'Virtues' Author Bennett Says No More Gambling. I love it when "moral" America bites its own ass. Aparently the concept of practice what you preach does not apply to certain individuals.
Oh the irony: 'Virtues' Author Bennett Says No More Gambling
- Thread starter LilBlinbBlahIce
- Start date
It doesn't necessarily discredit what he says, it just shows you how full of crap he was to preach morality while he was apparently a hard core gambler. i don't know about you, but the last time I checked the moral majority said gambling was bad.
Ironic I think that the proceeds of all those books he wrote on virtue and morality went to help finance a gambling habit. I am not saying he had no right to do so but I find the irony delicious.
Either way, what's your point? This guy was preaching virtue and morality when he blew millions of dollars on gambling. Can you deny that? No. Was it wrong? probably not, just horribly hypocritical. Practice what you preach or shut the fvck up IMO.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Why should his expensive hobby get in the way of his moral finger pointing in his books, lectures, and TV appearances?
This same majority is also approving "education" lotteries everywhere as if that is not gambling. I also am amazed that this story has not been made public before now.
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
Well at least he admits he has a problem and acknowledges his his hipocracy.
Funny the guy wrote the Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton, the most poorly written piece of crap ever...
Hate to think that people buying that book are actually contributing to his 8 million dollar gambling fund.
Funny the guy wrote the Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton, the most poorly written piece of crap ever...
Hate to think that people buying that book are actually contributing to his 8 million dollar gambling fund.
Yeah, he admits and renounces his problem..........but only after the media put a bigass spotlight on it. He'd still be gambling away if he thought it wouldn't hurt his book sales.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I wonder how Bennett would responded if it came out that Clinton had lost 8 million gambling? I bet he would have gotten another book out of it as another example of Clinton moral weakness.
The higher you build yourself up, the harder the fall. Right? The problem w/ people who are "holier than thou" is that they usually aren't.
Edit: Hey, maybe he can sue for damages?
- dm
Edit: Hey, maybe he can sue for damages?
- dm
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,853
- 6,392
- 126
From Republican Clinton bashers getting "outed" to this guy I think one thing should become blatantly clear: Where Humans are involved, there is no moral superiority! We can try and we can overcome certain weakness, but we can never attain "perfection".
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Oh, since we're quoting from other sources, here ya go, from Slate
Berate and Switch
Bill Bennett's kinder, gentler defenders.
By William Saletan
Updated Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 2:38 PM PT
Here come the Bill Bennett defenders. In case you've been sitting in front of a video poker screen for the past week, here's the story: The Washington Monthly's Joshua Green and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter reported that Bennett, a conservative moral lecturer and author of The Book of Virtues, has gambled at casinos for years, losing as much as $8 million. Slate's Michael Kinsley and other liberals jumped on the story, spanking Bennett for hypocrisy.
Now conservative pundits are coming to Bennett's aid. They argue, as Kinsley predicted, that Bennett's gambling is 1) OK because it hurts nobody else directly and 2) non-hypocritical because Bennett never explicitly criticized gambling. Either point can be argued separately. But together they don't stand up. Bennett's hypocrisy isn't that he gambled while faulting others for the same habit. It's that he says it's OK for him to indulge in a habit that hurts nobody else directly, but it isn't OK for you. To excuse his conduct, his libertarian defenders are substituting their standards for his.
Bennett told the Monthly: "I don't play the 'milk money.' I don't put my family at risk, and I don't owe anyone anything." He compared gambling to alcohol: "If you can't handle it, don't do it." His defenders make the same point. "Bennett deserves privacy; he deserves whatever means he can legally use to relax when he is off duty," writes Andrew Sullivan. "What he does with his money is his own business," agrees Jim Glassman. "The only conceivable victims here are the Bennett family, and a little bird tells me that they'll do just fine," says National Review's Jonah Goldberg. Unlike adultery, gambling doesn't involve a "willingness to hurt others," adds the Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last.
Sullivan, Glassman, Goldberg, and Last are fully entitled to make this argument. But Bennett isn't. As drug czar in 1989 and 1990, he constantly emphasized that anyone who patronized that addictive industry was responsible for its victims. On Meet the Press, he advocated mandatory sentences for "recreational, yuppie" marijuana users, blaming them for "the murder and mayhem in Washington, the fact that we have babies now being born addicted to cocaine. ? These people are accessories to all those things, and they need to start paying a price." He told the Wall Street Journal that the "casual user ? is driving the whole enterprise." He told USA Today, "For your middle class or your yuppie user, let's do what they do in Phoenix: Weekend in jail, counseling program, and you pay the cost of it." He criticized celebrities who admitted to past drug use, warning that such disclosures gave kids the idea that "you can do drugs and still be rich and successful."
