding, pothole filled road to impeachment. The media has also made several logical appeals containing logical fallacies, so its hard to get excited about an upcoming political takedown. I've seen a lot of kabuki theater, Senate hearings, political posturing and well-timed media leaks, but not much else. I'm not suggesting Trump is innocent, but I believe the bird's eye view will reveal the narrative is probably more layered, nuanced, and classified than anything we've seen thus far. Finally, I must remember that the millstones of justice turn exceedingly slow, but grind exceedingly fine. Stay tuned.

I know this relates to oil, but still..... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/1/saudi-aramco-takes-full-ownership-of-largest-us-oi/ How did I miss this one and how do you think it fits into the larger picture? Anybody? Also, I guess on some level we are offering Saudi Arabia world class investment expertise with their anticipated $2.1 trillion dollar IPO. Wall Street must be salivating over this opportunity. Thinking about it harder now, Saudi Arabia is having fiscal problems with oil sitting around $44.97 barrel. They have built their budget assumptions on oil prices remaining in the $80-$100 zone to adequately finance government operations and maintain their royal wealth. Since the oil commodity market is glutted right now with low oil prices, Saudi Arabia has to examine other wealth creating opportunities such as buying oil interests in U.S. markets to quickly raise capital and hopefully monetize that equity in a newly formed multinational corporation. Short-term and long term capital gains and petrodollar opportunities abound.

Agreed. I'm glad you noticed how we are gravitating away from that Constitutional foundation.

Agreed. So it appears over time the Electoral College has abdicated its original Constitutional responsibilities. It was not designed to be a rubber-stamp of the popular vote. Our government is taking the path of least resistance by choosing political expediency over the rule of law. And when the rule of men trumps the rule of law, violence becomes the means by which disagreements are settled. Enter the Scalise shooting as a harbinger of vigilantism. We really need to put this last election season under an academic microscope and conduct a postmortem because I fear we have reached a dangerous turning point in our nation's history.

The picture is an optical illusion. I don't see how that would change the quality of answers from the respondents should I ask them, "What do you see in this picture"? I am confident that most people will see exactly what they want to see--neither more nor less. My question is not a trick question but is an experiment designed to show that perception of reality is in the eye of the beholder. The image highlights our PERCEPTION BIAS. If the question is asked open-ended, I am not convinced that a majority of the test subjects would answer with two images. It's more likely they will answer with the one image their mind first perceives. We see exactly what our brain prompts us to see--neither more nor less. And as you correctly asserted, if I reveal the perception bias and the fact the image contains at least two vantage points, the brain goes into fetch mode and scurries to see both an old woman and young lady. However, all of us aren't afforded an advisor to help guide our decision-making in real life. You are correct. A "sensible" person would see the possibility of more than one answer when an advisor points out the additional choice. However, our populace may not be as sensible as you suggest and the majority can't afford advisors to guide them to better decision-making. Our President has that luxury. Our forefathers understood this and developed an electoral college system for electing the President and Vice President. We have "sensible" wise men called electors who nominate and help elect the President and Vice President. Sometimes our real world political situations are much larger and wider than our peripheral vision and are much more complex and deceptive than an optical illusion. Sometimes we need a 10,000 feet bird's eye view for a more complete assessment of how the individual pieces fit together. And sometimes that bird's eye view gives us additional data points that contradict our original fact pattern or assertions. Then we have to reevaluate our beliefs and perceptions about what is obvious and what is truth.

The pressure is always on the respondent to know the upper and lower ranges of the opening bid from his partner. I agree it is a matter of style. Early on I stated this distributional hand could be opened 1♠ under rule of 20. I didn't mention it but it has 7 losers and thus has minimum opening bid strength even though low on HCP, but I and someone else mentioned a 2♥ response bid dilemma. But I agree today's bridge requires you bid 1st and unpack those rebid concerns later. I just want to make sure we give the respondent his proper due for the additional pressure and expectations thrust upon him for the wider range of opening bids.

