Who’s tired of hearing about the fight against the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act? Well, a major milestone will be reached at 3 p.m. today, when District Court Judge Douglas Herndon rules on whether some tavern, bar, convenience store, grocery store and slot route owners deserve to get a preliminary injunction.

And while we’d never bet on what we think a judge or a jury will do in a legal case, we’re inclined to think that Herndon will grant that injunction today, saying the law is simply too vague to be enforced. An inevitable appeal to the state Supreme Court will follow, and God only knows what that panel will do.

But until then, we’ve got to have something to talk about, don’t we? So let’s do a few Quick Hits!

» Nevada Chief Deputy Attorney General Christine Gucrci-Nyhus was arguing in favor of keeping the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act intact Tuesday when she made a major error. "Seventy-six percent of Nevadans don’t smoke and have the right to enjoy a night out without being exposed to secondhand smoke," she said, according to the Review-Journal.

Wrong!

You have the right to freely speak your mind in America, and in Nevada. You have the right to keep and bear arms. You have the right to be secure in your person, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. You have the right not to be forced to testify against yourself in court, and not to have your property taken by the government for a public use without just compensation (sort of). You have the right to a speedy trial if you’re charged with a crime.

You don’t have the right to enjoy an evening out without being exposed to secondhand smoke. That’s simply false, no matter how many people in the state of Nevada happen to agree with it. And while a layperson should know that, a trained lawyer (who has taken a class on constitutional law, and who is in the service of the people of the state of Nevada, and who has risen to a supervisory position) must know that.

Some may disagree, saying their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights) means they do have the right to not be exposed to secondhand smoke.

Very well: It’s cold and flu season. If we have the right to not be exposed to secondhand smoke because it’s unhealthy, do we not also have the right to quarantine sick people in their homes until they are no longer contagious? Don’t we have the right to go to Vons without encountering a person who might make us ill, even if all that person is doing is buying orange juice and Sudafed in order to feel better? According to the Guerci-Nyhus Doctrine, we sure do.

If the smoking ban is upheld, we at Various Things & Stuff will follow the law, and abstain from smoking anywhere it’s prohibited by law. But let’s not invent "rights" out of thin air to justify what this is really about: The thuggish use of the initiative process to force a minority to hew to the will of the majority, and another step in the gradual erosion of civilization.

» President George W. Bush lied again. It’s getting to be a regular occurrence.

Just before the Nov. 7 elections, Bush expressed the view that America is winning the war in Iraq. Now, anybody with access to a television or a newspaper knew that wasn’t true, but Bush said it and stood behind it anyway.

Surprise: He admitted Tuesday that we’re not winning, and suggested we need to send more troops to Iraq to do so.

It wasn’t the only reversal on the president’s part: Remember when U.S. Sen. John Kerry wanted to expand the military, and the administration balked? Well, now the administration wants to expand the military.

It reminds us of how the Bushies derided Democrats who wanted to move troops out of Iraq as weaklings who wanted to "cut and run," before unveiling a strategy to reduce troop levels in Iraq. Or the time that our own Jim Gibbons proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security, and the administration said no, only to reverse itself and embrace the idea later.

For a president who never served as a combat aviator in Vietnam, Bush is sure reliving the experience. Only he’s in the role of Lyndon Baines Johnson, who at least had the dignity, grace and courage to step down when he knew he’d failed.

» We knew this would happen; we just didn’t know it would happen so soon. But when Nevadans elected doctrinaire Republican Jim Gibbons as governor in November, we knew that eventually his reality-proof rhetoric would come into direct conflict with the real world, with bad results for Nevadans.

And here he hasn’t even been sworn in and it’s happening already!

"We are not going to increase taxes and fees to the people of the state of Nevada. That’s a campaign promise and I plan to stick to it," Gibbons said. He was talking about the recommendations of a task force assigned by outgoing Gov. Kenny Guinn to study how to pay for a $3.8 billion shortfall in the state’s road-building budget.

Instead of taxes, Gibbons said, he’d look at using state surplus money (a good idea), or perhaps toll roads (a bad idea). He even said he’d consider bonds, which is odd, since bonds are repaid with taxes. Why is it, we wonder, that Republicans don’t consider deficit spending to be a tax on future generations? We just don’t get that.

Anyway, our point is this: Gibbons’ campaign rhetoric is now in direct conflict with a vital need for the state, i.e. a usable transportation system. We are so far behind in road building that even $500 million is chump change when you’re talking about nearly $4 billion — with a "b" — in overdue projects. But Gibbons wants to keep his campaign promise, and as a result millions of people will sit in gridlock? In a city where about half of the casino customers drive in? Does this make sense to anybody but Gibbons?

We’ve long noticed the odd psychic break in the public that disassociates paying taxes (say, gas taxes) with the things those taxes pay for (say, roads). People want free-flowing freeways and surface streets, but they’re unwilling to pay to get them, which is pretty much the same as going to Vons and expecting to get a loaf of bread and some bananas without forking over the cash. Who would do that, save for a thief?

A true leader would make people see the connection, level with them and tell them that in order to keep tourists rolling in (and locals rolling along) we’re going to need to spend the money we have wisely, but also find new money. A true leader would make the people see that sacrifice for the common good is not the evil thing that it became in the Ronald Reagan era. A true leader would let people know you can’t govern with a bumper sticker; you can’t make sweeping promises that, in the end, hurt the people you’re supposed to be helping.

Now if only we could find a true leader…

UPDATE: We at Various Things & Stuff have learned that the hearing for the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act has been postponed until 9 a.m. Thursday. Looks like another night of suspense!