I am familiar with the author, and unfortunately this piece gives a very misleading impression of her. I believe that she is praising Weiner’s assumption of responsibility (even if it is insincere) rather than overlooking his crimes.
If you look at her oeuvre, you will see that she is a very strong advocate for the concept of individual responsibility, a cause that should be near and dear to Freepers. In fact, if you view this article on the AEI website (look for her work under scholars), the article immediately below it is a brief of amici curiae arguing that a defendant should not avoid criminal responsibility by claiming that addiction is a “brain disease”. Dr. Satel has argued this point many times over the years. While not as conservative as I am (or most of you are), she is a strong anti-nanny-state, pro-individual-responsibility advocate with a keen and incisive brilliant Berean mind.
> I am familiar with the author, and unfortunately this piece gives a very misleading impression of her. I believe that she is praising Weiner’s assumption of responsibility (even if it is insincere) rather than overlooking his crimes. <
Quite possible. But she sure picked an idiotic title for her article. Perhaps she was looking for a hook, something to get the reader to read further.
But that title certainly soured me on her. She had a hole to dig herself out of from the very start. And I don’t think she was very successful in that.