The NYT article is here. The Intel Hub Response, here. Although it was originally a comment over at WhatReallyHappened, I think the following stands on its own...
...well, given a very short, uh, snippet (from the video beginning):
Hey, I had to learn it just like every other individuating consciousness on the planet:
raising one's voice is a measure not of the truth of one's message but of one's willingness to use to force or fraud as method to convince others of that truth.
Call it 'winning hearts & minds' -- as the old saying goes,much more success is of course obtained by sweetness. One could argue that the truth itself needs no such 'spin' -- but alas, although it is true that many lies pass as truth for a time before they are unmasked, one cannot be equally as sure that truth may not be passed over and ignored for want of capable, effective advocacy. Happens all the time.
Had I not been willing & able to ignore the avoidance behavior triggered by finding myself yelled at, had I not looked up and read the original NYT article (in its entirety, and not 'snippets,' the use of which, may I add, is rather telling, given the context), I would have come away from this post with only a vague confirmation of my anti-MSM bias. And with another reaffirmation of my general tendency towards loyalty to our constitution, reaffirmations now experienced so frequently there is a temptation to nurture that loyalty as an end in itself.
Which it is not.
The constitution is the means. Freedom is the objective. Freedom, and justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, as it turns out, and strange though it may seem, there is much information and many interesting points raised by the NYT piece. You should read it, Gentle Reader. See for yourself how the meaning masquerades as the rational and intellectual inquiry upon which it was engendered. It does not raise its voice, yet leaves one -- leaves me -- convinced that this little piece will most likely succeed.
Its intended purposes?
Distraction. Manipulation. Disinformation.
Make up your own mind where the evil is: it is not in the information presented in the article, but (as is to be expected from the NYT) in the slant, and the context of the debate. The slant creates propaganda from information. It really has nothing to do with the article's purported subject: the scientificallish study of modern government charters (quantification -- "coding" -- of their use of, or resemblance to, or basis upon, the US Constitution) and temporal analysis of results. It has everything to do with the intensely emotional rhetoric one might expect as consequence.
Such as the above.
Be seeing you.