Frediano

Is there a reason to believe otherwise? Is there a reason for us to care one way or the other? I refer to Naomi as a "her" for the same reason that I refer to you as a "him." Because that's how you've identified yourselves to me. You know I love you, Fred, so I hope you aren't going to allow your frustration with Naomi to go somewhere there's no need to go. True 'dat. But I love women too much to think of them as being this... jello-like... in their reasoning. A guy, yes. Especially a pretender. It's my old school bias. Women have integrity. They aren't cowards, They give birth for crying out loud. Men are dogs when we aren't being pussies. We watch a woman give birth and we pass out. Not even a week of watching 'Alien' reruns prepares us to watch what women do with alarming frequency, often multiple times. I readily admit that; men are pussies. We do -nothing- like that on such a regular basis. No amount of Hollywood SFX has quite captured the event... regards, Fred

You know, you get the world you beg for. You think you are the first cupcake to sail out of DIsneyland begging for this world? That is precious beyond belief. Why do folks keep referring to this cupcake as a 'her?' Is there reason to believe that???

It's not my fault that reality refuses to bend to your ideas of how it should work. Guaranteed, that is not your fault. (Like a broken clock, you've got to be right once in a while.) So to be clear, here is how the voices inside your head tell you that reality really works: 1] You are the Emperor of What Can Be. 2] What can be is a world with only two choices for producers: a] to put themselves on a rack in a nation where only they have no influence over a government for sale. b] to compete with others in a nation where influence over a government for sale goes to the last naked sweaty ape bidder. (Not even the highest, mind you, just the last.) 3] And if he's fool enough to pass up the lone ride on the rack, then some cupcake like you gets to pass judgement on him for not jumping through your academic paternalistic megalomania hoops. You are doing a great job. I'm almost convinced by all that there really is no such thing as the Tyranny of the Majority. But it's OK, we're grading on a curve, and they are getting rid of the essay requirement on the SATs again.

Uhh... no. Both countries that he can move to have people who are influencing the government there. B can choose to have some or zero influence. Even if he chooses the country where he has zero influence, there will still be people who have it and might use it against him. Obviously, he would choose more influence rather than less. Oh, well then. In this increasingly jury rigged two choice world, the Emperor of What Can be has given producer B the choice between choosing a country where only -he- has zero influence, but where others can skin him alive via parasitic government, or a country where he can compete with others for the right to skin him alive. And in this artificial two choice universe is to be found some kind of enlightenment on the myth of the Tyranny of The Majority. So what you originally meant(I couldn't really see the words in your original version of this enlightenment)is that, given the choice between a country where only he was placed on a rack, or a country where he had a chance to buy his way off the tribal rack, that of course this producer would choose the chance to buy his way off the rack. You're doing a Hell of a job convincing me about the myth of the Tyranny of the Majority. No, seriously. You are. This was pretty much what I gathered your predecessor flakes were talking about 30 years ago when I was fresh our of grad school. Turns out, those really aren't the only two choices available, except in some academic Disneyland of couldn't buy a clue if it was stapled to your ass and you were handed a flashlight. .

From "Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-Communism in 1940's Hollywood" "Rand was approached about writing a play based on We The Living. Bette Davis was interested in playing Kira Argounova, the heroine; unfortunately--and as an ominous sign of the times -- Davis backed out, on the advice of her agent, who told her that appearing in an anti-Soviet play would kill her career."

Bette Davis' metamorphosis in 40's weepy "Now, Voyager." Never has a 40's dame done so much with so little. She was not classically beautiful but she 'defied men not to find her attractive.' I never understood Davis' star appeal until I saw that movie. She was incredible. I always associated Davis with her older scary dame roles. The scene where Paul Henreid lights both their cigarettes and gives her one(cigarette)was improvised by Henreid and Davis(some controversy over that, close enough). Became a classic 40's move. He also starred with Ingrid in Casablanca. Mangled the last line of the movie in my head: here it is, Bette Davis eyes and all:

The kind of fool who doesn't have a choice? B can't move to a country with a minarchist government because there are no countries with minarchist governments. That little bit of turn yourself inside out self-contradiction didn't take long. Just one post? Is it impolite for me to notice? Is Mr. Amazing No Short Term Memory-Itis really protected these days under the ADA? Below are the choices that -you- originally provided. I was responding to the emperor like obviously between the choices that you asserted. So, for example, let's say that A and B are two owners of two companies in a country with a high tax burden. Suppose that A has good lobbyists and friends in the government, and derives many benefits from the state, whereas B does not and must mainly rely on his own productivity. Additionally, B has the opportunity to move his business to one of two countries. One with a lower tax rate, where he can't influence the government, and another with the same lower tax rate but where he can influence the government. B will obviously choose the latter, and, therefore, that country, rather than attracting a "producer", just gets another "parasite". So we see that, just because B was productive under one set of circumstances, does not mean that he will remain that way under another set. You claimed that, ceteris paribus w.r.t. low taxes, that B would 'obviously' choose the country with the government for sale, as if he believed he'd be the only person who would be able to influence the gang rape. WHat kind of producer is B? An idiot producer? And now the Emperor wannabe genes are kicking in, and you are declaring closed season on fettered government. Well no wonder. And the premise of this thread is still that there are no such things as gang rapes in the world; they are a myth. And meanwhile, the tribal jungle is clawing back it's own over in the Ukraine. Take heart; you never know; maybe the God That Failed was just taking a nap. Farming with oxen is tiring..

JFK's America, a nation of 180million, gave JFK 100B at the peak of the Cold War. That population and inflation adjusts to maybe $1400B today, unless you take into account gains in productivity over 50 years, in which that would be less than $1400B/yr today. Our federal overhead is today at $4000B/yr. (JFK's $100B is adjusted to $1400B for the comparison.) Over half of JFK's budget was for defense. We're not spending anywhere near $2000B/yr on defense. JFK's economies roared. Ours are flat on their back, in spite of the over $2500B in federal 'stimulus' above and beyond JFK's America and his roaring economies. Feel stimulated yet? Where is this 'austerity' that fool Krugman keeps mumbling about? What austerity? It was JFK's economies that roared. The Austere Economies. Now I rememember: Eisenhower and JFK were followed by those scumbags LBJ and Nixon, and it the nation has been circling the toilet ever since...

Additionally, B has the opportunity to move his business to one of two countries. One with a lower tax rate, where he can't influence the government, and another with the same lower tax rate but where he can influence the government. B will obviously choose the latter, and, therefore, that country, rather than attracting a "producer", just gets another "parasite". So we see that, just because B was productive under one set of circumstances, does not mean that he will remain that way under another set. So obviously, this B is a moron. That is, if he beleives that he'd be the only person able to influence the government. If B were not a moron, and were actually a producer, he'd obviously pick the country where a] nobody could influence the government, including him, and b] that government was largely tasked with scraping barnacles off of navigation bouys and painting the lines fairly down the middle of the streets, so what petty low life criminal would want to influence that right sized government to begin with? It has been properly castrated/neutered. It is staffd by honorable plumbers, not patermalistic megalomaniac emperor wannabees. Your calculus of 'obviously' isn't even close. What fool would willingly subject himself to a] a government that sells iself and b] that has conseqeunces when it does so? I'd say the 'obvious' answer is to castrate/neuter this thing until the 'obvious' inevitability is beat down into the cracks and crevices of petty criminality, appropriate for scumbags like LBJ or Nixon. They can argue over whose brother in law gets the order for the yellow paint in the dark all they want, then go count their stolen money in their trailers. Or, we can fund the splendor that is DC and its suburbs with these same scum parasites.

and everyone gets an equal share of the revenue generated. Generated from what? An imagined risk free exertion of effort in this universe? Or equally as absurd, of the tax 'revenue' generated by a tax on an imagined risk free exertion of effort in this universe? Risk free: guaranteed to not only break even, but net more value than expended in the effort to create new value. We also assume that A's leisure level depends only on the tax rate, l = l( r ). And, what does the universe say about your assumption? There is only leisure level at all after creating that required for basic sustenance. So in this risk free model, let's see: A works first shift. His efforts are guaranteed risk free by a tax on B. B works 2nd shift. His efforts are guaranteed risk free by a tax on C. C works 3rd shift. His efforts are guaranteed risk free by a tax on A. Any questions? See, it is nonsense just like this that ends up with all of them trying to work by borrowing an unlimited amount from unborn children, who have yet to show up and create anything in these economies of risk free wonder. It looks like math. Sure it does. Really, really, really flawed math. Fail.