You can argue (contrary to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission) that gambling doesn't trap and destroy people the way drugs do. But again, Bennett can't. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators 2001, to which Bennett wrote the introduction, says, "Approximately 2.5 million adult Americans are pathological gamblers; another 3 million have been classified as problem gamblers. ? According to the American Psychiatric Association, 'pathological gambling is persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior ? that disrupts personal, family, or vocational pursuits.' "
To quell the furor, Bennett has issued a Clintonian non-apology apology: "It is true that I have gambled large sums of money. I have also complied with all laws on reporting wins and losses. Nevertheless, I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over." It isn't about the example, Bill. It's about you doing for gambling what you said pot smokers did for the drug trade. If you'd caught any of your libertarian sympathizers with a joint, they'd have spent the weekend in jail for patronizing a corrosive industry. Lucky for you, they're more forgiving.
Berate and Switch
Bill Bennett's kinder, gentler defenders.
By William Saletan
Updated Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 2:38 PM PT
Here come the Bill Bennett defenders. In case you've been sitting in front of a video poker screen for the past week, here's the story: The Washington Monthly's Joshua Green and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter reported that Bennett, a conservative moral lecturer and author of The Book of Virtues, has gambled at casinos for years, losing as much as $8 million. Slate's Michael Kinsley and other liberals jumped on the story, spanking Bennett for hypocrisy.
Now conservative pundits are coming to Bennett's aid. They argue, as Kinsley predicted, that Bennett's gambling is 1) OK because it hurts nobody else directly and 2) non-hypocritical because Bennett never explicitly criticized gambling. Either point can be argued separately. But together they don't stand up. Bennett's hypocrisy isn't that he gambled while faulting others for the same habit. It's that he says it's OK for him to indulge in a habit that hurts nobody else directly, but it isn't OK for you. To excuse his conduct, his libertarian defenders are substituting their standards for his.
Bennett told the Monthly: "I don't play the 'milk money.' I don't put my family at risk, and I don't owe anyone anything." He compared gambling to alcohol: "If you can't handle it, don't do it." His defenders make the same point. "Bennett deserves privacy; he deserves whatever means he can legally use to relax when he is off duty," writes Andrew Sullivan. "What he does with his money is his own business," agrees Jim Glassman. "The only conceivable victims here are the Bennett family, and a little bird tells me that they'll do just fine," says National Review's Jonah Goldberg. Unlike adultery, gambling doesn't involve a "willingness to hurt others," adds the Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last.
Sullivan, Glassman, Goldberg, and Last are fully entitled to make this argument. But Bennett isn't. As drug czar in 1989 and 1990, he constantly emphasized that anyone who patronized that addictive industry was responsible for its victims. On Meet the Press, he advocated mandatory sentences for "recreational, yuppie" marijuana users, blaming them for "the murder and mayhem in Washington, the fact that we have babies now being born addicted to cocaine. ? These people are accessories to all those things, and they need to start paying a price." He told the Wall Street Journal that the "casual user ? is driving the whole enterprise." He told USA Today, "For your middle class or your yuppie user, let's do what they do in Phoenix: Weekend in jail, counseling program, and you pay the cost of it." He criticized celebrities who admitted to past drug use, warning that such disclosures gave kids the idea that "you can do drugs and still be rich and successful."
You can argue (contrary to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission) that gambling doesn't trap and destroy people the way drugs do. But again, Bennett can't. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators 2001, to which Bennett wrote the introduction, says, "Approximately 2.5 million adult Americans are pathological gamblers; another 3 million have been classified as problem gamblers. ? According to the American Psychiatric Association, 'pathological gambling is persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior ? that disrupts personal, family, or vocational pursuits.' "
To quell the furor, Bennett has issued a Clintonian non-apology apology: "It is true that I have gambled large sums of money. I have also complied with all laws on reporting wins and losses. Nevertheless, I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over." It isn't about the example, Bill. It's about you doing for gambling what you said pot smokers did for the drug trade. If you'd caught any of your libertarian sympathizers with a joint, they'd have spent the weekend in jail for patronizing a corrosive industry. Lucky for you, they're more forgiving.
This story is picking up steam, I saw reports on it both on local and national news and on one of those news magazine shows. I say crucify the ba$tard a la Clinton. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Did he never denounce it because he enjoyed it? That's an important question to ask.
I was also under the impression that his group has lobbied against lotteries and legalized gambling in the past.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter