No, I’m saying most blurbs aren’t written after an exhaustive analysis of the book’s contents. Most blurb-writers skim through the book, relying as much on their knowledge of the author as the actual text of the book. That’s why book blurbs inevitably sound so generic. My understanding is that this is pretty much the norm in the publishing biz. **
I’m sure he does agree with most of it – otherwise he wouldn’t have been asked to provide a blurb. But the blurb is only a couple of sentences long – there isn’t enough space for an exhaustive analysis of the work. Read the text of the blurb – if you read that as saying “I think every point the author makes is 100% correct and I agree with it entirely,” I think you’re reading a bit much into it. **
His wife is reportedly upset at the attention this has gotten, not at the amounts Bennett has gambled. AFAIK Ms. Bennett generally stays out of the spotlight, so I can see how she would be annoyed by repeated inquiries from the media.
This isn’t even apples and oranges you’re comparing, Elvis1Lives – it’s apples and 1972 Ford Rancheros.
If it helps, let me assure you that if someone called Mr. Clinton a hypocrite for his actions with regard to Monica, I’d defend him in a heartbeat. So far as I’m aware, Mr. Clinton made no special pronouncement that one shouldn’t get oral sex from an intern, or even that one shouldn’t lie about it under oath. He’s not a hypocrite. If he did lie, and if the issue was material, then he’s a criminal, yes – but he’s no hypocrite.
Here, no one is arguing that Mr. Bennett is a criminal. The sole question is, “Is he a hypocrite?” The answer is that he’s not – he hasn’t condemned anyone for the same behavior he’s accused of. That’s the measure of a hypocrite.
If we were to compare apples with any other edible fruit, we could ask if Mr. Bennett is a potential criminal - the answer is no, based on evidence thus far – or if Mr. Clinton is a hypocrite - and the answer is also no.
By the way – I’m happy to criticize the Republicans. I am strongly anti-death penalty, and the fervor of the Republicans to put people to death sickens me. I feel there is a place for feeding those that go hungry, even if it means welfare, and I oppose the Republican efforts to stamp out such programs. I have said all of this on the boards here many times before.
I mention this to suggest that of the two of us, I am not blinded by political ideology. How about you? When have I seen you criticize a Democrat and praise a Republican?
Open my eyes. Show me that you’re not the one who …
Is he a hypocrite, well it depends. If I’m a the board of an organization that condemns a behavior, either covertly or overtly, as the Empower America has with gambling, then it could be assumed that I believe that behavior is probably something to avoid. However since I specifically have not condemned that behavior, then I probably am only a borderline hypocrite.
Take Bricker, for example. He is a vocal Republican, and yet he’s against some their policies. Does that mean he a hypocrite? Not really. Since he has not overtly agreed with their stance on these issues, while covertly condemning them.
As I said in the pit thread, the real hypocrites here are the right-wing press such as the Weekly Standard which quickly tried to distance this from the Clinton scandal by saying gambling isn’t as bad as adultery. Also as I said in that thread, I think it’s a non-issue, as long as his family is aware of his gambling. But I think the right needs to stop with the false outrage at the underhandedness of the press, and suck it up as a stupid thing for Bennett to do.
Here’s what I want to know: Why does it seem, today, that hypocricy is the most vile sin of which one can be accused? If someone who drinks too much tells his kid that he shouldn’t drink, then maybe he’s a hypocrite… but does that someone how invalidate his advice?
Anyway, to me, that measure of hypocricy is more akin to whether or not you judge someone based on the sin that you, yourself, commit. Has Bennett ever condemned someone for being a gambler? Does Bennett look down his nose at people who have a weakness for keno? More specifically, does Bennett look down his nose at people who gamble, but not the extent that it becomes a serious financial issue?
[As an aside, the actual numbers pertaining to how much Bennett has lost don’t look too extreme. Assuming $800k lost over 10 years - as per Sam’s estimate, that’s $80k per year. A lot, but Bennett’s a fantastically wealthy guy, isn’t he? This is probably akin to the average Joe losing $1000/year, which as hobbies go, isn’t terribly expensive.]
As best I can tell, Bennett has never expressed a position on gambling. That’s pretty irrelevant, though. If he had ever decried gambling in any form, he would’ve been denounced as an unambiguous hypocrite. If he had spoken in favor of gambing, he would have been attacked for trying to justify his one “vice”. Since he remained silent, gambling gets lumped into the sin category - ironically, by the same set who constantly defends others’ rights to sin - and he gets shredded for it, anyway.
Basically, Bennett never had a chance. As soon as something came out that showed he wasn’t the pinnacle of moral perfection (which, AFAIK, he never claimed to be), he was going to be criticized for it. Sadly, though, the best his opponents could come up with was something neither immoral, nor illegal.
That being the case, it makes perfect sense for Bennett to quit his gambling. Not because it’s a problem for him or his family, not because it’s immoral, but because it’s a wise political move. His image is important, and unfortunately, those who hate him regardless of what he does are the ones in the position to define it. Pity.
