Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, June 4, 2006 11:41 AM

  Yet another sloppy piece of "writing" on elections by Manjoo

  I have written several times about Manjoo's sloppy analysis of this issue in past articles. This one is no different. His insistence on taking an issue by issue approach to the problem, rather than weighing the evidence as a whole, taking it synthetically as a scientist would, makes his conclusions suspect from the start. Perhaps a greater problem is that he sees any spurious rationale for a problem as proving that there were no seedy, and perhaps illegal influences on this election.

  Whether consciously or not, his analysis fits itself right into the Right-Wing talking points about "conspiracy theories." They like to argue that there could have been no large-scale conspiracy focused on stealing the election--and to a certain extent they're right. The idea that there were shadowy figures guiding armies of conspirators to steal the election is somewhat silly. Of course, this argument is also nothing more than a strawman. It's not a matter of coordinated conspiracy, but rather coordinated interests, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to enact their messianic vision that unites the activities of diverse Right-Wing actors who have worked to steal this election at the local, state and national levels.

  Kennedy's arguments point to problems, inconsistencies, not conspiracies. These problems and inconsistencies can identify the motives of a large number of individually operating agents who do not coordinate their activities, but who have similar goals and use whatever means they posess to accomplish those goals (including, for example, allowing the inertia of the bureaucracy to swallow valid votes by not taking the lead to ensure proper allocation of voting machines on election day). Citing spurious arguments to explain away each one of these problems might satisfy someone who has a perverse need to believe that the system is operating as it should (a category that includes a large portion of the population, as Manjoo would know if he had ever taken any sociology or empirical psychology courses, and maybe watched the Milgram films). However, it should not satisfy those who seek the truth--which is, I think, what most enlightened readers look to Salon for.

  I really wish Salon would refuse to allow Manjoo to publish these poorly written, poorly reasoned pieces. It degrades your publication and diminishes its credibility. Giving Manjoo a keyboard is about as responsible as giving a three year-old permanent markers and then leaving the house.

  —aroundthelaw Read aroundthelaw's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel