So overcome were we on Friday with U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s Screw Dina Titus Letter we neglected to celebrate the news of that day: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted on charges of lying to FBI agents and the grand jury, as well as perjury in the investigation of who leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame’s name to reporters. Libby immediately resigned his post, and the White House “reluctantly” accepted.

Meanwhile, Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, managed to escape indictment on Friday by providing evidence to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he’d forgotten about his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, rather than lied about it. Rove still may get indicted, however, as the investigation is ongoing.

The technicality of not being indicted didn’t stop Reid from calling on Bush to fire Rove, as the president said he’d do long ago. (Bush has since amended that statement, saying he’d fire anybody convicted of a crime.)

If Bush “is a man of his word, Rove should be history,” Reid said this weekend. Hey, senator, remember the time back in May 2003 when Bush said “we found the weapons of mass destruction”? Enough said about that.

Conservatives, meanwhile, spun up their spin machine, which produced lines so lame, we were laughing like we were watching a marathon of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Suddenly people who were outraged — outraged — that former President Bill Clinton would fib under oath about getting a blow job are treating perjury as if it was a jaywalking-type misdemeanor.

The Clinton-hating Review-Journal put it this way in an editorial on Sunday: “Mr. Libby’s indictment, basically for declining to admit embarrassing behavior to the grand jury, this resembles the Martha Stewart case, in which the corporate diva was charged with denying to FBI agents behavior which would not actually have been a crime, even if committed.”

That’s all it was, embarrassing behavior. But the real analogy was not to Martha Stewart, but to Clinton, who also tried to avoid admitting to some embarrassing behavior and was lambasted for the lie.

In fact, back in 2002, R-J Editor Tom Mitchell put it this way: “For the record, the editors of the R-J do not hate Bill Clinton. We hate perjury, hypocrisy, opportunism, cheating, frat boy behavior, bribes for pardons, self-serving manipulation, bald-faced lies and cigar-chomping, finger-wagging sexual deviancy.

“This comes from a principled stance and an appreciation of common decency.”

So, we at Various Things & Stuff can safely assume that the R-J will give Libby the same treatment as Clinton, based on their hatred of perjury, hypocrisy, opportunism, self-serving manipulation, and bald faced lies, all out of the paper’s appreciation of common decency? We’re waiting for the editorials now.

Anybody who missed Sunday’s 60 Minutes should get the transcript of Ed Bradley’s story, in which he interviewed fellow CIA officers about the Plame leak. Some very good points flowed therefrom:

• Plame was undercover, even if she was working at the CIA’s Langley, Va. headquarters on weapons proliferation issues. She was using a Boston energy consulting firm that was a CIA front as her cover. When conservative columnist Robert Novak revealed her name, he also revealed the front company’s name, which could have blown the cover of any other operative who was using it.

• Although Plame wasn’t working overseas currently, she did work overseas in the past, as a “non-official cover” officer, the most dangerous position a covert operative could have. Now that she’s been outed, all the agents she ever recruited or had dealings with are also exposed and perhaps endangered.

• Revealing that Plame, who was married to Ambassador Joe Wilson, worked as a CIA officer now brings all ambassadors’ wives under suspicion as agency “assets,” which reveals a CIA method of operation.

It was heady stuff, and a good answer to those who would minimize the damage done by Rove and Libby’s actions, which Wilson characterized as treason. It’s one thing for left-wing radicals to engage in the sport of outing CIA officers in order to hinder the agency’s many questionable missions; it’s quite another for members of an administration that prides itself on defending America from enemies to compromise an agent’s identity.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: We don’t think either Rove or Libby set out to break the law that prohibits revealing the identity of a covert CIA officer. We do think Rove and Libby set out to smear Wilson and the CIA, which the administration at the time felt was covering its ass for the bad intelligence that led to war. And in the process, we believe they did violate the law, although violations are notoriously difficult to prove, as Fitzgerald noted in his Friday news conference on the indictment. The bottom line is, Rove and Libby knew, or should have known, that the disclosure would harm national security, but they did it anyway. Why? Because their highest loyalty was to the administration, and not to the country. This is the definition of “hack,” and a damn good antonym to another word, “patriot.”

Up next: A trial, at which Cheney may be called to testify (he was among those who first told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA). News reports suggest Libby is going to argue that, as a busy administration official, he couldn’t possibly keep track of who they heard what from and when, and thus he’s only guilty of having a faulty memory, not of lying.

After all the drama, it comes down to the old Steve Martin comedy routine: “I forgot.”

Can anyone explain this?

Social conservatives are arguing a new vaccine against the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus — which causes cervical cancer in about 10,000 women per year, killing 3,700 — should not be mandatory, because it sends the message that it’s OK to have sex.

We know that, by preventing the mandatory inoculations, more people will die. Yet these same social conservatives describe themselves as “pro-life”?

This makes no sense.

Social conservatives dislike abortion, but they oppose distributing condoms and the education encouraging kids to use them, even though doing so would radically reduce the spread of disease, unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, abortion.

This makes no sense.

The very same social conservatives who dislike abortion support a pharmacists’ right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions on moral or religious grounds. It’s the same thing as saying a gas station attendant who has moral or religious qualms with fossil fuel burning can decline to fill gas tanks, yet keep his job.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, if this were simply an academic exercise, it would be mildly interesting. But it’s not; the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is struggling to endorse a mandatory human papilloma virus vaccine (that’s very effective at preventing cervical cancer) because of the objections of social conservatives. And why? Because social conservatives clearly have the ear of the president. (Just ask Harriet Miers.)

“What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington. And it’s having an effect in debates like this,” Brown University political science professor James Morone Jr. said in a story published in today’s Review-Journal.

Social conservatives have every right to speak out and make their views known. They have the right to raise their children as they see fit. But when they stand in the way of an inoculation that could save lives, they become dangerous, and must be stopped.

Now that makes sense.

So it seems the Las Vegas City Council is poised to hand yet another sweetheart deal to golf course developer Bill Walters, who has ironically said he’s been very “lucky” in his dealings with government over the years.

This particular deal stinks more than usual, since Walters wants to convert his Royal Links Golf Course in the northeast part of the valley into homes, homes that would be as close as 20 feet from the city’s Water Pollution Control Facility (read — sewage treatment plant).

Back in the late 1990s, Walters struck one of his classic deals with the city: He’d build a course on the city-owned land, which he’d get for reduced prices. In 1999, Walters bought the land outright from the city for $894,000, which was a song at the time, with one important, value-lowering restriction: It had to be used as a golf course.

Flash forward to now: The golf industry is sucking wind, but the homebuilding industry is off the charts. Walters sees an opportunity, one that he’s exercised at other courses he owns: Get rid of the links, and build homes instead.

