Jane Hamsher!!!

In other words, there's absolutely no hypocrisy. Gambling is a private transaction between parties that society has little interest in.

Right on AH.

but there was one particular vice he was oddly silent about: high-stakes gambling.

Kevin, I think the reason he was silent about it is because conservatives like myself believe there is nothing with high-stakes gambling. People put money into starting new businesses and in the stock market all the time hoping to make more money in return. How is high-stakes gambling any different? In fact, conservatives support it because it's just capitalism in action and conservatives support capitalism and oppose socialism. Liberal charges of hypocrisy are wrong.

OH OH Me me oh It's that Values thing that there always talking about.AH love them pictures you got of W on your wall.Where did you get that one with W in the flight suit blown up at?His crotch looks huge on your bedroom wall.

Gambling is one thing. Routinely losing 1.4 million dollars gambling is quite another.

AL= Values. Then there is the oldest profession the Right doesn't say much about that either.Prostituion is just capitalism,Providing a service for money,What's wrong with making money.

Al and American Hawk,

I guess that you did not read this portion of the article:

"When reminded of studies that link heavy gambling to divorce, bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and other family problems he has widely decried, Bennett compared the situation to alcohol.

'I view it as drinking," Bennett says. "If you can't handle it, don't do it.'"

Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Conservatives support slave labor,It's just Capitalism with a Capital C.

Odd discussion. I thought everyone knew Bennett was just using the chips to launder his credit cards into cash to pay his dominatrix.

Bennett had made a career out of hectoring others about leading a vice-free life, but there was one particular vice he was oddly silent about: high-stakes gambling.

Now really, Bennett has been trying, really trying to teach us all a very valuable lesson about public virtue:

If a conservative republican doesn't SPECIFICALLY condemn something, it means that they're engaging in it on the sly.

That means you, too, Al. In all of your comments, I've never seen you denounce deviate sex with farm animals. Now might be a good time, but try not to "protest too much".

Gambling is one thing. Routinely losing 1.4 million dollars gambling is quite another.

All told Bennett lost $8 million gambling.

And yes, sure, it's his money to do with as he pleases. But consider this: Bennett had a choice as to what to do with that $8 million. He could have handed it over to casinos, as he chose to do, or he could have denied himself the pleasure of gambling and instead taken that $8 million and given it to charity, perhaps using it to build village schools in Africa, say, or funding scholarships for orphans.

Now which of those two choices for how to spend $8 million -- private pleasure or public good -- would a truly moral man, a virtuous man, have made?

I thought Josh Marshall broke this story..

Al: People put money into starting new businesses and in the stock market all the time hoping to make more money in return. How is high-stakes gambling any different?

So if Bush lost at gambling, somebody would bail him out just as they bailed him out when he failed at capitalism?

The difference between Stefan and Bill Bennett, AH, dear, is that Stefan does not pretend to be a truly moral or virtuous man. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

AH So if you can handle being a liar then by all means be a liar.Consevatism is so cool.Sex with young boys,Go for it,It's Consevatism.Got a little drug problem, Hey this is Consevatism enjoy.Feel like streching the truth strech away it all fits in the conservatism tent.Conservatism is just the coolest.

AH,
I see you are as brain dead as Bennett. Have you ever heard the term: Practice what you preach? He holds himself up to be some high and mighty thing, but why does he go at midnight to 6am? What's he trying to hide? Sounds like a guilty conscience to me.

Hypocrisy is just another word Conservatism.I'm going to beat my wife, conservatism says I can.Hell I'm switching parties conservatism is just like going to a Whore house so many choices so much money.

Sorry trolls This is not a Thread on Al Gore but one on Bill Bennet The Values man.

Dammit They won't let me in the conservative party.They said I didn't have a black child or a drug problem or gamble enough and not near enough hypocrisy to be let in.bummer.

Kevin: How about a renew button to make sure we don't get two copies each month. George

Stefan-- You could use your time to work in a soup kitchen or post on PA. Which of those two choices-- priate pleasure or public good-- would a truly moral man, a virtuous man, have made?

Who says I'm truly moral or virtuous? I work as a Wall Street lawyer, for god's sakes....

The point: EVerybody is allowed their recreation and off time.

