While many people are getting a few laughs, or calling for a resignation, I’ve been pondering the greater meaning of the situation with Governor Sanford. Life is mostly a series of causes and effects, and normally I tend to examine politics in this fashion. An action - Sanford being unfaithful and stating so publicly - will inevitably lead to at least one effect - an obviously decreased amount of political clout for Sanford.

What interests me even more are the potential effects - some that are being stated often, and other not so much if at all. On a very idealistic level, I am holding out hope that this latest scandal will cause the GOP to reconsider the hard line religious path it has been taking. It is unlikely, given how many other situations have arisen - Ensign, Palin, etc. As it is, apparently at least Limbaugh is blaming Sanford’s behavior on Obama, claiming that his affair was somehow linked to a desire to get out of the U.S. If nothing else, that makes me question the life experiences (particularly sexual) of Limbaugh, since he’s obviously incapable of understanding basic human desires.

On the other side of this coin is the potential for a movement to require politicians to resign if they are caught having extramarital affairs. This is extremely bothersome to me, since dalliances in and of themselves do not necessarily interfere with the performance of one’s duties in office. As it stands now legally, resignations are called for when activities interfere with the completion of duties, and that is sufficient. In all honesty, if it was stepped up to the point where marital infidelity alone was grounds for requesting resignations, I suspect that the people would be traveling very often to the polls for special elections.

The not so obvious issue is the crumbling wall that is supposed to separate church and state. Continually, there are calls for going back to what our founders followed, and this is most often mentioned by those who seek to legislate morality. The primary problem with this is a lack of understanding of the times in the late 18th century. While most were church goers, there was definitely a great degree of cynicism where religion was concerned. The men who wrote our Constitution were best described as deists - individuals who believed in a higher being, but were ambivalent about organized religions. This is undoubtedly why they avoided the word “God” in the Constitution entirely - along with a basic goal of avoiding a structure of government that was even remotely related to that of England at the time.

If we were not mired in the radical right-wing’s desire to control the people through legislating morality, this would not even be a consideration now. Unfortunately, we are still dealing with a GOP that is floundering in the no man’s land that probably was never foreseen by ones like Goldwater. The concept of invading the privacy of the people to control their moral values as a matter of law would probably have been more distasteful to early conservatives than the immoral actions. That also brings up another oddity - the fact that these overtures are rarely called an invasion of privacy by the left (with the vocal exception of the pro-choice movement seeking to protect the privacy of women.)

So there sits Sanford, a cog in the GOP machine, that can either remain relatively useless to them, or become a poster child for a new round of cries for stricter laws against immoral behavior. Normally I would write off the latter possibility, but after the abstinence-only education camp grabbing Bristol Palin as their poster child, sadly it is not out of the question that the pro-marriage camp would take Sanford. If they do, I think that may be yet another of the signs of the fall of Western Civilization.

Over the weekend I ran into Congressman Murphy, and asked him whether or not he would be interested in using Twitter. His response echoed concerns I’ve heard often, particularly since Chris Cillizza chose to write on politicians using Twitter. While Murphy was open to learning more about it, he was highly concerned with his image. He was worried about the “fluff” that often appears in many Twitter streams, including those of politicians.

I should have realized immediately that Murphy’s concerns were a direct result of Cillizza’s article. My kneejerk reaction to the piece was that Cillizza had entirely missed the point. Lack of care and discretion during public communication is the real culprit, not Twitter. Blaming social media for blunders is akin to blaming guns for the actions of their owners. It doesn’t matter where a politician makes the blunders, and honestly, if one is prone to tripping over one’s tongue, it will happen in public regardless.

While Cillizza may have meant well, he failed to recognize that what he was saying wasn’t honestly an indictment of Twitter. It was a statement against politicians failing to keep questionable or secret comments out of the public eye. The fault lies with the people, not the technology. And if he intended reverse psychology by saying they shouldn’t use it in the hope that more would just to spite him, that may very well be backfiring.

Instead of warning politicians to not use Twitter at all, Cillizza should have advised them on how to use it appropriately. While he made good points about how not to use social media in general, I got the impression that the main reason he was warning politicians not to make use of the technology was that he doubted they could learn how to use it properly. I can’t imagine that the folks at TweetCongress are happy with him. Would be nice if there was a website with advice for politicians on how to use Twitter.