So, in order to get the city to strike the deed restriction, he offers $7.2 million, which he says was the value of the land back in 1999 without the restriction.

Now, where have we seen this movie before? Oh, that’s right, Back to the Future II, where that rascal Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) tries to swipe a sports almanac from the future in order to win at gambling in 1985. Brilliant!

See, now that Walters has knowledge of the future (home prices skyrocketing, golf courses faltering) he wants to hop in the DeLorean and go back to 1999, where he’d pay what the land was worth back then unencumbered by the deed restriction, and get clear title to it. Then, in 2005, he’d sell it to homebuilders for a maximum profit, since city appraisers say it’s now worth between $24.1 million and $28.7 million.

City Councilman Gary Reese argues Walters shouldn’t be penalized for the increase in valley land values, which is a little like us at Various Things & Stuff demanding a house now worth $300,000 be sold to us at the 1999 price of $120,000, since it’s not our fault valley home prices have gone up so much.

Walters says the city should consider the $50 million he claims he’s put into the property since he bought it, but this is equally wrong. Walters and the city had a deal: The city would sell him the land at a reduced price, and he’d build a nice golf course. Both parties fulfilled their end of the bargain, and that’s the end of that.

Now, Walters wants an entirely new deal, one that would put taxpayers at a disadvantage. And what happens to taxpayers when Bill Walters wants the City Council to screw them? Well, they usually get screwed. That’s why everybody should watch what happens at Wednesday’s meeting very closely.

Oh, and another thing: According to the Las Vegas Sun, the city will have to put between $13.3 million and possibly as much as $71 million in upgrades into the sewage plant to comply with Clark County air quality regulations, since people will be living so close. That money was never budgeted because the Walters land, with its deed restriction, was always intended to be a buffer between homes and the smelly plant.

Clearly, Walters thinks his shit don’t stink. Tune in Wednesday to find out if he’s right.

Friday’s Review-Journal brought bad news for progressives: Both anti-tax measures that may be circulated for the 2006 ballot look likely to pass.

One, the Property Tax Restraint Initiative that would institute Proposition 13-style limits on property taxes in Nevada, was favored by 62 percent, opposed by 21 percent, with 17 percent undecided. This measure is being circulated by Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, who is running for Congress. (The silver lining: Angle’s candidacy is running last in the polls behind Secretary of State Dean Heller and former Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons.

The other initiative, dubbed the Tax and Spending Control Initiative, is favored by 58 percent, opposed by 21 percent with an additional 21 percent undecided, according to the poll. Backers, including state Sen. Bob Beers, a candidate for governor, are waiting to see what happens in Colorado today, where voters will decide whether to suspend a very similar measure, dubbed TABOR for Taxpayer Bill of Rights. If TABOR is suspended, the campaign here in Nevada could be undermined somewhat.

(Side note: Notice a pattern? Almost every Republican running for governor has their very own initiative riding shotgun. U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, don’t forget, has the placebo Education First initiative at his back.)

What do the numbers mean? That taxes are very unpopular, and measures to limit them are very popular. This isn’t just a matter of winning over undecided voters; to defeat these measures, opponents are going to have to unconvert some anti-tax converts. And that’s not an easy proposition. “It will take a well-funded campaign,” says Brad Coker, the R-J’s pollster.

“We are witnessing the evolution of government. The people are going to take power from elected officials and impose direct democracy,” says Beers. We’re more of an intelligent design stance than an evolutionary stance on this one, since the campaign against “taxes” never seems to get around to exactly what we’d have to do without if those taxes are cut. And that, readers, is the key to defeating these measures.

“When people are afforded the full picture and told what they would do to existing services, those numbers will change,” Gov. Kenny Guinn’s chief of staff, Michael Hillerby, told the R-J.

The thing is, people aren’t going to be told by the R-J, which has been at the forefront of the cut taxes movement. So that leaves it up to progressives to make mention of the facts in any forum they can: When you cut property taxes, you cut into the revenue that funds local schools, police departments, fire departments and the guys who put up street lights, fix potholes and build roads.

(Another side note: The author of the R-J story, Capitol Bureau reporter Ed Vogel, continued his unholy journalistic love affair with the poster-boy for political incompetence, George Harris, quoting the flannel-clad failure as saying the Tax and Spending Control (TASC) people should change the initiative’s name to TABOR instead. We don’t know why Harris’ name comes up so often in Vogel’s stories, since Harris has never been successful at any political initiative, but we’re thinking Harris has got some damn incriminating photos.)

But let’s play the Harris game. Instead of the Property Tax Restraint Initiative, let’s call it “Sharron Angle’s War on Cops, Teachers and Firefighters Initiative.” And instead of TASC or TABOR, let’s call Beers’ plan ENIALIE, for Ensuring Nevada Is Always Last In Everything.

Both have nice rings, we think.

We at Various Things & Stuff need no coffee this morning; the outrage is enough.

On Thursday, a letter appeared on the website of the Nevada state Democratic Party. The “Open Letter to Nevada Democrats,” signed by some of the party’s top leaders, had but one purpose: To torpedo the gubernatorial campaign of state Sen. Dina Titus.

Why would U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, former Gov. Bob Miller, former Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, and former Assembly Speaker Joe Dini sign such a letter?

There’s only one reason. To ensure a victory for their favored candidate, Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson.

The letter, which we reprint and comment upon herein, is at once brilliant and evil, seemingly innocent and full of guile. And it says as much about its signatories as it does about its subjects.

Let’s begin the parade of shame:

“Our state is facing many challenges: How we manage growth responsibly; improving our education system, which is lagging by many measures; ensuring that every Nevadan, starting first with our children, has access to quality and affordable health care; and that hard working middle class families are not priced out of the state they love with rising housing costs.”

There’s nothing that any good Democrat would object to in this paragraph. Some Republicans might even join that. But that’s what’s so insidious: The author(s) are trying to get you to in an agreeable mood for what they have in store.

Let’s continue:

” Nevada Democrats, and all Nevadans, should be proud and excited that the Democratic Party has two strong, committed and qualified candidates for governor to lead our state and help us meet these challenges.”

And so it begins: Nevada has two candidates running for governor. And, we’re to note, they are equally “strong, committed and qualified.” That, friends, is simply not true, as we shall see.

More:

“Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson and State Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus have been powerful voices on the issues Nevadans most deeply care about. Both are good Democrats. But they are also great leaders whose accomplishments, dedication and values would serve us well in the governor’s mansion.”

Ay, there’s the rub, concealed in the flowery compliments of the other lines of that paragraph: the false message that Reid and his fellows want to drive home: Both are good Democrats. But are they?

