Praise God and Pass the Ammunition, I’m Going to be On NRA News Radio! (Update: Streaming From NRA Site Works) (Update: Link to Podcast Added)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update (IV): Listen to the podcast, here. Thanks to their staff for the linkage.
Update (III): Literally waiting to go on the air now…
Update (II): I have bumped this post so that you can go and stream from the show more easily. Be sure to look below because Lee has been posting up a storm. I can’t give away too much, but there are some big things in store in the ongoing fallout from Weinergate. So stay tuned.
Update: Hey, it’s just about an hour to go, and contrary to what some people said in the comments, it looks like the show is streaming. So you will be able to hear me that way, if you don’t have Sirius. And you might listen in now. He is talking a lot about the ATF gunrunner scandal.
This afternoon, I was contacted by NRA News and they have asked me to appear on the radio discussing my post of earlier today.
I am scheduled to be on at 10:20 p.m. Eastern Time. #IThinkThats7:20InSeattle. (and in Los Angeles). That’s of course 9:20 Dallas time.
I asked their representative how to listen in and he wrote:
We’re on SiriusXM Patriot 125 and www.NRANews.com
I don’t have Sirius, so I will hope that makes sense to those of you who subscribe. And I am trying to figure out how to listen to their radio show on their website as we speak. My suspicion is that it doesn’t become a live link until they are actually live on the air.
Also I found a lot of good posts also challenging Stengel’s piece, even finding errors I missed. I mean let’s face it, it’s the Goodyear blimp of fat targets, right? So I was bound to miss a few errors. I will post a few of those as updates to this post. I would put it on the other post, but I am trying to keep that post as readable as possible, with as few updates as possible.
Update: As promised, here’s some other discussions about this terrible piece.
Over at Real Clear Politics, Thomas Sowell waxes philosophical and shows us how everything old is new again:
A long and rambling essay by Time magazine’s managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.
The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution “did not know about” all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers and DNA.
This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, “When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone[.]“
And with each of these, there are more goodies in the article than I am quoting here, so read the whole thing.
And that came courtesy of David Azzerrad, who wrote a post the Corner criticize Stengel’s work. Here’s a particularly solid quote:
These principles, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. Madison’s rhetorical question in Federalist 51 rings true as ever: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” The miniskirt, sexting, and collateralized debt obligations haven’t put much of a dent on good ol’ human nature. Until men become angels, let’s stick to the Constitution’s healthy distrust of concentration of power and unfettered mob rule.
Again, read the whole thing.
Meanwhile over at Freedom’s Front Line, they are perhaps a little more harsh than the situation justifies, likening it to “baby babble”—that is speech by someone unused to speaking on a subject:
One might have hoped Mr. Stengel to be knowledgeable about issues of constitutional meaning. A Rhodes Scholar and Princeton grad, he was president of the National Constitution Center for several years. But his essay demonstrates that he has a long way to go—and that he should have become more fluent before presuming to instruct Time readers in the subject.
Harsh, but still all of it is worth a read. Seriously. He even catches him in another clear error that I missed:
Stengel: “What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress’s authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it’s difficult to know what he would say.”
Answer: These are really confused sentences. “Taxes” are authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, not by the Commerce Clause (I-8-3).
That big Journalism post appears to be cross-posted, here. And I want to thank Mary Chastain for prominently mentioning my post on her site, Bookworm Room has very kind words, and Ace has a link, writing:
Time can’t retract. Their whole authority rests upon the claim that they are smarter than other people. If they retracted an entire article, by a credentialed head of the National Constitution Center, as entirely wrong in almost every claim it made, they’d look, what’s the word?, pretty stupid and uneducated.
But you can still try.
Maybe so, but we can create a situation where they can either correct the article, and look stupid, or look like they are stonewalling, and still look stupid. Like Dan Rather in Rathergate, the problem isn’t just the initial mistake but how they react to it.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]