Bill Bennett
I guess one reason I gave the sermon title is that I'm debating what to do and think about the fate of William "Bill" Bennett. Newsweek (and by now every other news source) has reported that he has a major gambling problem. He lost millions of dollars in gambling - quite often too (he loses it in slot machines, egads!). The story - and its fallout - which, in this news feeding frenzy age makes another parallel story - is still breaking.
What I find fascinating about it is to read the statements of Bennett about his gambling. He sounds like a textbook addict (ask anyone who knows the literature and/or actual addicts to confirm this). For instance, in the Newsweek piece (by By Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green):
Asked by Newsweek columnist and Washington Monthly contributing editor Jonathan Alter to comment on the reports, Bennett admitted that he gambles but not that he has ended up behind. "I play fairly high stakes. I adhere to the law. I don't play the 'milk money.' I don't put my family at risk, and I don't owe anyone anything." The documents offer no reason to contradict Bennett on these points. Bennett claims he's beaten the odds: "Over 10 years, I'd say I've come out pretty close to even." "You can roll up and down a lot in one day, as we have on many occasions," Bennett explains. "You may cycle several hundred thousand dollars in an evening and net out only a few thousand."
This is an addict, folks.
Expect that in a few days -- after he denies some more and calls in favors from high profile Bushies to excoriate anyone who criticizes him -- that the firestorm will get too great and Bennet will admit his addiction.
Which is fine. Really.
Addictions are medical issues, for the most part, and must be treated that way. Since there is an overlap with morals and "voluntary" behavior, people can get confused. Yet because the 90s popularized the concept that compelled behavior is blameless, people denigrate addiction as a moral cop-out.
Let's put it simply. An addict is someone who has a physical anomoly that causes compelled behavior. Morally, we are not held responsible for forced actions or behavior. In halakha its the category of anoos. Being compelled by a third party - mind control, hypnosis, even some blackmail/extortion - is considered a moral release valve. What happens if an inner "demon" compells you? Considering that these "demons" are clinically and scientifically valid makes them real enough to be considered moral agents.
A person is thus not held responsible for making a choice to commit a criminal or depraved act if they are under compulsion from an addiction. But. But. But. But, a person is still responsible for what happens as a result of their behavior! Specifically, they are held responsible to know that they have a compulsion and they must seek treatment. The knowledge that every time they "black out" and come to they have done something they hate should make a sane man run to the psychiatrist/police/both.
The nature of the compelled behavior will determine the severity of the moral lapse for not seeking treatment.
For example, if a person is compelled to gamble then a refusal to seek treatment is immoral only as much as gambling itself is immoral.
If a man is compelled to wear women's make-up, then his refusal to seek treatment is immoral only as much as mild transvesticism is immoral (in America, it is generally not considered immoral... weird, maybe, but it's not the halakhic standard).
However, if a man is compelled to molest children then his refusal to seek treatment is pretty severe.
If a person is unable to comprehend their problem then they are often in denial and need a wake-up call/slap. If the slaps don't work - especially if the problem is severe (e.g. molestation) then the person can be considered insane and too dangerous to be in public.
Is gambling a moral problem? Yup. In itself, in small doses, we generally allow it. A person who gambles away significant sums is asking for trouble. It's as bad as drugs in that sense. Self-damage, of a high enough level, ultimately hurts another person and often eads to desperate behavior. Major crime is often the result of paying off gambling debts. There's a reason why the Mob calls gamblers "degenerate gamblers" (this is in the Soprano's, sure, but I also read it in Sammy "The Bull" Gravano's book "Underboss" - evidently the Mob considers gamblers degenrates. And this is from a pack of murderers and theives!!)
In any case, I hope Bennett seeks treatment.
I also hope that he will become a better moralist. The reason for so much firestorm is because Bennett has struck many people (especially his victims) as self-righteous and cruel.
Moreover, consider that he has not criticized about gambling in all of his literature. That omission is patently disgusting. How dare he?! How dare he knowingly criticize others while allowing his own - equally problematic - vice? It means that when he criticizes others, he is doing so to put them down and not to raise them up. Every good, decent, moralist must realize that they are their first - and even only - audience. That they are to identify with the "sinner" in order to help them. Reprimand (tochecha in halakha) must be given in love not in scorn.
Bennett is being kicked on the way down because he kicked people on the way up. He made people feel bad about themselves without the accompanying feeling that he wanted only the best for you.
That is why he is suffering the same fate as Martha Stewart, his spiritual partner in crime.
