Saturday, September 07, 2013

The Claptrap of Chiropractic Care (and other pseudoscientific cures)

By Frank J. Ranelli

There is no alternative to medicine. Medicine works, everything else is quackery. Why medicine and "alternative medicine" is a false dichotomy — and a potentially dangerous or even lethal one.

D.D. Palmer
A reader and interlocutor asks, “After my car accident I chose acupuncture, massage and a chiropractor versus painkillers and muscle relaxers. Some would consider those 'alternative medicines'; some not. What’s your opinion?

Actually, two of the three medical treatments mentioned are forms of "alternative medicine." Unfortunately, modern science has conclusively demonstrated acupuncture provides “no measurable medicinal benefits” beyond "patient confirmation bias," or having a “placebo effect[1],” nothing more. In other words, acupuncture has no empirical, efficacious benefits in treating ailments, physiological discomfort, or somatic pain (acute or chronic) whatsoever.

Massage Therapy, however, particularly deep tissue massage, does render an actual attenuation of symptoms, such as soreness, aides in tissue reparation, and palliative pain relief. (The mechanistic nature of relief acceded by massage therapy is multifarious, comparatively complex, and beyond the scope of this exposition; but, it is indeed a proven and effective form of adjunct medical treatment accepted by the A.M.A. and its respective boards.)

Simply put, chiropractic care is a pseudoscience[2], steeped in metaphysical fatuity and esoteric claims, unfalsifiable, specious holistic assertions, and plain untestable nonsense — and, in many instances, may cause additional harm through arterial lining tears in the neck during cervical vertebrae “subluxation adjustments.” Unfortunately, patient deaths due to stroke, caused by blood clot formations from the arterial tears while undergoing "vertebral subluxation" is documented fact, which the chiropractic community vehemently denies. Chiropractory is akin to homeopathy or faith healing, for example, which have been thoroughly debunked and discredited as effective medical treatments.

The American Medical Association deems the practice of chiropractory an "unscientific cult." Numerous books and countless articles written by epidemiologists, pathophysiologists, immunologists, etc., muckraking journalists and expert skeptics warn of the unscientific and disproved pathophysiological claims of chiropractory. In fact, in 2010, The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) of the United Kingdom released this statement[3]: “The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is an historical concept but it remains a theoretical model. It is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns.

The founder and original expositor of chiropractic care, D.D. Palmer, was a charlatan, a huckster, and a con man who believed in the healing properties of magnets. He also rejected pharmacology and rebuffed the Germ Theory — the unassailable scientific basis for how pathogenic microbes cause diseases. Sadly, even today, many practitioners of chiropractic care refute the pathophysiological
role microorganisms play in illnesses and diseases. Worst still, when Palmer created the Palmer School of Chiropractic in 1897, he considered it a business endeavor and a religion, not a pedagogical institution of medicine.

Indeed, he averred sans any evidence or peer-reviewed analyses, "That all disease was caused by interruptions in the flow of ‘innate intelligence,’ a ‘vital nervous energy or life force’ that represented God's presence in man." No one, to this day, knows exactly what Palmer meant when he made this overt and inscrutable proclamation.

Moreover, as a late 19th century Spiritist, the megalomaniacal Palmer fashioned himself as a messianic medical redeemer, comparing himself in courtroom proceedings to Jesus, Mohammed, and ironically, Joseph Smith, another infamous and contemporary flimflam artist and founder of the Mormon Religion. He further and incredulously proclaimed the techniques of chiropractic care came to him through ethereal “inspiration,” delivered paranormally by a deceased physician putatively named, Jim Atkinson. That’s a lot of woo to swallow from a man who abjured from imbibing proven remedial medications!

In short, chiropractory, its late founder, the dishonorable grifter, Daniel David Palmer, and their modern cognatic practitioners are cranks and quacks who "sell" unscientific medical treatments, superstition, claptrap, unempirical twaddle, and unproven (or disproved) medicinal methodologies to an unaware and credulous public. Lastly, as always, it comes down to money, politics, and avariciousness; chiropractic care is a billion-dollar industry with a considerable, worldwide lobbyist presence, which ensures it remains a viable and prosperous business enterprise within the United States (and internationally) to bilk billions of dollars out of an uneducated, unsuspecting, gullible, and naive populous.