• If representing a huge energy company against the express wishes of 57 percent of Las Vegas — and against the interests of 100 percent of Las Vegas — is being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• If donating money to Republicans like U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, knowing full-well that Porter is a tool of the agenda of President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress like now-indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, constitutes being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• If, having made that donation, you give a speech which, in part, denounces the very things that people like Porter have been busy doing in Congress the last few years, and that’s evidence being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson’ qualifies. (He also would qualify as a hypocrite, but that’s another angry rant.)

• If promising health care and better education for Nevada — but running like a vampire from a crucifix from any mention of the taxes obviously needed to pay for those things — means you’re a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies. (He also would qualify as mendacious, given that you cannot do the things he’s said he wants to do without taxes.)

• If being such good friends with Republicans — and, apparently, not so far out of league with their philosophy — that one of their top strategists, Sig Rogich tries to recruit you to the GOP makes you a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• If declaring that you’d sign a bill outlawing a woman’s right to choose in a state where voters have declared she should have that right constitutes being a “good Democrat,” then Gibson is one.

• If being an integral part of the private Las Vegas Monorail that annually skips out on paying taxes it should rightfully pay — thanks to a juiced-in exemption from the state and Clark County — means you’re a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

• And if supporting (with votes and contributions) an anti-gay marriage ban in the state constitution, despite its discriminatory effect on thousands of Nevada residents, makes you a “good Democrat,” then Gibson qualifies.

But we think a lot of good Democrats in Nevada might wake up today wondering if they ought not find a new party, one that’s not afraid to stand for all of the things that Reid & Co. are telling us makes good Democrats.

More from the letter (and yes, it does get worse):

“This stands in stark contrast to the likely Republican nominee, Congressman Jim Gibbons, and the other Republican gubernatorial contenders, whose records suggest that their agenda if elected governor would set Nevada back and be dangerous for Nevada’s seniors and families.”

After asking you to swallow the “they’re both good Democrats” line, we’re back to sounding a unifying note; everybody hates Gibbons, right? (Hell, even some Republicans hate Gibbons.)

More:

“Elections, especially Nevada elections, can be hard fought and spirited affairs. We believe a competitive primary will strengthen our eventual nominee. Nevada Democrats are a broad and inclusive party. While our two Democratic candidates may rightfully differentiate themselves from each other on issues, we believe that both share the same core values.”

Whether they really believe it or not, this is false. It’s patently obvious that a hard-fought, spirited and competitive primary will damage both Titus and Gibson, forcing them to spend money while at the same time helping Gibbons fill his opposition research file. And, with his stance on abortion and gay marriage alone, we know that Titus and Gibson don’t share the same core values.

And finally, this:

“Both Senator Titus and Mayor Gibson have served in the proud tradition of Nevada Democrats. Our party will be proud to stand with either one of them as our party’s nominee - and Nevada’s next governor.

“Let’s have a good, positive primary contest and emerge as united next fall, ready to offer Nevadans the best choice for the future of our state. ”

They saved the best for last: Let’s have a “good, positive primary contest” is easily translated as a message to Titus: Stop saying Gibson isn’t a real Democrat. Stop questioning his record, stop mentioning the things we’ve mentioned in this post, and stop making it hard for him. Stop putting up websites that say Gibson isn’t a Democrat. Just stop.

Reid and his fellow letter-signers don’t want “a hard-fought and spirited” campaign. They don’t want a “competitive primary.” They want a smooth, passionless, vanilla popularity contest that produces a Gibson victory.

Why? Why would Reid, the leader of Democrats in the Senate and one of the party’s top three leaders in the nation, want to sabotage a Titus candidacy, when she’s clearly the most partisan, passionate and fiery Democrat not just in this race, but in the state of Nevada?

Is it because, as my friend and fellow blogger Hugh Jackson suggests, Reid is actually afraid of Democrats who aren’t afraid to be Democrats? Reid, after all, has shown almost no interest in finding a challenger to Republican U.S. Sen. John Ensign, since the two have forged a friendship and non-aggression pact that apparently transcends politics. (How “good” a Democrat Reid may be is far more open to question than Titus’ party bona fides.)

Or is it because, as my good friend and colleague Jon Ralston said in his FLASH e-mail newsletter on Thursday, Reid & Co. believe Titus cannot win a general election against Gibbons, but Gibson can?

Regardless of why, Ralston is right about another thing: Gibson will use this letter to his advantage, to fend off charges he’s not a real Democrat on the campaign trail, in debates and in ads. He may even use it to suggest to donors that he is the preferred choice of Reid, who can credibly claim never to have endorsed Gibson, while at the same time totally endorsing Gibson.

Reid’s reason is his own. But we’re frankly surprised to see a couple of other names on there. Bryan, for example, knows from personal experience what it’s like to be at the end of Reid’s ruthless lance; he and the senior senator were at odds frequently on Capitol Hill, although Bryan is too polite to discuss those indignities publicly. In fact, Reid treats Ensign and Ensign’s staff far better than he ever treated Bryan or Bryan’s old staffers.

And Del Papa, who worked hard to get to the attorney general’s office in what’s still a male-dominated state, should feel no small measure of shame for signing on to a letter aimed at hamstringing the campaign of somebody who could very well be the first female governor. (It’s even worse given Gibson’s stance on abortion.)

The fallout? Titus’ response to the letter was so circumspect, it borders on lame. Here’s the text:

“I appreciate and support the call for party unity. I have been fighting in the trenches for two decades to elect Democrats and further the values of our party. This election is a defining moment not only for our state, but for our party as well. The primary should be about the issues, backgrounds and records of the candidates. That is why I have called upon Mayor Gibson to debate the important issues that face Nevada and unfortunately, he has declined. I hope he will reconsider.”

Tepid just doesn’t quite cover it. But trust us; we know Titus, and we know she must have been hotter than freshly generated nuclear waste when she read the letter, given Reid’s numerous unkindnesses to her in the past, not least of which was blocking her one-time ambition to serve on the Clark County Commission. (Oh, yes, Reid played a big role in recruiting power-hungry, amoral Dario Herrera into a run for Congress against Porter in 2002, opening Herrera’s seat for the senator’s son, Rory Reid.)

But that’s another evil beauty of this letter: Titus cannot attack Reid alone for his blatant and belligerent meddling in her race; he’s got the public cover of well-loved Bryan and Miller, the gender cover of Del Papa and the institutional cover of Dini. Attack Reid, and she must attack the rest, and that would hurt her among the constituents she needs the most, fellow Democrats.

But if she capitulates, she’s prevented from sending the message she needs and wants to convey: “This is a Democratic primary, and I’m the only real Democrat running.” Hence, we have to read between the lines, about “issues, backgrounds and records” and hoped-for debates.

