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

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2413.)

"Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for one’s needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant."

Get a grip, zoyd. If Bill Bennett's gambling fits the above (which it does), it is not immoral. And who the hell are you to tell Bill Bennett where he should spend his money. My guess is that he donates more to the needy than you ever could.

The truth will out eventually, but if Bennett has lost $8 million gambling, he has a problem; or else he is incredibly stupid.

You know...I wonder why on earth the casino's would leak this sort of documentation. Aren't they known for being discrete in these matters? Sounds like they had a sure thing going with some very good patrons that might make some of them think before spending on that scale...in Vegas any way...

He may. I really don't know.

But that $8 million was over a ten year period; furthermore, he says, "Over 10 years, I'd say I've come out pretty close to even". Who to believe?

I don't know what his net worth is. That $8 million (if true) to him could be like $8 thousand to us.

I don't recall Mr. Bennett forcing his gambling hobby on anybody

And few if any drug users force their hobby on others, but that doesn't stop Bennett from vociferously supporting the War On Some Drugs.

So expect Rush Limbaugh to line up in Bill Bennett's defense tomorrow. Blame the messenger, blame Newsweek, blame Jonathan Alder, blame the Democrats that run New Joisey and haven't put a limit on how much a gambler can drop in a slot machine. And, of course, he'll remind his listeners that the liberal media has been out to get Bill Bennett all along because of his stand for morality and family values, blah, blah, blah.

The best defence is a good offense, they say.

We didn't have to wait for Rush---the GOP-zombie contingent on FR did just what you described.

Michael Kinsley has a piece on Bennett in Slate, which I think is funny and right on the mark.

He explains why Bennett's defenders are wrong - after reading a few hundred of them, I think Kinsley's right.

>>. . . .
1.) He never specifically criticized gambling. This, if true, doesn't show that Bennett is not a hypocrite. It just shows that he's not a complete idiot. Working his way down the list of other people's pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient. Is there some reason why his general intolerance of the standard vices does not apply to this one? None that he's ever mentioned.

Open, say, Bennett's The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family, and read about how Americans overvalue "unrestricted personal liberty." How we must relearn to "enter judgments on a whole range of behaviors and attitudes." About how "wealth and luxury ... often make it harder to deny the quest for instant gratification" because "the more we attain, the more we want." How would you have guessed, last week, that Bennett would regard a man who routinely "cycle[s] several hundred thousand dollars in an evening" (his own description) sitting in an airless Las Vegas casino pumping coins into a slot machine or video game? Well, you would have guessed wrong! He thinks it's perfectly OK as long as you don't spend the family milk money.

2.) His gambling never hurt anyone else. This is, of course, the classic libertarian standard of permissible behavior, and I think it's a good one. If a hypocrite is a person who says one thing and does another, the problem with Bennett is what he says—not (as far as we know) what he does. Bennett can't plead liberty now because opposing libertarianism is what his sundry crusades are all about. He wants to put marijuana smokers in jail. He wants to make it harder to get divorced. He wants more "moral criticism of homosexuality" and "declining to accept that what they do is right."

In all these cases, Bennett wants laws against or heightened social disapproval of activities that have no direct harmful effects on anyone except the participants. He argues that the activities in question are encouraging other, more harmful activities, or are eroding general social norms in some vague way. Empower America, one of Bennett's several shirt-pocket mass movements, officially opposes the spread of legalized gambling, and the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, one of Bennett's cleverer PR conceits, includes "problem" gambling as a negative indicator of cultural health. So, Bennett doesn't believe that gambling is harmless. He just believes that his own gambling is harmless. But by the standards he applies to everything else, it is not harmless.

Bennett has been especially critical of libertarian sentiments coming from intellectuals and the media elite. Smoking a bit of pot may not ruin their middle-class lives, but by smoking pot they create an atmosphere of toleration that can be disastrous for others who are not so well grounded. The Bill Bennett who can ooze disdain over this is the same Bill Bennett who apparently thinks he has no connection to all those "problem" gamblers because he makes millions preaching virtue and they don't.

3. He's doing no harm to himself. From the information in Alter's and Green's articles, Bennett seems to be in deep denial about this. If it's true that he's lost $8 million in gambling casinos over 10 years, that surely is addictive or compulsive behavior no matter how good virtue has been to him financially. He claims to have won more than he has lost, which is virtually (that word again!) impossible playing the machines as Bennett apparently does. If he's not in denial, then he's simply lying, which is a definite non-virtue. And he's spraying smarm like the worst kind of cornered politician—telling the Washington Post, for example, that his gambling habit started with "church bingo."
. . . . <<
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082526/

"...The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2413.)

"Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for one’s needs and those of others....

Get a grip, zoyd. If Bill Bennett's gambling fits the above (which it does), it is not immoral. And who the hell are you to tell Bill Bennett where he should spend his money. My guess is that he donates more to the needy than you ever could....."

You have made the point for those who criticize Bennett for them. Do you not recall the parable that Jesus taught regarding the Poor Old Woman and the Pharisees in the Temple? Jesus mocked the Pharisees because they made a big show of giving alms to the poor from their surplus. He praised the poor old women who gave a pittance in humility from her need.

Bennett deserves little credit for giving to the poor from his surplus (I deserve no better). But he is justly criticized for throwing away millions that could have been used to 1) capitalize a new business that employs people; 2) build a new catholic school to educate children in his faith; 3) grace the public square with art; or 4) help the poor, sick and underprivileged. If his losses were of the size alleged, he has deprived others of things that they need and has in so doing sinned in the eyes of the Church. By presenting himself as a moral avatar at the same time he has put himself in the position of a Pharisee, making a large show of his virtue while being blinded by his pride. This is the definition of hypocrisy.

Who are we to tell Bill Bennett where and how to spend his money? No one. But as a practicing Catholic, Bennett must subordinate himself to the teachings of the Church. He did not and can be criticized for it.

"Who are we to tell Bill Bennett where and how to spend his money? No one."

Bingo! (excuse the pun)

I was under the impression that Mr. Bennett gambled $8 million, not lost $8 million.

I have close relatives that have gambled well into six figures over the past ten years or so. Since they are "smart" gamblers, their losses are less than 1% of that. Since they go to Vegas a couple of times a year (not to mention the Bahamas) they get their meals, hotel room, and often their plane tickets "comped". If the cost of those "freebees" is counted, their little hobby doesn't cost them much at all. I would even venture to say that I spend more on computers and electronics than they do on gambling.

It is probably a similar situation with Mr. Bennett. As for hypocracy, I would say there is a case if he were an anti-gambling shrill, but since he hasn't taken much of a stand against gambling, I wouldn't hold it against him.

Now if they found him coked to the gills with a hooker on one arm and a drag queen on the other, THEN I would tell him to STFU. ;-)

I think the original Newsweek article is semi-manufactured. That's my opinion. Ever work in/with a casino? People that they scout for gambling purposes – and that’s what they do when they send planes and limos to pick you up and comp everything (and give you large revolving accounts) – are not reported on.

There are things that they have to report. None of them will be made available to you or me - or Newsweek. Somebody stepped in sh!t when they released this info. Bennett sends in his lawyers and they’ll settle this in 30 minutes and everything will be denied. He’ll recover any losses over the last two decades in the process. The casinos will do this voluntarily and enthusiastically, BTW.

"...I was under the impression that Mr. Bennett gambled $8 million, not lost $8 million...."

Certainly, the size of Mr. Bennett's losses remains unclear. I am gaining the impression, however, that the dollar amounts were large.

This impression is strengthened by knowledge that we do have, corroborated by Mr. Bennett himself, of the types of games that he regularly played. Apparently, Mr. Bennett favored video poker machines. As I understand it, these games do not involve skill, as do the games your relatives play (actual poker, baccarat, "21," even craps). Rather, a computer generates the poker hands and determines whether the player wins or loses.

Needless to say, over the long term the player loses and the house wins. If the stakes are high enough, the player could lose a great deal.

In my view, this is the definition of "pi$$ing away" money. I would have no qualm if Mr. Bennett liked to while away a few hours putting $100 of quarters into slot machines when he happens to be in Vegas or Atlantic City. This is harmless fun. But if he is losing millions of dollars, gained primarily from speaking fees paid by groups of earnest do-gooders (as he poses to be), that would be far better used by the truly needy, his church, his childrens' schools, then he is no better than a Pharisee, perhaps worse.

Forget about Bennett.

WHERE DID THIS INFO COME FROM? THE CASINOS? 10 YEARS? MULTIPLE LOCATIONS? MULTIPLE CREDIT LINES?

Who invaded Bennett's privacy?