The Wall Street Journal published a lengthy apologia on its editorial page today that sought to distance the capitalist house organ from its longtime rival, the New York Times on the decision to publish a story on the Bush administration’s tracking of international banking transactions.

Message: Yes, we published the story, but only because the government gave it to us and said it was OK, not because those liberal agenda-driven journalists over at the Times did. They’re still bad and evil, we’re still good.

(We’d provide a link, but the Journal requires a subscription, which we don’t have. Sorry.)

Anyway, the basic story the Journal puts forward is this: The Treasury Department’s Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tony Fratto, and a host of other people, including Secretary of the Treasury John Snow, discovered the Times was asking questions about the program, and urged them not to write about it. The Times decided it was in the public interest to write about it, and went ahead. The government then decided to get “a more complete and accurate story” out, and called the Journal, which published the story along with the Times, apparently without knowing the administration had asked the Times not to publish the story.

See? Two totally different things. Except for the fact that both newspapers published the same information. On the same day. But the backstory? Totally different. The Journal just rode the coattails of the Times.

And that means the Journal can bash the Times at will! And they did, thus:

• “We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.” (Translation: We’ve been good and dutiful supporters of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq and the corporations that are profiteering from it, and thus we would never do anything to harm it, or them.)

• “The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations [balancing national security with the public interest] in anything close to good faith. We certainly don’t. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.” (Translation: The Times has a point of view, which runs counter to the Journal’s, and thus cannot be trusted. But that presupposes that the Journal’s point of view is one that we should trust. Moreover, it presupposes that any decision to go to war must automatically have the support of the press, since once we’re at war, it would be wrong not to support winning that war.)

• The Journal quotes Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. giving a commencement address apologizing for allowing students to graduate into a world torn by war and the struggle for human rights, and then adds its own flourish. “Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has a major goal of not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.”

(Translation: Forget for a moment that a “war on terror,” by definition, cannot be “won” in any meaningful sense. The Journal is accusing the publisher of the Times of treason, because he doesn’t think America should have attacked Iraq in the first place, a view that more and more people are coming to share. And given the extraordinary lengths and shifting rationale the Bush administration has offered for its Iraq misadventure, we’d say Sulzberger has a damn good point. Then again, in the Journal’s view, we’re probably traitors, too.)

In part of the Journal’s justification of itself, we learn that “at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information” and, later, “Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not.”

And that’s the difference between the Times and the Journal: One is out digging up information and pursuing it with an eye toward keeping the public informed so people can decide for themselves if the administration is acting in the public interest, and the other is waiting for orders from that administration to publish or not.

Sure, there may come a time when a newspaper decides — after careful consideration of the issues — not to publish something. (After all, the Times broke the story of the NSA warantless wiretapping only after having held it for a year at the request of the administration.) But the normal course of business should be to find and announce the truth, not hew to the agenda of the party in power. The great irony of the Journal accusing the Times of pursuing an agenda is not lost on anybody but the Journal’s own editorial page.

No good deed goes unpunished.

No sooner do we issue a seldom-heard word of praise for U.S. Rep. Jon Porter for casting a good vote than Porter goes and does something truly evil.

According to The Associated Press, Porter and his cohort, U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, both voted “aye” on H.R. 4761, the so-called Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. Written by first-term U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-La., the bill would allow offshore drilling from Florida to Alaska.

And you know what lies between Florida and Alaska, if you follow the coastline? California, our beloved homeplace.

But wait, there’s more. Porter and Gibbons didn’t just vote for this vile piece of legislation. No, also co-sponsored it, along with 138 others.

Now, we’re old enough to remember the dark day of Feb. 7, 1990, when the British Petroleum tanker American Trader spilled 400,000 gallons of Alaskan crude oil into the water off our hometown, the great city of Huntington Beach, Calif. The tanker ran over its own anchor, spilling its cargo over 60 square ocean miles, and the beaches were closed for five weeks. Not only that, but the Bolsa Chica wetlands nearby were fouled, and the government estimated 3,400 birds died, including some endangered species.

BP ultimately paid $3.8 million to settle pollution-related damage claims, and another $16 million to the state for tourism-related losses. But the money didn’t cover the damage done to pristine wetlands that activists have struggled for years to protect from encroaching development, nor the damage to some of California’s most beautiful coastline.

And now Porter, Gibbons and their Republican friends want to start drilling and not just pumping oil offshore? Those unspeakable bastards! Instead of pursuing a real energy policy, they’re adjusting a straw to suck up the last drops of Coke from the bottom of a McDonald’s cup! Oh, when will these constant indignities end?

Major props to U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley for standing up against this nonsense, as well as to California U.S. Reps. Jane Harman, Lorretta and Linda Sanchez, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and many others who voted “nay,” too. Shame, eternal, unending shame, be upon the head of U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who represents Huntington Beach and yet voted for this bill anyway. Remember the American Trader, Rohrabacher, you tool!

Luckily, the House isn’t the final word in this matter. Now this bill goes to the Senate, where we implore U.S. Sen. Harry Reid to strangle it in its crib. And with the high-wattage power of U.S. Sens. Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer on his side, this ill-considered proposal is sure to rest in Davy Jones locker, where, by the way, we should not drill for oil.

Right, senators?

• Why does U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons hate people?

We only ask because Gibbons, hiding out in Washington D.C. to avoid the likes of Bob Beers and Lorraine Hunt, cast a vote against a measure that would have protected medical marijuana users from federal prosecution. The vote on HR 5672 failed 163-259. (Thanks, Republican Congress!)

The importance of this bill cannot be understated: The U.S. government has already gone after people growing and using medical marijuana in states where voters have legalized the practice. Remember the old Republican rule: States rights only apply on non-moral issues. So even if the residents of Nevada (or any of the other 10 states where it’s been approved) say it’s OK for sick and dying people to alleviate their suffering with a little weed, Republicans like Gibbons just don’t care.

The issue is so obviously clear that even U.S. Rep. Jon Porter voted for it, along with ever-reliable U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley. And Porter almost always follows the Republican leadership’s lead! For all those who say we at Various Thing & Stuff never say anything good about Porter, let us take this opportunity to commend and thank the congressman for casting a courageous and morally upright vote.

As for Gibbons, we don’t need his kind of big government, big regulation kind of politics here in the ever-pioneer state of Nevada! We want intelligent, independent leadership for our future. Keep your laws off our bodies, Gibbons!

If only there was some way we could get that kind of leadership.

• So Democratic challenger David Adams is saying Assembly District 11 incumbent Bob McCleary offered him a $500 bribe to get out of the race? Adams originally accepted, but then decided to run anyway and didn’t cash the check (which he proudly displayed for the Review-Journal for today’s editions).

Our question: Should this be wrong? Think about all the truly awful candidates we could eliminate with a few greenbacks. Impeached Controller Kathy Augustine held on to her job through an entire impeachment, in part, because of the $80,000 salary. Maybe a check would have made her go away? Lonnie Hammargren’s increasingly pathetic bid for his old job, lieutenant governor, might be ended with a donation to the Stuff Lonnie Keeps in the Backyard Fund. And grifters Erin Kenny and Dario Herrera might never have entered public life if we just handed them a hefty sack of cash, instead of allowing them into political office so they could grab a hefty sack of cash.

Just a thought.

• And finally today, we turn to the ironic.