Actually, the point is that everybody is allowed their recreation and off-time (I, for example, choose to spend mine in a Chinatown opium den with two Latvian teenagers), but everybody is not, however, allowed to be a hypocritical hectoring scold, at least not without being laughed at once their own personal failings are stripped bare.

The point: EVerybody is allowed their recreation and off time.

Funny how this never seemed to apply to Bill Clinton....

If you can't handle it, don't do it. That's the conservative credo. We don't ask the state to ban gambling or smoking just because some people can't handle it.

Yes, in keeping with our credo conservatives will soon call for the decriminalization of all drugs in addition to our favored alcohol and the pot we smoke whenever we feel like it.

And just because some people "can't handle" gay marriage is no reason for us Republicans not to sponsor an amendment allowing it -- particularly since so many of us are having gay sex on the sly . While we're on the topic I'd like to give a shout out to my homies Mark Foley and Ted Haggard! Yo dawgs! S'up? Cruise any good middle schools lately?

And since Republican wives are already having sex with their dogs in private - because their husbands have such tiny penises and are busy screwing other men and little boys anyway - there's no reason they shouldn't start doing it in public parks after school just because some prudes can't handle it. C'mon, that's the conservative credo!

See? Anybody can troll. It's easy!

Just devise nonsense claims to piss people off and sit back and watch the fun. Sometimes I think I'd like to actually contribute something of value but I don't have the smarts or the integrity.

Sorry, Al, nobody is going to buy it. It's interesting how 8 million dollars isn't a lot of money for him when he loses it to the casino, but if you ask him to pay an extra $50,000 in taxes, and suddenly you're squeezing him dry.

I was talking with John Perry Barlow years ago, and he said something along the lines of (and I paraphrase) "I always acknowledged I was a drug-taking sex-crazed hippie freak so that no-one could ever accuse me of being a drug-taking sex-crazed hippie freak. If they ever pointed the finger all I had to do was shrug and say yeah, so what? What are you saying that everyone doesn't already know"?

Give that Hawk a cigar Libby.
One of the Cuban ones I ordered from the State Dept.

If you can't handle it, don't do it. That's the conservative credo. We don't ask the state to ban gambling or smoking just because some people can't handle it.

So the conservative credo also doesn't ask the state to ban drugs or prostitution or sodomy just because some people can't handle it? Yeah, right....

Relax honey...

I've got crates of them down here in the bunker.

There is nothing in the Holy Bible that prohibits gambling. /i>

I forgot to add that there is nothing in the Holy Bible that prohibits abortion, either -- so have at it!

If a conservative republican doesn't SPECIFICALLY condemn something, it means that they're engaging in it on the sly.

You may be on to something. I'm pretty certain that Limbaugh has separately condemned drug use and screwing child prostitutes, but he never condemned doing both of them at the same time.

I forgot to add that there is nothing in the Holy Bible that prohibits abortion, either -- so have at it!

In fact, the bible endorses abortion in the case of infidelity. Its in Numbers 4 or thereabouts.

sources and documents provided to The Washington Monthly put his total losses at more than $8 million.

Memories! I remember this lie very well. Can the (emotionally) older "liberals" on this board spot the highly misleading part of the quoted statement? Do any of the (emotionally) older "liberals" on this board feel a little queasy about Kevin Drum rebroadcasting this highly misleading statement? Why would Kevin Drum do that?

----
Your truthseeker

Darling daughter:
Nothing but Cuba's best for me and mine.

Consider it a small gift indeed for not putting your Old Man through the ordeals of "shotgun" wedding!

Darling daughter:
Nothing but Cuba's best for me and mine.

Consider it a small gift indeed for not putting your Old Man through the ordeals of "shotgun" wedding!

"But since liberals began the practice of ascribing anti-social conduct to alleged addictions and/or factors outside the individual that "cause" the behavior, I'd expect the tolerant left to consider the possibility that Bennett is a "victim" of a gambling addiction beyond his ability to control"

I'll accept that.

Will you accept that maybe he is not the best person to decide on what is or is not moral behaviour?

Of course not.

Unamerican Chickenshit: "...there's absolutely no hypocrisy."

Al: "Yeah, what he says!"

Methinks the trolls doth protest too much.

Daughter...

You certainly are a chip off the old block.

Which sure beats being a "chimp" off the old block.

Which is also to suggest, I'm twisting the monkey's arm in regards to Iran. I hope to make him squeal soon enough. Hopefully, we will have a real "baby shower" in time for your "baby shower."