I guess one reason I gave the sermon title is that I'm debating what to do and think about the fate of William "Bill" Bennett. Newsweek (and by now every other news source) has reported that he has a major gambling problem. He lost millions of dollars in gambling - quite often too (he loses it in slot machines, egads!). The story - and its fallout - which, in this news feeding frenzy age makes another parallel story - is still breaking.
What I find fascinating about it is to read the statements of Bennett about his gambling. He sounds like a textbook addict (ask anyone who knows the literature and/or actual addicts to confirm this). For instance, in the Newsweek piece (by By Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green):
Asked by Newsweek columnist and Washington Monthly contributing editor Jonathan Alter to comment on the reports, Bennett admitted that he gambles but not that he has ended up behind. "I play fairly high stakes. I adhere to the law. I don't play the 'milk money.' I don't put my family at risk, and I don't owe anyone anything." The documents offer no reason to contradict Bennett on these points. Bennett claims he's beaten the odds: "Over 10 years, I'd say I've come out pretty close to even." "You can roll up and down a lot in one day, as we have on many occasions," Bennett explains. "You may cycle several hundred thousand dollars in an evening and net out only a few thousand."
This is an addict, folks.
Expect that in a few days -- after he denies some more and calls in favors from high profile Bushies to excoriate anyone who criticizes him -- that the firestorm will get too great and Bennet will admit his addiction.
Which is fine. Really.
Addictions are medical issues, for the most part, and must be treated that way. Since there is an overlap with morals and "voluntary" behavior, people can get confused. Yet because the 90s popularized the concept that compelled behavior is blameless, people denigrate addiction as a moral cop-out.
Let's put it simply. An addict is someone who has a physical anomoly that causes compelled behavior. Morally, we are not held responsible for forced actions or behavior. In halakha its the category of anoos. Being compelled by a third party - mind control, hypnosis, even some blackmail/extortion - is considered a moral release valve. What happens if an inner "demon" compells you? Considering that these "demons" are clinically and scientifically valid makes them real enough to be considered moral agents.
A person is thus not held responsible for making a choice to commit a criminal or depraved act if they are under compulsion from an addiction. But. But. But. But, a person is still responsible for what happens as a result of their behavior! Specifically, they are held responsible to know that they have a compulsion and they must seek treatment. The knowledge that every time they "black out" and come to they have done something they hate should make a sane man run to the psychiatrist/police/both.
The nature of the compelled behavior will determine the severity of the moral lapse for not seeking treatment.
For example, if a person is compelled to gamble then a refusal to seek treatment is immoral only as much as gambling itself is immoral.
If a man is compelled to wear women's make-up, then his refusal to seek treatment is immoral only as much as mild transvesticism is immoral (in America, it is generally not considered immoral... weird, maybe, but it's not the halakhic standard).
However, if a man is compelled to molest children then his refusal to seek treatment is pretty severe.
If a person is unable to comprehend their problem then they are often in denial and need a wake-up call/slap. If the slaps don't work - especially if the problem is severe (e.g. molestation) then the person can be considered insane and too dangerous to be in public.
Is gambling a moral problem? Yup. In itself, in small doses, we generally allow it. A person who gambles away significant sums is asking for trouble. It's as bad as drugs in that sense. Self-damage, of a high enough level, ultimately hurts another person and often eads to desperate behavior. Major crime is often the result of paying off gambling debts. There's a reason why the Mob calls gamblers "degenerate gamblers" (this is in the Soprano's, sure, but I also read it in Sammy "The Bull" Gravano's book "Underboss" - evidently the Mob considers gamblers degenrates. And this is from a pack of murderers and theives!!)
In any case, I hope Bennett seeks treatment.
I also hope that he will become a better moralist. The reason for so much firestorm is because Bennett has struck many people (especially his victims) as self-righteous and cruel.
Moreover, consider that he has not criticized about gambling in all of his literature. That omission is patently disgusting. How dare he?! How dare he knowingly criticize others while allowing his own - equally problematic - vice? It means that when he criticizes others, he is doing so to put them down and not to raise them up. Every good, decent, moralist must realize that they are their first - and even only - audience. That they are to identify with the "sinner" in order to help them. Reprimand (tochecha in halakha) must be given in love not in scorn.
Bennett is being kicked on the way down because he kicked people on the way up. He made people feel bad about themselves without the accompanying feeling that he wanted only the best for you.
That is why he is suffering the same fate as Martha Stewart, his spiritual partner in crime.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 5/07/2003 06:17:00 PM.
» Post a Comment