[Kurn]

I would hope it would, but the operant word there is *hope*

Here's reality:

Point 1 (the value of Brunson's name)

I've been playing in the same home game for 7+ years. 2/3 of the 15 or so semi-regulars in that game have never heard of Doyle Brunson. Small sample, yes, but also NOT a cross-section of the US. This group differs from the average US citizen in that 1) they are more educated (avg eduction University degree +) and 2) they play poker regularly.

They are for the most part only vaguely aware of the recent legislation and arrests. Now in their case, media coverage would be a good thing since most are fairly libertarian minded.

Point 2 (the reality of what we are fighting)

We tend to look at the legislation and think "those damn legislators are trying to screw us." That's fine as far as it goes, but the legislators do not exist in a vacuum. The problem is much bigger than the 535 Senators and Congressmen. I'd wager that if you put up a national referendum question on the 2008 ballot that read "should internet gambling be legal?" it would not pass.

Just this past election there was a ballot question on building a casino in Rhode Island. Now to be clear, billions of dollars of gambling revenue either leaves or drives through RI every year. You would think that from a purely revenue-generation perspective enough people who don't care one way or the other about gambling would agree that a casino in the state would make financial sense. Guess again. The measure failed by a big margin (60% against).

I'm not preaching doom and gloom here. I still think that the free market finds a way to bring supply to demand. The government hasn't stopped drugs in schools, I doubt it can stop gambling in cyberspace.

No doom and gloom, just a little dose of realistic expectations. maybe its just that I'm more like the pre-internet poker players. That the power-that-be may define me as an outlaw for what I do in my spare time just doesn't bother me all that much.

Its an uphill battle, no doubt.