HA!
Your Old Pop just loves a pun.

Which reminds me:

You know: You are the best son a Daddy never had...

But since liberals began the practice of ascribing anti-social conduct to alleged addictions and/or factors outside the individual that "cause" the behavior, I'd expect the tolerant left to consider the possibility that Bennett is a "victim" of a gambling addiction beyond his ability to control.

Yeah, so? The criticism is about him moralizing about other behaviors with a similar compulsive nature while apparently having a gambling problem himself, not for the gambling problem itself.

AH and AL, Please tell me you'd write exactly the same thing if the moralizing gas bag was a Democrat. Chiiiiirp Chiiiiirp Creeeeeeek Creeeeeeek.

Now read very closely the righties on this thread.And you can see why they should not be in charge of anything.They seem to lack a simple understanding of the world and the ways of the world.How hard would it be to look at a globe and see that we are not the only piece of land on the planet.As simple as it is to know G.W. was AWOL from TANG they defend him,Now try tell me there is not somthing wrong with there brain patterns.

Robert,

Maybe not, but is Al Gore a hypocrite as well?

FYI –From the Catholic understanding (& Bennett is that) gambeling is not a sin, but rather (like drugs & alcohol) a vice. That is, the act itself is not intrinsically immoral; rather it tends to lead to sin. (Failing to support your family, loss of free will, and so forth)

Having said that, I for one love (supposed or actual) hypocrites. You see, in order to be one, the person has to have some standards to begin with.

Also- If only the perfect could espouse virtue, no one could.

Al,

Don't believe all the lies you've been told about Vice President Al Gore. He flies commercial. He's doing his part to reduce green house emissions. A person doesn't have to live like the Unibomber to push for some very simple ways to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Did you stop to think that maybe without all the Energy star going on at Al Gore's Mansion the Bill would be 6 times as much,did you ever think of that before you ran off at the mouth.I said think to a Righty yea I feel dumb now.

Robert,

So Gore is going to move into a one-bedroom apartment? I still don't get why it isn't hypocrisy to jet all over the world or live in a mansion while proclaiming global warming the greatest threat to the planet. Practice what you preach seems to be the standard to avoid the hypocrisy label. Gore doesn't meet that standard.

FYI –From the Catholic understanding (& Bennett is that) gambeling is not a sin, but rather (like drugs & alcohol) a vice. That is, the act itself is not intrinsically immoral; rather it tends to lead to sin. (Failing to support your family, loss of free will, and so forth)

From the perspective of my religion gambling, drugs, alcohol and sex with multiple anonymous partners are neither a vice nor a sin. In fact, they're considered a positive good. Isn't it wonderful that by cloaking it in religion I'm allowed to do pretty much whatever I want?

Having said that, I for one love (supposed or actual) hypocrites. You see, in order to be one, the person has to have some standards to begin with.

Huh. I for one love (a) people who maintain standards and actually keep to those standards, which is a sign of their integrity and (b) honest sinners who aren't trying to fool anyone about what they're like, which is a sign of their honesty. A hypocrite who's both weak and dishonest about the weakness? Not so much.

Prostituion is just capitalism,Providing a service for money

I do not understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal.

Why isn't selling fucking legal?

Stefan wrote:

Huh. I for one love (a) people who maintain standards and actually keep to those standards, which is a sign of their integrity and (b) honest sinners who aren't trying to fool anyone about what they're like, which is a sign of their honesty.
_______________________

Unfortunately, Stefan, your two categories leave out most of the human race. As the AA-types put it, "We claim spiritual progress, not spiritual perfection." Most people have some idea of what virtue is, yet fail to live up to it completely.

If we can only accept wisdom from those who are error-free, then we better be prepared to wait a long time to hear it, because no one is without sin. If anyone who speaks in favor of virtue, yet fails to be virtuous in all respects, is an hypocrite, then we are all hypocrites, save those few truly lost who hold with no virtue and are unapologetic about it.

Hey Al, AH, how do you know what Al Gore's power bill is? How does anyone other than Al Gore, Tipper, and the local power company?

Has your conservative news source committed a federal offense by opening Al Gore's power bill?

Are you going to be good law-abiding citizens and turn them in?

Dr. Morpheus, apparently, this is something that any Tennessee citizen can request. No laws were broken.

