Good point. I think what he meant to say is that the article made sweeping generalizations about the quality of human decision making, resting on a few superficial stats and questionable assumptions. It also fetishized tricks to change folks' behavior while pretending that Obama's public policy goals are indisputable. Since one man's ideal world is not the same as another man's, and the form one's ideal world takes is generally governed by first principles that can't be proved, and since public policy is the means to transform the world into one's ideal, the notion that the administration's policies can't be criticized is ludicrously silly. Sure, I'm interested in the means, but it's by no means settled what the ends should be. (Nor will it ever be, I should add, as long as people are free to disagree.)

Anyone who has followed Time Magazine at all knows that this is typical of its writing.