Jeff
Here’s what I want to know: Why does it seem, today, that hypocricy is the most vile sin of which one can be accused? If someone who drinks too much tells his kid that he shouldn’t drink, then maybe he’s a hypocrite… but does that someone how invalidate his advice?
Anyway, to me, that measure of hypocricy is more akin to whether or not you judge someone based on the sin that you, yourself, commit. An alcoholic telling someone not to drink, even though he himself is too weak to quit, is not a hypocrite. An alcoholic calling someone who drinks an awful person is. Has Bennett ever condemned someone for being a gambler? Does Bennett look down his nose at people who have a weakness for keno? More specifically, does Bennett look down his nose at people who gamble, but not to the extent that it becomes a serious financial issue?
[As an aside, the actual numbers pertaining to how much Bennett has lost don’t look too extreme. Assuming $800k lost over 10 years - as per Sam’s estimate, that’s $80k per year. A lot, but Bennett’s a fantastically wealthy guy, isn’t he? This is probably akin to the average Joe losing $1000/year, which as hobbies go, isn’t terribly expensive.]
As best I can tell, Bennett has never expressed a position on gambling. That’s pretty irrelevant, though. If he had ever decried gambling in any form, he would’ve been denounced as an unambiguous hypocrite. If he had spoken in favor of gambing, he would have been attacked for trying to justify his one “vice”. Since he remained silent, gambling gets lumped into the sin category - ironically, by the same set who constantly defends others’ rights to sin - and he gets shredded for it, anyway.
Basically, Bennett never had a chance. As soon as something came out that showed he wasn’t the pinnacle of moral perfection (which, AFAIK, he never claimed to be), he was going to be criticized for it. Sadly, though, the best his opponents could come up with was something neither immoral, nor illegal.
That being the case, it makes perfect sense for Bennett to quit his gambling. Not because it’s a problem for him or his family, not because it’s immoral, but because it’s a wise political move. His image is important, and unfortunately, those who hate him regardless of what he does are the ones in the position to define it. Pity.
Jeff
“Assuming $800k lost over 10 years - as per Sam’s estimate, that’s $80k per year”
Actually according to the article it’s 8 million over ten years. Then there is the little matter of Bennet not admitting to losing the money and claiming that he more or less broke even. This not only contradicts the report but is extremely improbable given that most of Bennet’s gambling appears to be at the machines.
In 1990, Bennett famously criticized The Simpsons, later admitting he hadn’t watched the show.
I wonder how he’d feel if he saw this episode in which Marge (arguably the most virtuous character on the show), speaks out against the new casino, only to develop a gambling problem later?
minty - it’s certainly possible to imagine scenarios in which Bennett’s self-described “staying even” and the casino reports may be reconciled. He may have won big at one casino, for example, and lost big at another.
However, as a somewhat regular gambler myself, I’d say that’s unlikely. Possible, yes, but unlikely, especially if he was playing slots, which are not kind over the long haul.
So I’d agree with you that he’s probably lying about his being mostly even.
Don’t ask us why it seems that way to you. Know of anyone who actually does say hypocrisy is the most vile sin? Or is that one of your strawmen?
Scroll up.
Disagree about “never claiming to be” - if you’re going to preach to others (which he certainly was) about their conduct, you can use your own sins and your battle against them as illustrative examples, certainly. He didn’t, and thereby tried to make it seem as if he didn’t. Yes, that’s indirect as a claim goes, but it’s real. You can avoid calling him a hypocrite only by calling him a bad, or clueless, preacher. Are you?
How’s the shoe feel on that foot? “His opponents”? Why do you blame others for what he did it himself. Are you the same Jeff who is ready to blame Clinton, the biggest single target of Bennett’s moralizing, for getting himself into trouble for getting a consensual blowjob? Why are you trying to let Bennett off the hook? I have a guess, and you can tell what it is, too. Try applying the above quote to someone who’s orientation you dislike and see how it applies - you might learn something about what moral standards really are.
Apparently, no one (outside of this thread, of course) is alleging that he lost a net total of $8M. His gross losses were over $8M. The magazines don’t know how much his net losses were, other than that they “suggested that he had lost more than he had won.”
So I guess he’s not a hypocrite after all. Sorry guys.
In addition to Bricker and IzzyR’s posts-- there’s a big difference between “gross” and “net” – do you grasp the distinction between an 18-month period and a 10-year period?
Newsweek only has documentation on losses incurred over an 18 month period. They have nothing more than “some casino estimates” for the $8 million-over-10-years figure. We don’t know the range of estimates from casino sources, nor do we know who those sources are. For all we know, Newsweek asked a few cocktail waitresses what they thought Bennett’s losses amounted to over time.
My God, I’d hope you wouldn’t let a witness on the stand get away with that kind of blithe assertion.
The total of Bennett’s losses over time is a disputed fact. It has not been shown to be a lie on Bennett’s part (though of course it may be shown to be a lie by future evidence). You are prematurely jumping to conclusions.
Well, let’s try applying that quote to Clinton, since you seem to be such a fan of his:
Did he do anything illegal? Hmm, lying under oath.
Did he do anything immoral? Hmm, adultery, commited during (quite literally) the performance of his duties as President.
