As sports columnist Blackie Sherrod once wrote "If you bet on a horse, that's gambling. If you bet you can make three spades, that's entertainment. If you bet cotton will go up three points, that's business. See the difference?"

Apparently the law sees a principled distinction between these three forms of betting, and poker enthusiasts and Harvard professors are doing research to try to prove that poker is a game of skill, in the hope that such a determination could lead to the legalization of online poker betting. According to the Wall Street Journal, our government categorizes games that are considered to be dominated by chance are gambling, while those that are mainly skill are not. Congressman Barney Frank has introduced a bill that would legalize online gambling, saying that gambling is a personal freedom issue.

But here's what I don't understand: How can you possibly argue that day-trading Pink Sheets stocks is a game of skill, but poker is a game of chance? Does anyone honestly think that?

You could possibly argue that day-trading is legal because it serves an economic purpose -- the liquidity that trading provides encourages investment. Without the ability to sell shares, people would be less likely to invest in American businesses.

But online poker can serve an economic function as well: By legitimizing the games, the government could collect tax revenue. And with record deficits and a soaring national debt, doesn't the government have better things to do than battle the imaginary dragon of online poker? Maybe they could start by getting rid of the The Lottery.