Yes - agree - the process is not without its checks and balances. However, never say never. As I pointed out, it's how we got our current constitution. That convention was supposed to amend the articles of confederation. Critics also point out that the states already have a track record of ratifying some truly stupid amendments, such as the 16th (income tax), 17th (direct election of senators), and 18th (prohibition). Also, the country elected Obama - twice.

I do listen to Levin et al. I have been interested in the Convention approach to amending the constitution because of the difficulty in getting Congress to act on some of the simplest things.

I cannot remember when a state exercised is right under Article 5 of the Constitution to ask for a convention. Go Wisconsin.
For those that don't know, Article 5 provides two methods of amending the Constitution. One way having the amendment proposed by congress is the usual way. The second way is to have 2/3 of the states as for a convention to propose a specific amendment. The convention is for the specified purpose of the single amendment, not a convention to write a new constitution.