I was very pleased to see the author's rebuttal to Farhad Manjoo's article trashing Mr. Miller's book, Fooled Again. I thank Salon for giving it a prominent position on the website.

While I had heard many complaints about Manjoo's slanted and insubstantial article, I did not want to read it and give Salon the impression that Manjoo is increasing circulation. I have long since given up any hope for anything from him other than superficial, snide articles kowtowing to whatever he perceives as the current conventional wisdom.

Mr Miller, on the other hand, has a history of original, in-depth, and fearless journalism, going bravely where hacks fear to tread. Even if he is wrong (which I have yet to see proved in any degree) Miller is expanding the bounds of debate and increasing the quality of discourse in a fashion John Stuart Mill would have proudly endorsed. The marketplace of ideas functions only in the presence of varied and competing ideas, fully discussed and debated.

Assigning a shallow stenographer like Manjoo to pan Miller's book was not only an insult to a long-time member of Salon's inner community (Miller has kept a long-term corrospondence active in Salon's Table Talk), it was also a betrayal of the concept of the liberal concept of reaching truth through competition between diverse ideas. Manjoo has a history of denying evidence of election fraud, and a stake in discrediting Miller's book. He also lacks the attention span and sophistication to make reasoned judgements between competing claims from different factions. Rather than engage Miller's thesis, he can only deny and trash them.

Next time you need an article written about politics, let Miller write it. Manjoo can better use his time playing Grand Theft Auto, which he has previously claimed a devotion to.

Leave the writing to the adults.

There was no reason to believe that Farhad Manjoo would ever accept Mark Crispin Miller's persuasive argument that the 2004 election was stolen--Manjoo had already made up his mind by November tenth,2004, when he told us all in no uncertain terms not to believe what seemed evident, that the election in Ohio had been stolen, and that Kenneth Blackwell was the engineer of the theft. Miller has done the legwork--Manjoo has not. I believe Miller, and I think that Manjoo should drop the subject--his input at this point is counterproductive to the revival of actual democracy in America.

It astounds me that men of good conscience can expose themselves to the compelling data put forth by Mark Crispin Miller and others, and yet be unwilling to conclude that Ohio's electoral votes, and the 2004 Presidential election should have gone to John Kerry.

The madness could have ended.

What frightens me even more, is that those of us who can see this clearly to be the case, have not risen up with great force to ensure that future elections, starting with 2006, will not AGAIN be corrupted and stolen by the same tactics and tacticians. These tacticians tragically, excel at the campaign but fail miserably at the governance.

If we don't intelligently and aggressively ACT on this concern, if 2006 rolls by with no explosive and effective action by the advocates of fair electoral mechanics, (BlackBoxVoting.org, for one,) then the future looks bleak:

We stand to lose a great opportunity - a Democratic victory in the House or Senate.

A return to some semblance of balance.

And what are our most powerful figureheads doing about it?

Robert Parry is honest. From his article:

Winer said Kerry didn't believe the evidence existed to prove systematic tampering with the vote in 2004.

MIller is right on. The lack of curiosity by the mainstream media about the "coincidental" confluence of the introduction of electronic voting and the inexplicable failure of previously reliable polling methodologies is absolutely incredible.

The only rational inference is that election results are being manipulated. How can the press continue to ignore this issue? It truly is nothing less than the death of American democracy.

Here is a link to an article about the recent

GAO report about election events in Ohio. That

GAO report, which is by the GAO, was written by

the GAO itself. That GAO report, which was authored by the GAO itself, not Crispin Miller,

was written by the GAO itself. Should I emphasise

that a little more? Should I make it a little

more clear for your "journalist" Farhad Manjoo?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/83649

Farhad Manjoo is the Bob Woodward of digital

journalism. What is his actual secret mission?

His presence, and especially his so-called "articles" on this subject, make Salon

look suspiciously like a "false-flag" establishment front. You really don't want people

to begin to suspect that your entire paper is

a sort of "vacuum-cleaner decoy" operation for

the Republican Party, do you? Then stop acting

like one, and keep your Mr. Manjoo away from this

or any other important political subject.