It seems Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is aroused (in a non-sexual way, of course) by the “American Values Agenda” proposed by the House Republican leadership in a desperate attempt to change the subject from corporate coddling and corruption. (Hey, look, it worked! Dobson’s on board!)

In his aroused state, Dobson uttered this: “The House leaders are to be commended for demonstrating their commitment to the issues American families hold dear: marriage, life, and freedom of religion. The announcement of the ‘American Values Agenda’ and its 10 priority bills signals that the GOP leadership in the House is in touch with the concerns of the values voters who sent them to Washington.”

He goes on to bash the Senate for failing to pass bills against gay marriage and flag burning, two national issues that are every bit as pressing as, say, coming up with an energy policy or defeating global terrorism.

But notice something: Dobson said “freedom of religion,” yet he wants the Senate to enact a key tenet of his religion, which is banning gay marriage. (The flag worship thing has us confused, too. Doesn’t the Bible say not to make graven images and worship them? We’re just saying.)

So, you might say, Dobson is a hypocrite! But that’s just not true, people. He said “freedom of religion.” You’re allowed to pick any one you want. Go ahead, there are a lot to choose from. But you have to pick one. Hear that, atheists and agnostics? Get with the program! And then we can all march forward and make sure that no boys kiss. (Girls kissing is different; those Girls Gone Wild videos make major bank, and that falls under the whole “capitalism is good” rubric of the American Values Agenda.)

We must ban all smoking now!

That is the unambiguous, inescapable conclusion of the U.S. surgeon general’s report “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke,” released today.

You can find that report — and a bunch of other information related to it — on the surgeon general’s website.

But, in case you’re not a total dork like us at Various Things & Stuff and don’t want to read the whole thing, let us regale you with a few of the things we noticed from reading the report’s executive summary, along with some supporting information. (If you don’t care about that, skip down to the part with the headline ” So what does it mean for us, here in Nevada?”)

• Smoking is bad, mmmmkay?

Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona, M.D. set the tone for the report with his opening remarks to reporters: “I am grateful to be here today and be able to say unequivocally that the debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.”

And with an intro like that, you know what’s coming: Doom and gloom for the cancer sticks and the toxic deadly gas that they emit!

– “There is NO risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, with even brief exposure adversely affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory system,” Carmona said. (Those are his capitals, not ours, by the way.)

– “An important conclusion of this report is that smoke-free environments are the ONLY approach that effectively protects nonsmokers from the effects of secondhand smoke,” he added. (Again, his caps.) “Even sophisticated ventilation approaches cannot completely remove secondhand smoke from an indoor space. Because there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, anything less cannot ensure that nonsmokers are fully protected from the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

But wait, there’s more. If you act now, you’ll also get this:

– Secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer, even in nonsmoking adults. Effects are immediate.

– Secondhand smoke causes heart disease.

– Secondhand smoke causes respiratory infections, ear problems and increase symptoms of asthma.

– And, in a new finding, secondhand smoke is a cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Now, we know people who’ve smoked for a long time (and they get both first and secondhand smoke!) who are still alive, hale and hearty. But that’s anecdotal evidence, not proof that the surgeon general is full of it. We’re just saying.

• Tobacco companies are bad, too, mmmmkay?

“Through a variety of organized tactics, the industry has attempted to undermine the credibility of the scientific evidence on secondhand smoke,” the report says. “The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.”

Those bastards. They started a journal? Those unspeakable bastards. What’s it’s title? The Journal of Lies?

• As a result of the foregoing, the government is trying for a total ban on indoor smoking, including homes where there are children.

Consider a few quotes from the report. “Despite the great progress that has been made, involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke remains a serious public health hazard that can be prevented by making homes, workplaces, and public places completely smoke free.” — Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael O. Leavitt, in a message included with the report.

“Research reviewed in this report indicates that smoke-free policies are the most economic and effective approach to providing protection from secondhand smoke. … Research indicates that the progressive restriction of smoking in the United States to protect nonsmokers has had the additional health impact of reducing active smoking.” — from the forward to the report.

See? Not only will smoking bans protect nonsmokers, they’ll also help smokers, since they’ll be left with virtually no place to smoke. (The only exception seems to be outside; the report only deals with enclosed spaces like offices, restaurants, bars, homes and cars. So you can still puff away on the golf course, until they get around to banning that, too.)

“Restrictions on smoking can control exposures effectively, but technical approaches involving air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor with outdoor air cannot. Consequently, nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces and by a voluntary adherence to policies at home, particularly to eliminate exposures to children.” — from the preface.

And there you go. Improved ventilation, air scrubbers, air exchangers, etc. are useless. Only a total ban will do. And we wonder how long the home-based restrictions will remain “voluntary”? If smoking is truly as deadly and dangerous as the report says, isn’t failing to act to save “the children” downright irresponsible?

• They want to go global.

“The findings and recommendations of this report can be extended to other countries and are supportive of international efforts to address the health effects of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure.”

That’s right, baby. Today, the U.S. Tomorrow, a smoke-free world! Let’s go all Louis Armstrong on you: “And I think to myself/ what a wonderful world/ or at least it would be/ if I had a goddamn cigarette!”

OK, we may have changed the lyrics around a bit.

• So what does it mean for us, here in Nevada?

Good question. A couple of observations:

First, there’s not much chance of a nationwide indoor smoking ban, at least not as long as Republicans control Congress. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ website, the tobacco industry has given $56.3 million in political contributions since 1990. Of that, 75 percent has gone to Republicans, and just 25 percent to Democrats.

Oh, and just for some local flavor, did you know that U.S. Sen. John Ensign was the No. 6 recipient of tobacco dollars in this election cycle, with $28,500? (U.S. Sen. George Allen was No. 1, at $89,250.) Still, the industry ranks as only the 43rd biggest giver in the last 16 years.

Second, this report could only have come at a better time for the proponents of a near-total ban on smoking in Nevada if it had been released a couple days before early voting starts in November. The scientific contentions in the report — especially the one about there being no safe exposure to secondhand smoke and its effects on the children — are devastating to those who are arguing for a more moderate approach. (That, by the way, includes us at Various Things & Stuff. Although we enjoy a fine cigar on occasion, we don’t have any affiliation with or affinity for Big Tobacco.)

Whether you agree with the policy conclusions, dispute the scientific evidence or not, you will most definitely see this material again. Here’s how: The smoke banners in the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition will tell you it’s not a matter of “choice,” as the moderates say, but a matter of public health. Secondhand smoke kills people, even with brief exposure, so why should it be allowed at all?

The only hope the moderates have is to argue that a total ban on tobacco in every enclosed public space (and in homes with kids) is going to hurt plenty of small business and is deleterious to basic property rights. (And you know when we at Various Things & Stuff are arguing for business that it’s a sign of the Apocalypse!)

We can also say the government can only really accomplish its goal by banning tobacco outright, which if you carry the arguments in this report to their logical conclusion (i.e. smoking is killing people, even those who chose not to smoke) seems to scream out for government intervention. And not just ban smoking in the future, but rip up tobacco crops, salt the fields, and travel to every city in the nation and rip the death sticks out of people’s pockets, purses and fingers!

But since Prohibition didn’t work and the drug war has totally failed to keep drugs out of America, adding cigarettes to the list of controlled substances will only lead to more problems. For people who just want to be left alone to smoke, in their home, in a bar, in their car, or in a restaurant, it’s a bad day.

We never thought we’d see a time in which a smoking ban was even a possibility, but we’re there. And you know, we should have known. After all, there’s no smoking on Star Trek, and that show totally is how the future’s going to be.

• It’s not just for the fact that Review-Journal columnist Erin Neff is right when she talks about U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s flag-burning fecklessness that you should read her column today. It’s for this stunning bit of silliness from our own U.S. Sen. John Ensign:

“While I vigorously defend the right of speech and expression, burning the American flag sends precisely the wrong message and should not be allowed.”

So he “vigorously” defends free “expression” until it sends the “wrong message”? And then it shouldn’t be allowed?

It’s a miracle his head didn’t explode as these words were escaping his lips. Then again, when you’re pandering to the voters back home — many of whom won’t notice the glaring, obvious inconsistency within the space of just a few words — it really doesn’t matter does it? So long as our harried flag is protected from those who wish to desecrate it.

We’re just sorry to see the usually reliable U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley supporting this nonsense, too. Sure, she says she promised veterans she’d do it. And sure, she’s got cred for actually helping veterans get the benefits they’d probably prefer if they had to choose between flags aflame and health care. But c’mon: This is nothing but a Republican trick to refocus the debate.

Hey! Those crafty GOP bastards got even us at Various Things & Stuff to talk about it for five whole paragraphs! Oh, shame on you, crafty Republicans! You got us again.

• We couldn’t agree more with this editorial in the Las Vegas Sun today. Mayor Oscar Goodman can find half a million dollars for the U.S. Conference of Mayors (not to mention spending thousands in tax dollars on bobblehead dolls of himself) and the homeless go wanting? It’s an ugly picture.

• Who says executives never work? Right there, on the front page of the R-J’s Business section, is a photograph of Geoff Schumacher, the Stephens Media Group’s director of community publications, talking with the Las Vegas Sun’s Rick Velotta, covering the groundbreaking of MGM Mirage’s Project CityCenter.

The photo is a little dark, but don’t blame the photographer: When you join the ranks of corporate hierarchy, you’re always swathed in an evil blanket of unending night. Or so we’re told.

• Speaking of the evil blanket of unending night, let’s have a brief moment of Internet silence for the finalization of the sale of Knight-Ridder, a newspaper chain that in its life garnered 85 Pulitzer Prizes. The chain was sold to rival McClatchy Corp., which in turn sold off some papers to pay down the debt of the $4.5 billion transaction. (One of the purchasers, the Dark Sith Lord Dean Singleton, is in league with the owners of this blog, the Stephens Media Group, in something called the California Newspaper Partnership. It gobbled up former Knight-Ridder paper the San Jose Mercury News, among others.)

Why did the Knight-Ridder chain — whose Washington bureau reporters are credited as being among the few who called the Bush administration’s faulty pre-war intelligence to account — fall? Capitalism, baby. The price of shares dropped from $80 in 2004 to $52.42 last year. So when people ask why there is no more Knight-Ridder, you can tell them that’s the $27.58 question.

• We’ve been told that, although the Las Vegas Monorail’s ridership has fallen to almost exactly what critics of the train foretold, it doesn’t matter, since average daily revenue was keeping pace to pay operations and maintenance costs. But Review-Journal Road Warrior Omar Sofradzija reports today that both ridership and average daily revenue fell in May, to just 20,117 average riders per day, and $86,602 in average daily revenue.

Of course, this is far below what we were all promised would happen when monorail founders, the late Bob Broadbent and his partner, Cam Walker were angrily rebutting critics of the train, which Sofradzija says was “privately financed.” (Not entirely true: It was built with $650 million in state-backed, tax-free bonds, and has benefited from tax-free status during its entire existence. If it was “privately financed” in the sense that “private” business interests put up the “financing” to build it, well, it never would have happened.)

The moral of the story? When the good old boys come to you with a sure-fire plan to succeed, divide everything they say by half, and then decide if it’s still a good idea. Which in this case would be: not.

• Take a look at the Metro Police’s new weapon, the Smith & Wesson MP 15 rifle. It’s a .223 caliber (the very same round used in the larger M-16A1 rifle issued to U.S. military forces) but in the smaller M4 carbine package. Normally, we’re not super-big fans of Smith & Wesson’s products (revolvers being a key exception) but this baby looks like it might be fun to take to the range.

• Oh, you knew we couldn’t resist that story about part-time judge pro-tem Mark Peplowski being caught in Metro’s anti-hooker sweep this weekend. Here’s our question: Had Peplowski engaged the services of this particular lady on a weekend when Metrowasn’t trolling for johns, would anybody have reported it as a crime?

Answer: no.

Why? Because prostitution is generally a victimless crime. Sad, to be sure, but victimless. In fact, the only real crimes associated with prostitution — women as slaves to vicious pimps, robberies, sexually transmitted disease — could easily be solved by legalizing the practice, as has been done in rural Nevada counties.

There, in safe, well-lit brothels, lonely customers could be assured that women were not being forced into selling their bodies by pimps. Health checks would eliminate disease. And state regulation would prevent robberies, aka “trick rolls,” the way it prevents cheating in casinos today.

There’s the moral dimension of the problem, sure. But for a city that advertises “what happens here, stays here,” moral argumentsfor gambling, drinking and non-financially based hookups but against prostitution are a little hard to make.

It’s a good bet Peplowski won’t be on the bench again, having been arrested and had his picture in the paper. But if you ask us, he’s not a criminal.

U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., is running for president.

Sure, it’s not news. Biden said the same thing a year ago on CBS’ Face the Nation. But he repeated the unqualified declaration Sunday in a wide-ranging interview with us at Various Things & Stuff. “I’m just flat gonna run,” he said.

He’s spent the year since making the declaration taking his message on the road, especially the south, where he believes a Democrat has to be competitive to win the White House. “My message sells in the South,” he says.

He’s raised about $4 million, and estimates he’ll need to raise $31 million to get through the New Hampshire primary, which he’s working on, along with building a national campaign network. (He last ran for president in 1988, but dropped out in 1987. He also toyed with the idea of running against Bush in 2004, but ultimately decided against it.)

That’s the political angle; now let’s get to the policy stuff, which we love, since we’re dorks. But hey, you’re reading a blog written by us, so that must mean you love it, too, or have stumbled badly looking for the Paris Hilton video. Here we go!

• Although resolutions by U.S. Sens. John Kerry and Russ Feingold calling for the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq were voted down in recent days, Biden said the administration is nonetheless planning to bring soldiers home. (Ironic, then, that presidential political advisor Karl Rove would describe Democratic initiatives as “cut and run,” isn’t it?)

But soldiers are coming home, Biden said, because we cannot sustain the troop levels we have in Iraq without “breaking the volunteer Army.” In fact, he said, the Army will have to be rebuilt by the next president because of the long deployments and plummeting recruitment that have resulted in the war in Iraq. But that won’t be a problem, since U.S. latitude in the use of force will be vastly limited in future years because of an “Iraq syndrome” similar to post-Vietnam reluctance to commit military forces.

• Like former President Bill Clinton, Biden said neoconservative figures in the administration really believe what they say. “Nothing stops these guys,” he said.