Whatever else it is, this letter is the most blatant, most high-profile meddling that Reid has done, and he’s legendary for his meddling. Instead of allowing Democrats to choose their preferred Democratic candidate after a no-holds-barred, honest debate, Reid has tried to stack the deck for the weaker of the two candidates, perhaps in the hopes of an elusive, general-election victory. But in so doing, he’s forgotten that when you turn the Democratic Party over to people uncomfortable with being Democrats, you’ve already lost, no matter how the polling turns out on Election Day.

And that’s the final, goddamn outrage.

If you heard an odd noise Wednesday morning, it was very likely the orgasmic cry of ecstasy from the Las Vegas Review-Journal as their favorite politician, state Sen. Bob Beers, proposed cutting the Government Services Tax on car registration in half. Beers, who is running for governor, recycled the idea from 2001, when he and then-Assemblyman David Goldwater proposed taking that money and directing it toward schools.

This time, Beers wants to leave the money in your pocket, to the tune of $150 million next year alone. Local governments, which get the portion of the tax Beers is proposing to cut, “won’t miss the money,” Beers said, according to the story in today’s R-J.

According to Beers, Clark County wouldn’t see $29 million in tax money, although Clark County’s finance director George Stevens says the number is really around $52 million. And while Beers says the county can afford it, county spokesman Erik Pappa says budgets are a lot thinner than Beers claims.

Democrats hovered perilously close to rebutting Beers, but ultimately choked. State Sen. Dina Titus said she’d have to see the actual language of the proposal, but then added it was “irresponsible” to cut money from agencies that provide first-responder services like police and firefighters. If it’s “irresponsible,” then why do you need to see the language, senator? Greg Bortolin, spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibson, said a cut in funds translates into a loss of “services.”

Hmmm. Perhaps we can help the Democrats, with our brand new Apple iTrans Universal Translator. Let’s see, we go under “Source Text,” type in Beers’ remarks and click on “conservative-to-English,” and - presto! - we have our solution. It turns out what Beers is really saying is this:

“I believe that it’s a good idea to cut funds from the budgets of police, firefighters, local road-building, construction inspectors, child-welfare workers and public health employees despite the fact that we live in the fastest-growing area in the country, all because I want to starve the beast that is government regardless of the potential consequences to its citizens. And, by framing it as a tax cut without discussing those consequences, I think I can get over on taxpayers, because they rarely think “assault on badly needed public employees” when I say things like “tax cuts.” In short, I think they are stupid, gullible and easily misled.

Wow, that Apple iTrans Universal Translator kicks ass! That was a good investment.

“This is going to be a campaign of ideas, not a popularity contest,” Beers told the R-J’s Erin Neff, after she asked if he was concerned that nobody knows him. “I will continue to provide my ideas about how to keep tax dollars in the hands of Nevadans.”

We’re all for a campaign of ideas. But let’s just be honest about what those ideas are, shall we?

• Looks like former U.S. Senate candidate Richard Ziser is still bitter about his 2004 landslide loss to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The Review-Journal’s poll showed 53 percent of Nevadans think Reid is doing an “excellent” or “good” job, and 28 percent rate him as “poor.” (And keep in mind that this is after the R-J has been giving Reid an editorial and letter-page pounding so severe that it led the senator to declare he won’t speak with the paper’s reporters.) But results among Republicans were, predictably, not as good, and Ziser, who guided the anti-gay marriage Question 2 to victory in 2000 and 2002, could not resist taking a big gulp of Fruit Punch-flavored Hatorade.

“If 51 percent of Republicans in the state of Nevada think that he [Reid] is doing a poor job, that tells me there are a lot of Republicans who made a mistake when they voted in November,” Ziser told the R-J. (Reid won with 65 percent of the vote to Ziser’s 31 percent, but, even worse, some rural Republicans actually elected “none of these candidates” over Ziser in GOP primaries in 2004.)

Pollster Brad Coker got it right in his reply: “I think a lot of Republicans voted for him [Reid] because of who his opponent was. I think voters preferred Reid to Ziser. I think if they were asked today to make the same choice, they would make the same choice.”

One final note: Ziser is no longer vice-chairman of the state Republican Party. A new slate of officers was elected at the central committee’s recent meeting in Sparks, and Ziser was not among them. The new vice-chairman is Paul Willis of Pahrump. But don’t worry, Ziser’s not out of public life entirely: He’s taken over at the helm of Nevada Concerned Citizens, a religious conservative group.

• Speaking of Reid, congrats to our buddy Sean Sinclair, Reid’s former campaign chief, who’s headed to Boston to manage the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat Tom Reilly. (No, not that Thom Reilly, who has an extra “H” in his name.) Sinclair was going to manage the campaign of would-be governor Richard Perkins, who dropped out of the race last month. Prior to that, Sinclair managed the 2002 campaign of Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

• And finally today, President George W. Bush “reluctantly” accepted the withdrawl of White House Counsel Harriet Miers’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, says CNN. Let the record show that this nomination was killed not by Democrats, but by the very conservatives that are supposed to make up Bush’s base. Despite appeals for trust from his peeps, it’s clear the right-wing have begun to eat their own, starting with the main man.

A possible result: Bush may nominate someone that his conservative, religious base will readily accept, someone who has a documented track record of being conservative, setting up a vicious fight in the Senate over confirmation. All Bush really needs - amidst an unpopular war, scandal, investigations and poor poll ratings - is a victory. But it looks more elusive than the fictional weapons of mass destruction that led us to Iraq in the first place.

In the annals of journalism ethics, it’s a Class-B misdemeanor. But for a publication that so often touts its commitment to ethics, it was a surprising development: The Review-Journal posted a different headline on a small graphic announcing poll results about Iraq war support than the one published in the newspaper.

Credit one of our favorite bloggers, Hugh Jackson, and his Las Vegas Gleaner for catching the scoop, since he’s all electronic. (We at Various Things & Stuff still own a typewriter, and we read the R-J in its paper form.)

That’s why the little headline we saw read “War in Iraq.” We had no idea that the online version carried the much more Fox News-esque “Defending Freedom.”

Jackson handles the issue perfectly, so check out his remarks for yourself. (The link is above.)

The general rule of thumb on these things is that the Internet version of a story or graphic should exactly mirror the printed version, although some newspapers offer longer version of stories on their websites, or additional content — like audio or video clips — that simply cannot be offered in the print version.

But to have a neutral version in print — “War in Iraq” is totally innocuous — and a slanted version on the web — “defending freedom” assumes that we are, in fact, defending freedom, rather than staying the course on a presidential error that has cost 2,000 lives — is simply wrong and unethical.

We checked again today, and the “Defending Freedom” version was still archived on the R-J website. Our headline: Shame & hypocrisy. And we’d put that in print and on the web.