That would be it. Great trigger release. Breaks down easily. And very comfortable to shoot. Sears gun. I recently read that it was only labeled 'JC Higgens' between about '58 and '61. It's a little loud, but the squirrels don't seem to mind much. regards, Fred

My favorite squirrel medicine is an old J.C. Higgens Model 80 autoloader with iron sights, a really comfortable thumb grip, with 22LR. I allow myself at most one shot a day, out the back slider, which I open a crack. Usually in the morning. One shot, so that my neighbors on each side barely realize anything other than, 'Huh? Did you hear that?" Nothing but grass bank in back of me. Ground only, I never shoot up into the trees. This 50 year old pistol is a tack driver. i started doing this a few years ago. My wife called me at work from home, and all she could say was 'Oh my God...Oh my God...' I rushed home, found her in the basement where sewage had overflowed from basement toilet. Roto Router found 4 dead baby squirrels in the 4 inch line going out to the main. They had crawled down a vent, got into our plumbing, died, and blew up like four balloons, blocking the 4 inch line. Eventually spent alot of quality time in the basement with Clorox. Roto Router guy told me 'not the only one of these he's seen this year; they are probably in your attic.' Sure enough, I go up and they've been partying. I installed high power strobe lights, and also started my new hobby, to whittle down the local odds. Cute little gray destructive rats. Love when they bounce. Sleep like a baby. I was going to buy an air rifle for my new hobby, but my Dad's old JC Higgens is more fun to shoot.

False (link). Page 9 of the document, page 13 of the file. Got to love those Quintiles! Hope I see you on the Quintile Train this year. I'm going to be in the dining car, hogging down some veal. Stop by, I will buy you a drink. When you show people those things, don't they just come back with the 'But they get more' argument? See, the problem is, folks just don't realize what Quintile Train to walk onto. They should have better signs at the station.

Merlin: What is interesting about this blip in the narrative is, on one level, her hint at raising interest rates would be a sign that she gauged 'the economy' as on the mend, enough to hint at starting to remove the expensive crutches. The explanation in the link is, 'the markets over-reacted' to her statement. The markets over-reacted to her hint that she thought 'the economy' was on the mend, enough to hint at starting to remove the expensive crutches, by selling off. And then, after she extended her remarks with 'relax, I didn't say when, maybe never' the markets reversed, the blip healed itself. This blip reveals the nothing holding up the current illusion. The markets are doing the only thing they can do in the modern unreality, which is, feverishly look for signs of the end of the artificial rain and get out of the way as fast as possible when it dries up. There is nothing else holding up the illusion. That is what this blip reveals. How long you think it is possible to fuel economies with this brand of unreality? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Centuries? Clearly years. That's some carcass. But it has been years; so how many more? regards, Fred

The term "actual producer" is problematic for that reason, and that's why I don't wanna use it. Everyone is an "actual producer" on the most basic level, in the sense that they produce something of value. The difference is that I wanna say "actual producers" produce the inputs on a turf, whereas leaders transform that input into some kind of output. Since this output is assumed to be valuable by the people on that turf, the leader thereby "produces" something but not in the same sense. It seems like you are now shifting from 'political leader' to 'organizer of effort; he who tells those waiting to be told what to do, 'what to do.' In a plurality of self-organized free people, there are lots of things that people want to do, and lots of ways of freely organizing to accomplish those wants. Singularly, as in, the self-employed, and jointly, as in communal/corporate efforts. There are races, plural, not 'the race.' Not all of us competed in the men's downhill at Sochi last month. Only one person came in first. There was only one winner. That isn't the only race. And the function of the Olympic 'leader' was simply to organize the games. Make sure there was enough toilet paper and so on. Totally not a problem. To apply that concept to something like a national leader presupposes that there is some singular thing that the entire nation wants to do. At that level and scale, those types of things are 'our mutual defence' -- which is provided -- including the organization of same -- by other than our national political leaders. In a free nation, our national political leaders are less emperors and more state plumbers. We strive to give them plungers, not scepters.