But their theory — that America is so powerful, a single use of force in Iraq would cause the nation’s enemies to bow to U.S. power — failed. Iran and North Korea, if anything, have become more belligerent and less susceptible to American pressure as a result of the Iraq war.

“The world responds to reality, not perception. And these guys can’t get beyond what their perception of the world should be,” he said.

• Why not censure President Bush for things like warantless NSA wiretapping, falsely linking al-Qaida Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Sept. 11, or domestic phone call data mining? Biden said it wasn’t politically or realistically necessary.

“What the American public wants is results. That [censure resolution] doesn’t change one thing in their life,” he said. “They’ve closed the book on this guy.”

In fact, by Bush’s own standard of judgment, conducting the war in Iraq, confronting the “axis of evil,” and making the country domestically safer than before Sept. 11, 2001, Bush fails, Biden said.

• Democrats are consistently victimized by Republican distraction strategies, leaving them debating whether their party is in disarray, whether gay marriage should be constitutionally forbidden and whether flag burning should be illegal instead of debating the competence of the incumbents.

“This is the most incompetent administration,” Biden said. “Every time they were faced with a good choice and a bad choice, they chose the bad choice.”

But the Democrats are also victimized by the fact that they are perceived to disdain religion, even though many are devout in their own faith. (Biden, for example, is a practicing Catholic. When former President Ronald Reagan once chided Biden about a prayer-in-schools amendment to a bill, Biden responded that he attended church weekly, while Reagan hadn’t gone in years. “That’s a good point,” Reagan replied.)

Democrats cannot be the party that appears to care only about the poor and disadvantaged. It takes a middle-class consensus to make social policy to help the poor anyway, Biden said, and Democrats showed under Clinton their policies can help the middle class grow.

“The Democratic Party needs to speak to the middle class again,” he said. And the next Democratic nominee is going to need to speak about two main issues — faith and security — in order to win.

• Nevada may help in choosing who might be the next Democratic nominee, if a proposal to create an early party caucus is approved. That means we’ll probably be seeing more of Biden, as well as Democrats like former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack starting next year.

• When we moved to Nevada, lo those many years ago, we were surprised by an odd phenomenon that took place here that would never have happened in our native California: Political consultants who represented Republicans and Democrats.

That same thing caught the eye of the Las Vegas Sun’s J. Patrick Coolican, who penned a story about it on Saturday. The piece notes that virtually every consultant in town does it, with the exception of Gary Gray, a loyal Democrat. (Gray’s wife, Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani is running against veteran Clark County Commissioner Myrna Williams, who is represented by, among others, Republican consultant Mike Slanker.)

Lots of reasons for the odd line-crossing are given, including Nevada’s small-town political culture, “where friendships matter more than parties.” The ubiquitous “gaming party” of former state Sen. Joe Neal’s formulation is another reason: They don’t care your party affiliation, so long as you do what they want. And then there’s the “doing it for the money,” excuse, proffered by Republican consultant Steve Wark, who of late does some business with Democrat Billy Rogers under the business name “Third Rail.” Hmmm, hiring out your services to anybody just for the money. Doesn’t the Bible say that’s wrong somewhere?

The coziness of the political consulting culture has led more than one candidate (say, gubernatorial hopeful Jan Jones, or current candidate for governor Dina Titus) to seek help outside the state for their campaigns. Conversely, hiring a talented and big-name consultant, say Sig Rogich or Billy Vassiliadis, is an indication that a campaign is serious.

Gray, however, had some reservations, and we think his points have some merit (then again, we’re unabashed partisans, so it figures we’d back him up, right?). It seems to us that it would require a certain undesirable intellectual and moral flexibility to represent a pro-choice, pro-taxes, pro-environment progressive in one election, and then turn around to represent a pro-life, anti-tax, pro-business small government conservative in the next. This isn’t like criminal defense law, folks, where they train you to take all comers and give everybody a good defense. This is an ideological contest over the way we want our country to look in the future.

We’ll let Gray add his two cents:

“I can explain it by one word, and that’s money,” Gray said. “I’m baffled by the acceptance of it, by everybody who participates in it.” Sadly, that’s pretty much everybody.

• We’ve got to hand it to Las Vegas Sun Editor Brian Greenspun for his Sunday column taking the Review-Journal to task over its stance on President George W. Bush’s judicial nominations.

You can’t browbeat the Senate into approving right-wing judges, and then bitch when they issue right-wing rulings, Greenspun said. (He was referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s blessing of “no-knock” rules when the authorities come to your house with a warrant, since knocking gives bad people a chance to hide evidence of their naughtiness. Just when we bought that cool new “When the Saints Come Marching In” doorbell ringer, too!)

To be totally honest, our friend and colleague Hugh Jackson, sharp as always, was the first to notice the R-J’s be-careful-what-you-wish-for problem in Las Vegas Gleaner last week. Hey, do you suppose Greenspun is gleaning from the Gleaner?

Either way, they’re both right. Now, the R-J will say — in fact, did say — that the ruling wasn’t conservative, but totalitarian. And that’s true. If only that distinction still mattered to the present administration.

And that’s why you’ve got to be careful what you wish for.

• U.S. Rep. Peter King is plenty pissed off at the New York Times. First, the Gray Lady broke news that President Bush was wiretapping American citizens international phone calls and e-mails without warrants. And now the paper blew the whistle on a program that allows the government to track overseas wire transfers of money.

“We’re at war, and for the Times to release this information about secret operations is treasonous,” King fumed. The Times is “more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people.”

While we think King is full of it, for many reasons, including the fact that his outrage was somehow contained when members of this administration outed an undercover CIA operative. Or how about that time that Geraldo Rivera drew a map in the sand of U.S. troop positions? We don’t recall King bitching then.

Anyway, it’s not our place to defend the Times. We’ll leave that to Executive Editor Bill Keller, who wrote a response to critics.

We’d only wonder how long it would take the American people, who King selectively venerates in his remarks, to wonder why the press hadn’t told them about American spying when it got down to a level that they’d find objectionable. Say, with keystroke-level monitoring of Internet use? Or a national ID card required for state-to-state travel, with an RFID chip enabling anybody with a card reader to know who you are and everything else about you? Or routine monitoring of all telephone calls, e-mails, text messages and even good old snail mail?

We’d probably catch a lot of criminals that way, and maybe make it harder for terrorists to attack the land of the free. Only we wouldn’t be able to call it that anymore.

Wouldn’t the people wonder where their newspapers had been while all this was going on? Sure, they would. Of course, by then it would be too late.

• Talk about a case of bad spin.

In R-J political reporter Molly Ball’s notebook today, we’re told U.S. Rep. Jon Porter didn’t vote against a minimum wage increase, as some have said. In fact, he … well, let’s just let the item speak for itself:

“A spokesman for Porter said the House vote was actually a procedural vote on whether to deviate from the planned agenda. Democrats said that if that was approved, they would introduce a minimum wage proposal. But Porter wanted to move ahead to an item he considered more important — making permanent several tax cuts, including the repeal of the estate tax.

“‘We need to do everything in our power to sustain our booming economy, which includes making tax cuts permanent,’ Porter said of that vote.

“As for where Porter stands on raising the minimum wage, his spokesman, Trevor Kolego, said he would consider it.