It’s customary to quibble with polls, especially the hit-and-miss polls published in the Review-Journal conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. (We at Various Things & Stuff once won a nice bottle of wine from R-J Editor Tom Mitchell after he foolishly bought into an R-J poll that suggested U.S. Sen. John Kerry was 10 points down in Nevada shortly before the 2004 election. Kerry lost the race to President George W. Bush, but by a margin of 50.4 percent to 47.8 percent.)

And while we think a question asking whether the military should “cut its losses” is bound to produce negative results, we’re not going the conspiracy route this time. Let’s take a look at the hard numbers in our favorite parlor game, Governorpalloza 2006.

The poll shows what all other polls have show: Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons is the overall front-runner, and he runs strong in the northern and rural areas of Nevada. It also confirms that state Sen. Dina Titus runs stronger against Gibbons than her primary opponent, Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson. According to the poll, Gibbons would beat Titus 45 percent to 36 percent with 19 percent undecided; he’d beat Gibson 47 percent to 32 percent with 21 percent undecided.

Yes, it’s still all name-recognition at this point. And remember those double-digit undecided numbers, folks. As those undecided voters break for their favorites, they’ll turn the race. And that means Titus, Gibson and Gibbons want to define themselves nicely just as they want to define their opponent as, say, the devil. And with Gibbons’ unfavorable rating rising just a bit (17 percent in this poll versus 12 percent in a May poll), you may just see that process already playing out.

Surprise of the day: Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt, whom most people leave out of their calculations, beats both Titus (40-35, with 25 undecided) and Gibson (39-38, with 23 undecided). You go, girl!

As for the poll results on the police salary increase, well, what can one expect? First, the R-J saturates the paper with critical coverage of the salary pact; then the paper editorializes against it; then the paper covers the reaction to its coverage; then it does a poll and discovers — oh, my God! — people are against it. Shocking.

The numbers are fairly strong: 54 percent say they’re against the agreement, which would see costs rise by about 25 percent over the life of the four-year pact; 35 percent are in support and 11 percent are undecided.

But when pollster Matt Coker goes beyond the numbers to suggest that the current raise is too much, but an amount roughly one-quarter or even half that would be OK with voters, it makes it seem as if the R-J is trying to run the police department. (Then again, that’s only due to the fact that the R-J really is trying to run the department, we’re sure.)

But we’ll give the R-J some credit: Including merit and longevity pay in the total salary numbers is not unfair, as the police union contends. Merit increases (which are automatic) are part of the overall costs to taxpayers, and it’s only fair to mention them in the coverage, even if they are not part of the current salary negotiations. Taxpayers deserve to be told the full story, and merit and longevity pay is part of that.

Let’s put something to rest right now: Anybody who says he’s pro-cop but opposes the contract with the police officer’s union is being disingenuous. At best.

(That contract was rejected at the Metro Fiscal Affairs meeting Monday.)

Why do we say that? Somebody told us at Various Things & Stuff a long time ago that a budget is a numerical representation of the priorities of an organization. You can say you love cops all you want, but if you’re against their contract, what you’re really saying is this: “Cops aren’t worth that much.”

Take the Review-Journal’s editorial today. (We picked them because — unlike some others who’ve weighed in on the question — at least the R-J is somewhat honest.)

“The controversy over the proposed $52 million Las Vegas police contract isn’t about whether one supports the cops or doesn’t,” the editorial begins. But that’s just it: It’s precisely about whether one supports cops or not. The three people who voted against the contract — Clark County Commissioners Rory Reid and Chip Maxfield and developer Peter Thomas — were really saying they don’t support police to the tune of the $52 million contract.

They didn’t say exactly that, of course. They never do. “I’d love to have been an advocate of Metro today, but my problem is I have to worry about Metro and a lot of other things,” Reid said, according to the R-J. Added Maxfield: “It’s not an issue of how much a police officer should be paid. … We have an entire criminal justice system that has many needs.”

Whatever.

No matter what they say, the message is clear: Cops aren’t worth that much. Otherwise, Reid and Maxfield would have joined Las Vegas Councilmen Gary Reese and Larry Brown in voting to approve the contract.

As we said, at least the R-J was honest. After the usual obligatory lines about “the vital role police play in establishing public safety” and “those who risk their lives to carry out that duty deserve just compensation,” the paper came to the heart of the matter:

“But that doesn’t mean the police merit a key tot he taxpayers safe-deposit box.”

See what we mean? Cops are good and all, but only to a point. And for the R-J, County Manager Thom Reilly, Reid, Maxfield and everybody on the commission except Commissioner Tom Collins, that value is somewhere south of $52 million.

Really, the county has nothing to lose. If the matter goes to arbitration, the county could shave some dollars off the pact. The worst that can happen is that cops get the same contract that officers have agreed to by a vote of 1,191 to 76, that Sheriff Bill Young has endorsed and that at least three members of the five-member Fiscal Affairs Committee support.

Wait, you say. The vote on Fiscal Affairs was 3-2 against the contract. How is it that we at Various Things & Stuff can say that three members supported the contract?

It seems that Thomas voted against it, even though he supported it, the very definition of cowardice. (You can tell that’s true because the R-J lauded him for courage, and the paper often asserts the opposite of the truth is true.)

According to the Las Vegas Sun’s story today, Thomas wasn’t opposed to the contract; he just felt wrong about voting for it because the county commission was against it.

“Had I voted to move this contract forward, it would have meant that voters in the county didn’t have a say in it. I probably would have felt different [sic] had it not been for six of seven commissioners against it. Where my sympathies lie and the way I vote don’t necessarily coincide,” Thomas said.

But voters in the county did have a say in it. They spoke through Maxfield and Reid, who they elected. (In fact, Reid wasn’t even on the committee until this week; commissioners yanked Collins off the panel because he, unlike Thomas, was planning to vote his conscience and approve the contract.) So instead of the legally mandated two votes, the county has acquired an extra-legal third vote because of Thomas’ lack of conviction. Why not just remove Thomas from the commission entirely, and appoint a third county commissioner? The county pays a larger share of Metro’s budget anyway; they probably deserve the direct representation. A matter for the 2007 Legislature perhaps?

Young hit the nail on the head when he said Thomas should have voted on the merits of the contract, not the wishes of the county commission. Because he didn’t, we’re looking at the possibility of a full year without a contract for cops.

Everybody loves police when they dial 9-1-1. But when it comes time to pay the bill, it seems nobody’s willing to reach for the check. To be sure, the county has found new and exciting ways to excuse itself to the restroom just as the tab arrives.

As for the mealy mouthed “support” that everybody from the county to the R-J to the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce is talking about, well, all that “support” and $2 gets you a venti coffee at Starbucks.

Everybody knows David Letterman is the king of Top 10 lists, a regular staple of his show for years. And everybody knows that part of the charm of the list is that some items aren’t funny. But the key is, most are funny.