As a former campaign worker, I interpreted the piece as something that implied lack of intelligence in politicians. It is also foolhardy advice because sooner or later there will be a need to legislate on issues surrounding social media - because of foolish mistakes made by its users and developers. I would never discourage a politician from learning about and using new technology. We don’t need legislation written with advice from teenage children (or grandchildren) of legislators, or from interns. If we want government to keep moving toward this century, we can’t tell anyone in it to stay away from any new (or not so new) technology.

When I was in college, just in the course of doing my thing every day, I was used, as a sort of visual aid, by the local anti-choice group on campus. Or maybe that’s too active a term for the way that same guy, good-looking in a crazed messianic sort of way, would catch my eye as if he hoped for an endorsement from the winner of the America’s Worst Nightmare Pageant. He seemed to think he knew what I would think about one of the hottest issues of our time without even meeting me.

People do that all the time, of course, and it wasn’t just the fact that he was wrong that insulted me. Another person was weighing the worth of my life and trying to get points for it.

Although the question of “choice” is often different for disabled women as we’ve always had the “choice” not to bear children, either from pressure, stereotypes, or, in the bad old days, forced sterilization. Even now, the cutbacks in attendant services and in-general poverty in which many disabled people live does not make that a likely prospect for many of us, and, at thirty-five, I can feel an already tiny window snapping closed for good.

It’s not like I don’t know what a gamble even birth can be. If mine hadn’t gone wrong in the middle, you’d be looking at a very different post right now. I don’t spend a lot of time anymore wondering what might have happened if there had been some indication earlier on that things had gone amiss. I used to, as I went along in college and got involved in my first feminist and pro-choice efforts.

I wish I could say that I love myself so much I could not imagine a world where I didn’t exist. But, ironically, having a mother who has always been so devoted to me has made me more convinced that it wasn’t up to me to decide. If I had never existed due to abortion, it’s not like I would miss myself.

And the idea that anyone can proclaim their respect for the sanctity of life by blowing a man’s brains out as he passed out bulletins in church is so repellant there aren’t words for it…what about his family, what about his friends…don’t they count as life?

And why doesn’t he get a real obituary, media, beyond “Stalked and Slain Late-term Abortion Doctor”. I’d like to know what brought him to this work, and what kept him in it after he needed a bulletproof vest because of it. Because it can’t have been a good feeling, looking mothers in the face and telling them their fetuses had been fatally wounded, despite the fact that Bill O’Reilly persists in describing him as a sort of below-the-belt hit man or something. Because everyone is all scared of Those People and of being on the wrong side in the culture wars.

The irony of worrying about Bill O’Reilly’s moral take on pregnancy when, the last time his wife was pregnant he was harassing his producer to talk to him about sex is almost poisonous.

Erika Jahneke is a writer and blogger who has written about subjects as diverse as the city of Baltimore in pop culture and women’s reproductive health. Her fiction and essays have appeared in Smile Hon, The November 3rd Club Journal and Kaleidoscope, among other publications. She believes that her writing can almost make up for the physical power she lost when she developed a brain injury at birth and became a life-long wheelchair user. She lives in Phoenix.

I was sitting here trying to figure out how to make things a little more interesting on this blog, and realized that I’m not all that interesting in the first place! So, I started asking around for some guest bloggers, and Erika Jahneke volunteered. Please give her a wonderful welcome (feel free to comment on her post!), and drop me a line if you’d like to see more from her here! (Use the nifty “Email Elizabeth” link to the right.)

While the PA House and Senate battle out the budget, Gov. Rendell has been running about telling anyone who will listen that he’s willing to consider anything, including tax increases (although that’s supposed to be a last resort.) Yet again, there is no mention of the legislature itself.

True, it is a no-brainer to figure out why the legislators wouldn’t mention the concept that there are just too many of them. It’s a nice campaign promise for an outsider on a first run, but is never mentioned once the candidate is in office. The people don’t even bring up this issue anymore, at least not as more than a whimsical wish that they know would never happen. Or maybe it could.

A resource that PA taxpayers might want to explore, particularly for information on this issue, is the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL.) Keep in mind that this is not for the faint of heart - or the mathematically disinclined! First, I looked up the wages of our legislators versus those of other states. The unfortunate part of this research is that many states calculate wages in many different ways. I stuck with comparing our legislators’ with New York, and for 2008, ours were getting just over $76 thousand, while New York legislators received $79.5 thousand.

