Do any of youse guys subscribe to Mother Jones?

[LittleClarkie]

Have you seen this article?

http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/11/recounting_ohio.html

Opinions, if so?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. ... and then I saw THIS ...

Mother Jones is now only in it for the money?

To get immediate access to the complete version of this story, you must be a Mother Jones subscriber.

Say it ain't so, Ma!

--p!

[LittleClarkie]

2. Well, you know how it is. Mama's gotta feed the childrens

Tough times, doncha know.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Yeah ... I know ... (kicks empty tin can) ... Capitalism Sux

--p!

[Stevepol]

4. I dropped my subscription to MJ because of its non-coverage of DREs.

I like MJ because their articles are well-researched and honestl However, after the 04 election they refused to even look into the possiblity of fraud and even joined the ranks of those who pooh-poohed the possibility. I wrote them a letter saying as much and that I would not subscribe again until they covered what I consider to be the biggest issue in America today (and probably the biggest issue in American history): the stealing of our democracy by the electronic voting machine.

There's so much material out there that MJ could write from now on about nothing but electronic voting machine chicanery and criminality and never run out of material. Why won't they write about it?

[Time for change]

6. Here's my response to the article

If they answer it, maybe you'll get an answer to your question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5129040

[Time for change]

5. I've read the full article -- It is very sloppy IMO

I will be writing a letter of complaint to Mother Jones.

[Land Shark]

7. You can write to MJ and protest this at [e-mail]

I wrote and pointed out that their article reminds me of my college class on Major authors featuring Solzhenitsyn, and how the Russian dissidents occasionally made it into the censored soviet press, but only in the form of a denunciation of sorts.

If it is not possible for Mother Jones, of all things, to be unequivocally against secret corporate vote counting, what has this country come to? WTF are they printing the denunciatory article (peppered with a few minor concessions) in the form of a book review on Fitrakis, Mark Crispin Miller and Steve Freeman for? (these are the three books, as I recall)

Why is it important, in a publication supposedly containing hard investigatory journalism with an independent streak to simply parrot the conventional wisdom? They should at least give equal time to the point of view they are denouncing, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE OPENING PARAGRAPH IN THE BLOODY ARTICLE ADMITS THERE'S BEEN NO MSM COVERAGE OF THE FACTS AND ARGUMENT the writer Hartzgaard goes on to pooh-pooh.

You can tell them that LandShark will debate Hartsgaard any time, any where, provided it's on videotape and the winner, based on the audience vote at the taping as well as one month of internet voting, gets $1000.00 from the loser plus a signed apology. (must take place in state where such bets are legal).