The problem is facts are facts, but evidence is a tricky element. Evidence is subject to confirmation bias and could become subjective. Facts can be objective but the interpretation of evidence is subjective. Therein lies the problem with rational debate. We could be looking at the same set of facts--old lady and young woman picture--and arrive at markedly different conclusions about who is in the image. The fourth estate (media) could release facts (or innuendo) about the picture, but that doesn't change the picture. It may, however,color our opinions more about each other's credibility. The picture is factual; our interpretation of said picture, however is subjective. Also the admissibility of evidence in the court of public opinion is far lower than the admissibility of evidence in a federal court. In the court of public opinion, almost all is "fair" in the rules of engagement. You can use facts, lies, innuendo, conjecture, supposition, emotional appeals, appeals to the credibility of the persuader, character assassination, smear campaigns, logical appeals, logical appeals with fallacies--the list is endless. However, there are 10 general commandments one should follow in rational debates. The rules of admissibility of evidence in our judicial system are very narrow. It doesn't allow hearsay and innuendo and guilt by association claims and a lot of logical fallacies to be admitted as "proof" when they aren't. Proof is a higher evidence standard. Therefore, most salacious, titillating, and dubious "facts" fit for public consumption from media outlets wouldn't be admissible as evidence in a court of law. What Are Some Factors for Determining If Evidence Is Admissible [in a court of law]? The general rule is that all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible and all relevant evidence is admissible. See http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-admissible-evidence.html As you can see, a convincing case made in the court of public opinion may result in an acquittal in the court system because a lot of "facts" or "evidence" are either irrelevant or unreliable. Facts from media outlets may not reveal a larger, obvious truth when we scrutinize them (and their sources) for accuracy, relevance and reliability.

It was funny, especially the TURD part. I hate to wax philosophical but facts are pieces of information used as evidence. Facts are facts but evidence must be interpreted and is subject to confirmation bias. That's why two people can get the same facts/data and arrive at markedly different conclusions. We are complicated people with simple biases. http://b2bdigital.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Young_Lady_Old_Woman_Content.jpg

Sigh....how is that trending on Facebook? It has more labels and warnings than a prescription drug commercial! As a nation, we need more town hall meetings and honest discussions and less reality TV showdowns and social media putdowns. We are appealing to the lowest common denominator by stereotyping the left as beyond reason. We in the industry call this the ad hominem logical fallacy. http://cdn.churchm.ag/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Logical-Fallacies-ad-hominem.jpg

Why so? Can you provide some real life examples? Who is the Oracle and who is the Architect? Who is Neo? Are you oversimplifying the importance of programs in our daily lives? Please provide a real life example of a glitch in the Matrix.

Ken, I missed this earlier, but there is definitely something to what you are saying. You are right. Unfortunately, we cater to our most base instinct when tragedy occurs. The Scalise shooting was a reminder of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric and called for national unity. As a nation, we must remember united we stand, divided we fall. Despite the tragedy, however, folks on both sides of the aisle fixated on the suspect's party affiliation to explain his heinous behavior. This is a tribal mentality and resorts to divisive tactics. As long as the tribal mentality within us remains unexamined, we unwittingly subject others to our tribal laws. We must transcend these laws for our democracy to function optimally. The shooting is heinous regardless of political ideology. When united, we know this act is a function of displaced aggression and self-hate; it's not a function of (D) or ® or (I). We must look past these convenient labels and our tribal associations to get to the root cause of human behavior. Labels give us permission to look beyond one's humanity and as you said, place people in a box, and move on. Labels gives us license to ignore peoples' narratives and demonize them and their accomplices. Labels give us ammunition to reach conclusions about matters without collecting or analyzing evidence or making logical appeals such as deductive or inductive reasoning. They are mental short-cuts we take to avoid the hard work of understanding the human mind. You said you favor helping the individual drug user and stiffly penalizing the drug dealer. That's a reasonable and noble societal goal, but why assume that is our legal and political institution's objective? ;)