Now, multiply the $76 thousand by 253. That will leave you with what the PA taxpayers pay for a legislature that is the second largest in the country. It is surpassed only by New Hampshire (400), and far ahead of California with 120 legislators representing the largest population in the country.

Contrary to what anyone, particularly in Harrisburg, might tell you, there are states out there that have made significant decreases in their legislatures, including Illinois and Massachusetts. Arguments abound on both sides of the issue of reducing the size of a legislature, however, there is one major issue that needs to be addressed in PA. Cost.

In all the years that I have been involved in politics, I have consistently said that governments have a basic equation that they must solve. X-Y=Z, where “X” is the cost of needed services (emphasis on needed), “Y” is available funds, and “Z” the amount leftover, zero, or a negative number (deficit.) While the equation remains the same on all levels of government, the number of politicians who fail to understand it (or at least appear that way) increases exponentially as one moves up from the local to the federal level. I presume that the temptation to spend more increases as the amount of money politicians have to “play with” goes up. The dissatisfaction of taxpayers increases at roughly the same rate, and they become much more vocal when they feel that politicians are being too careless with their dollars.

Right now Pennsylvania lawmakers are bouncing around ideas to cut the budget, and most of them are centered around cutting services to the citizens. Some are reasonable, and some contradict other actions of the government to date. For example, the concept of closing state parks to save a dime is ludicrous, if the commonwealth is going to continue suggesting that the future for Pennsylvania is in tourism. The same can be said of daylight road work in areas surrounding tourist attractions in the summer months. (Pittsburghers are extremely familiar with this concept, as they find it difficult to get to various entertainment venues in the summer months thanks to PennDOT closures.)

What taxpayers are not hearing is cutting budgets for politicians. There is no talk about cutting staff in Harrisburg (which has stayed about the same, apparently for many years, to their defense.) And this brings me back to the concept of cutting legislators. It is not a popular subject in Harrisburg, obviously, but it is something that would probably ensure a lifetime seat for the legislators who would suggest it. Voters would be far more likely to retain someone who was for this sort of budget cut, rewarding the courage to bring it up in the first place. I know that sounds simplistic, but the over-analysis of the voting public is an illness that many politicians suffer. There are still a few “bottom line,” uncomplicated issues out there, and this is one of them.

The argument could have been made many years ago that cutting back on legislators would make it more difficult for them to keep in touch with their constituents. It doesn’t take very long to write an email, make a phone call, or print out a prepared response (and even add a personal note) for mailing. As it is, many Pennsylvanians have gotten accustomed to the concept of long waiting periods for responses from lawmakers, as some seem to take more time once they feel secure in their positions (a situation that is common to politicians in general, not just in Pennsylvania.) As for personal appointments and appearances, if constituents are left with the choice of having to book them far in advance, or pay more taxes for more legislators, they would probably choose to keep their cash. Accessibility honestly isn’t an excuse anymore.

The media has essentially given up on this issue, theoretically for good reason - they’ve been ignored and ridiculed for so long, it just isn’t worth the effort. That is my challenge. Instead of letting the legislators cherry pick programs to reduce or cut to resolve the budget issues, start asking them to justify their own expenses again. Why do they think that we need more legislators than California? Do they honestly think that the cost of living in Pennsylvania is so close to that of New York that they deserve to be paid almost as much as legislators there? And that just covers the number of legislators and their wages, not the perks. True, reducing the number of legislators wouldn’t cover the entire shortfall from the budget proposed by Rendell, but it would send a very important message to the voters - that the legislators still consider themselves public servants, and they are willing to make real sacrifices for their constituents. An idealistic thought, but maybe it will remind a few politicians about why they got interested in the political process in the first place.

For most of my life, I watched my mother put a pretty little embroidered red rose on her coat each year. It was given to her by the Christian Mothers organization at our town’s Catholic Church. I didn’t understand until I was much older what the rose was about, and I wonder today if my mother would ever put one on her coat if it was offered now.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy involved in the supposed battle against a culture of death, and I think that is why my mother wouldn’t put herself in line with anymore. While there are lists of “baby butchers” out there, the mainstream pro-life movement tries to deny its complicity in their existence. But it is only a half-hearted denial, since they certainly don’t shed tears when someone they perceive as a “baby killer” is killed. In all honesty, I suspect that if they managed to get abortion outlawed, they would have no problem with a death penalty being levied against doctors who broke their laws.