Our dear little troll, desperate for attention, writes: "PaulB-- Awesome. Can you apply that same standard to Al Gore and his mansions across the nation that suck up power? What about his private jet?"

Why yes, I can, dear, why is why I can testify that your allegations are, as usual, entirely without merit. Do feel free to continue trolling, though; I can always use a good laugh.

"William Bennet's gambling bears no weight against his moral standing."

Yes, dear, it does, which is why dear Mr. Bennett has not been in the public eye nearly as much of late. The hypocrisy was even too much for our IOKIYAR media to bear.

We are never home, so I have no idea who is running up the power bill. Probably a member of Dick Cheney's secret cabal that is running the world.

Your joking, is that because he's a public official or can anybody in Tennessee see anyone's power bill?

Not joking but can't point you to the post where I saw this; it was on one of the liberal blogs today, though. Apparently, the story originated with "The Tennessean" and they used a perfectly legal mechanism to request the information. And yes, anyone can see any property's power bill by just asking.

Bill Bennett, like most social conservatives, drives me up a tree. But it does strike me there is a logic problem here. You say Bennett does not moralize on gambling, and it turns out he is gambling, so he is a flaming hypocrite. How? The only logic chain that I can come up with is 1) most people who believe the same way as Bennett also oppose gambling so 2) Bennett must too, even though he has never said so, and therefore 3) He's a hypocrite!

This is the kind of gotcha politics that just sets the argument back. Since Bill Bennett can easily duck charges of hypocrisy on the facts ("I never moralized against gambling"), it dilutes the focus on how wrong his core message is. Why isn't it sufficient to say that it is wrong to advocate that government interfere in our sexual choices, or our entertainment choices, or whatever the victimless vice-of-the-moment is.

coyote, Bennett's claim to fame is as a moralist and a scold. That he failed to moralize over his particular failing does not make him any less a hypocrite for moralizing over everyone else's failings.

"Since Bill Bennett can easily duck charges of hypocrisy on the facts ('I never moralized against gambling')"

That is, in fact, precisely the argument that both he and his supporters tried to make. It flopped, since few people had any problem seeing just how hollow the argument was.

"Why isn't it sufficient to say that it is wrong to advocate that government interfere in our sexual choices, or our entertainment choices, or whatever the victimless vice-of-the-moment is."

It's not an either-or proposition. It's entirely possible to state just that, while at the same time pointing out the rank hypocrisy of such moral scolds as Mr. Bennett.

Unfortunately, Stefan, your two categories leave out most of the human race.

Most of the human race doesn't make a living as a professional scold and busybody, and publish books lecturing on morality, while simultaneously chasing an $8 million dollar degenerate gambling addiction.

Unfortunately, Stefan, your two categories leave out most of the human race. As the AA-types put it, "We claim spiritual progress, not spiritual perfection." Most people have some idea of what virtue is, yet fail to live up to it completely. If we can only accept wisdom from those who are error-free, then we better be prepared to wait a long time to hear it, because no one is without sin. If anyone who speaks in favor of virtue, yet fails to be virtuous in all respects, is an hypocrite, then we are all hypocrites, save those few truly lost who hold with no virtue and are unapologetic about it.

Yes, that's why we send prostitutes in to the schools to lecture about the virtues of abstinence....

Apparently, the story originated with "The Tennessean" and they used a perfectly legal mechanism to request the information. And yes, anyone can see any property's power bill by just asking.

When we moved to a new billet, if we didn't have base housing, I always called the utility companies and got the information on the average utility bills for a property before signing a lease.

But it does strike me there is a logic problem here. You say Bennett does not moralize on gambling, and it turns out he is gambling, so he is a flaming hypocrite. How? The only logic chain that I can come up with is 1) most people who believe the same way as Bennett also oppose gambling so 2) Bennett must too, even though he has never said so, and therefore 3) He's a hypocrite! This is the kind of gotcha politics that just sets the argument back. Since Bill Bennett can easily duck charges of hypocrisy on the facts ("I never moralized against gambling"), it dilutes the focus on how wrong his core message is.

Actually, no, there's no logic problem. In fact, one of the charges against Bennett is precisely that he oh-so-conveniently exempted the very vice he was addicted to from the list of all the other vices he condemned. The "I never moralized against gambling" is in some ways the key to the hypocrisy charge.