 In the final analysis, chiropractory is pseudoscientific, svengalian 
skulduggery, which long ago modern, empirical science and western evidentiary medicine discredited. However, it remains an available “treatment” as an "alternative medicine" not due to its proven, evidentiary-based findings, but through blandished politics, a lack of public education, and simple greed.

Consequently, the established and accredited recommendation is to stick with proven therapeutic or curative methods, such as massage therapy, physical and occupational therapies, and of course modern, empirical medicine.  In the best interests of your health and wallet, eschew the fatuous and facile nostrums of chiropractic care and its bogus hokum. After all, doing so just might save your neck and your life.

Further Reading:
1.      “7 Things You Need to Know About Chiropractic Therapy” — Daniel Florien;
2.     “Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine” — Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh (Oct., 2009);
3.     “Chiropractic” — Wikipedia;
4.     “Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes” — Stephen Barrett, M.D.;
5.     “Chiropractic” — The Skeptics Dictionary, (online format);


[1] “The powerful placebo effect: fact or fiction?” — (Kienle GS, Kiene H.)

[2] “Chiropractic is the most significant nonscientific health-care delivery system in the United States.” —William T. Jarvis, Ph.D

[3] “Claims of Subluxation Causing Disease Prohibited in Great Britain” — (May, 2010);


Saturday, January 21, 2012

Quote of the Day!

“It is the skillful quill of the pointed pen, and not the might of the blunted sword, that can quell even the most ardent of insurrections of inequities.” —Frank J. Ranelli


Monday, July 18, 2011

NO JUSTICE FOR JON: Florida Judge Kills the Rule of Law on Broken Back of Dead Motorcyclist

Today, America officially died as the last bastion of justice for the wrongfully deceased and their families. Any hint of optimism we may have had left, which was not much, must now be eradicated from our conscience. Abjection is the new standard of jurisprudence in America.

First, we had O.J. Simpson’s baffling acquittal led by his rhyming lineup of “dream team” lawyers. Then, Casey Anthony's “trial of the century” circus act grants her a staggering verdict of innocence juggled and dropped on our fragile psyche by the incompetent State of Florida. Now, add another name and face to the list of late victims stripped of their due justice: Jon Michael Green.

On May 3, 2010, Jon Michael Green, age 23, lost his life[1] tragically to a distracted, careless, and negligent driver in Southeast Florida. Jon was traveling eastbound on his 2007 Kawasaki motorcycle in Pembroke Pines, Florida, when a driver named Fran Folic failed to account for Jon in the opposite lane, failed to yield the right of way, and turned left directly into his path, ejecting him from the motorbike instantly. Jon first struck the pavement more than fifty feet away from the initial point of impact, tumbled uncontrollably several more times before finally coming to rest against a sewer drain catch basin.

He was unconscious, unresponsive, bleeding profusely, and suffering from a litany of internal and external ghastly injuries. And yes, Jon was wearing a helmet. Jon died less than 48-hours later in a level-one trauma unit from massive and catastrophic injuries.

Unfortunately, Jon didn’t just die from his body-shattering injuries, his family had to withdraw life support and watch him helplessly suffocate to death in torment. Why? A team of neurosurgeons and trauma specialists unanimously agreed Jon’s injuries were so substantial, so complete and irreversible, that he was a “locked-in” quadriplegic[2] with a fractured and crushed spine, unable to breathe on his own, unable to move at all, not even flutter his eyelids—his condition was beyond grave; it was hopeless.

Jon’s mind, however, was alert, horrifyingly intact in fact, and keenly aware of his own imminent death. Jon’s only means by which to communicate his mental lucidity: a nurse holding open his eyelids manually while doctors assessed his mental status through a series of simple, “look left for ‘no’ or right for ‘yes’ questions and answers. Jon’s binary acknowledgments through his left or right eye movements showed they where consistently and appropriately proper. He was trapped silently and impotently inside his own completely broken, hemorrhaging, and dying body. The only compassionate decision afforded to his family was to free Jon’s tortured mind from a flaccid body through death.