If the pro-life movement was an honest name for the various organizations and individuals who find it necessary to protest abortion, then there wouldn’t be a day like today. I know that there have been and will be denials about the individual who killed Dr. Tiller (and for that matter, all the violence against doctors and clinics.) The refrain will go something like: “It is the fault of someone who was mentally unstable, and not really a part of our movement.” But that is a lie. The movement has long made it clear that the potential for human life always trumps the lives of humans. We only need to look at the protests about legislation that would allow for the health or life of the mother to see the truth of that. Add the tepid denials when it comes to terrorist acts against health providers, and it is abundantly clear.

And it is terrorism. Period. Not only in the form of violence, but also in the form of ideological bullying. It is a grassroots fascism that is no less toxic than what we see from the Taliban. It forces silence on those who would attempt to shed light on what they are actually doing to our society.

Their talking heads are not known for being very Christian-like (if one defines “Christian” as attempting to emulate Christ by at least following the most important commandment, “Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself, and love your neighbor as yourself.”) Perhaps there is a great deal of self-loathing involved in today’s pro-life movement - if not, maybe there should be. How can one honestly even like herself if she tells a young girl that an unborn child is more important than the girl?

In all of this, the only time I have ever heard anything about concern for any living being other than the self or the potential for human life is ironically enough, from the supposedly evil pro-choice side of the fence. There you hear about woman who chose not to have a child at a given time because of fears - fear that the woman is unable to provide for a child, fear that the woman’s choices in regard to drugs or alcohol would result in injuries to a child, and fear that the man involved wouldn’t actually be there for a child (or worse, might actually cause harm to a child.)

But don’t mention those situations to today’s pro-life people. They are only interested in that potential for human life. The quality of that life is meaningless. They are absolutely right to force every woman who becomes pregnant to have that child regardless of how that child will be raised. And if you don’t agree with them, their little friends in the fringes of their organizations will make you agree - or maybe they’ll add you to their hit lists for good measure.

For the record, I had an abortion, I vote, I write on this issue when the desire hits me to do so, I have acted as a clinic escort in the past (and will do so in the future if needed), and I will remain in opposition to anyone who finds it necessary to promote hatred and terrorism in this country, particularly anyone who thinks that they are “pro-life.” I will continue to call the activists on their hypocrisy, and if that merits being listed on one of the hate-mongering sites, my reply is “bring it.”

I’ve stayed away from saying much here about feminist issues, but lately it’s impossible to resist the urge. Whether it’s misogynistic attacks on Sotomayor, or claiming that she’s racist (or reverse racist, as Limbaugh stated), enough is enough. As a Republican (no doubt I would be accused of being a RINO), I find it despicable that the party has not stood up and said that these arguments belong in the Senate, not on talk radio in the hands of the likes of Limbaugh and his ilk. Bluntly, I’m waiting for someone to take hold of the choke chain that should be around the necks of the right-wing talking heads and yank hard. Claiming that getting the “base” riled on this issue is preparation for 2010 is laughable, unless they are planning for yet another disappointing run at the polls. Why? I thought it became abundantly clear in November that the American people are tired of scare tactics, bullying, and all-around general bad behavior from their leaders. They wanted someone who sought to find the positive in even the worst of situations, and voted accordingly. Apparently that is something that is lost on the GOP leadership (loose terminology there, since true leaders in the party are scarce.)

The Sotomayor situation is being pegged yet again on a hot button issue that with the exception of the radicals on both sides of the fence, has gotten tiresome for the public. Abortion should have become a non-issue long ago, and is being carted out now for the simple reason that there are those who want to see Roe preserved (myself included.) But I can’t say that I identify with the pro-choice movement as much as I once did. True, I believe that abortion should not be made illegal, but that is for purely practical reasons. There will always be medical reasons for abortions, and if the procedure would be outlawed, no doctors would know how to do it after a while, and women would die needlessly. Otherwise, I’m more concerned with promoting new research into better birth control methods (a facet of the pro-choice movement, to be sure), preferably without the dire side-effects of the current offerings.