So why is the Las Vegas Sun going in the opposite direction, and publishing lists by some dude named Barry M. Horstman where the vast majority of items aren’t funny? (And by vast majority, we mean “they all pretty much blow.”)

Seriously, Sun. You’ve got eight precious pages per day, and this is how you want to use the space?

Then again, editors did get rid of Susan Snyder’s column, so they’ve deposited a few dollars in the anti-lameness bank. But each Horstman list is another big ATM withdrawl, and the paper’s going to be overdrawn, like, next week.

As the super-informed know by now, the Metro Police Fiscal Affairs Committee voted 3-2 today to reject a proposed police contract that could have seen big raises for Las Vegas police officers. Instead, the vote sends the matter to what non-English speaking bureaucrats call a “non-binding, fact-finding process.”

The swing vote on the committee — made up of two Las Vegas councilmen and two Clark County commissioners, along with one private citizen — was, in fact, that private citizen, developer Peter Thomas.

According to a Review-Journal news flash, Thomas said he was troubled that six of seven county commissioners opposed the pact. (In fact, those six kicked Commissioner Tom Collins off the committee last week, since he was planning to vote for the contract today, which would have meant a 3-2 vote approving it. Instead, Commissioner Rory Reid joined with fellow Commissioner Chip Maxfield and Thomas in killing the pact. Las Vegas Councilmen Gary Reese and Larry Brown voted to approve.)

“I don’t believe a person in my position … should be able to decide this matter,” Thomas said.

What? A person who has been duly appointed to the Fiscal Affairs committee should not be able to vote on a matter properly before the committee? Or did he mean “a person” in the “position” of not wanting to piss off six commissioners?

“As I thought through the decision I would have to make today, one factor I cannot ignore is that I am not an elected member,” he added.

Excuse us, but so-the-hell-what? Thomas, regardless of his role in society, is a member of the committee, regardless of whether he was elected or appointed. Plenty of appointed people make tough calls every day. Too bad Thomas wasn’t one of them.

It sounds to us like factors totally unrelated to the merits of the case affected Thomas’ decision. That’s just — if you’ll pardon the phrase — a cop-out. If Thomas isn’t ready to make tough calls on the board because he’s not an “elected” member, he should resign and let somebody who’s not conflicted on that question take over.

As for the cops, the contract talks drag on.

• Call it “a spin too far.”

Greg Bortolin, press secretary for the gubernatorial campaign of Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, had his work cut out for him less than 24 hours after Gibson announced his run for the top spot.

It came on Face to Face with Jon Ralston, when our pal (and show host) Ralston asked the mayor if he’d sign a law outlawing abortion in the event the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Contrary to rhetoric, this would not outlaw abortion in America; it would simply return the matter to the states to decide.)

Gibson, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, replied thusly: “I believe that abortion is an alternative in the circumstances I described, and that would be the kind of legislation [he’d sign] if it ever came to that.”

OK, then. Clear and unambiguous: He’d sign a law that would make abortion legal only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, and illegal in all other cases.

But then Bortolin comes along with this in the Review-Journal: “The mayor said he would never outlaw or criminalize abortion as governor.”

Um, actually, if we’re reading it right, he did say that, Greg.

Alas, he’ll probably never get the chance. As the intrepid Erin Neff noted in her story, voters in 1990 overwhelmingly approved Question 7, which stipulates that Nevada will continue to allow legal abortion even if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. And to get rid of Question 7, you need another vote of the people. Ironically enough, while Gibson says his stance on abortion is “America’s position,” we doubt a move to overturn Question 7 would be successful. Does that mean his position isn’t Nevada’s position?

We at Various Things & Stuff didn’t really expect Review-Journal editor Tom Mitchell to respond to our blog of last Sunday, when we questioned his Oct. 16 column that said objectivity was the R-J’s goal. After all, we provided two concrete examples of media bias for which the R-J has yet to apologize or issue corrections.

Instead, it appears as if Mitchell decided to take a passing swipe at us in Sunday’s column, which was generally a rant against readers who don’t agree with him on the issues.

“They will just think [what Mitchell calls the death knell of freedom] it is someone’s new cell phone tone as they blithely trundle along oblivious to issues and social ills as they slurp on the electronic soma of perpetual stimulation, self-absorbed in self-affirming folderol of reality TV, rap music, obscene video and blathering blogs signifying nothing,” Mitchell writes.

And we thought we hated people!

Hey, wait a second. “Blathering blogs signifying nothing”? Why, could he be referring to us at Various Things & Stuff? Could he be referring to our buddy Jon Ralston’s Vegas Pundit, which also lowered the boom by accusing the R-J of being biased in favor of state Sen. Bob Beers? We think he could!

That’s OK, though. We don’t really mind. After all, it’s fun to watch Mitchell launch tirade after tirade at the uninformed who don’t read his newspaper, all the while failing to grasp that one of the main reasons they don’t read isn’t that they’re stupid, it’s that the R-J often blows. With rare and valuable exceptions, stories are often stripped of all quality until they are predictably dull. Bad story ideas get into the paper, because there’s not adult supervision to stop them. Meetings are covered as if they are news, when the real news lurks beneath the surface, many times undetected. And, like it or not, a bias does creep into the paper, more often than Mitchell would like to admit.

We at Various Things & Stuff are charter members of the Contempt for Readers Society. But even we have to admit that readers are often smarter than we think. Sure, they’re self-obsessed, fat, dumb and happy so long as there’s a ready supply of delivery pizza, cable TV and beer about. But they are not as disconnected as Mitchell may think. They at least know new media, which the R-J often dismisses like some new fad, the way dinosaurs probably looked at the ever-darkening skies after that long-ago asteroid hit in the Yucatan Peninsula.

Like we said, it’s fun. But also sad.

Let’s get one thing straight right away when it comes to Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, who on Thursday entered the race for governor on a hometown hilltop overlooking the smog-chocked Las Vegas Valley: He’s a Democrat.

We’re not saying that because Gibson went out of his way to mention that he was a Democrat several times. We’re not saying that because his Democratic credentials have been called into question by his primary opponent, state Sen. Dina Titus.

We’re saying that because all it takes to call yourself a Democrat is a trip to the county elections office, where you fill out a form and check “Democrat” next to party registration. Presto! You’re a Democrat.

Then again, that’s hardly the point, is it? Titus is arguing that Gibson is not a real Democrat, in that he’s contributed money to Republicans, holds Republican positions on issues like abortion and the anti-gay marriage Question 2 initiative, and has lots of Republican friends. Hell, one of them, Republican consultant Sig Rogich, has even tried (unsuccessfully) to recruit Gibson to the Republican Party.