Thus, we see that not giving enough to one's core group of supporters is political suicide. But giving them too much is also a mistake (though a far less serious one), because then a leader may not have enough resources of his own to weather political shocks. In our political system, a leader is not handing out resources of his own; the winners, losers, and nobodies provide all the resources. A leader says: "I will make you __________." What he doesn't say is "And you will provide all the resources and bear all the risk." Suppose the offer du jour is 'safe.' You will pay for the police and armed forces to make you safe, you will staff and bleed and die providing that safety, you will build the tanks and planes, you will send your children into the meatgrinders both as the generals and the E1s and every swinging dick between, you will pay for your defined contribution pension plan after paying for all of that and funding my defined benefit plan... I will make a few phonecalls and speeches. Is that a good deal for you?" 'Insured.' A leader will impose the ACA on almost the entire nation, others will pay for it, and he will exclude his own from it. 'free' 'happy' Fill in the blank. A leader will ... not do any of that. The winners, losers, and nobodies do it all. This process of 'leadership' starts in school. In any class of 30 students, maybe 2 take their education by the throat and bust a gut. 27, at best, on a good day, do at most exactly what they are told. And 1 looks around and knows precisely enough math to figure out that 27 is way greater than 2. We call that clever observer of democratic math 'The Leader.' These people are the actual producers. Exactly. Producers, bleeders, risk bearers, doers. The actors who bring into being the political promises of the leader. A leader is only in risk that he will run out of his followers resources. When that happens, he needs to figure out a way to borrow from their unborn children.

When something called 'the economy' is overheating, because circulation is raging and people are creating 'too much' value, one of the tools of the Masters of the Universe is to raise interest rates, and try to rein 'it' in. It is all part of the brilliance of carrot and stick centrally planned command and control 'the economy' nudging. When something called 'the economy' is staggering after decades of carrot and stick 'the economy' running, sometimes it is necessary to lower interest rates to run something called 'the economy.' If years of this go by, and people start to doubt the wisdom or efficacy of 'the economy' running, a last resort is to do the thing one would do if something called 'the economy' really was recovering, and raise those interest rates. By seeing the sign of what would normally happen when economies were recovering, perhaps the Wizards of carrot and stick can convince something called 'the economy' that 'it' really is heating up. Get it off its knees. It sure beats actually doing what would be necessary to unleash it, which would involve firing a lot of wizard carrot and stick centrally planned command and control 'the economy' nudgers. So the wizards give it a try; hey, lets -appear- to talk about 'it' as if 'it' really was showing signs of lighting up again...maybe we can trick 'it' into getting off the knees we've driven it to, without us having to actually give up the gig. And what happens? The carcass carvers, who have been getting out in front of all this going nowhere printed funny money, in economies with endemic real high unemployment and suppressed wages and so, barely suppressed but still breaking out inflation, detect that the default landing zone of artificially inflated stock prices(the port of last call for inflation)is about to shut down, and so, being forward thinkers, attempt to get out from under the sell off first. Apparently, the opposite of the intended signal, which was, these things are taking off and the future looks great! ANd with predictable results, after the rush and her blinking 'gulp, not so fast I didn't say when', scootched back up in case the box wasn't clearly defined.. Gee, these stick and carrot things used to work so well. Yellin needs to come up with some other way for her and hers to cling to the gig for another 15 minutes of wide eyed cluelessness. She's got two exclusive buttons and three possible states: increase, decrease, and one of which is do nothing. My Wrangler has more controls and yet is far easier to keep from driving over a cliff. .