As you have already said, travel and living in other parts of the world, helps remove preconceived notions, prejudices and paradigms that we accept as universal truths. Travel is a form of deprogramming that helps us better appreciate the human struggle and the human condition. It helps us understand how nature, culture, fellowship, and family are the true elements of life. And as this article has highlighted, the human connection is always superior to the trappings of the virtual connection. Henry David Thoreau said, "We do not ride upon the railroad, it rides upon us." The same applies to technology and the internet and the smart phone. Thoreau also said, We are beholden to the soulless demands and ruthless efficiency of technology. We stare at screens that illuminate all day but rarely illuminate our minds. We respond to the electronic stimuli, but rarely find an intellectually stimulating experience. We constantly stare at these screens looking for escape, entertainment, and convenient distractions, but can't engage our fellow man to explore his narrative. We search for truth about our physical reality by connecting to a virtual one. That's our first mistake. We look for sound advice by consulting a mindless device. That's our second mistake. We send data into outer space hoping to learn more about our inner space. That's our third mistake. We travel the information superhighway littered with faceless corporations that bombard us with unsolicited ads appealing to our most base desires. They knowingly proposition us for mindless consumption under the false disguise of commerce. We buy; they sell. They profit; we lose. They relieve their excess inventory; and we have yet to conduct a personal inventory. Where is the knowledge of self we seek? We've been hoodwinked and sold a false bill of goods in pursuit of a higher self. We pivot towards an unrelenting global, knowledge economy at the peril of our personal economy. We marvel at our technological innovation and christen this the Information Age, not realizing we have opened the portal to the Misinformation Age. We do not ride upon the information superhighway; it rides upon us. See https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3 as provided in another BBO Forum topic. "The average person checks their phone 150 times a day."

What's more disturbing is the illusion of choice in our body politic. There are 330,000,000 people in the United States. With that much opportunity and diversity and richness of experience, we can distill our Presidential choices to a bankrupt-prone Reality TV Real Estate mogul (whose tax forms we have yet to see) and another 4 years of Billary in the White House (which could be described as another 4 years of Bill Clinton in office). That is an illusion of choice. There is too much choreography between political dynasties, corporate owned media, special interests, and government institutions (including intelligence agencies) that poisons the nomination process and creates seemingly insurmountable barriers to entry. The outcomes are too forced and repetitive. We need campaign finance reform because the Office of the President of the United House is not for sale nor should it be exclusively reserved for rich or politically connected candidates or for Ivy League alumni. We need a pensive, flexible, fluid, and fearless leader not an establishment puppet. If we can create competitive world-class marketplaces in our economic sector, then we should apply that same spirit to our elections of the highest office of our public sector. When it comes to voting for our President, we the people deserve the freedom of choice, not the illusion of choice.

Never underestimate the power of the US dollar and the petrodollar. The common denominator of most U.S. policy decisions.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76754-analyse-this/page__pid__925174#entry925174 Mr. Ace and others are starting a new string to more than adequately address this concern. It is all about the US monetary hegemony. It's a good read and directly refutes a lot of "fake news" or heavily biased news from the mainstream media outlets. Be prepared, Mr. Ace is offering the red pill so you can see how deep the rabbit hole goes. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-avoot2jSrKY/UT1Hq2V5MbI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/3J1jV7xdHFA/s1600/MatrixBluePillRedPill.jpg

You do realize I didn't say the Scalise shooting was fake. Another user suggested that notion. I did say, however, that we should be alarmed by the DHS' alleged hack of the Georgia and Indiana voting systems. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a clear violation of federal law at the time of the trespasses. We should be alarmed if Russia or DHS engages in such unauthorized activity.

I have to throw in this "essay" about extreme and extremist politic rhetoric. Good stuff! See https://president.upenn.edu/meet-president/extremist-rhetoric/ for more.

Duplicate-please delete.

Agreed. It's a disservice to lump declarer play and defensive play into the same bucket. The brain power and choreography required for declarer play and defense are different. Declarer play is essentially a one-mind/man band; your partner can get drinks while you perform your solo. Defensive play, however, requires signal communication with your partner and putting two brains together to upset the contract. You must dance with your partner across the finish line for optimal results. If you have top-notch defense and top-notch bidding and intermediate declarer play, you will always be a dangerous force. Assuming you have a solid partner and you are a top-notch bidder, you will land in the correct contract very frequently. You will feel more confident in doubling your opponent's dubious bids. You will defeat a lot of contracts that others won't with solid defensive skills. And When your teams wins the auction, you probably will declare your contracts about 1/2 of the time. The caveat is you're declaring in the CORRECT contract because of top-notch, clinical bidding.