Then, on July 15, 2011, more than a year later, after numerous delays, baseless continuances, and farcical defense shenanigans, in a small, quiet courthouse minus any media attention in Hollywood, Florida, the accused, Fran Folic, was implausibly exonerated of Jon’s death. After nearly five hours of tense courtroom testimony, Judge Arlene Joy Simon acquitted Fran Folic of failing to yield the right of way and, as a result, blameless for Jon’s fatal injuries. The grounds for such an incongruent decision? No Intent.

A driver of an automobile may now presumably drive carelessly and negligently—according to the dishonorable, perhaps venal, and certainly malfeasant Judge Arlene Joy Simon—so long as their resulting actions (in this case, a tragic and fatal motorcycle crash), do not show deliberate “intent.” Judge Simon shockingly opined, since punishing the driver of the SUV, Fran Folic, would not bring back the dead, she pronounced, against logic and overwhelming and indisputable evidence, the accused was “not guilty.” In the eyes of the State of Florida, and in the homunculus mind of Judge Simon, Fran Folic was not guilty because she and her own two living children had suffered too much angst while waiting for trial. Pity the living. Punish the dead.

Yes, you read that correctly, a driver can turn left while failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic, cause a fatality, and still be acquitted because "the defendant did not intend harm” and “it will not bring your son back." The ignoble Judge Simon uttered this obtuse and obscene verdict from the bench to the decedent’s mother, Susan R. Green, with virtually no deliberation and only moments after closing arguments. Justice, and this justice of the court, is not only blind, deaf to reason, but also callous and cruel.

Judge Arlene Joy Simon ruled unconscionably, since the defendant did not willfully intend to strike the motorcyclist when turning left and failing to yield to oncoming traffic, she therefore could not find her blameworthy. Still worse, Judge Simon disregarded the corroborating testimony of a near dozen eyewitnesses and the investigating police detective, evidence, pictures, reports, measurements, calculations, and charts of the crash scene inexorably showing Ms. Folic at fault. Moreover, the judge misconstrued, painfully mangled, and even ignored outright Florida’s traffic statutes and existing laws.

Parenthetically, while testimony and evidence from a related civil trial are inadmissible in a criminal proceeding in Florida, the defendant, through her liability insurance carrier Allstate, determined Ms. Folic to be the “at-fault driver” and settled the wrongful death claim out of court for an undisclosed amount. Further, Ms. Folic was cited by the Pembroke Pines Police Department, after a four-month homicide investigation, with two moving traffic violations, “failure to yield the right of way through a highway crossing section,” and, “failure to yield the right of way when turning left.” The deceased, Jon Green, was not posthumously cited nor did the police traffic investigation or the homicide investigation uncover any wrongdoing on Mr. Green’s behalf.

In other words, it was a mockery, a sham; a kangaroo court proceeding in a banana republic presided over by a prejudiced judge. It was a sick joke; a grave transgression perpetrated on the Green family and a courtroom debacle that disgraces the memory of a young, blameless motorcyclist who lost his life at the hands of negligent SUV driver. Or, as one bewildered but astute courtroom observer asked in disbelief, “How is it that you're ‘allowed’ legally to fail to yield to traffic? It makes no sense at all!”

As a result of this contemptible edict by a legally illiterate judge in Broward County, Florida, a person need not heed traffic laws any longer, as there are no consequences to one’s neglectful actions, even when they fail their duty of care to another motorist when operating an automobile. Consequently, going forward, according to the vacant Judge, Arlene Joy Simon of Florida’s 17th Judicial Circuit court, the punishment of lawfully wrong actions is vitiated when there is no intent. Egregious and negligent accidents and crashes, however, are permissible.

So, people of Florida and America too, listen up, drive as inattentively as you like with total disregard for public safety, just be confident you didn’t “intend” to speed, or “intend” to run over pedestrians, or “intend” to crash into motorcyclists, etc. Spin the steering wheel in any direction you prefer, spin your wheels as hastily as you desire, mash the accelerator at will—hell, blindfold yourself as you enter the vehicle, but know, no matter the outcome—even death, it’s the intent, or lack thereof, that really matters. Neglect, it seems, even when it results in paralysis and death, is now officially sanctioned by Florida and their deplorable Judge, Arlene Joy Simon.

I once said modestly, “I navigate the avenues of life best when I traffic in words.” However, this time, I have no words expressive enough to traverse this travesty of injustice.

Author’s Note: A blog in honor of the memory of Jon Michael Green, entitled, NO JUSTICE FOR JON, has been set up by the Green Family so people may voice their outrage publicly over Judge Arlene Joy Simon’s egregiously wrongheaded not guilty verdict and, “to broadcasting the injustice of the malfeasant ruling by the dishonorable Judge Arlene Joy Simon of Florida’s 17th Judicial Circuit court.” Membership is not required to leave a comment (simply chose “anonymous” in the comment box section), but please also consider joining this worthy, cost-free cause to help put an end to non sequitur decisions by activist judges who chose to legislate from the bench, rather than uphold and follow the letter of the law.

References and notes:


[2] “Tetraplegia,” or quadriplegia, is a devastating state of illness or injury that leaves the victim with no motor or sensory function and a complete loss or near total impairment in controlling bowel and bladder, independent limb movement, sexual function, digestion, breathing, including cranial muscle paralysis, and other autonomic functions. A “locked in” quadriplegic usually retains some or most of their mental faculties, typically aware of their grave state, but unable to move or communicate with the outside world in any fashion.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

On the Immorality of Christianity

The languid success of logic and facts to dislodge believers from their mistaken beliefs, calls for a new course in the claim for morality’s mantle; religion fails humanity on ethics.

There appears to be no amount of reason or facts that will extricate believers from their cognitive biases, or the nucleus of their intractable, mistaken, and teleological beliefs. Non-theists, in my humble, yet scholarly opinion, need to set aside the Pathos and Logos based arguments. Instead, nonbelievers must begin to advocate on the ethical grounds, that, revealed religion is an antagonist to humanity's progress and ultimately, its survival. It usurps our innate nature of goodness, and transgresses on our naturally earned ethics.

Further, consider, the believer must first successfully defend the idea of providence, which they cannot, and then, the veracity of such a notion, which has been an abysmal failure for the faithful. The devotees of Christ, fortified only with ancient apocryphal and worrisome scripture—putting it mildly, cannot attempt to mount a defense that religion offers us a moral mapping of the mind. In fact, instead, I would argue on the offensive—on the immorality of Christianity.

Chiefly, a person of Christian religious belief needs quite a bit of instilling indoctrination, in fact utter brainwashing, to convince one's self that they, for merely being born, are worthy of “Hell” because an alleged ancient ancestor ate of a forbidden fruit—the idea of “original sin.” Christianity edifies, and thereby institutionalizes, the fallacious concept of salvation through willful subjugation and degradation of our native decency. (This is why, mistakenly, “Christ followers” feel they need a "Savior.”)

Yet, it takes brutish masochism and sheer madness to accept the outrageously wicked and ghoulish notion of vicarious redemption through prostrating exaltation, and then evangelizing for two millennia the murder of an Antiquity's age, itinerant and eccentric preacher. That a bloody, torturous human sacrifice—the ostensible crucifixion at
Calvary, found at the center of Christianity—can cleanse away your responsibilities and actions in life. (Actually, there is scant evidence, of any type, for a historical Jesus and zero evidence for a divine Jesus. The dubious and anonymous, not eponymous, four Gospels found in the New Testament, are rife with contradictions and written, at their earliest, decades after a historical Jesus would have lived, if he did at all.)

Moreover, the notion of a human oblation, as a means of vicarious redemption—scapegoating, to a perceived, totalitarian deity is antithetical to human morality; it is the essence of immorality as it is incompatible with human sovereignty, self-respect, and even life itself. Therefore, Christianity is not only silent on true morality—reciprocity, altruism, liberty and life, it is a purveyor of a litany of insidious ideas, spanning infanticide to homophobia, the endorsement of slavery—treating neighboring conquered states as farm equipment—to perpetuating misogyny and the bridge to righteous murder.