Ellen: I don't mean to imply by the above that I look favorably on the US involvement in Vietnam; any national conflict for which it is acceptable to end after a dozen years and 55,000 lives and many more broken with a "Never mind, JFK/America really didn't mean all that nonsense about pay any price for freedom, we were just kidding" could have been acceptably never entered to begin with. The shame of Vietnam is that it was murkily entered, poorly explained, poorly justified, waged anyway, and ended with that pitiful outcome-- which if it was an acceptable outcome to this nation, then the entire conflict was clearly unnecessary. There were arguments to be made to enter that conflict; JFK made those arguments explicit in his inauguration speech. Were we listening? Did we question his words? I was five when he made that speech, so not so much. But I can readily go back and re-read his speech. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4 This much we pledge—and more. Was the NV incursion into the South a polite political disagreement? Of course the commies wanted to paint that as a war of liberation ... from liberty. As they do today. Why weren't they laughed at? The shame of Vietnam was, there was an argument to be made, and it wasn't made. We backed into that conflict anyway.. It was run for profit, not to end -- to decide in the shortest possible time frame, using the maximum effort available, after fully debating and defining the reason for entering that conflict and winning the debate before waging the war. To enter the conflict as a nation-- or not, as a nation. Informed with full knowledge of the why and why not. This nation did not do that...and entered the conflict anyway. Covertly. Quietly. As advisors. As a slowly ramped up effort. Why no, this isn't an actual war. And in the 70s we will end it with a massive 'never mind.' A total national shame. Not a failure of our military, but a complete failure of the civilian authority that allowed that military to be lightly abused, plus Rhode's 5%, Ike's MIC, and we all wish it was Rhode's 5%. Why, after that national failure, there were not widespread fraggings in that abusive civilian authority, is beyond comprehension. Nixon's resignation was not nearly enough penance for that this nation blundered into, and what it did to its best.

Ellen: Enjoyed C. Frankel's essays in "Education and the Barricades." Ch5: "The Moral Right to Impose on Others." 1] I'm Agent A. I am upset about injustice X, which I claim is abetted by agent B. 2] I take a forceful action which is a symbolic action against B, but which actually impacts only agent/agents C. 3] When C asks "w.t.f.?" I whip out my license based on 1] and tell C to s.t.f.u. and get on board or they are as bad as B. 4] If this succeeds, we are now new mobbed up Agents A in agreement, we lather, rinse, and repeat, and eventually agent B might be embarrassed/shamed/compelled into action to remedy the claimed injustice. I suppose the ethical assessment of 3] depends on an assessment of 1], and no way to judge that in advance. Frankel justifies degrees of imposition towards a just end, such as, forcefully bringing to the attention of others instances of injustice previously tolerated. But that seems a traffic citation shy of actually imposing on them an imperative to act or surrender without agreement. I think he is describing a forceful form of free speech, that forcefully insists on being heard. At 3] agent C is free to assess and decline and claim a new injustice Y. As is, Agent B, at 4, a new injustice Z. Frankel's essays, and especially, the times they were written, are fascinating. Don't trust anyone over 30. That always seemed to be a very short sighted cul de sac those folks were sprinting into. Did it mean, trust everyone under 30, or did it mean trust some under 30 and none over 30? As well, the big one; do the folks who spouted this dross 40 years ago today not trust themselves? If not, then why would anyone trust them then? There was a recent PBS piece on the year 1964. Poet Robert Frost died in the early 60s, and was asked just before his death what he thought of the then new generation of Americans emerging. He said something like, "I"d have great hope for them, if only we could give them the gift of our struggle; alas, we are a success, and cannot." The new generation was 'special' not only in the sense they were marketed at (by who? the generation that preceded them...)but in the nearly exclusively distant nature of their stress. The immediate context was rising affluence. The distant context was the threat of nuclear war, vietnam, and racial injustice at the end of a long bus trip down South, largely ignored in the midst of the nations rising affluence elsewhere, which caused the reaction to injustice to spread, easily, using the technology of this national rising affluence. The species is wired for conflict, to overcome, and yet the Depression was over, WWII was over, the Cold War was cold, Vietnam was 12000 miles away at the end of a selective selective service, murkily justified, not well explained or understood. Dead Kennedy's and King. Riots in Harlem. Riots in Oakland. Dammit, we need conflict, and so, conflict became internal. And of course that internal conflict was abetted by external competitors. Taken full advantage of. Fanned. Fomented. Encouraged. Anti-War Movement? Timeout-- if it was Anti-War and not simply Anti-US, then where were the protests aimed at Moscow and Hanoi-- the other half of the conflict? We're asked to believe, by the left, that the actions of the North Vietnamese aimed at the South were a polite political disagreement, and that it was impolite of us to get in the way of the re-education camps. Please, can't we just turn our backs while millions stream into the south China sea fleeing re-education, and other millions next door rot under the sun in the fields of agrarian marxists, because this is all a goof thing and the US is just interfering in an inevitable global historical movement. The PBS special bent over backwards to paint republicans as the impediment to civil rights in this nation. It was Eisenhower who sent the troops to Little Rock to turn the bayonets around on those NG bayonets. The word 'democrats' were never mentioned with the names Faubus, Barnett, or Wallace. To see a bigger issue -- to rail against creeping concentrated nationalism at the expense of distributed federalism -- was conflated with 'racism.' A smart tactic by the enemies of freedom, nothing more. The civil rights movement did not need to be conducted in such a manner as to divide the nation against itself in order to rule it; the legitimate complaints of minorities in this nation have continued to be used like so much politiical Kleenex, long after the issue of slavery was resolved. The enemies of freedom saw a means of using freedom to destroy freedom, and the nation succumbed to it. What was going on at college campuses was an integral part of that free fall, no matter what the intentions were of the willing,,. Goldwater and Reagan, in 1964, asked the following question, with some incredulity; after 30 years of these policies, has the government even come close to solving the problems of poverty in this nation? They were decrying, in 1964, the out of control expansion of the national)no longer federal) government. In 2014, it seems like such an incredible complaint. If only they knew what was coming. JFK's budget was $100B, over half of which was for defense. We're at near $4000B. Has government even come close to solving the problems of poverty in this nation? Detroit actually looked better in 1964. Those well intentioned students on those barricades, starry eyed, were used. But most of them meant well. And are now all gray haired; the new failed old. The new must replace the old, they asserted then, when the old fails to fix the world. Exactly, now as then. But the special generation is trying to claim a Mulligan, even as the wheels are falling off the Great Society and dusty New Deal. 60 is the new 40. Like hell it is, but it is still over 30.. The special generation is handing over not the same broken world, but an even dingier broken world, with less hope, less opportunity, and with a freshly busted credit card, and on the way out, suggesting that the next generation should not only stick to their plan, but double down on it. The Krugman's recite their mantras, stare at their topsey-turvey charts and scream 'No, it can't be wrong-- we need more, more, more....' and are in desperate need of a hand on the elbow and a walk to the home. Whatever the last 50 years of American politics was, it has failed. My sincerest hope is that the newest generation does exactly what the special generation did, and rail against the failure and try something new. A pox on both failed wings. Where I've been most encouraged by the newest generation, that is what I've heard them mutter under their breath, as they look at the adults in this mess and shake their heads, with the realization "Yikes...we are on our own. These people are insane...". Indeed, what generation does -this- to its young?

