We think the wording of NRS 608.160 is pretty clear: "It is unlawful for any person to take all or part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees." To us at least, that means that the practice at the Wynn Las Vegas of tip pooling — in which tips are "taken" from individual card dealers and placed into a "pool" from which dealers and their supervisors are paid — is totally illegal.

But the state’s labor commissioner and at least one District Court judge disagree with us, which we find totally unsurprising.

That’s the impetus behind Assemblyman Bob Beers‘ AB 357, which would overrule the opinion of those courts and make it clear that when a customer tips a dealer, that dealer should get 100 percent of that tip. And Beers did a clever thing this week, bringing in the author of the original 1971 law, former state Sen. Don Mello, who also said that what was going on at Wynn was improper.

Well, not exactly.

See, the chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, got all fascist on people and demanded that they not mention the Wynn by name. That’s odd, you might think. It was the Wynn who started the whole tip pooling idea and has vigorously defended it ever since. Why wouldn’t you be able to mention the hotel, in a country where you presumably still have the right to free speech? Plus, isn’t Anderson the guy known for letting committee members prattle on for hours?

Yes, indeed, he is. But not where casino mogul Steve Wynn is concerned apparently, which puts poor Anderson in the running for Tool of the Week.

"A certain Nevada corporation [hint: It's Wynn Las Vegas, people!] believes that, regardless of the source of the tip, the monies belong to the corporation and therefore those tips have been confiscated in spite of Nevada law. The law, as written, is quite clear. Taking is taking," Beers said.

We never thought we’d say it, but we agree 100 percent with Bob Beers. His bill should pass.

» You’ve got to appreciate interim Republican Party Chairman Paul Willis‘ sense of consistency. He always changes his mind!

You’ve already read about his many and varied stances on moving the Republican caucus forward. But do you recall that Willis was part of that Pahrump Town Board that passed the ignorant and ultimately repealed English-only, American-flag-only ordinance?

Not only did Willis vote for the ordinance, he defended it and talked over citizens who’d turned out to protest the matter. But then, Willis later made the motion to repeal the ordinance, saying he didn’t want the ordinance to overshadow his other work on the board.

We don’t know what that other work was, but if Willis was taking both sides of every issue, we’re sure it was exhausting.

» Quotable: "I look forward to working with Congress. I believe in truth and accountability. Everything I’ve done in connection with this matter supports that principle." — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, on the U.S. attorney firing scandal.

If you look closely, dear readers, you will discover that each sentence of the above is a lie.

» And finally today, if a reporter for a Dallas newspaper had witnessed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and returned to the newsroom to file a report that said the president used an Italian mail-order sniper rifle to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald and at least two other men on a grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, do you think his newspaper would have run a correction the next day saying the reporter had "misidentified the parties involved in the shooting"?

Perhaps, if that newspaper was the Review-Journal.

That’s what happened with columnist Jane Ann Morrison’s piece about a car accident she allegedly witnessed recently. Check out the opening of her Saturday effort:

The driver of the SUV whizzing north on Rampart Boulevard blew the red light, broadsiding the VW Jetta coming westbound off Summerlin Parkway. That’s right, the SUV hit the Jetta, which clearly had the green light. Yeah, the Jetta driven by the pregnant woman.

The SUV driver, after hitting the pregnant woman’s side, spun in a half circle and came to a stop facing the wrong direction but able to see the damage.

I couldn’t see the SUV driver clearly, couldn’t tell if it was a man or a woman. However, that stupid, careless person wasn’t hurt. I only hope that driver’s life flashed before his or her eyes and that person felt stark terror while the SUV whirled out of control.

The sound of the vehicles smashing and tires screeching last Saturday is still vivid, and I carry a sense of fury toward the SUV driver who endangered a pregnant woman, who was treated at the scene. It’s the driver’s arrogance that makes me wild, the sense of entitlement that red light runners have that their time is more precious than someone else’s life.

Yeah, funny thing about all this. It turns out that it was the Jetta that ran the red light and hit the SUV, which the pregnant woman was driving. A bit less dramatic, and probably an argument for all pregnant woman to consider investing in SUVs that insulate them from rogue Jettas.

So how did the correction read? An eyewitness account of a traffic accident in the Review-Journal was totally wrong? The repeated assertions of a columnist who says she saw firsthand a car accident were somehow totally confused? Nope.

Two cars were misidentified in Jane Ann Morrison’s Saturday column about traffic cameras. The pregnant woman coming off Summerlin Parkway was driving an SUV and the woman who ran a stop light going north on Rampart Boulevard was driving a Volkswagen Jetta. The pregnant woman was treated at the scene. The other driver was not injured.

That’s right. The cars were "misidentified," which, technically, is false. Morrison correctly identified the vehicles — one was an SUV, one was a Jetta. What she got wrong was the rest of the story. And why the R-J didn’t say that is something every reader should wonder about. And, by the way, this isn’t the first time a correction has been more about coverup than setting the record straight.