Religion and the Christian belief in particular, is tyranny of the mind, when properly understood, can only be construed, at best, as immoral. Wretchedly, it fetters the believer to fear of punishment even after death. Still worse, Christianity compels its ardent activists to love and worship an ethereal, celestial tyrant in life, learning only of his insidious plan through esoteric, immutable texts. Indeed, a cursory stroll through any number of passages in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, naming only a few books of biblical spite, reveals an unmatched wickedness commanded by Abraham's god.

Conversely, morality is innate. Evolution is conclusive on this fact. It is a far better "selector" to the survival of the species—humans, than divinely inspired murder, mayhem, genocide and human enslavement. Christianity, on the other hand, commands compulsory fear, obligatory love, the subjugation of women, and the willful suspension of progressive reasoning via a theology of abject despair.

Consequently, rational ethics, not revealed religion, satisfyingly obliterates the maladaptive and unethical irrationality believers use to justify their god and even their sect of faith. It is through a systematic breakdown of the illogical fallacies religionists use to prop up their dysfunctional immorality—addictive dependence on a non-existent deity—where we find a conduit conducive to modern, civilized morality, secular and scientific ethics.

And so, humankind, despite a vile, prolonged era of religious perversion of our intrinsic virtue, remains moral. We have earned it through millions of years of evolution. While religion stands regrettably as a dark, sinister reminder of the true depravity dogma breeds and passes on to its true believers.

— About the Author —

Frank J. Ranelli is an independent scholar of comparative and contemplative religions, skeptic and critic, author and contrarian essayist. Frank has studied extensively Abrahamic-based religions since 2001, with an emphasis on Metaphysics and Philosophy. His erudite and iconoclastic style of provocative writing has been extensively published, and debated widely, in a variety of news outlets and across the Internet since 2006

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Why Palin is a Danger to Us All

A Ranelli Rumination

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

If we are to succeed as a nation, we all must be in utter agreement about who Sarah Palin is as a person; she is stunningly uninformed and breathtakingly overconfident. Orwellian with an outward, Machiavellian patina is an aptly just description of Palin.

However, her unconcealed, overt certitude is potentially the biggest problem of all. She has mastered the art of flowery platitudes and sneering contempt. All of which, to the low-information, Neanderthal voters we are all unfortunately witnessing first hand from the right wing political spectrum, combined with her tacky, sophomoric charm, actually makes her very attractive, in a very spine-chilling kind of way. She uses blatantly appealing demagoguery to create eerie exultations among a fringe fraction and faction of Americans – the visceral, not cerebral coterie that follows her with frightening credulity.

It is this set of events and actions that concerns me the most. She is a glib, authoritarian person who has a Manichean mindset – a dualist – one who only sees the world as good or evil; no nuance, nothing abstract or ever vague. Moreover, after judiciously studying authoritarian personalities for over two years, I can tell you they are loose with facts but stridently persuasive. They are charming, disarming, almost irresistible, yet completely morally bankrupt and amoral. They are hostile toward intellectuals, takes pleasure in deriding academia and immense pride in their willful ignorance.

The problem here is they are masters at using base intellect, not intelligence, to plead to people's pathos. (Many grisly dictators of the past were all "gifted" experts at this tactic.) In essence, they are scheming, devious and capable of anything in order to subvert the will of other people in order to achieve their objectives. And their objectives are not inline or in step with a progressive, balanced America – they are wholly recalcitrant reactionaries.

Here, with Palin, we see the pathology and pattern of someone infatuated and fixated on one's identity to the exclusion of others – an inborn need for social dominance (often overlooked as merely being "spirited"), personal ambition bereft of circumspection, outrageously aggrandized bragging, arrogant immodesty, and total insensitivity.

