Skip to comments.
Bennett's Good Works
The Washington Post ^
| Monday, May 26, 2003
| John DiIulio
Posted on 05/26/2003 7:22:04 AM PDT by sitetest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Read the entire article at the link. It speaks for itself.
1
posted on
05/26/2003 7:22:04 AM PDT
by
sitetest
To: sitetest; Polycarp; sinkspur; drstevej; NYer; sandyeggo; Desdemona; american colleen; Salvation; ...
Advance apologies if this has been previously posted. I didn't find it when searching on the original WP title.
2
posted on
05/26/2003 7:25:19 AM PDT
by
sitetest
To: sitetest
"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones......."
3
posted on
05/26/2003 7:29:08 AM PDT
by
MaryFromMichigan
("Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. And you may quote me.")
To: sitetest; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; ...
a bump and a ping
4
posted on
05/26/2003 7:31:02 AM PDT
by
Polycarp
To: Tooters
Dear Tooters,
Did you read the entire article?
"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones......."
Do you believe that the good done by directly assisting hundreds of poor children get a good and decent education will die with Bill Bennett?
sitetest
5
posted on
05/26/2003 7:41:05 AM PDT
by
sitetest
To: sitetest
I think much of the analysis of Bennett misses the point. The reason so many people came down on Bennett so hard for hypocrisy was that he vehemently attacked pot smokers who defend their habit with the excuse that they're not hurting anyone else...yet, when Bennett was confronted with his $8 million gambling habit, he lamely offered the same excuse.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
6
posted on
05/26/2003 7:46:15 AM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: sitetest
Critics shout "hypocrisy" at Bennett, but does his behavior negate what he was promoting? Are the points that he was stressing any less valid? I think not. In fact, his own failings maybe even point out the need for a greater need to emphasize virtue in our personal lives and in society.
7
posted on
05/26/2003 7:52:47 AM PDT
by
DeweyCA
To: B Knotts
he lamely offered the same excuse. Except, for the fact, that pot smoking is illegal, and gambling (at the establishments he frequents) ARE NOT..
To: sitetest
The"Clintonians"and their search for a"Holy Grail"(otherwise known as"Moral Relevatism")as a means of "CamoFlauge"and "Legacy ResERECTION"knows NO LIMITS!!!!!!!!!
To: B Knotts
"I think much of the analysis of Bennett misses the point. The reason so many people came down on Bennett so hard for hypocrisy was that he vehemently attacked pot smokers who defend their habit with the excuse that they're not hurting anyone else...yet, when Bennett was confronted with his $8 million gambling habit, he lamely offered the same excuse.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. "
I am having a difficult time understanding this type of anti-Bennett backlash on FR. There IS a difference between pot and gambling. The latter is LEGAL, and the former is NOT.
10
posted on
05/26/2003 7:54:13 AM PDT
by
Buck W.
To: bandleader
Obviously,I meant to say"Moral Relativism"!
To: Buck W.
The excuse "it doesn't hurt anyone else" has nothing to do with legality; it is a moral argument.
12
posted on
05/26/2003 7:56:02 AM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: Buck W.
I'm afraid that you have made my point!
To: B Knotts
Dear B Knotts,
Without getting into a great debate about the relative advantages of marijuana use, it is the belief of many (including myself) that there is always at least one party harmed by the recreational use of marijuana: the user. It is the belief of many that there is no unharmful level of recreational use of marijuana. In many cases, the harm is small, and possibly not long-lasting. But I don't believe that there is ever no harm done to the user.
It is the belief of many (including myself) that one who finds entertainment in gambling is not necessarily harming himself. Many believe that gambling in moderation is not at all harmful to anyone, including the gambler. It is a legitimate, unharmful form of entertainment.
If one gambles more than one can afford, or if one takes up large chunks of one's time and attention for gambling, that is another issue. That is a failure of the virtue of moderation. But neither thing have been asserted in all of this. It appears that Dr. Bennett made somewhere between $50 million and $100 million during the time that he gambled $8 million, and lost perhaps $500,000 to $1,000,000.
