What a strange article

This article by Jacob Neusner appeared in today's Jerusalem post.

Part of me can't help but be disappointed. The author take several liberties, such as presenting what he knows to be grossly oversimplified Conservative halakhic stances in the absence of any context. Neusner, a respected scholar in his own field, cannot even seem to keep his denominational catchphrases straight. ("The past has a vote, not a veto" is a Reconstructionist anthem. The Conservative Movement uses contradictory phrases like "tradition through change," then sits around and wonders why nobody seems inspired.)

The article is entitled "Do denominational labels matter?" That's not really the topic of the article, is it? It's an article by someone who is arguing that Conservative Judaism, for all its weaknesses, is just loads better than Reform Judaism. His four proofs: (1) Reform Jews pray in English and want to know what they're saying, while Conservative Jews pray in Hebrew and don't care what they're saying; (2) Conservative Jews are more Sabbath observant because they drive to shul on Saturday mornings even when there's no bar mitzvah; (3) Conservative Jews are really Reconstructionist Jews (see above); (4) JTS and UJ appear to have stronger text study programs than HUC. Q.E.D., I suppose.

Perhaps it's a matter of my own cultural biases, but I expect any half-decent article called "Do denominational labels matter?" to address the fact that they don't.