“‘Historically, Representative Porter has said this is a states’ issue,’ Kolego said. ‘He does however look forward to an actual discussion on the minimum wage where the pros and cons can be openly debated and will discuss any potential impacts with Southern Nevadans before making any final decisions.’”

Got that? Porter passed on a chance to give the lowest wage earners in America a long-overdue raise so he could vote on giving the most well-off people in the country tax relief! He literally passed over the poor, to help out the rich, since he considered that more important. And this is the defense his own people are offering! It’s almost like he’s running against himself.

Oh, and by the by, when we put “look forward to an actual discussion on the minimum wage” and “potential impacts with Southern Nevadans” into the Republican Universal Translator, we get “look forward to deep-sixing this baby as soon as possible” because “business doesn’t like it, and therefore, neither do I.”

Pathetic.

We were gone toward the tail end of last week, and so we missed our chance to comment on a few things. But the miracle of the Internet is, Quick Hit leftovers taste just as good with a couple minutes in the microwave. Here we go!

• Gov. Kenny Guinn gave Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt his non-endorsement endorsement, proving not so much that he likes Hunt but that he hates her opponents, state Sen. Bob Beers and U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons.

Hunt “has been a critical part of the economic success of our state and Nevada would certainly benefit from her continued leadership,” Guinn said. Sounds like an endorsement to us. The kind of endorsement that came after Hunt no doubt asked Guinn to speak up on her behalf.

Our question is, why did Guinn go looking months ago for somebody to challenge Gibbons? He tried Reno Mayor Bob Cashell and university Chancellor Jim Rogers, both of whom passed on the governor gig. If Hunt was truly so great, why did Guinn go looking elsewhere right out of the gate?

We don’t want to be mean or anything, because we really do like Hunt and she, unlike Gibbons, has shown a willingness to get out there and share her ideas and debate. But it seems Guinn didn’t think she’d be able to beat Gibbons. We wonder if he does now.

• What a surprise! The Helldorado Days parade lacks floats, people and general enthusiasm, causing Mayor Oscar Goodman to say it “stunk.” Gee, wasn’t this the parade that they cancelled because it no longer drew anybody downtown? Why, yes it was! And yet another city-sponsored civic pride initiative falls by the wayside.

Oh, wait, not quite yet. The “Centennial Committee” proposes to spend money on an outside consultant to determine what the city has to do to make Helldorado Days successful. Sounds to us like they could save some money and just listen to Goodman: It stunk.

Solution: Stop wasting money, and let it go. People already come to Las Vegas for things like, oh, we don’t know, gambling, shopping, eating, sightseeing, and, of course, more gambling. Isn’t that enough? Granted, fewer and fewer go downtown to do those things, so maybe it’s time to try something else.

We’re just saying.

• We agree with the idea of naming all 10 of the cheating UNLV dental school students who forged an instructor’s electronic password on some documents. Otherwise, every member of the first graduating class will be tainted by notions they cheated, and the school — already born under highly questionable legislative circumstances — will remain under a cloud.

Who was it that pushed for this school, anyway? Oh, that’s right: Former state Sen. Ray Rawson, now enjoying a retirement sinecure on the state Gaming Commission. Rawson lost a mendacious campaign to then Assemblyman Bob Beers in 2004, but had a soft landing thanks to Gov. Kenny Guinn. Since then, Rawson’s helped start another troubled dental school, this one in Hawaii.

Ah, Nevada. We love it here. Such tales to tell.

• Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates is right: The county is losing a gem as Manager Thom Reilly leaves to become vice chancellor of the University of Nevada Health Sciences Center.

Reilly was a candidate for UNLV president, a job that came open when Chancellor Jim Rogers unwisely and prematurely forced incumbent President Carol Harter out of her job, just two years before her contract was due to expire. We thought — despite the rotten circumstances — he’d be great for that post.

But the health sciences center idea is a good one, and health care issues are growing ever more important, so we think Reilly’s in a good spot. Our congratulations to him, and best wishes. He’ll be hard to replace at the Government Center.

• And finally today, the maddest of mad props to our friend and colleague, Erin Neff. In her column in the Review-Journal today, Neff argues strongly for not allowing cowardly politicians to dodge interviews or debates with the media. She names U.S. Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter specifically, Gibbons for ducking gubernatorial debates and Porter for ducking, well, any interaction with a journalist in any forum.

Instead, she says, the media need to demand that the politicians themselves — not their flaks, campaign gurus or stand-ins — answer reporters’ questions and face their challengers in debates. We couldn’t agree more.

Let’s call it the Neff Doctrine, which we at Various Things & Stuff (as well as our newspaper, CityLife) wholeheartedly embrace. Who else is with us?

Give Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman credit: When he drinks the Hatorade, he guzzles it like it was precious gin, and sucks the last drop from the gallon-sized plastic bottle.

Speaking at a City Council meeting Wednesday, Goodman pledged to rid the city’s parks of homeless people, including passing an ordinance banning Good Samaritans from feeding the homeless, prohibiting public drunkenness, asking judges to “throw the book” at homeless people and telling police to grab mentally ill people and drag them off to WestCare.

“I want one person, one lucky person who’ll be our test case … whether they like it or not,” Goodman said. Hmmm. Sounds lucky.

And, Goodman said, he’s not afraid of the big, bad American Civil Liberties Union, and their little “Constitution” thingy they’re always talking about. “If the ACLU wants to sue us — come on baby,” he said.

Of course, the ACLU responded that it will, in fact, come on and sue. And if the ACLU’s record is anything like it’s been in the past, they’ll also win, which means Goodman will have wasted even more taxpayer dollars. (See below for more on that.)

We at Various Things & Stuff don’t want to oversimplify this issue. There are serious matters here, including the ability of nearby residents to enjoy neighborhood parks, and the potential for crime. (The city says crime has gone up in adjacent neighborhoods since Good Samaritans have been feeding the homeless in Huntridge Circle Park, for example.)

But it’s precisely because they’re serious problems that they require serious, thoughtful solutions, not the bush-league buffoonery that Goodman has raised to an art form. It would be funny, if there weren’t people in city jails for, say, jaywalking.

Why not spend some intellectual brainpower coming up with — and paying for — real solutions. It’s not hard: The continuum of care model that Clark County officials have been discussing is probably the way to go. Emergency shelter first, followed by medical assessments, job training, and an eventual transition to low-income housing, and finally regular housing, all with intense follow-up and guidance. It works, or it could if we did more to promote and pay for it.

But ordering kind-hearted citizens to stop feeding hungry people? Banning public drunkenness? (Tell us that ordinance wouldn’t be selectively applied to homeless people and not, say, tourists on the Fremont Street Experience or even Goodman himself, who is known to imbibe enough to kill a normal man pretty much daily.) And trying to get a supposedly independent judiciary on board with the anti-homeless plan, in violation of the long-established (but, in Nevada, much-battered) separation of powers doctrine?

These aren’t solutions. They’re jokes. Even if every single homeless service provider packed up and went away, we’d still have homeless. Too many to jail, or put in mental health treatment centers, or warehouse in old prisons (another Goodman gem of an idea that went nowhere).

There is a serious homeless problem. We need to come together as a community and forge a solution, based on the best evidence of what works. What we don’t need is an eruption of simple-minded hatred and ridicule from a man who is supposed to be leading the city. (And that means all of the city, especially that part of it that’s most defenseless and in need of government’s help.)