Sadly, the GOP seems to have its own little darling on this issue as well. Bristol Palin is put in the spotlight as a warped role model for teenage girls, saying with a lovely smile on her face, “Do as I say, not as I did.” It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. While everyone is lampooning her mother for various gaffes, they fail to call her on using her own daughter for what I presume she figures is political gain. In reality, it comes off as borderline psychological and emotional abuse, and Sarah Palin should be thankful that Bristol is too old for child abuse charges to be levied, not that anyone would try to do that. The ones I truly feel sorry for are the youngest Palins, both Sarah’s and Bristol’s children, because in the future they will be able to look all of this up in a cyber-library. One can hope that the Palin family antics will settle down before the babies are old enough to have a clue about what is going on around them - although I doubt it, because it seems a new page to the saga keeps appearing. Admittedly, I can definitely understand wanting to get a daughter away from a guy like Levi, but seriously, what parent regardless of income, decides to offer the girl a car? I don’t even know where to begin to explain how wrong that is!

Now, while Bristol’s off being the poster child for abstinence (maybe that is fitting after all?), we’re seeing the fallout of abstinence education. Now, to be fair, maybe some of the blame belongs with dear old Bill Clinton, muddying the waters, but I think that when kids start talking casually about oral sex and prostitution, there’s a major problem. What still disturbs me is the alarming lack of self-esteem in teenage girls. Instead of worrying so much about keeping kids from exploring their sexuality, we need to get back to educating them about their bodies, and more importantly, on how to treat each other with respect, particularly in intimate relationships. At least I know there’s at least one non-Puritanical member of the GOP - Meghan McCain. Hopefully other members of the party will quit picking on her, and start listening.

I might be a RINO these days, but that honestly isn’t my fault. I still believe in the principles of smaller government, personal freedoms, and (relatively) free market economies (sorry, need some regulations, as should be obvious by now), but as a woman, I feel that I don’t belong. Guess that means I can empathize with Specter, too.

Dueling national security speeches aside - because that’s where they belong - a greater issue has been left unanswered. Even the Pelosi debacle that left Feinstein muttering mostly gibberish on MSNBC yesterday, and Specter calling for transcripts of CIA briefings is beside the point.

Since September 11, 2001 at about 11 a.m., I have been wondering about the answer to one question: what will the U.S. do about the attacks? The incarceration, legal or otherwise, of suspected terrorists, and the subsequent treatment of them remains scenery. Even the ethical question of torture is meaningless - Noam Chomsky already explored our deep, dark past in that, ironically enough in the Asia Times, presumably for lack of a U.S. based publication willing to publish it.

When I heard that Bin Laden was hiding out in caves in the wilderness of Afghanistan, I waited to see Bush deploy thousands of troops armed with flame throwers and grenades, like U.S. troops did on the islands off the coast of Japan in WWII. Instead I watched troops invade Iraq to finish what his father started, and saw the administration out Plame in retaliation for her husband saying there were no WMD’s in Iraq.

But that all is just scenery, and my original question remains. It is like being trapped in Oliver Stone’s “JFK” as Kevin Costner’s character, begging “Ask the damned question!” while wading through the Warren Report. We keep dredging up current filth, while ignoring the fact that we created the monster. Charlie Wilson was our unwitting Shelley, and Bin Laden our Frankenstein - and that question remains unasked and unanswered by our media. Perhaps it will appear in the Asia Times.

We get too caught up in the details and neglect to connect the dots between them. As a child I had been fascinated by puzzles, so this goes against the grain for me. While I love delving into the political process, I easily lose patience with politicians - particularly when they try their hands at playing with smoke and mirrors, like Obama, Cheney, Pelosi, Feinstein and Specter have in this situation. Although it is aimed at senators, I think that Morton Downey, Jr. had the right idea - “A good dog know who the master is. A good senator, if there was one, would know that too!”

Note: The Chomsky piece now appears at The Nation.

Every once in a while I see someone in politics “step in it” up to their necks, and just can’t resist the temptation to call them on it. Although no longer in public office, and in the public eye for reasons I fail to comprehend, Newt Gingrich, theoretically by merit of formerly holding the office of Speaker, now finds it necessary to demand the resignation of Speaker Pelosi. It would be a fair commentary, if it came from any former Speaker other than Gingrich, but his own spotted history immediately calls the statement into question.