Gibson himself reported Thursday that it was his father — former Senate Majority Leader James I. Gibson — who convinced him to be a Democrat. “My father’s example taught me that it was the Democratic Party that truly represented the best interests of the middle class and those trying to reach the middle class, ensuring the door of opportunity is open to all,” Gibson said.

Why is this even an issue? Because Gibson is going to be running against Titus in a Democratic primary where she’s already said she’s the only (true) Democrat in the race. And he’s got to convince regular Democrats that he’s one of them, not a wealthy lawyer more used to million-dollar clients and working the Las Vegas good-old-boy network than hanging out at, say, Democratic events, as Titus has been doing for years. (She’s even got a website that hammers home the message that Gibson’s not a Democrat.

But Gibson got a grand start at his announcement speech on Thursday, committing no gaffes, crossing swords deftly with the press and capping an announcement tour that, as my friend Jon Ralston noted, did not include a stop in a little Nevada berg known as “Las Vegas.” (He did hit Elko, Reno and Henderson — of course.)

The speech was heavy on family, and Gibson’s family ties to Las Vegas. (His ancestors helped settle the valley, going back five generations.) It was notable primarily for two things: He hit all the right policy notes (growth, health care, education, “holding the line” on taxes) and omitted potentially problematic themes (where to get the money to pay for everything and any mention of Titus).

At times, dare we say, the speech sounded downright Republican. A couple GOP-like snippets:

• “Business means jobs, and the revenues we need to provide a high level of service to Nevadans.”

• “And all of this must be confronted by maximizing the resources available to our state, using them wisely and well. Because we can’t balance the state’s budget by throwing family budgets across Nevada out of balance through ever-increasing taxes.”

• “But I continue to believe that you can’t help working Nevadans by adding to their burdens. So just as I fought to hold the line on property taxes in Henderson, I will fight to hold the line on taxes for the people of Nevada.”

But, just when you’re ready to write him off as a man in the wrong party, he tosses a little Democratic red meat your way:

• “We must do better [in education] than to consign so many of our young people to the junk-heap of ignorance and all that implies.” (Cynical Note No. 1: Casino or service-industry jobs, the kind that make the town run?)

• “I believe it is moral outrage that tends of thousands of working Nevadans and their children go without basic health care today.” (Cynical Note No. 2: Maybe you could talk to some of your Republican friends about that? Didn’t they pass a health-care bill not that long ago?)

• “As governor, I’ll make it my goal and Nevada’s goal to ensure that every resident of our state, starting with our children, has access to the health care they deserve. It’s a moral imperative, and we’ll get it done.” (Cynical Note No. 3: Get your calculator out; the bills are starting to add up.)

• “The sense of advocacy for everyday people, the vision of a state that works, not just for those at the top, but for everyone, is the Democratic tradition in which I was raised, the Democratic tradition in which I believe and the Democratic tradition in which I will govern.” (Cynical Note No. 4: Democratically speaking, of course, I’m a big, big, Democrat!)

Our favorite part came at the end, when Gibson compared himself to U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, the Republican front-runner, whose name is so close to his own, reporters have been stumbling over it for weeks.

“That extra ‘B’ in his [Gibbons’] name makes all the difference,” Gibson said. “It stands for budget-busting tax breaks and runaway spending, and being beholden to the special interests who, for him, always come first. Think of it as a killer ‘B’ for Nevada,” Gibson said.

Yes, we groaned, but he delivered the lines in an endearing way. (Kind of like the response of Gibbons’ campaign chief Robert Uithoven, who says the ‘B’ in Gibson’s name stands for “Bombardier,” the company that built the problem-plagued Las Vegas Monorail that Gibson headed up until recently. (To be honest, however, that’s not quite fair: Gibson wasn’t involved when monorail founders Bob Broadbent and Cam Walker, together with their casino industry masters, chose Bombardier to build the monorail.

Speaking of the project, Gibson told reporters afterwards he was “proud” of what he did at the monorail, seeing it through some troubled times, including a lengthy shutdown due to numerous technical problems. But critics say Gibson was ousted from his job as monorail CEO, in part because of the line’s problems, a view endorsed somewhat by his replacement, former Regional Transportation Commission official Curtis Myles.

Although Gibson maintained that his position on the abortion issue (it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother) is shared by a majority of Americans, it’s surely not shared by a majority of Democratic primary voters. (Give him credit, however, for sticking to his guns: He could have said it’s a settled issue in Nevada that he won’t ever be called on to deal with, and taken a pass on the issue altogether.)

His explanation of donations to U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, the Republican incumbent who defeated retired casino executive Tom Gallagher in 2004 was understandable, too: They’re friends. “I don’t think my donation made the difference in that race,” Gibson said. No, but it did go to someone who can charitably be described as a total tool of the Republican leadership on every single issue except for Yucca Mountain. “I disagree with Jon Porter on a lot of things,” Gibson said. Yes, but Gibson donated money to Porter, which helps perpetuate a GOP agenda that, in his own words, represents budget-busting tax breaks for the rich and being beholden to special interests.

Our biggest problem is the — ahem — elephant in the room: How does Gibson plan to offer universal basic health care in Nevada and improve the schools while at the same time holding the line on taxes? He suggested it was a matter of reprioritizing state spending, but any honest person looking at the budget conundrum cannot help but see the need for new revenue to accomplish even one, to say nothing of both, of Gibson’s stated goals.

But he’s clearly uncomfortable on taxes. Asked about the tax-hike of 2003, he said small business bore the brunt of the burdens, but that it’s “behind us” and now is the time to take the money and put it to good use. We see a prescription for a hold-the-line administration here, one that doesn’t recede from where we are, but also doesn’t advance to where we need to go. And that would be fine if Nevada were in the Top 10 for school performance or health care; it’s not. When you’re in a hole, you don’t just need to stop digging. You need to find a way out of the damn hole. Because sometimes, holding the line isn’t good enough.

But Gibson is a smart, articulate, deft on his feet, campaigner who says all the right things. He’s going to give Titus a race for the nomination, make the debates entertaining and test the popular wisdom about the growing conservativism of the Silver State in the process. We can’t wait.

For more, check out Gibson’s website, or take a gander at Titus’s site.

• We at Various Things & Stuff are hard on U.S. Sen. John Ensign, who we hear does more work in the House gym than he does on the Senate floor. But every now and then, Ensign shows up with a genuinely good idea.

According to the Review-Journal, Ensign has introduced a bill that would deny federal tax benefits to private corporations that take advantage of property seized by local governments using eminent domain. (The bill, of course, is a reaction to the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, which legalized government theft of private land for “economic development.”)

“It is a fundamental right of American homeowners to have their property protected from government seizure,” Ensign said. “Despite what the Supreme Court says, we cannot allow a government entity to decide that an individual should lose his or her home so that a city can make money.”

No, they shouldn’t.