Too bad we don’t have somebody like that at City Hall. We hear they used to call that job “mayor.”

• Speaking of Goodman, the mayor needs to get out his checkbook. He owes the city some dough.

We don’t much care if it’s his personal checkbook, his campaign account checkbook or his Oscar Political Action Committee (OPAC) checkbook, but hizzoner has been spending taxpayer dollars for things he should have been paying for himself.

We admit, this isn’t Watergate, or Enron, or G-sting. But wasting even a few dollars of taxpayer money is a sin, so long as there are unmet needs in the city of Las Vegas. (And, if all the needs are met, that money should be rebated to taxpayers, no?)

And it’s not like the city — or the mayor — is unaware of those needs. Far from it. They don’t have to drive down to St. Vincent’s to see the hungry homeless people Goodman is so fond of bashing. They don’t have to go poking around under freeway overpasses or searching downtown doorways.

Hell, all the mayor has to do is look out his fucking 10th floor window toward the park below and he can see it.

Anyway, here’s our preliminary bill, based upon information provided by the city, both recently and back in 2004, when we were working at the Review-Journal as a big-city columnist and probing Goodman’s curious habit of maintaining a videotaped library of his TV appearances. We think 30 days is plenty of time to pay the invoice.

• $1,200 — for showgirls to accompany the mayor to the International Council of Shopping Centers in May 2006.

• $6,242.50 — for bobblehead dolls. (One, showing the mayor delivering a proclamation, was charged to Goodman’s office budget. The other, showing the mayor with a tennis racket, was charged to the Leisure Services Department and done in conjunction with the Tennis Channel Open.)

• $1,410 — for copies of videotapes of television appearances not related to city business, as concluded by a brief investigation by us back in 2004.

$8,852.50 — grand total, as of June 22, 2006.

Please note that we didn’t include things like the $5,775 that the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority spent to pay for showgirls to accompany Goodman to the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Las Vegas, or the $22,073.64 that the Las Vegas Centennial Committee has spent for showgirls to follow the mayor to other events.

The LVCVA operates on room tax, and if the elected and appointed officials there want to squander tourists’ money for something like this, it’s up to them. (It does make us wonder, however, if more of that room tax isn’t available for local schools. Anybody got a BDR form handy?)

As for the “Centennial” committee, that’s money primarily given voluntarily by people when they signed up for the “Centennial” license plate, which celebrated a six-year-premature 100th birthday of Las Vegas. If they’re not aware enough to do the calendar math, we don’t think they’ll care that their hard-earned dollars are paying for mayoral escorts. (Hey, do you think there are any Centennial plates left? We’d love to get one for the News Cruiser with the personalized message FAKEDT. Get it? Fake date? Oh, never mind.)

Anyway, mayor, remit your payment in full to the general fund of the city of Las Vegas, 400 E. Stewart Avenue, Las Vegas, Nev., 89101. And hurry: We’re going to start adding interest soon!

Stop the presses: People don’t like taxes.

The news coverage surrounding the Tax and Spending Control initiative has always been a little breathless, but it’s getting even more so after TASC master (and state senator) (and candidate for governor) (and a hell of a good-looking guy) Bob Beers turned in boxes with 152,984 signatures to Secretary of State (and congressional candidate) Dean Heller Tuesday.

So, people in Nevada don’t like taxes. This is not news, readers. Anybody except inept bumblers like George Harris or Tony Dane can qualify signatures on an anti-tax petition. (A Prop. 13-style measure that aimed to limit property taxes circulated by Assemblywoman [and congressional candidate] Sharron Angle didn’t qualify, however. She blamed attacks by liberal activists — let’s add her to the inept bumbler list, too, shall we?)

But the fact is, Beers’ anti-tax message is a simple and compelling one, and he was on that message when speaking to the newspaper that loves him with an erotic love, the Review-Journal.

“The number of signatures collected makes it clear how important this issue is to Nevadans. This takes the authority for rapid expansion of government out of the hands of politicians and special interests and puts it in the hands of the people,” Beers said.

Got that? Taxes bad. Government bad. Politicians bad. Special interests bad. People, good. That, too, isn’t news. Republicans have been saying that ever since Barry Goldwater, and it’s become an art form thanks to former President Ronald Reagan.

Leave aside, of course, that the initiative will leave less money for things that “special interests” desperately want, like roads, schools, teachers, and the like. Those damn special interests and their constant attempts to expand the government!

Leave aside also that “special interests” including the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, which has joined with the AFL-CIO in a strange bedfellows moment to oppose TASC.

Speaking of the AFL-CIO, union boss Danny Thompson told the R-J that he thinks some petitions are invalid, because they deviated from the language given to the secretary of state. (And Thompson should know; his group sued to get a particularly misleading passage clarified.) Some might argue that he’s simply trying to keep the measure away from voters, but they’d be ignoring the fact that petition circulators must follow the law like everybody else. And TASC, which had to be drafted and re-drafted, has had a particularly difficult time standing up to scrutiny. (This fact was lost on the R-J’s editorial page, which identified the TASC battle as the hottest debate on the ballot, and said opponents were merely apologists for the “status quo.”)

But is it news that lots of people in Nevada fall so easily for the anti-tax message, or that they don’t connect taxes in their minds with the things that taxes buy for them? Hardly.

Anyone for Quick Hits? They go so well with a delicious glass of lemonade during these hot summer months. Here we go…

• Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith found fault with the Las Vegas Sun on Friday for cutting references to the R-J from a Wall Street Journal story that ran in the Sun. (The R-J played a role in a key witness coming forward in the quirky Howard Hughes/”Mormon will” case.)

Since the story also ran in the R-J, and the Sun is inserted in the R-J, Smith found it ironic.

We do, too.

But the newspaper industry pettiness isn’t confined to the Sun. For example, political reporter Molly Ball’s Saturday story mentions a recent debate between Democratic gubernatorial rivals Dina Titus and Jim Gibson occurred “on Las Vegas One,” the cable TV station that’s a partnership between KLAS Channel 8, Cox Communications and the Sun.

But the debate didn’t just occur on Las Vegas One; it occurred on a TV show called Face to Face with Jon Ralston. Ralston, as most know, is a former R-J reporter and columnist who left the paper in late 1999 to join the Sun, a condition of which would be his own show. Yet the R-J, in a Soviet-style bit of denial worthy of … well, the paranoid leaders of the Sun, refuse to even mention his name. Is he dead to them?

Apparently not: A search of the R-J’s archives reveals “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” has been mentioned 10 times between 2002 and 2006, usually by writers like Erin Neff or us, back in the days when we at Various Things & Stuff used to work in the bowels of the windowless brick building on Bonanza Road.

• Now, we know we’re late on this. We know our friend and colleague Hugh Jackson over at the Las Vegas Gleaner has already commented on the story. But we couldn’t help but be amazed that U.S. Rep. Jon Porter would not comment to the Las Vegas Sun for a report on that feel-good resolution on the Iraq war last week.

No comment?

On a pro-war, pro-troops resolution?

We understand why Porter doesn’t want to talk to us at Various Things & Stuff. We understand why even his press secretary won’t call us back. We know things, and ask tough questions. We follow-up, and bring up all sorts of embarrassing memories from the past. And Porter isn’t exactly fleet of foot when it comes to dodging those rhetorical bullets.

