University Chancellor Jim Rogers, who opposes a plan to appoint regents rather than elect them, has commissioned a poll that shows 55 percent of Nevadans agree with him. The poll, conducted by Strategic Solutions Inc., found just 14.7 percent support the idea, 29 percent are undecided and 1.2 percent declined to answer.

There’s still a lot of room to persuade undecided people to support the plan, authored by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, that would see six of nine regents appointed by the governor, and three elected (one from each congressional district). Call it Giunchigliani’s Missouri plan, a compromise between executive and popular authority.

We happen to agree with Giunchigliani, and disagree with Rogers. Although voters have done a good job turning out unethical or incompetent politicians at the state, county and city levels, by the time they get to the regents, they’ve checked out. How else to explain the election of the wacky Mark Alden? The conflicted Howard Rosenberg? The file-snooping Linda Howard? Or the entire Open Meeting Law-violating board that has essentially ceded its authority to Rogers for all practical purposes?

Appointment would allow the governor to choose qualified regents, but also give us an instant source of accountability, as the governor would be under pressure to get rid of appointees who turn out to be not so smart. (Now, if a regent abuses a host account, repeatedly breaks the Open Meeting Law or does whatever they’re told by Rogers — ostensibly an employee of the board, not the boss — we must wait until the next election to bounce them, or try for a difficult recall.)

Yes, we know our stance sounds anti-democratic. And yes, we realize we’re grasping for a solution based on the sorry composition of the current board. But this is one board where we truly believe appointment is better than election. And come November 2006, you voters will get a chance to agree or disagree with us.

“The public is not about to change from an elected to an appointed board,” Rogers told the Review-Journal. “I can’t imagine any group out there spending money to promote the opposition.” Ah, yes, Mr. Chancellor, but you forget: The best argument for change are the antics of the current board. And that’s free advertising.

It used to be that government or a big company collecting all sorts of personal information about people would be viewed with a healthy amount of suspicion. But in our uncertain modern times, with terror threats, identity theft and child kidnappings, more people are starting to embrace the technology of biometrics.

And that’s a bad thing.

Biometrics essentially involves computerizing personal information, including retina or iris scans, fingerprints, even DNA. That information can be encoded on cards and used to establish identity. For example, in the so-called “trusted traveler” program, a person could submit to a background check, surrender personal information and an iris scan, and in turn be allowed to bypass some airport security once his or her identity has been established by swiping his biometric card and letting the computer take a look at his iris.

In the case of kids, the morning Review-Journal notes that Metro Police have purchased equipment that will allow them to establish the identity of kids who’ve had their eyes scanned if those kids go missing and are later found. (The database is actually owned by a private company, so police won’t have access to the information except to verify a child’s identity.

And after all, who wouldn’t want to do this? Airport security lines are long, you have to take off your shoes and belt, and sometimes go through that giant air-blow machine to check for explosive residue. It would be so much easier to swipe a card and walk past the Luddite suckers waiting 10 people deep.

Identity thieves are everywhere, so who wouldn’t want to scan their biometric ID before a purchase is approved, and walk away knowing that even if an identity thief has every scrap of information about you, he still doesn’t have your iris, so the information is useless.

And when biometric equipment comes standard on computers (it’s already installed on some IBM ThinkPad laptops) online purchases will have the same security.

Won’t parents rest easier knowing that even if their child is kidnapped, his identity cannot be hidden once authorities track down the kidnappers?

Who doesn’t think this is a good idea?

You guessed it: We don’t.

In addition to the privacy concerns, we’re just not comfortable with government or a big business having that kind of information. Not only is it susceptible to theft (hackers can still get in to databases, no matter how secure we’re told they are) but there’s something to the notion that we should be able to travel, make a purchase or write something on our laptops without having to be tracked by a person or software.

But the appeal of this kind of thing is only going to grow as airport lines get longer and fears of terrorism loom larger. We’re seeing a cultural shift from “why does the government or a business need that information about me?” to “I’ve got nothing to hide, and it makes us safer.” Soon, it will be people like us at Various Things & Stuff standing up for privacy and against the all-intrusive eyes of government and business who are the odd ones.

Call us paranoid, but every time we read one of these stories about the great advances in biometric technology (”Leave your wallet at home! Your iris is your credit/debit card now!”) we can’t help but think of The Revelation of St. John the Divine, the final book of the New Testament. There’s a passage there that seems strikingly similar to the whole biometric movement.

“He [the beast] also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.” (Revelation 13: 16-18)

Yeah. We’ll wait in the line at the airport.