The Man of Virtues Has a Vice (Bill Bennett gambles)

Newsweek ^ | 1/2/03 | Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green

[Callahan]

May 2 — In his best-selling anthology, “The Book of Virtues,” William J. Bennett writes: “We should know that too much of anything, even a good thing, may prove to be our undoing…[We] need to set definite boundaries on our appetites.”

DOES BENNETT? The popular author, lecturer and Republican Party activist speaks out, often indignantly, about almost every moral issue except one-gambling. It’s not hard to see why. According to casino documents, Bennett is a “preferred customer” in at least four venues in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, betting millions of dollars over the last decade. His games of choice: video poker and slot machines, some at $500 a pull. With a revolving line of credit of at least $200,000 at each casino, Bennett, former drug czar and Secretary of Education under Presidents Reagan and Bush, doesn’t have to bring money when he shows up at a casino.

(link for full article)

[mabelkitty]

HERE. HERE.

They are all so high and mighty that the Lord Jesus Christ himself wouldn't past muster!

[zoyd]

But how is his gambling ruining some one else's life? That arguement is completley disigenuous and complete ignores the very simple concept of cause and effect. How many people are going to NOT destroy their family with gambling if Bill stops? None. So why should he bear the moral burden for their addiction?

But how is one man's coke addiction ruining someone else's life? Yet cocaine is illegal based upon the supposed RISK TO SOCIETY and HARM TO SOCIETY and the DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY. Drug laws completely ignore the laws of cause and effect, yet we have plenty of drug laws, and plenty of people calling drug usage immoral, whether or not you hurt anyone other than yourself. In a way, I'm actually in complete agreement with you.

I'm just pointing out hypocrisy, which is the most hypocritical coming from someone like Bennett, our ex-Drug Czar.

And as for a previous post of yours, I don't hold casinos responsible for gamblers any more than I hold the 7-11 clerk responsible for the drunk driver.

[mabelkitty]

Coke and Heroin vs. Gambling?

Are you kidding me with this?

How about:

Apples vs. Oranges?

[discostu]

I can't even do low stakes hanging out with friends playing for Lifesavers type gambling. In an hour I'd be running to the convenience store emptying the account to buy all the Lifesavers in the store and telling the guy to call the rest of the franchise and get more here stat.

What sucks is that I dearly love poker, I love the strategy, playing the odds, reading the players, the feel of the cards. So I stick to the computer, I've found there's an infinite supply of electrons and if I go bust alt-f4 gets me right back to clean. But we all have our cross to bear and all things considered mine is pretty easy.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

My approach to personal morality is to ask myself "If everybody behaved like me, what would the world look like and would I want to live in it?" Bennett fails on this count.

Excellent approach, sort of the "Do unto others...." with a twist. How does gambling not meet your criteria? It is voluntary. Although you are likely to lose the outcome could be outrageously in your favor. Like the lottery in my state - the odds are something like 60 million to 1 but the return on one dollar is just as radical and worth the dollar, IMHO. Not quite as sure as investing with Hillary or Terry MacAuliffe I'll admit but worth the shot.

[CA Conservative]

Are you suggesting that gambling causes no harm?

I am suggesting that gambling, like drinking, does not cause harm in and of itself. The potential for abuse is there for people with addictive personalities, true, but if we consider everything that can be abused to be immoral, then we should all give up on sex and eating right now!

[mabelkitty]

Drugs, eh? Is that it with you?

No wonder you can't debate - your brains cells have fried.

[zoyd]

My point is that BENNETT IS A MORALIST. HE COVERS ALL THINGS MORAL. EVERYTHING THAT IS MORAL IS ON HIS BITCH LIST. You can't just EXCLUDE that bit of morality you happen to dislike, disco. Can't you get that? He preaches himself to the world as a moralist. Whether or not HE says it's on his bitch list, it is, de facto, on his bitch list, because HE'S A MORALIST. That's all.

[zoyd]

Baby, if you can't get your head around my arugment, then just give up.

