"Broder-itis: you're so above-it-all that you can't see what is happening."

Writes Jonathan Zasloff brilliantly. He also wrote disengenuously "It's a little silly for me to criticize a scholar far more distinguished than myself" and went on to do so. Of course, he knows there is nothing silly about it. Bold ? sure, reckless ? Maybe, in this case right ? Obviously.

In generally, it is most important to subject the arguments of the most distinguished scholars to the most severe criticism. Sunstein is influential and, in this case, refusing to admit that he was had. Valid scholarship requires debate about each argument and claim and always, always questioning authority. I'd debate Sunstein myself if I had a clue.