New York Times Op-Ed: "Why I Admire Anthony Weiner"

The New York Times' political rehabilitation of a teen-sexting compulsive masturbator begins before he's even been checked into his cell.

A woman wrote this -- or at least she calls herself "Sally." Sally Satel, some kind of functionary at the American Enterprise Institute.

Even though Weiner tried to avoid jail time by claiming he was a "very sick man" -- blaming his "illness" for his crime -- this prog is going to claim he was a brave, stand-up guy for not blaming his illness.

Mr. Weiner cried as he pleaded guilty to one count of transferring obscene material to a minor, a crime that carried up to 10 years in prison. "I acted not only unlawfully but immorally, and if I had done the right thing, I would not be standing before you today," he told Judge Denise L. Cote in Manhattan.

"I was a very sick man for a very long time," he said. Indeed, his behavior fits a commonly understood definition of addiction, which is persistent engagement in a behavior despite negative consequences.

So there he blames the sickness, and this pyrsyn agrees with his suggestion that his "sickness" is to blame.

Then he says:

"I’ve had a disease but I have no excuse," he continued. "I accept complete and total responsibility for my crime. I was the adult."

Anthony Weiner was caught red-handed. (Or, pink handed. Or white handed. I guess it depends on the moment we're talking about.) He knows you're supposed to say "I accept all responsibility" when begging a judge to absolve you of at least some responsibility. He twice, so far, just from these quotes, has blamed his "illness" and his "disease."

But this simpleton claims that by repeatedly shifting blame to his "disease," he's actually... not shifting blame to his disease.

In admitting this...

Admitting what? Admitting that what computer Skype sessions prove he did?

...Mr. Weiner captured an important distinction that has been lost in our culture, which tends to over-pathologize problematic behavior. He didn’t blame his "disease."

Yes, he did. Why bring it up at all, if he's taking full responsibility?

Someone who takes full responsibility doesn't repeatedly attempt to establish a "diminished capacity" defense that suggests his "disease" was at least partly to blame.

He knows that there is a difference between having a compulsion and acting on it. But there is an idea bigger than just controlling one’s impulses. It’s what legal scholars and philosophers call "diachronous responsibility."

You can read about that if you like. To me, it's filler. It's to make this sound like there's a point to it, besides giving an early push to a Anthony Weiner's PR efforts.

This may sound odd, but I admire Anthony Weiner for what he did on Monday. He stood tearfully before the judge and acknowledged several compatible truths: that he was responsible for his action, that he is accepting the consequences, and that he needs help so that he can liberate himself from those compulsions, or, at the very least, stop acting on them.

It's as if this idiot has never seen Anthony Weiner's previous teary-eyed confessions and evasions -- following his denials.

Anthony Weiner is one of those brave stand-up guys who admits the truth only when there is smoking gun evidence offered against him, just as he did in the first Weinergate outbreak.

That a man would lie and blame others for his own embarrassing, even illegal, actions is hardly uncommon. But nor is it uncommon -- or admirable -- that when caught with smoking-gun proof against him, he should try to ingratiate himself to the judge by claiming, inconsistently, that he takes "full responsibility" and yet that he also has a "disease" and has been "sick for a very long time."

This is the normal behavior of someone trapped by truth when lies will no longer work. This is the normal behavior of a criminal caught and convicted beyond any reasonable doubt, now just hoping to ingratiate himself to a judge to escape the punishment that he most fears.

It's normal-- and not at all "admirable."

Also note that he brings his wife out to further humiliate her during some of these not-voluntarily-made "confessions" in order to act as a Huma Shield -- not exactly the actions of an admirable, stand-up guy who takes "full responsibility" himself.

Oh, by the way, the New York Times continues attempting to rehabilitate communism, this entry telling us that the Chinese communist reign which killed 50 million at least allowed the women it permitted to live to "dream big."

More here, including a graphic picture of some women decapitated by Mao, who were presumably Dreaming Big about retaining their heads before they were murdered.

posted by Ace at 07:14 PM

| Access Comments