It is these sophistry skills and nefarious guile that disturbs me greatly. All of these traits are markers identified in one of only two groups of maladaptive, narcissistic personalities – authoritarians and sociopaths.

Do I make these indictments lightly, no, but it has become increasingly clear that Sarah Palin's confrontational convictions are more than a benign personality tick; it is a deeper insight into how she would govern a nation in every respect: Unflinchingly autocratic.

Stop her, we must!

Labels: , , ,

Friday, October 03, 2008

Palin Delivers during VP Debate (And We All Saw It.)


Part II of my contrarians view as to why and how Sarah Palin was able to delivery for the McCain camp and reinvigorated the base once again.

:: ::

In a recent article, “Why Palin Will Win the VP Debate”, I made the case that she would win, not on acumen, but on style. I argued that “glib stagecraft” and clever ploys of derision would win out the night. I was harangued for suggesting that the appearance of ineptitude, during recent interviews with the conventional press, was deceiving and hid a crafty doggedness for debating people she opposed. I surmised her entire persona is one of calculated disarmament that veiled a skillful debater. It appears, at least in part, I may have been right.

I wish I could take comfort in the fact that I may have been prescient in my prediction about how she would debate, but I am only more and deeply concerned. Truly, I wish I had been wrong, but I have studied authoritarian people, like Sarah Palin, for more than two years now and it takes very little effort to identify one after even a cursory glance, let alone a comprehensive analysis, once you know what to look for and how to diagnose the glaring signs.

To be clear, Joe Biden did everything right, virtually mistake free, in order to stay about the ground fire salvos Palin was carefully dispatching to pillory him. Biden offered strong, cogent answers and showed a sparkling command of superiority on the issues. It was not a foreboding performance by Palin that mortally wound Obama, but it did stop the McCain hemorrhaging. Nevertheless, Biden still took on a lot of shrapnel from the beguiling ideologue, and darling of the right, Governor Sarah Palin.

In fact, Palin did exactly what she has been trained to do – deliver an uncritical, contemptuous attack of belligerent mockery. Authoritarian people do not think; they act. And they act on instinct and emotion alone. They are always loose with facts but stridently persuasive. They are charming, disarming, almost irresistible, yet completely ethically bankrupt and amoral. She did not understand a single obfuscating, sometimes-mangled answer she gave during the debate, but it did not matter. The base of the party, Joe Six-Pack, loved it.

The problem here is they (authoritarians) are masters at using base intellect, not intelligence, to appeal to people’s pathos. (Many barbaric dictators through out history have used this same tactic with stunning and ghastly success.) In essence, they are scheming, devious and capable of anything in order to subvert the will of other people in order to achieve their own objectives.

Scientific studies have conclusively proven that hardliner conservatives suffer a “cognitive dissonance”; they grapple with nuance, struggle with vagaries, and reject abstract thinking. They are visceral, not cerebral. They are ill-suited for and not capable of collegial deliberation. Further, most are highly intolerant people when someone does not share their narrow paradigm window view of the world.

Last night’s put-on was a recital for Palin – it was not a debate. It was absent any lucidity, clearly forced, though a highly successful presentation of chides, condescension and hollow talking points. Palin was even rude and impertinent toward the moderator and Joe Biden, but this is standard operating procedure for an authoritarian person. Assuredly, it was much to the sheer jubilation of the conservative, irascible base.

Have you ever watched Bill O’Reilly shout down a guest, ridicule him or her, or use a sneering outrage of indignation to intimidate the person being ostensibly interviewed? Last night you saw a subdued version of Bill O’Reilly in a skirt with lipstick. The visage changes, but the persona and intrinsic need to dominate by fear is omnipresent. Someone must always be blamed (liberals, gays, intellectuals, minorities, etc.) and they (authoritarians) are never at fault – compromise, tolerance, and humility are not an option.

The purpose is to play always to basal fears, ignorance, and prejudices; it is never to sensibly discuss or achieve anything other than to eliminate a perceived threat (liberals, gays, intellectuals, minorities, etc.) – it is Orwellian in every way and driven by pure appeals to the audience's emotions.