[mabelkitty]

Who said Bennett was drunk?

You seem to make a great number of conclusions based on nothing.

I can have one drink and not get drunk. I can drive with only one drink.

You try doing that with one of your joints or heroin.

Are you getting it? Yet?

[discostu]

Loser arguement, you're hypothetical person is already addicted. That means his spouse has to deal with the mood swings and the dwindling bank account.

Of course that's a complete RED HERRING. We're not discussing drug laws, we're discussing is it immoral for a person to occasional drop some bills he can easily afford in a slot machine.

Interesting that you now say you don't hold the casinos responsible since previously you said they were an institution that ruined families. Which are they, not responsible or ruinous institutions? Can't be both. In one of those two statements you're BSing me.

[Warhead W-88]

I do believe in morality, and I believe we should generally urge moral behavior and not shy away from calling immoral behavior for what it is, without making excuses, but--

-- we also have to stop sweating the small stuff. I've now got people upthread telling me I can't have a few beers because "some people" can't handle Demon Rum and it destroys their lives.

Hey-- I feel real bad for them and all, but excuse me while I uncap this here Dos Equis. That's YOUR problem and YOUR disease, buddy, not mine. There are some people who apparently insist on other people bearing THEIR crosses.

It's a delicate line, I admit. But there is a line. Yes, we can't give in to the liberal silliness that everything is just a personal choice that can't be commented on.

But, in rejecting that extreme, are we necessarily forced to the Holy Roller extreme wherein everyone becomes a busybody Church Lady, and I can't play some low-stakes poker without some hairshirt scold lecturing me about it?

[Porterville]

Money = Power; Power = Freedom; Money = Freedom ; Money wasted is a waste of freedom. It is obscene for someone of his stature to waste in such large amounts.

In an ideal world money would not equate to power and freedom.

In this world it does.

He disrespects those people whose souls he frets so much about saving.

Anyone who is trouble or strapped for cash (cop, teacher, firefighter, nurse, student, public health official, etc.) trying to make a difference would love to have this money spent towards the empowerment of their desire to do good on this earth.

He claims to be the moral leader and voice of the conservative movement. But he wasted his goodwill, not on the people who need the help the most, but on his own cheap thrills.

I am a selfish person; I will do selfish things and pursue my selfish interest. But I will not claim to be virtuous, I will be honest with myself and the people with whom I do work.

In essence he is a liar.

[AmishDude]

Warhead W-88: The minute you Holy Rollers start ordering ME about is the minute I start voting against you.

zoyd: Don't get me wrong. I'm a libertarian,

I wouldn't worry too much about that.

[zoyd]

I am suggesting that gambling, like drinking, does not cause harm in and of itself. The potential for abuse is there for people with addictive personalities, true, but if we consider everything that can be abused to be immoral, then we should all give up on sex and eating right now!

Oh, I'm with you! It's just that Bennett is the Great Pontificator on all things moral. He'd be the first to argue AGAINST us on this. Ask him about the Drug War, since he was the Drug Czar. He played the 'societal harm' angle. It was the OVERALL harm caused by drugs that requires the Drug War, not the individual use.

[Warhead W-88]

Have you tried games like bridge? You can just play for points (no money), most points wins.

Poker NEEDS gambling to be interesting. I find that bridge is interesting enough on its own that it does not suffer without wagering.

[discostu]

He's a moralist, yes. And he does not discuss gambling as immoral behavior. So maybe that means you're full of crap. Maybe Bennett understands that life is full of risks and that to a degree we're all gamblers. Or maybe he knew a bunch of whiney people would get all uptight and it just wasn't worth the headache.

[G Larry]

Read the article!
He doesn't NEED any help.
Your disapproval, doesn't mean he's got a problem.

[mabelkitty]

I'm concerned about it.

I have always felt safe and a certain amount of privacy when I indulge, and this freaks me out.

Makes me rethink that whole idea about being seen in a casino.