From everything that we can determine (and I'm sure that the liberal slime who found it necessary to try to smear this good man would have let us know if it were not so), Dr. Bennett spent three or four weekends per year gambling in casinos, for what may have been as much as a hundred hours per year indulgence in this form of entertainment.
My grandmother spent more time, each year, playing bingo. At stakes which were comparable, when taken in context of income.
But even if Dr. Bennett were engaging in a vice, it is the criticism of hypocrisy that utterly misses the point. One need not be pure and perfect to exhort others to behave better. One need not be a celibate, vegetarian, vow-of-silence monk in a monastery to point out that presidents ought not commit perjury, and that we ought to try to teach our children a better moral example.
It seems that those who criticize Dr. Bennet fall into two categories: those that are convicted in their hearts of their own morally repugnant lives; and those that are so puritanical that they lose their minds thinking someone might actually be having fun.
Dr. Bennett's difficulty is that he tries to steer between the two extremes of moral degradation and unrelieved moral rigorism.
sitetest
14
posted on
05/26/2003 8:03:10 AM PDT
by
sitetest
To: Buck W.
How can you use the only lame excuse for this creep? It was legal?
If he spent 8 million on hookers in Nevada and never spoke out against prostitution, I guess you would say the same thing? If he were a Demo-rat you would nail him to the wall. <---FACT
I need the morality police in this day and age like I need a hole in my head. I laugh at the people who would defend the virtue of 8 million wasted in slots. There are all kinds of Creeps that still can help people in their lives, and that changes nothing.
I also hope that his 8 million that he dropped in a casino went to some fine cause for humanity.
15
posted on
05/26/2003 8:10:56 AM PDT
by
Afronaut
To: sitetest
I fall into neither of your categories. I would not personally castigate Mr. Bennett or a pot smoker. I myself play games of chance very occasionally, but I don't smoke marijuana.
That said, your belief that occasional pot use harms the user (which is probably true to at least some small degree) must be balanced with the belief of others that gambling is harmful to at least the gambler, if not his family.
Mr. Bennett's heart was closed to the people he was locking away for marijuana use. Should he be surprised now that many people (including many who were on his side) are turning a cold shoulder to him in his time of difficulty?
16
posted on
05/26/2003 8:16:38 AM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: Buck W.
I am having a difficult time understanding this type of anti-Bennett backlash on FR. There IS a difference between pot and gambling. The latter is LEGAL, and the former is NOT.Bill Clintons sexual affair with a twenty-one-year-old intern was not illegal either. Did you understand the outrage on FR over that?
17
posted on
05/26/2003 8:16:43 AM PDT
by
KDD
To: sitetest
BTW, Mr. Bennett was exactly right about Clinton...I never differed with him on that issue.
18
posted on
05/26/2003 8:17:50 AM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: sitetest
"Do you believe that the good done by directly assisting hundreds of poor children get a good and decent education will die with Bill Bennett?
Yes. In the minds of many- it's already dead.
Perhaps not deservedly, though.
19
posted on
05/26/2003 8:19:44 AM PDT
by
MaryFromMichigan
("Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. And you may quote me.")
To: bandleader
"gambling is legal, smoking pot is not..."
followed by;
"I'm afraid you've made my point"
So....we're dumping on Bennett in order to legalize pot?
It is worthwhile for some to denounce an entirely good man who drops quarters into slot machines because someone on the more libertarian side thinks a war on drugs is governmental overreaching?
It makes sense to aid and abet the clinton style left, and to risk removing a strong force for social and political betterment (or at least diluting his activity and value in those areas) to prove a point?
This is idiotic, Bennett is worth more than most of the do-gooder charities and fronts combined. Gambling as he seems to have done it is entirely legal. He's spending his own money and that's OK with me...the other money that he is said to be giving away to good causes is no less a gamble in fact.
20
posted on
05/26/2003 8:20:12 AM PDT
by
norton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson