[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's remember something, though: gambling/wagering is not an evil person like Hitler or Stalin that sort of reaches out and grabs people into the haunted house - it is a measureable, definable activity. People consent to engage in it for a lot of reasons, but one of which is obviously in order to improve financial well-being. Most people lose at it, but it still has value. One could argue, for example, that even though those who paid to see "Gigli" were victimized in the process, there is still value in taking a risk that by forking over their money, some individuals may enjoy seeing the film. And it helps create jobs for those in the industry.

I object to the notion that the industry can only succeed by victimizing people. If you are familiar with the concept of rake, then you know that the house gains at a standardized rate, more or less without regard to what's going on between the players or who wins. It's just a fee.

Casinos, that's a whole other ball of wax.

[ QUOTE ]
I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying, but obviously I strongly disagree.

What people need to be reminded of is that the public interest is not served best when public servants restrict economic freedoms. Government should not be in the business of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and lecturing constituents about "family values" and morality.

It's possible he's being consistent with his voting history, but I still find the underlying notion patronizing and, thus, offensive from an official who is supposed to be doing OUR bidding while helping to preserve the free-est America possible.