That the Oregonian continues to welcome to its op-ed page the likes of right wing hack and propagandist Kathleen Parker is a continuing source of irritation to me. Her column today praising the "grown-up" voice of hypocrite and homophobe William Bennett is full of the usual pap and posturing that typify her offerings.
Before I get to the egregious Mr. Bennett, however, let me share with you this little gem from Danny Schechter on the politics of the op-ed page, not just here, but nationally. Schechter bemoans the shrinkage of op-ed space as media consolidation marches on:
"The experts chosen to contribute still tend to come from elite think tanks, universities and big publishers. Increasingly, PR firms, speechwriters and political consultants ghostwrite op-eds for big-name clients and then "place" them with the editors who they are always cultivating. The editors are invariably drawn to top pols and celebrity writers. Who really writes their words doesn't seem to matter--and is rarely disclosed."
That's certainly true of the Oregonian both for its syndicated columnists and for the local "In My Opinion" pieces. If you're Neil Goldschmidt (were, anyway) or one of his many friends or an overpaid executive at PGE, like Fred Miller, you have a much greater chance of publication than if you're not, even if you do have some good ideas, and know what you're talking about, and can write reasonably well.
(A humble aside: I've submitted a few pieces in the past, none of which passed muster. Imagine my surprise--shock, actually-- when my piece on school choice was accepted by both the Tribune and the Oregonian. Nonetheless, my point still stands. It's why I write a blog.)
Back to Bill Bennett and his many sins.
First, and most obviously, he's a hypocrite. He's an admitted video poker machine junkie, yet he's made millions off The Book of Virtues.
He's a liar. Everybody knows you can't win when you play casino machines, but he claims he does. Or at least breaks even.
He's intolerant, and arrogant, to the point of viciousness. Here's what he said on Larry King:
"Bennett supports harshly penalizing small-possession drug offenders. During his 15 June 1989 appearance on Larry King Live, one caller outrageously suggested that he "behead the damn drug dealers." Bennett was hardly alarmed, and replied:
"I mean what the caller suggests is morally plausible. Legally, it's difficult. But somebody selling drugs to a kid? Morally, I don't have any problem with that at all."
He's venal. He makes $50,000 per lecture, plus he's on the boards of dozens (it seems) of right wing foundations that reward him handsomely.
He lies with statistics, which is different than outright lying. It's worse because it seems like he's telling the truth. Take his claim that gay men (he's a homophobe, remember) die 30 years earlier, at age 43, than heterosexual men. Here's what Slate said about that claim:
"Unfortunately there really is no satisfactory measure of actual life expectancy among gay men. However, Harry Rosenberg, the mortality-statistics chief at the National Center for Health Statistics, says he's unaware of evidence that HIV-negative gays have a lower life expectancy than other males. Rosenberg also points to one reason to think the HIV-negative gay male may actually live longer on average than the straight male."
There's much more (click here to read the Media Transparency report on Bennett), but the one that bothers me the most is his unkept promise as drug czar to see the "War on Drugs" through to its conclusion. Of course, he didn't. He resigned first and moved on to "greener" pastures.
*************************
Despite the fact that Bennett is guilty of a couple (at least) of the seven deadly sins, he is a Catholic.
That brings me to this remarkable column by the remarkable Guardian columist Polly Toynbee. Here's part of what she writes about the death of the Pope:
"With its ban on condoms the church has caused the death of millions of Catholics and others in areas dominated by Catholic missionaries, in Africa and right across the world. In countries where 50% are infected, millions of very young Aids orphans are today's immediate victims of the curia. Refusing support to all who offer condoms, spreading the lie that the Aids virus passes easily through microscopic holes in condoms - this irresponsibility is beyond all comprehension.
"This is said often, even in this unctuous week - and yet still it does not permeate. He was a good, caring man nevertheless, they say, as if it were a minor aberration. But genuflecting before this corpse is scarcely different to parading past Lenin: they both put extreme ideology before human life and happiness, at unimaginable human cost. How dare our prime minister go there in our name to give the Vatican our approval for this? Will he think of Africa when on his knees today? I trust history will some day express astonishment at moral outrage wasted on sexual trivia while papal celebrity and charisma cloaked this great Vatican crime."
Comments