But, to be fair, instead of dredging up his history, I’ll stick with that of the Bush Administration, since that is what the entire situation is about. Over the years, the amount of questionable and even illegal behavior the public is willing to allow from our leaders has grown exponentially - at least during my lifetime. As far as inappropriate acts by politicians concerning our military and intelligence organizations, the current flap pales in comparison to that of previous administration.

Gingrich asks if potential soldiers should bother putting on a uniform in the first place if they would fear being persecuted (or prosecuted) by Pelosi. I wonder whether or not they should have bothered under Bush, if they had known that they may have been ordered to commit crimes in the first place - that is assuming that Gingrich acknowledges that torture is indeed a crime (doubtful.) Who knew what and when is nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking, and the GOP knows this. They also must know that it would have been political suicide for any Democrat, regardless of standing, to speak a word against the Bush Administration’s policies and procedures back in 2002.

As for the suggestions that the CIA may have misled Congress, I am still trying to figure out what the problem is here. As an American citizen, I would expect nothing less than that from an intelligence agency. Politicians don’t know how to keep their mouths shut. I don’t want the CIA to tell them “everything” because that in itself would compromise our security. Regardless, suggesting that the CIA was less than honest is nothing in comparison to what the Bush Administration did. Call me silly, but outing a CIA operative to the press doesn’t inspire faith in a government, and the CIA did suffer greatly for that. Or maybe I was mistaken when I read about seasoned operatives leaving the fold over the Plame issue. I guess in Gingrich’s world it’s alright to out an operative over the actions of her spouse, but it’s not alright to point out that the CIA might not be completely honest when dealing with politicians.

If Gingrich really wanted to talk about real threats to our national security, perhaps he should have mentioned wasteful spending on wire-taps on citizens whose only “crime” is disagreeing with him, or lax enforcement of existing gun laws. But that would assuming that Gingrich recognizes that the potential for home-grown terrorist attacks is greater than for ones from overseas.

For years in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we’ve had something akin to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude when it comes to video poker machines. Occasionally there would be “crackdowns” on these machines, either on a regional basis, or based on other issues with a given establishment. As a result of this, there has been a flourishing business maintaining these machines, and many small social clubs have become dependent to some degree on the income they provide.

Now, with the introduction of HB 1317, this “working” system is in danger of ending. Admittedly, it is in a legal gray area, but the fact remains that the way the machines are maintained works. Instead of legitimizing the current situation by requiring that the people who are currently distributing and maintaining the machines apply for licenses, the commonwealth under this bill would take over that job. As with anything else that the government takes over, it can be assumed that there will be logistical issues, such as long waits for repairs, maintenance, and other concerns that normally would have been addressed by the small local distributors. The open-ended nature of the fees involved in maintaining the machines is also an issue - the bill mentions specific numbers but leaves room for unlimited increases. Also, the 25% of profits that would be returned to the establishments with the machines implies yet another logistical issue, and a definite reason for fewer businesspeople to even consider installing state-run machines.

This bill smacks of creating an additional justification for an already disliked agency, the Liquor Control Board. The taxpayers have been protesting the continued existence of this agency for years, claiming that it is state control of alcohol pricing, a monopoly, and a waste of taxpayers dollars, particularly in the context of maintenance of state stores, and employee wages and benefits. Suggesting that this agency should be granted control of video poker machines is highly questionable, especially given the amount of taxpayers dollars that have been invested in the Gaming Commission that is already in charge of the new casinos.

Even though this would theoretically help educational funding in the commonwealth, it isn’t enough to justify the losses to our communities. As mentioned before, many private clubs of service and fraternal organizations would lose funds they depend on to remain open. Many of these organizations offer support to students through scholarships, sponsor youth sport teams, and offer academic competitions such as essay and public speaking competitions. There are also many volunteer fire companies that can ill-afford any loss of funds that would normally help them keep updated equipment and training for their personnel. The bill would be a little easier to swallow if it would make exceptions for establishments that are attached to these sorts of organizations.

It is a good idea in general to legalize the video poker machines throughout the commonwealth, but HB 1317 falls short of fitting the needs of our taxpayers. It requires far too much governmental oversight and involvement, and will probably cause the machines to disappear from the commonwealth establishments altogether. If that is the true goal of the legislation, instead of gaining funds for education, then be more forthright, and outright declare them illegal and remove the games. There’s no harm in pushing us back a few more decades, is there?