Palin’s folksy, down home hokum and charm is a veneer than acts as subterfuge to hide a venal, vindictive, and brutal outlook towards anyone who disagrees with her recalcitrant and reactionary –certainly radical and fringe – ideology. She lives in a binary world – one of good and evil only. You can easily speculate on your own as to which side anyone that is antithetical to her belief system (liberals, gays, intellectuals, minorities, etc.) falls in this clash of Manichean thinking.

One critical point and it’s worth noting. Sarah Palin is a “compartmental thinker.” She cannot see her duplicitous judgments and incompatible positions, her intense hypocrisy and nonsensical answers, nor can she be facilitated to understand her flawed, uncritical, fealty allegiance. Loyalty to people in positions of power she admires is unchallenged, even when they are as egregious and heinous as those committed by someone the likes of George Bush.

Hence, Sarah Palin makes resolute statements (such as expanding the powers of the vice president beyond its constitutional bounds) that have no relationship to reality, laws, or facts. These types of detached proclamations are to reinforce her distorted belief of the world through a prism of unquestioned and dangerous beliefs. She is an actor acting on behalf of what she deems is a higher echelon from a higher authority. This is not an accident; it is a dare to defy her and a maneuver that covers up a deep, beseeching cry for legitimacy from a person desperately foundering in a sea of irrelevance and mediocrity. The more you press her, the more deluded she will become and act out, sometimes viciously, if necessary.

As Dr. Robert Altermyer suggested (the world’s leading expert on authoritarians), when asked how to deal with an authoritarian person, his reply was stark, “You don’t, and you can’t.” You can only mitigate their influence in society by ensuring they do not obtain positions of power or influence. No amount of rational though can persuade them, as they are quite literally, wholly irrational and mentally unbalanced.

Thomas Paine once said, "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." After tonight, it is clear that every patriot's duty is to prevent Sarah Palin from becoming the next Vice President of the United States.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Why Palin Will Win the VP Debate

Palin’s recent gaffes are actually calculated moves to disarm Biden.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Sarah Palin’s recent abysmal interviews are a canard. She is not the vapid, seemingly naïve and inexperienced candidate we have been led to believe. The bar of expectation has been deliberately lowered so low that once in front of the debate lectern, she will stun Biden with her slick, pat answers, leaving him flustered and trampled by the hockey mom turned-governor from Alaska.

Sound far-fetched or ridiculous? It’s not. Allow me to explain why.Sarah Palin is sandbagging. She is intentionally appearing inept, and at times, outright vacuous and bungling. But she is downplaying and misrepresenting her political skill, guile and debating ability in order to deceive the Obama camp. This was an outright calculated, premeditated ploy in order to lull Sen. Joe Biden into a false sense of security. All of Palin’s botched interviews were done with wily aforethought – they were red herrings and glib stagecraft to hustle Biden.

Forget the static currently being transmitted by conservative lackeys feigning consternation over the Palin pick. I have recently watched several video clips from her debates, when she ran for Governor of Alaska in 2006, and she is far more adroit, astute, and shrewd during these debates than recent interviews suggest. In fact, she is a cunning, clever, and crafty woman who knows how to disarm people with her charm and then coldly go in for the kill shot.

Vice-presidential debates rarely change the true trajectory or final outcome of presidential elections. If that were the case, Lloyd Bentsen’s legendary 1988 slap down admonishment of Dan Quayle’s ill-advised confessed comparison to John Kennedy would have catapulted Michael Dukakis directly into the Oval Office.

However, everyone loves an underdog and this one just happens to be a scheming Pit Bull wearing lipstick from Wasilla. A Palin blistering perform this Thursday night may not be a game-changer in the end for the McCain-Palin camp, but it will stem, at least temporarily, the rising tide and polls currently tacking quite nicely for Obama and Biden. She may or may not know any other Supreme Court cases beyond Roe v. Wade, or a definitive understanding of the Bush Doctrine, but in the end, it may simply not matter.

My Prediction:

The real Sarah Palin shows up and upstages the elder statesmen Joe Biden, facts, figures, and policy positions be damned.

Labels: , , ,