But to not talk to a hometown newspaper about a resolution that’s so simple and easy to defend, you’d have to be a certified moron to screw it up? Something’s wrong.

We believe every lawmaker has a obligation to speak to the press, and through them, to their constituents. We also believe that when a lawmaker shrinks from that obligation, there’s usually a reason, and it’s seldom good. And while it appears Porter can hit the keyboards all over Washington, D.C. (including at a White House picnic!), it also appears he can’t — or won’t — articulate even the most basic information to reporters.

If only there was a way to change things.

• Credit Dan Kulin of the Las Vegas Sun for being all over the bobblehead beat.

Not only did Kulin pen a story describing each of the 11 different kinds of Mayor Oscar B. Goodman bobbleheads that exist out there, he’s also discovered that at least some of the dolls were paid for by … you guessed it, taxpayers.

The city’s coffers have been raised to the tune of $6,242.50 for two of the dolls, one posing with a tennis racket and the other holding a city proclamation. (It’s too tiny to read, but we think it might be the “Authorization to Use City Funds for Private Use in Contravention of State Law Act” of 2002.)

“I am the face of the city, even though some people may not like that,” Goodman told Kulin. (And by “some people,” we think he might mean “homeless people,” who have seen the ugly business end of Goodman’s mayoralty.) “When they look at these bobbleheads, they think of Las Vegas, not Oscar Goodman.”

Actually, when we look at them, we think of city services unrendered, but that’s just us being all fiscally responsible and whatnot.

Sure, it’s not much for an organization with millions in its annual budget. But every little bit helps, and wasting tax dollars is one of the worst sins government officials can commit.

Never fear, taxpayers. We at Various Things & Stuff are trying to tally all the taxpayer dollars Goodman has used for personal expenses, and we plan to present him with a bill — including interest — by the time he leaves office, which will likely be in 2011. We’ll keep you posted when we can finally determine the whole tab.

We’ve been writing about politics a long time, so we can say this with heartfelt sincerity: There is no man more pro-choice than the man condemned to ride in the row of cramped airline seats directly in front of a family with young children.

That was the unhappy place where we at Various Things & Stuff found ourselves on Sunday, as our aircraft on the Dallas-to-Vegas leg of a cross-country journey sat on the tarmac for 90 minutes as mechanics tried to fix a leaky oil problem. And that was only the beginning of a two-hour, 20-minute flight in which the fidgety kids kicked, whined, cried and otherwise vexed their fellow passengers.

Thank God for the miracle of the sound-canceling iPod. And for the miracle of birth control, which more people ought to use, in our opinion.

With another notable exception, that was virtually the only bad thing that happened during the weekend at the annual conference of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, held in Little Rock, Ark. (Alas, CityLife was rejected for membership in the organization after some objected to our corporate overlords at the Stephens Media Group, and their California business partnership with media mogul Dean Singleton. They said they liked the paper, though, although it was small consolation.)

Anyway, we got to visit the Clinton Library, which was extremely impressive in both design and exhibits. (There’s a full-sized replica of the Oval Office! And, ironically, there was more security to get into the library than to see the ex-president himself, but we’ll get to that later.)

Speakers at the convention included retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, Whitewater prosecution target Susan McDougal and, of course, Clinton. Here are some highlights:

• Clark urged the assembled journalists to do more homework to bring stories to the public. Bloggers are fine to comment upon and spread news, but they need solid news to spread, he said.

“I’m worried about our country,” Clark said, noting the United States is falling behind in math and science education, and suffering when it comes to affording heath care. “My heart breaks when I think about how much more we could be.”

But Clark said some controversial things, too, like deriding the Bush administration’s focus on terrorism. That’s giving terror networks like al-Qaida too much credit, he said. “You’re not dealing with the Soviet Union. This is not the KGB,” Clark said. “This is not a world-class enemy worthy of the focus of the United States of America. … If we keep that focus, we’re going down.”

Instead, Clark said, America should be conscious of emerging economic powers, and integrating them into global economies without war.

Most interesting was Clark’s theory of the Big Idea. After World War II, it was the clash of communism and American-style democracy, and everyone was on board, from things like the space race (which he didn’t specifically mention) to tax credits for defense research and an emphasis on physical fitness (which he did). The American idea won, he said, but since then, we haven’t had a single, unifying idea to unite the country and present to the world.

“A national strategy emerges collectively,” he said. Unfortunately, the current administration does few things collectively, save perhaps repeat the same mendatious talking points.

• McDougal’s speech was more personal, focusing on her role in the Whitewater investigation as “the woman who wouldn’t talk.” (That’s also, conveniently enough, the title of her book.)

Authentic and still emotional about her experience, McDougal said she refused to lie about Bill and Hillary Clinton, even though prosecutors allegedly offered money and immunity from charges. Since she had done nothing wrong, and neither had the Clintons, she refused. (Her estranged husband, James McDougal, did testify against the Clintons.)

After a $100 million investigation, independent counsel Kenneth Starr wasn’t able to find wrongdoing related to Whitewater. But that didn’t keep Susan McDougal from doing more time in jail than her husband or alleged co-conspirator David Hale.

• The highlight of the weekend, however, was former President Clinton himself. He delighted a luncheon crowd that, unlike visitors to his library, didn’t pass through metal detectors, with a speech that was intelligent, persuasive and right on point.

Don’t, Clinton said, give in to the temptation of turning politicians or political movements into cartoons. Discuss and criticize ideas, but not people, he said.

Now, as professional commentators, were are specifically trained on exactly how to turn people into cartoons and caricatures, and in fact are quite talented at it. But Clinton was persuasive as to why a discussion of ideas is better for the republic, if a bit harder for time-pressed, information-overloaded people to absorb.

Republicans have mastered the art of ideology-based politics (rather than what Clinton called “evidence-based” politics). In that scheme, they count on keeping their base, and finding something to attack about their opponents, thus overcoming the nation’s traditional even split between Democrats and Republicans, with a small percentage of independents in the middle.

“I don’t think that kind of politics is good for America,” Clinton said, adding later, “we’ve got to find a way to get back to evidence-based politics.”

Although the modern world is inter-dependent, Clinton said, it needs to become integrated, in which our common humanity matters more than our differences. Translated: When a hurricane strikes New Orleans or a tsunami floods Indonesia, the entire world pitches in to help. America exports its technology to build hospitals, sewer and water plants, and electricity to impoverished places, not just “freedom” and “democracy” at gunpoint.

“When you can’t kill, jail or occupy all our enemies, that’s where politics comes in. You’ve got to make a deal,” he said. And eliminating hunger, disease and poverty is cheaper than fighting wars to claim increasingly scarce resources.

Here at home, America is still struggling to find its next big economic boom. Clinton said in the 1990s, the information technology revolution created 92 percent job growth. In this decade, he said clean energy could fill that role, creating jobs, eliminating dependence on Middle Eastern oil, supplying power for future generations and even staving off climate change brought about by burning fossil fuels.

“It’s like we’re being hit over the head with our ticket to the future,” he said.

Although Clinton was asked about President George W. Bush, he declined to criticize him directly. Clinton said the president actually believes the things he says, and possesses “intuitive intelligence.” But Clinton’s entire speech was, in effect, a repudiation of Bush’s policies, leadership style and tactics. (Clinton did say the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name and CIA affiliation, had it happened during his presidency, would have left him branded a traitor by Republicans and right-leaning media.)

