So what if Bill Bennet, the nation's moral icon, loses 1 Million a year to the casinos. He never said gambling was a vice. He has told us that government belongs in your bedroom - but he never said it belonged on the casino floor. So what if a person bankrupts his family - if he isn't taking a bong-hit or having sex, it's his business. Bennet is a man of virtue. So was Newt Gingrich (who recently accused colin powell of near treason), as he criticized clinton while boinking his own intern and cheating on his wife. A great man like Gingrich doesn't need the bedroom police beating on his door - the rest of us do. So what if the nation's grandfather, Henry Hyde, impregnated a young girl while granddaddy was in his 40s. Henry Hyde needs no rules - he makes them. Just so, Bill Bennett. He has told us of the evils of adultery, how "private adultery" reveals public tendencies. But he never said losing a million a year gambling revealed public tendencies.
That's actually a pretty reasoned response, jetstorm. I don't exactly agree with all of it, but it's too damn long for me to critique. My problem is that if marijuana use to ease cancer pain (or for whatever reason) or sex in your home is the government's business - as Bennett believes it is - why is not gambling. Obviously Bennet can afford it (although I wonder what they hell he's done to earn all that money - his book was a mere copy job of already published stories); BUT, I don't see why private gambling in excess doesn't have public ramifications to the same extent he believes sex (not in excess) or dope (not in excess) do.
