1. Otto -- You really believe casino gambling tears this man down? Do you believe it does more to affect his career than an extra-marital affair does to the career of a preacher?? or lying under oath does to the man who sits as president of the united states? I can't delight in any of that, quite frankly. I think it's all awful. But I'm much less offended by a man gambling his own money in a casino then I am by the other examples mentioned. Much less. Particularly when the man is still able to feed his own family and meet those responsibilities. It doesn't leave us with the implications the other two you mentioned do. 2. Deckard -- come on...the book is a collection of stories from cultures around the world...fables of morality. bill bennett didn't write them, he just compiled them. don't stop reading those classical stories to your aunt or your kids or your aunt's kids...or your kid's aunts..or whoever. I don't see how gambling in a casino ultimately affects his sincerity. Who of us hasn't stumbled? I wish he would not have gambled like this, because it diminishes his witness on a very surface level...but I don't see it as a question of his heart.
I know, MadMax... and I really don't want to come across as sactimonious, which is the last thing I am in "real life". And I don't have a problem with Bennet gambling... but the amounts! Think of $8 million and having kept it secret (although, little wonder... I wouldn't make it public if I could help it). And consider the good he could have done with it, although that is anyone's choice. I think it DOES affect his sincerity. He put his name on these books of fables as an endorsement of their worth (and to make money? I don't know if he does or not). Whether you or I think gambling is immoral (I could care less... it's a personal choice), the majority of people who buy those books for their children will, imo. It just gets tiresome to be constantly barraged, inside and outside the BBS, by the alleged immorality of Democratic Party policies and Democratic Party current and former politicians... and to regularly come across Republicans with their own piccadillos. Excuses are made by the cart-load for them by most Republicans, (at least those who currently control the party... it used to be quite different. See Olympia Snowe for a throwback) many of them on this BBS. Democrats usually don't get that luxury. That's where I'm coming from.
The question I have is that the article states that his "total losses" are 8 million dollars. It does not state what his "net losses" are. For all we know his net is 0. If I sit at a poker machine for a few hours, my total losses are apt to be around $1000, but my total wins are apt to be $900 - $1100 on an average night, making my net anywhere from -$100 to +$100.
I understand...it appears quite hypocritical. I am encouraged by his reaction. He didn't run from this. He didn't lie about it. He fessed up and said, "yes...i've done this...and i'm not going to anymore." that's all you can really ask of people.
If one can break even on slots, one is cheating or graced by allah. They are programmed to win for the house, the percentage is set by the gaming commission IIRC, something like 97:100 or 91:100 odds.
OK, this seems to me to be a big fuss about a little vice but heck, here goes: http://slate.msn.com/id/2082638/ Could Bill Bennett Really Break Even Playing Slots? By Brendan I. Koerner Posted Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 2:27 PM PT Conservative moralist William Bennett says he's "come out pretty close to even" gambling over the past decade, contradicting a report that pegs his losses at around $8 million. Given Bennett's stated preference for high-stakes slot machines and video poker, does his claim hold mathematical water? As a few lucky Powerball winners can attest, nothing's impossible when it comes to fighting astronomical odds. But it's highly improbable—bordering on absurd—that Bennett has broken even through the years. The primary factor working against the former White House drug czar is his choice of games. Professional gamblers and mathematicians alike eschew slot machines as suckers' bets; since no skill is involved, they're fixed to favor the house, and the rapid action translates into rapid losses. The notion of any machine being "hot" or "cold" on a given evening is pure myth since they're powered by computer chips that function as random number generators. The belief among slot pullers that past losses mean soon-to-be-realized jackpots—the "I'm due" mentality—is referred to as the "gambler's fallacy." One bet has absolutely nothing to do with the next. . . . Bennett might have helped his case by following intelligent slots protocol, such as carefully reading the payout rules on each machine (identical-looking slots may feature different maximum payouts, a classic casino trick) and always betting the maximum allowable (which increases the probability of hitting the top jackpot). Over a decade's worth of gaming, however, that's not enough to beat the Law. The wild card (pun intended) in Bennett's hobby is his taste for video poker, which requires a bit of skill rather than just lever-pulling. (Gaming experts always recommend video poker over slots.) There are even video poker machines with theoretical long-term payouts exceeding 100 percent—assuming that the player executes a perfect strategy on each and every hand. Since that's not likely, a competent player can expect an average payout ranging from 90 percent to 98 percent, depending on his skill and the type of machine. Which means he or she is still going to lose in the long run. Next question? Then our own Will chips in on the issue: http://slate.msn.com/id/2082635/ 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. . . . 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.
a clintonian non-apology? last i checked, bill bennett was a private citizen. bill clinton was president of the united states...he didn't apologize because his first reaction was to lie to us all in a news conference...and to lie under oath. bill bennett is saying, "you're right...this is wrong...i will not do it again." we never got that kind of statement from bill clinton. never once. instead, he blamed EVERYONE else for his problems. everyone else. bennett isn't assigning blame to anyone else at all. how much more of the man can you ask? you want him to come to your house and personally ask for forgiveness. frankly, i'm betting you didn't care that much about bill bennett before this story came out.
Will, you made a mistake mentioning Clinton. Any arguement you make about anything that brings up his name is certain to derail it. I know Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Greens... you name it. Bring up Bill Clinton and all reasonable discourse is toast. I can't talk politics with one of my long-time friends in Houston, which I love to do (talk politics), because he can't do it without bringing up Clinton. The conversation immediately goes downhill from there. I'll say, "What does HE have to do with this??", and he'll proceed to give me 40 reasons that have nothing to do with what we were talking about and everything to do about Clinton. (sigh)