And the fact that Clinton spoke for a goodly length of time with a mere two pages of notes, spouting statistics and evidence as if from memory, and then stayed for a long time answering questions without notes from brighter-than-average journalists was also an indictment of Bush, who stacks his town halls with like-minded citizens who often preface questions with praise. The occasional tough question — lobbed by the press or somebody who slipped by pre-screening — is generally met with slogans, not thoughtful replies.

All of which proves Clinton is a man of his word. “Clear, reasoned opposition to the things he’s [Bush] doing that we disagree with is more effective than ridicule,” he said.

Very persuasive. But we at Various Things & Stuff have a decades-long stockpile of ridicule that we’ve simply got to use, so forgive us Mr. President if our better angels don’t always win the argument.

We at Various Things & Stuff are headed to the Deep South — Little Rock, Ark., to be specific. We’re attending the annual convention of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) where our beloved CityLife is applying for membership. If something totally blog-worthy happens, we’ll try to use our BlackBerry to post. But if not, we’ll see you back here Monday.

A few years ago, we at Various Things & Stuff took a trip to Washington, D.C. for a journalism convention. While there, we made a point to visit with each member of the Nevada delegation (save for U.S. Sen. John Ensign, who had an unexpected engagement back in Nevada). But before Ensign left, we attended the weekly breakfast he and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid host for visiting Nevadans in the Capitol. (We even got a photo, which we proudly display in our Henderson flat.)

Well, it seems the bipartisan breakfast buddy system doesn’t extend to the other side of the Capitol, where U.S. Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter were scheduled to hold a breakfast for their constituents at 8 a.m. today. “The breakfast provides an opportunity for Nevadans to meet with their members of Congress and provides a forum for discussion on many issues important to the great state of Nevada,” according to the announcement.

Gee, maybe we should go. Although we see and talk to Gibbons on the gubernatorial campaign trail, we hardly ever hear from Porter anymore. And we’d love to talk to him about some issues important to the state of Nevada.

But that’s not the point. Guess who was not invited to take part in the breakfast? None other than U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, who represents Las Vegas in the House of Representatives. Why she’s a fellow lawmaker who also has constituents who visit the Capitol. Why wasn’t she invited?

Oh, that’s right. Berkley’s a Democrat. And she doesn’t exactly get along with Gibbons (who she once called “a jerk”) and Porter (who she once called “a joke”). Guess they didn’t want her spoiling the bagels and orange juice bringing up things like Porter’s deciding vote against a military bonus, or Gibbons’ co-authorship of a report that downplays the dangers of mercury, or both men’s support of President George W. Bush’s tax-cuts-for-the-well-off/big-deficits-for-the-kids economic policy. Now that could make somebody choke on his Cheerios!

Don’t fret, Berkley. We’ll gladly have breakfast with you the very next time we hit Washington, D.C.

• Wow, how can we at Various Things & Stuff get a job at the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority? They pay the mad coin, yo!

According to today’s Review-Journal, President Rossi Ralenkotter stands to pull down $317,714 next year. That’s the combination of a 5 percent raise, which brings his base salary to $248,714, as well as a $60,000 bonus and a $9,000 auto allowance. (At $750 per month, that’s a pretty sweet ride. We’d be thinking 911, but that’s just how we roll.)

The authority, of course, did a salary survey and found that level of pay to be just about right for Ralenkotter’s job, which includes luring tourists to Las Vegas and running the Las Vegas Convention Center.

Anyway, he listed his accomplishments as bringing a record 38.6 million visitors to town, 44 big trade shows and scoring the 2007 NBA All-Star Game for the Thomas & Mack. Oh, and there’s that big convention center expansion he’s planning, too. Always thinking ahead.

Man, luring tourists to Las Vegas. That must be really hard. Probably couldn’t find anybody to do that kind of work for what they’re paying. In fact, now that we think about it, we’ll pass on this gig. We don’t get off the couch for less than $500,000.

• So the Culinary Union Local 226 is circulating a petition in Reno that says anybody who wants to build a new casino outside the gambling district needs to get voter approval, and chip in a little something to Reno debt relief? The measure, which needs 11,661 valid signatures, has been dubbed the “Screw Station Casinos Hard and Raw Without the Benefit of Lubricant Act.”

Only kidding. The words “Hard and Raw” don’t appear in the actual text of the measure. We added that to make it funny.

But it’s really not funny, because Station is the only casino company planning to build in Reno. (It’s got two casinos on the drawing boards; one is next to the convention center and wouldn’t be affected by the initiative. The other is in South Reno and would definitely fall under the measure.)

Now we at Various Things & Stuff are vigorously pro-union. We think it would be very nice (and good business) for Station to allow the union to do a card check at the company’s Las Vegas properties. At least have a federally supervised election. But since we don’t have to answer to shareholders or board members, it’s easy for us to say that.

Even so, however, we have to take issue with the union’s description of the initiative. Let’s hear from Culinary Union Local 226 spokesman Chris Bohner, who was quoted in the R-J:

“Any casino built outside of Reno’s core gaming area is going to adversely impact the casinos in the city of Reno,” he said.

OK, so far we’re fine. That’s a legitimate debate, and one that the Reno City Council should address, via zoning and gaming enterprise districts, the way it’s done down here. Perhaps Bohner is right, and perhaps the city is justified in ordering that all new casinos be built near existing ones, to prevent downtown from becoming lame. (After all, that actually happened here in Las Vegas.)

But then Bohner just had to go and add this: “This petition is not about any specific property, It’s about protecting downtown Reno.”

This is, technically, bullshit. Since Station is the only company with a proposal to develop outside the core gambling zone, it is, of necessity, about Station. Moreover, if the Look for the Union Label Casino Corp. wanted to build a 100 percent labor-organized casino in South Reno, does anybody think we’d be seeing a petition like this? Hell, no.

We’ve no argument with the union advancing this petition. It’s well within its rights to do it, and, as we said, there’s a legitimate side to the debate. But don’t conceal your true motives and say you want to save downtown Reno. Tell it like it is: Station Casino refuses to be organized, so we’re taking them on wherever and whenever we can. (It’s one of the reasons that it makes good business sense to negotiate, although some might find that to be extortionate. We don’t, but whatever. Like we said, we don’t have Wall Street breathing down our necks.)

Anyway, the Great Battle of Reno is joined. We’ll keep an eye on it and let you know how its going. Hey, did you know they have a real-life river running through downtown Reno? No, we’re serious: It’s totally cool. People raft and stuff. The Truckee, we think it’s called. Very nice. Much better than the river of human urine that generally runs through the streets of our downtown. But that’s for another day.

• And finally today, a bit of courthouse corruption news, we at Various Things & Stuff have learned (when somebody e-mailed to tell us) that the Review-Journal plans to reprint, starting on Sunday, the recent Los Angeles Times series about judges with major conflicts of interest.

We’re glad to hear it, and not just because the ratio of readable content to ads in the Sunday paper is 0.437 to 1 million. Many Las Vegans didn’t see the Times series, and they should. So the R-J is doing a public service, and that’s a good thing. Props to them.

Now it’s time to start digging up these kinds of stories ourselves, and not waiting for bigger, better papers from outside Las Vegas to drop in and do them.