Why didn't Bennett moralize against it? Because he sincerely didn't think it was a problem, or because he actually knew it was, but was addicted and couldn't give it up, and therefore decided to leave it off his little list of what was naughty and nice in order to cover-up his own failing? He's like a minister who goes on and on about how evil and immoral homosexuality is while at the same time carrying on an affair with a teenage girl, and who when caught simpers that "well, I never denounced adultery specifically so I'm not a hypocrite..."

Most people have some idea of what virtue is, yet fail to live up to it completely.

And most people don't charge a $40,000 appearance fee to finger-wag on morality.

Stefan wrote:

"Most of the human race doesn't make a living as a professional scold and busybody, and publish books lecturing on morality, while simultaneously chasing an $8 million dollar degenerate gambling addiction."
________________________

But that's not what you said, Stefan. You gave two categories of people you love, one of which arguably might include Bennett (people who keep their standards) and one of sinners who do not hide the fact that they are sinners. The vast majority of people are neither.

So, what you resent about Bennett is his success? (Certainly, there is little ground to hold a person's addiction against him). I think the overall source of resentment and disdain towards him is much simpler and direct.

Few people like to be told they are in error. Bennett's arguments about virtue and society might have been mere platitudes or they might have been nothing but the stone cold truth (it doesn't matter which and I've never read his book, though I've heard it discussed). Those who disagreed with him, particularly if they were of the opposite political persuation, were bound to take bitter joy in the news of his personal fault, the better to dismiss his message. It's a classic ad hominem tactic.

'Fess up, he's a conservative and whatever he was selling, you weren't buying. His gambling simply gives you a way of dismissing him and his message out of hand. That's okay, by the way, we all do it sometimes. It's a common fault.

His gambling simply gives you a way of dismissing him and his message out of hand.

Yes, indeed. His indulging in vice certainly did give me a way of dismissing his scolding about virtue out of hand. Funny how that works....

(Certainly, there is little ground to hold a person's addiction against him).

Odd, then, that Bennett had no problem holding other people's addictions to drink and drugs and sex against them. Seems he held others to a standard he wasn't willing to apply to himself.

"Bennett had made a career out of hectoring others about leading a vice-free life"
__________________

As I said, I didn't read his book. However, did he really do that? Every time I heard him speak about it, he emphasized the advantages of vitues, both personally and socially, but I never heard him claim that it was possible to live a vice-free life. Just that we should try to. Aren't there virtues that we can all agree benefit both the individual and society? And, if so, what's wrong with advocating them, even if you are personally flawed? As we all are.

Bennett advocated hectored for a categorical imperative he was not willing to impose on himself.

Kant woulda had a field day.

oops. forgot "strikethrough" doesn't work here unless you're Kevin.:) Visualize last comment with the "advocated" lined through.

Stefan wrote:

"Yes, indeed. His indulging in vice certainly did give me a way of dismissing his scolding about virtue out of hand. Funny how that works...."
______________________

It works illogically, of course. Certainly, you recognize the need for virtue of some sort, both personally and within society. And you're not saying that everything he said about virtue is wrong, are you?

One cannot hold Vice President Gore's power bill against him, just because he preaches about global warming. I might think he oversells it a bunch, but he certainly has the right to advocate change to combat it. When it comes to big problems and humankind, most of us are imperfect examples.

"Bennett advocated hectored for a categorical imperative he was not willing to impose on himself."
_______________________

Or perhaps he was unable to impose it on himself, in that one area. For all we know, he might have striven mightily and failed or even succeeded heroically in other areas of virtue. In that regard, he's much like the rest of us. We all have feet of clay.

It can be a small human tragedy whenever anyone, no matter who, fails to live up to their ideals. The impulse to do good and advocate good should always be encouraged. The impulse to gleefully condemn should be resisted.

Or perhaps he was unable to impose it on himself, in that one area.

That is exactly what is so damned distasteful about the whole sordid mess. In his proselytisings, he had nothing but contempt for the weak willed who succumbed to their vices.

"One cannot hold Vice President Gore's power bill against him, just because he preaches about global warming"

Actually, one could, and should, were there any actual substance to the claim in question. There isn't, so your point is moot.

"In that regard, he's much like the rest of us. We all have feet of clay."

Most of the "rest of us" understand this and behave and speak accordingly. I do not assume a virtue to which I'm not entitled, nor do I scold my neighbors for failing to live up to the standards I wish to impose. That Bennett suffers from a gambling addiction deserves nothing but my sympathy (along with a little shock for the sheer magnitude of his problem). That he at the same time chose to berate and scold others for their failings, though, deserves nothing but my scorn and my contempt.

It's the hypocrisy, always the hypocrisy.

"In his proselytisings, he had nothing but contempt for the weak willed who succumbed to their vices."

"In his proselytisings, he had nothing but contempt for the weak willed who succumbed to their vices."
_______________________

Did he, in fact, do this or were his points more general in nature? The word, "contempt," is used by both of you, yet contempt is an internal emotion. Was it projection on your part or were his words literally those of contempt? I ask because I can't recall hearing him speak contemptuously and I can make no claim to know his mind.

It's said hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Hypocrisy has become almost the worst sin one can commit publicly, yet privately none of us are completely free of it. We are all quite ready to excuse our own failings, to trick ourselves into believing we aren't so bad, that our own sins aren't that much - and certainly, we aren't hypocrites. We're just...doing our best, because we're basically good, aren't we? And if we come up short on our behavior, well, who doesn't from time to time? Doesn't make us hypocrites, does it? Yet, how many times have we caught ourselves speaking out against the very things we've indulged in ourselves? I know I have, many times, to my regret. You practically cannot be a parent without it. Nor a priest, nor preacher, nor counselor of any sort.

Well, enough. I think I'll go contemplate on my sins for a while. Some of them were damned fun. ::grin::

And if we come up short on our behavior, well, who doesn't from time to time?

Precisely.

But he made millions preaching a sanctimonious diatribe that tried to package him as the first person in history who didn't fall short.

Seriously. Read some of his stuff.

As to my sins - I am definitely unelectable, and with no regrets. ::grin::

Sorry, one of those quotes I began the last post with should have been: "That he at the same time chose to berate and scold others for their failings, though, deserves nothing but my scorn and my contempt."

"Bennett had made a career out of hectoring others about leading a vice-free life"

As I said, I didn't read his book.

Um, the claim above is not about a single book, but a career.

Though, really, I think Blue Girl is wrong here: Bennett has not advocated a clear, well-defined consistent imperative, and then failed to live up to it. He's simply used irrational, emotional appeals with loaded language in place of coherent ideas or rational argumentation to paint pictures of those whose policies he disliked as personally immoral while painting the political and economic policies he favored as a priori moral virtue.

His entire approach has been (and continues to be) to seek to provoke irrational, emotional negative responses to opposing ideas and their proponents in lieu of rational debate.

He does so while himself engaging in behavior which, rightly or wrongly, is widely seen by the public as vice, and which when held up to the light provokes the same type of negative reaction to the person engaging in it, and their ideas, that he has so often shamelessly sought to exploit in place of reasoned debate to push his ideas and destroy his opponents is. In the discourse he himself has promoted in the public sphere, he is discredited. And he has no one to blame for that but himself.

Bennett, who went on to father Ann Coulter and her ilk, always struck me as the secret offspring of Oswald Mosely and Dame Edith Everidge.

But that's okay, 'cause gambling never hurt anyone.

Trashhauler, you might want to learn to read a bit more carefully. You wrote: "The word, 'contempt,' is used by both of you, yet contempt is an internal emotion."

Look at the way I used the word, please: "That he at the same time chose to berate and scold others for their failings, though, deserves nothing but my scorn and my contempt." I chose the word quite carefully and used it in an appropriate context.

In any case, your argument is moot since you admit that you know nothing about, well, anything associated with this case. Thus, your questions and caveats are pointless. Come back when you've done your homework.

We are all quite ready to excuse our own failings, to trick ourselves into believing we aren't so bad, that our own sins aren't that much - and certainly, we aren't hypocrites. We're just...doing our best, because we're basically good, aren't we? And if we come up short on our behavior, well, who doesn't from time to time? Doesn't make us hypocrites, does it?