If it happens more than once, Fuxored, for sure. (Now that was a good one...)

No problem. Coin the phrase "I've been BitFucked!", print some T-Shirts, set up a website, and accept BitCoins. Not to be confused with "I'm a bit fucked." Though, to be honest, who isn't?

Looks like free association reared its ugly head.

Either speak plainly and clearly, or don't bother at all. I don't have the time to decipher whatever it is that you're trying to say (if anything). Always the best choice. Because politics is pointless.

I explicitly defined "society" in the OP, which you might have noticed if you were not so arrogant and dismissive of others. Each individual may be regarded as an organization. Now, we can define "society" as the collection of all organizations. Deep. What 'the' collection, in any meaningful sense that you or I would comprehend and see all of 'it?' And now you see all that and see "the fundamental problems" and speak for 'it'. So again, did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot? Arrogant? It is not me claiming to speak for "each individual" as well as "all organizations." I'm not arrogant; I am regretful; regretful that "society" doesn't have a telethon for paternalistic megalomania (PM). We could hold it over Labor Day; "Won't you help Cass's Kids?"

You're missing the point entirely. The fundamental problems don't lie with any individual but with society as a whole. As a whole what? When the visions come, do the voices tell you that they are of society as a whole? I am confused; I thought Durkheim identified "society" as the consciousness of all consciousness, the highest form of psychic life above and beyond all mere local contingencies, that alone can see all and know all from above, that which made it alone sufficient to mould the minds, etc. Did Society grant you this unique vision, like Moses and the Tablets, or is Durkheim the idiot? That was 'still seminal' Durkheim in the religion of Social Scientology, not me making that up. He defined all that in his summary of Religious Formes, prominently, the point of his much worshipped efforts. And now another peer comes along and informs us of a vision based on society as a whole. In this case, a defect of some kind. Is there pain involved with lifting a leg that high? My b-i-l is a chiropractor, though not the only one. There are many to choose from, if so inclined.