Now let’s look at Bennett.
Did he do anything illegal? Not at all.
Did he do anything immoral? Not at all.
All he did was to commit an act that others claim should be immoral according to a code of conduct that they falsely attribute to him. It’s the same as if I said, “Elvis, based on your past actions, I’m going to assume that you’re against posting to message boards. But ah-ha! You’ve been posting to the SDMB for the past 3 years! Thus you’re a hypocrite. Evidence that you ever implied that message board posting was wrong? No, I don’t have any, but it’s clear that if you ever had said anything about it, you’d be against it.”
So there you go. Based upon the code of conduct I have decided to ascribe to you, you’re a hypocrite. Oh, and while I’m at it, based upon my definition of what constitutes water fowl, you’re a duck. Whee, playing with definitions is fun!
Jeff
Oh, gosh. “Net” and “gross.” Is it possible that I forgot something as basic as “net” and “gross”?
Do you really think I’m that stupid? Don’t be ridiculous. The article is just vague enough that it could be construed as describing only a gross loss of $8 million, but that number in context better fits a net loss. The estimate, after all, came from unnamed casino insiders, who are very unlikely to care about only one side of the balance sheet. Moreover, the other numbers tossed around in the story–wiring $1.4 million to cover losses, $340K losses at Caesar’s Palace, a cool half million lost at Bellagio a month ago today–are certainly not talking about gross losses.
On the other hand, your continued ability to seize even the slightest possibility of an excuse is really quite amusing. Do keep it up, Dewey!
It’s also possible that he’s quite wrong, yet not “lying”, in the strictest sense. My mother-in-law gambles like nobody’s business. She always writes off her losses, and claims her winnings. Based upon observing her for the past several years, I guarantee you that she comes out pretty far behind. Yet she’ll swear up and down that she comes out ahead. Is she lying? No, she honestly believes she comes out ahead. She simply remembers the wins a lot better than the losses. A few years, she’s posted gains. Most times, not. But the wins stick in your head.
Now it’s quite possible that Bennett is lying through his teeth. But it’s also quite possible that he’s simply mistaken.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong, morally speaking, with profanity. Yet I wouldn’t swear in front of my children, because that’s not an example I wish to set. Why? Because while I can handle swearing maturely (ie, not swear in front of people likely to be offended, use proper respect when speaking with others, etc), my children possibly couldn’t.
Perhaps Bennett sees nothing wrong with gambling, but doesn’t want others, whose financial limitations would make it much easier to get into trouble, to emulate his actions. While his gambling is not a matter of public knowledge, he’s free to gamble away as he sees fit, without having to worry about the example it might set. He can handle it, so what’s the harm? But if people are using him as a benchmark by which to monitor their own actions, it may be wiser to just abstain. If that’s the case, then I’d call his behavior pretty damned responsible.
Jeff
Hey, I could care less whether the guy gambles. I gamble myself, and enjoy it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. But Bennett not only set himself up as a pargon of “virtue” but as it’s arbitor. He may never have explicity put “gambling” on the vice list, but he espouses a set of “virtures” that any intellegent person would assume include gambling. And his latest quote on the subject, as per Squink, above, shows that he understands that. He also said his gambling days are over. So, he’s either a hypocrite or a coward. Choose whichever one you like best.
IzzyR pointed out the gross/net discrepancy, not me.
Of course, I’m not the one making absolute statements of fact based on shaky evidence. Could the article mean “gross”? Sure. It could also mean “net.” I’m not the one saying it definitely means “gross.” You, on the other hand, are the one saying it must absolutely be “net.”
And of course you seize on the estimate of anonymous sources, with no knowledge of who the sources are, upon what basis they are making their estimates, how they have access to whatever information they have or any other tidbit about them that would make their estimate credible. Newsweek could be talking to cocktail waitresses for all you know.
Additionally, you only have access to what a source at one casino thinks Bennett’s losses were. Perhaps Bennett has had extraordinarily bad luck at that one casino, but has done better at others. Likely? No. Possible? Certainly.
Finally, you completely dismiss the other casino estimates of Bennett’s losses. The $8 million is the upper estimate. You have no idea what the range of estimates are, nor do you have any means for weighing the credibility of one estimate over another.
Again, I’m not saying Bennett didn’t lose $8 million. I’m saying that fact is disputed, and there isn’t enough evidence to say whose characterization is correct. You’re the one jumping to conclusions, with nary a dollop of skepticism in sight.
ElJeffe also raises an interesting point. The cognitive dissonance he describes is actually pretty common. No one would ever be a daytrader if how they THINK they perform lined up with how they ACTUALLY perform.
Humbug. This isn’t a criminal prosecution. Reasonable doubt has nothing at all to do with this dilemma. Based on the available evidence, Bennett is a big fat liar.
By all appearances, the man is a compulsive gambler. By all appearances, his losses are quite large. Unless and he releases the records of wins and losses that he claims to have kept or otherwise offers more than his word that the rules of math don’t apply to his sorry ass, I’ll take the word of those unnamed casino officials over Bennett’s on his losses any day of the week.
