Columnist Michael Kinsley recently wrote an article which appeared in the Washington Post regarding Dr. William Bennett's recently discovered gambling infatuation. Bennett is a former U.S. Secretary of Education, "Drug Czar" and notable conservative public speaker who recently admitted to having lost millions of dollars over the course of the past decade in Atlantic City and Las Vegas casinos. The article was entitled 'Bill Bennett's Bad Bet', and anyone who is familiar with Kinsley's political views can guess how satisfied with himself he must have been after writing it.

Of course, the article is little more than a shameless hit-piece written by a man who is famous for his glib, self-important rhetoric and hatred for any conservative who dares to encourage moral behavior at the expense of political correctness. If you doubt my criticism of Mr. Kinsley, feel free to read the article in question for yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14057-2003May4.html

In any case, one should always be suspicious whenever liberals decide to take a "moral stand" on anything. After all, when the primary assault against a man like Dr. Bennett comes from some of the most disreputable and loathsome public figures in America, I for one have to question the motives of the people doing all the complaining. Michael Kinsley would certainly fit into that group, yet he is not the only liberal groping for op-ed space in America's newspapers over this issue. Many others seem to be perfectly giddy over this recent revelation, and are making it fairly clear that they intend to keep harping on the story until this "moral crusader", as they so often like to call him, gets his political comeuppance.

This degree of focus on such a non-issue is indicative of the complete lack of understanding among the liberal intelligencia of what morality actually is, and, indeed, hypocrisy. You'd think that by now these people would know everything about the latter of these two subjects, considering the number of times they've been caught talking out of both sides of their respective mouths, but I digress.

So Bill Bennett likes to gamble... so what? It's not illegal nor is it immoral, and he's never claimed to have not participated in the activity. He's never said he was a perfect man, unencumbered by human frailties and desires. Since when is a person a hypocrite for encouraging people to act with a certain amount of propriety, even though they themselves are not flawless? Is there some new purist standard applied to those who preach moral distinctions between right and wrong that I am not aware of? If that is the case, then nobody, including your local minister, priest or rabbi should ever be allowed to speak out against immorality and indecency, because no human being is without imperfections.

The majority of people in this country gamble to one degree or another, as well as engage in many other potentially destructive, yet perfectly moral and legal activities, and I haven't heard a single working class person say that Dr. Bennett should refrain from doing any of those things simply because he makes his living, in part, by extolling the virtues of moral living. Do Bill's detractors believe that the tens of millions of Americans who buy lottery tickets, drink on social occasions or smoke cigarettes are all immoral? Are they too considered hypocritical if they believe that this country is becoming increasingly corrupted by the sexual exploitation of young people or hard-core drug abuse?

It seems to me that the people who are swooping down on the doctor now are the very people who hate everything he has always stood for, such as decency, truthfulness, honorable conduct and personal responsibility. He does not dishonor himself by losing money on games of chance, even if he may gamble more than most people will earn in their lifetimes. It's his money, and as long as his family doesn't suffer because of his chosen pastime, he is free to spend his days pumping tokens into slot machines and doubling down at the blackjack table. It's no one's business but his own, and it certainly can't be compared to the despicable behavior of many of the people who seem so pleased with themselves now for having found a reason, however pathetic, to claw away at his character.

Another reason why I feel compelled to scrutinize the motives of the people who've recently decided to jump on the anti-Bennett bandwagon, is that none of them have even mentioned whether or not they think his political and social theories have merit. They don't want to talk about his ideas, only his gambling. Why is that? Could it be that they know he is fundamentally right about the current state of moral corruption and intolerable lack of accountability in our country, not only within the private sector but in the highest offices of government? After all, aren't these far more important moral issues than this man's private, albeit extravagant, hobby?

Are the people who so gleefully rebuke Bill Bennett for his behavior afraid that if the conversation should turn to one of ideology that they themselves might well have a lot more to answer for than he? Take a minute to think about that before criticizing Dr. Bennett's propensity for gambling, and ask yourself who you'd trust more to baby-sit your kids for the weekend, Bill Bennett or some carping liberal dingbat who is so deluded that he thinks guns cause crime and abortion is about nothing more than a woman's right to choose.

By Edward Daley
Owner of The BODACIOUS Post
http://users.adelphia.net/~thofab