We at Various Things & Stuff just hate to agree with the Review-Journal’s editorial page, but when they’re right, they’re right. The editors today said it was a “no-brainer” for the Board of Regents of the state university system not to adopt a “cooling off” period that would bar a regent from taking a job at one of the state’s universities for one year after he’s left office.

The operative word, of course, is brain.

Regent Steve Sisolak proposed the one-year cooling-off policy after former Regent Doug Seastrand took at homeland security studies job at UNLV. (Seastrand said he could have stayed on the board, a la Regent Howard Rosenberg, who holds a horribly conflicting job teaching at the University of Nevada, Reno, that nonetheless has received the bizarre blessing of the state Ethics Commission. But instead of pulling a Rosenberg, Seastrand gracefully left to avoid the appearance of a conflict. What a prince.)

There is no way, as Chancellor Jim Rogers noted, that a university president cannot feel pressure to hire a regent who approves (or withholds approval) of a school’s budget. UNLV, conversely, can say Seastrand was the most qualified guy in the universe all it wants, but the question will still be raised, and it should be: Did he use his influence to get the post?

Nevada law on the subject is clear — NRS 281.481(1) prohibits public officers from seeking or accepting any employment that would tend to influence a reasonable person to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of his public duties. And NRS 281.481(2) bans using your position in government to grant unwarranted privileges for yourself. There’s little doubt that seeking a job from a university when you’re a regent could easily violate both of these laws.

The regents are scheduled to take up Sisolak’s proposal again in December. They should pass it. If they don’t, it’s a clear sign that some of them still want to get a seat in the dining car of the gravy train.

Baptists in Mississippi (and news reports say one out of every four residents is a Baptist) are gearing up to oppose casinos being built on dry land. The fact that casinos exist in Mississippi at all is something of a miracle, although the Baptists would probably ascribe that to a more diabolical source. A compromise with religious interests in the state allowed casinos to be built, provided they were over water. Then, when God got sick of the evils of gambling, he could send a hurricane and … well, you know the rest.

Now, casino companies are wondering if perhaps they might be allowed to build on dry land, to prevent their properties from being forcibly relocated by Mother Nature. And Gov. Haley Barbour has put the matter on a special session agenda for the Mississippi Legislature this week.

We think the Baptists in Mississippi might be in for a rude awakening: Casinos produce revenue for the state — $334.6 million in fiscal year 2005, and $57.4 million thus far in fiscal year 2006. And when any state government comes to rely on that revenue, it’s hard to say no to the people who provide it.

And that’s not even to mention the fact that, if you’re going to have gambling at all, there’s really no practical or moral difference whether you have it over water or over land. Which is why some Baptists think this is a perfect time to get rid of gambling once and for all.

And that leads us to the Various Things & Stuff Trivia Question of the Day: Where in the Bible does it specifically say that Christians can’t gamble? If you know the answer, e-mail us — SSebelius@lvcitylife.com — and let us know. One entry per e-mail address please!