According to Bill Bennett it does -- except, that is, when it comes to Bill Bennett. When he was Reagan's drug czar he gave speech after speech advocating a get-tough approach to drug addiction and arguing that people have a moral responsibility to own up to their compulsions. Funny how that moral responsibility never seemed to apply to a gambling addiction, however....I'll let Michael Kinsley continue:

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!....There are preachers who can preach an ideal they don't themselves meet and even use their own weaknesses as part of the lesson. Bennett has not been such a preacher. He is smug, disdainful, intolerant. He gambled on bluster -- and lost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14057-2003May4?language=printer

Forgive me if I come back with a couple stray thoughts. Like snitching (which, of course, isn't a sin at all), hypocrisy is a crime that most deeply offends the inner child in each of us. Children nearly always want things to be exactly as their parents and teachers say they are. We crave order in a scary world and are quite taken aback when we discover that things aren't quite as we were led to expect. That there could be exceptions to hard and fast rules. Such things offended our childlike need for certainty, especially when combined with our adolescent inclination to rebel against authority figures:

"How dare Mom not let me stay out late, when she and Dad came home tipsy last night?" "Dad took my pot, but I know for a fact he used to get high." "They're both just hypocrites."

As adults, we eventually learn to expect hypocrisy and not be overly shocked by it. Indeed, we even recognize the need for a bit of it from time to time, else too many disagreements would end as fights to the death.

That's doesn't hold true on the internet, of course. Here, everything is clean, black and white, and if you don't agree with me you must be evil or stupid. Or hypocritical. Thus we turn full circle and unwittingly recapture our childhood where everything is so because we say it should be. Here a disagreement is ample excuse to throw a tantrum, insults far and wide, as if that proves our reasoning is sound. And if you don't believe we, why, then I'll hold my breathe until I turn blue.

If I'm ever in a foxhole I want you to cover my back because you are one tenacious sunuvabitch.

Everybody is a little bit of a hypocrite. But seriously dude - Bennett (who you already said you haven't studied) made a career of sanctimony. That sets him apart from the ordinary hypocrite.

In 1994, when he was the virtue god and on the cover of Time(?) with Hillary, touting the new virtue, I made a snide joke about that cover and ended up in a flame-war with another grad student in another department who attacked me personally right off the bat. It was decidedly not a virtuous exchange.

When Bennett's gambling became public, I googled that mother fucker, and sent him xeroxes of our flame war on the university newspaper editorial pages, and a little jar of "Tucks." (Sent the package certified, to his department.)

Anyway, I have no patience for Bennett, or his minions, or his defenders.

Ah, Blue Girl, I have to admit that I really don't care about Bennett all that much. Like most millionaires and politicians, I figure he can look out for hisself. I just want to get him in a poker game. Talk about a fish!

I'll concede the point about Bennett's hypocrisy, if'n it'll help. I found myself more interested in commenting on the concept of hypocrisy and why we hate it so.

I still say accusing somebody of hypocrisy is pretty thin argument. What in hell do people expect, that the big shots are any different from us? We're all sinners, Brethren and Sistren!

And yep, when I get the bit between my teeth, I can be a right stubborn sumbitch. It's another of my many faults.

Trashhauler wrote: "As adults, we eventually learn to expect hypocrisy and not be overly shocked by it."

Oh, good grief. What on earth does any of that blather have to do with the case in point? You've got the direct quotes from Bennett, you've got cmdicely's erudite essay above, you've got concrete examples of everything under discussion. And instead of doing your homework, instead of determining what Bennett actually did and said, you respond with sanctimonious bullshit about how we all are sinners. Come back when you've got a serious argument to make, because right now, you're wasting our time.

"I still say accusing somebody of hypocrisy is pretty thin argument."

That depends on the nature of the individual and of the hypocrisy. I freely concede that just about everyone is indeed guilty of a greater or lesser amount of hypocrisy. However, most of that hypocrisy is of a lesser variety. When that hypocrisy goes to the very heart of a person's public persona and pronouncements, their entire career, as it does in this case, then it becomes, appropriately, noteworthy and far from a "pretty thin argument."

A minister who has made a career out of demonizing homosexuality getting caught in a homosexual hustler scandal? Noteworthy. A moralizing scold who has made a career out of demonizing and attacking others for their failings getting caught in an equivalent failing? Noteworthy. A partisan who glosses over the failings of his own people/party/group/etc.? Not so much.

"What in hell do people expect, that the big shots are any different from us? We're all sinners, Brethren and Sistren!"

A statement that has no relevance to the topic under discussion. Come back when you've got something substantive.

On Hypocrisy -It has been called “the tribute vice pays to virtue�

(Worth noting)