Now why, you might ask, didn’t Ensign just write a law that says the government can’t take private property for the private gain of companies? Well, funny thing: They already have a law like that. It’s called the Fifth Amendment. Now if only they had a U.S. Supreme Court that would actually enforce it.

• The Las Vegas Monorail saw its ridership drop, to less than 29,000 riders per day in September, according to R-J Road Warrior Omar Sofradzija. The record number of riders — 32,928, recorded in July — is well below ridership projections of 50,000 or more that monorail backers made when trying to sell the train. And it’s well shy of the number of people needed to break even, too: The train needs $139,000 per day in farebox revenue, but it only took in $85,328 per day in September.

Ironically, the ridership numbers are very close to what critics of the line predicted long before the first shovel of earth was turned to make way for the project. It’s something to keep in mind when monorail officials — or anybody else talking about mass transit ridership, like the Regional Transportation Commission — makes promises in the future.

• Were all those political machinations over the proposed contract for Metro Police at the Clark County Commission for naught? It could be, now that Las Vegas Councilman Larry Brown has come out in favor of the pact, which will add about 26 percent in costs to policing Las Vegas, according to estimates.

The commission on Tuesday removed Commissioner Tom Collins from the Fiscal Affairs Committee, a five-person board made up of city and county reps and developer Peter Thomas that decides Metro’s budget, because Collins favored the deal while a majority of the commission doesn’t. Commissioner Rory Reid is the new county rep, joining Commissioner Chip Maxfield.

But it may not matter: Yes votes include Brown and Councilman Gary Reese, which means its all up to Thomas now. If he votes yes, the deal is approved, and the county bounced Collins — a totally unprecedented move, by the way — for nothing. Thomas has not yet said how he’ll vote, but he’s got to make up his mind by Monday, when the matter comes up on the Fiscal Affairs Committee agenda.

• So the Stacey and Amanda Darling Memorial Tennis Center — where The Tennis Channel Open is slated to be played next year — is already in ill repair. The new center has experienced cracking, the Las Vegas Sun reports today.

The city is blaming the contractor, but is in the process of expanding two courts in order to accommodate the open, at a cost of $100,000. Add that to the $300,000 in tax dollars the city will give to the open in 2006, and another potential $800,000 in 2007, and you get a whopping cost to taxpayers of $1.2 million to subsidize an event that’s sure to make plenty of money all on its own.

And speaking of the open, the R-J’s usually anti-government editorial page went all soft on the question in Tuesday’s paper, saying only that attendance at the event will prove whether or not it was worth it. The paper regularly slams the city for paying public employee salaries, including harsh coverage of the recent police salary negotiations, but says subsidizing a private tennis tournament is OK? Those are some messed up priorities, if you ask us.

• U.S. Sen. Harry Reid has come up with his slogan for 2006: “America can do better.” And boy, is he right. America can do better than a minority party that fecklessly votes to give President George W. Bush the authority to go to war, even when they have reservations about his reasons. America can do better than a minority party that rubber-stamps unqualified appointees like former FEMA Director Michael Brown. America can do better than senators who won’t lift a finger to help unseat a member of the opposing party in their own state (we’re not naming names).

How about a slogan that really captures the essence of what’s going on in politics today? A House majority leader under indictment on campaign finance charges. A Senate majority leader under investigation for alleged insider trading. A deputy White House chief of staff to the president, and chief of staff to the vice-president, under investigation for outing a CIA operative for political reasons. An increasingly unpopular war, started on false pretenses, that has claimed the lives of almost 2,000 service members. A terrible hurricane that claimed more lives here at home, in which scores died unnecessarily due to government incompetence. Crony capitalists who benefit from no-bid contracts in the wake of both events. Top Republican lobbyists under investigation for campaign finance violations. Tax cuts and increased spending that have resulted in higher deficits that future generations will have to pay off.

Republicans claimed to be the party that could protect America, that was more ethical and honest than the Democrats, not to mention more fiscally responsible. Every single one of those contentions have been proven totally false by the Bush administration.

You could easily get by with a slogan as simple as “hey, we’re not these guys.” But perhaps something more appropriate, like “No lies, no excuses: It’s time again for adult supervision in Washington.”

Now if only there was a political party with adults ready to do the supervising.

• Quotable: “I started to call us the Feckless Five because it sounded good, until I looked up feckless and realized it didn’t mean what I thought it did. Feckless means incompetent.” — Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison, in a piece today. (Actually, “feckless” means weak, ineffective, careless or irresponsible.)

These have been busy days over here at Various Things & Stuff. We missed a few things on Tuesday that must be commented upon:

• The Las Vegas Sun reported the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied attorney John Watkins’ request for a rehearing for Jessica Williams, the woman who tragically feel asleep at the wheel of her minivan, drifted off the roadway and killed six teens in March 2000.

Watkins had argued Williams was subject to double jeopardy, since she was charged under two different statutes for the same crime.

Williams was found by a jury to have marijuana in her blood, but the same jury ruled she was not under the influence of the drug. But under a law proposed by then-state Sen. Jon Porter, driving with even a miniscule amount of certain drugs in your blood is a felony, and Williams was sentenced to 18-48 years in prison.

Thus the insanity: You can legally blow a .07 BAC, and be impaired, but not be legally drunk. But you can be 100 percent unimpaired, have a tiny amount of marijuana in your blood, and face years of jail time.

Watkins has vowed to take his arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court, the last chance Williams will have to get out of jail before her sentence expires. Let’s hope the justices correct this screaming injustice.

• The Sun on Wednesday had the lamest quote we at Various Things & Stuff have seen in a long, long time. It was contained in a Matt Hufman analysis piece of the case of New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

“She is a journalistic conundrum wrapped in a quandary wrapped in a newspaper,” Hufman wrote.

That’s just awful.

• Is it the Hatchet Act? That’s what Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins must be thinking after the U.S. Office of Special Counsel decided to appeal an administrative law judge’s ruling that Perkins violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits employees paid with federal funds (or whose agencies deal with federal funds) from partisan political activity. Perkins, a deputy police chief in Henderson, holds a partisan office in the Assembly.

In September, a California administrative law judge ruled Henderson’s efforts to shield Perkins from dealing with federal funds were effective, and that he didn’t violate the act. (Henderson created a program whereby Perkins worked only with state and local money.)

But Special Counsel Scott Bloch disagrees, and is thus appealing to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. “We continue to believe Mr. Perkins was covered under the Hatch Act and we feel confident in the outcome of this appeal.”

For Perkins, it’s not a moot issue: If he is found to be in violation, he could be removed from his job, lest Henderson lose the equivalent of two years’ worth of Perkins salary. Moreover, it could have an impact on his political future. (Although he’s dropped out of the race for governor in 2006, he’s still a viable candidate for other offices, this year and into the future.)