Layoffs. Cutbacks. Bankruptcies. Bailouts (for some). Foreclosures. Never-ending wars. Dick Cheney, still popping off about how we should torture people. Health care, just barely. Jim Gibbons and John Ensign.

What a year, huh?

If you’re like us, you’re ready to see it off.

We’ll be signing off now until Monday, Jan. 4. Lots of new and interesting things coming in the new year. Let’s hope it’s better than this one, shall we?

See you in 2010, and, as ever, thanks for tuning in!

Gov. Jim Gibbons wrote in a letter to state employees — and the Review-Journal dutifully reported today — that it would take two votes of the people to increase the state’s mining tax.

That’s not entirely accurate.

Yes, amending the state constitution — where a 5 percent net tax on mining profits is enshrined — would take two successive votes of the people. But there’s a much easier and quicker way to do it that wouldn’t require a statewide vote at all.

You see, the mining industry enjoys a series of very generous tax deductions in the Nevada Revised Statutes, which allows the industry to write off a goodly portion of its expenses. As a result, the effective tax rate for the industry is very low.

The NRS could be changed with a simple majority vote of both houses of the Legislature, although it’s likely Gibbons would veto such a move and thus require a two-thirds majority to override. But even a supermajority in the Legislature is easier than two statewide campaigns.

Sadly, because of deference to a monied industry and fear of being called names, nobody in the Legislature has seriously advanced a bid to eliminate mining tax deductions. But if anybody ever did, say in the 2011 Legislature, we could be seeing bigger tax revenues by summertime. No statewide vote required.

UPDATE: Don’t take our word for it. Take it from the Las Vegas Gleaner, which has been on the case even longer than we.

Poor Robert Olmer. He does his best to defend Gov. Jim Gibbons, and gets canned after a teeny little flub of calling first ladies “window dressing.” Turns out, Gibbons has a lot of respect for the ladies. Well, at least the first ladies. My colleague Anjeanette Damon (she’s the first lady of Nevada journalism!)  obtained the following statement:

“Mr. Olmer’s recent remarks about the position of first lady in Nevada were beyond inappropriate and were demeaning, sexist and do not, in any way, reflect my feelings,” Gibbons said in a campaign press release. “I again apologize for Mr. Olmer’s remarks and I am taking this action to make sure this does not happen again.”

“First ladies in Nevada, including Dawn Gibbons, have worked hard for vital causes, charities and other organizations,” he said in the release. “I am adamant about this. I have no patience and no place for any person on my campaign who feels otherwise.”

Jim Gibbons, he of the hundreds of texts and parking lot — misunderstandings? — has no patience for sexist, demeaning remarks about women? Who knew?

But as my colleague Jon Ralston noted in a Tweet earlier, Gibbons’s swift (and, dare we say it, appropriate) action with respect to Olmer is actually bad news for his primary opponents, Brian Sandoval and Mike Montandon. See, Olmer had never run a campaign before, whereas Sandoval and Montandon are assisted by seasoned veterans, Pete Ernaut/Greg Ferraro and Steve Wark, respectively. Now, there’s a chance that Gibbons may convince somebody with talent to take over his campaign. (Can you imagine the advertising for the political consultant who took Gibbons of the 19 percent approval rating to victory in June?)

So, any takers?

After a disquietingly dark and silent couple months, the historic Sand Dollar Blues Lounge (3355 Spring Mountain Rd., 485-5401) is set to get loud and lit again. New owner Steve Champlin says tomorrow’s routine health inspection should be a breeze, as he’s put some significant cash into big renovations, including better bathrooms and replacement of those 20-year-old beer and mixer lines behind the bar.

“Your gin and tonic should taste better,” says Champlin, who promises his new Sand Dollar will retain all the essence of the old one, minus the excessive gnarliness. And he’s hitting the ground running; funk and blues rocker Stoney Curtis is slated to break in a new, simple-but-solid sound system that very night (Dec. 30), and the calendar is already pretty much booked through March with the likes of The Ruffnecks, The Moanin’ Blacksnakes, John Earl & the Boogieman,  Chris Tofield Band and John Zito & Electric Church.

For more info, check out the lounge’s new website, still very much under construction but already hinting at what new blood flowing through an old haunt can mean.

Before knee-walking your way into the new year, how about standing up for something a little heavier than the Treasure Island skull mug you’ll carry around half of tomorrow night?

Activists of a variety of stripes will converge tomorrow from 8:30a.m.  to 9:30 a.m. for their weekly peace vigil outside the Lloyd George Federal Courthouse — an event held here since 2003 and organized by, among others, the Nevada Desert Experience, an ecumenical anti-nuclear/anti-war group recently named one of CityLife’s Local Heroes.

For tomorrow morning’s event, gather at the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard South and Bridger Avenue and bring warm clothes to block the cold and wind.

From there, many in the group will march in the area from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. in support of peace in the Gaza Strip, the 25-mile long slice of Palestinian territory which has been ground zero for an ongoing war between Arabs and Jews since 1967.

December 27 marked the one-year anniversary of the latest Israeli blockade of Gaza, noted by United Nations officials this week as they urged Israeli leaders to end it.

For more information, visit the Nevada Desert Experience online or call them at 646-4814.

The announcement from Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, D-Carson City, that she’s not going to seek re-election next year will likely cast a pall over Democratic new year’s celebrations, since that’s one of only five seats in the lower house that appear at all competitive. And since Democrats can’t afford a net loss of even a single seat if they want to maintain their veto-proof majority, we suspect there’s a little scrambling going on right now.

Parnell’s district has more Republicans (9,612 active voters at last count) than Democrats (8,276) with enough non-partisan voters (2,980) to swing the election either way. Parnell was probably going to face a tough race no matter what, but now the Democrats will have to struggle to keep the seat without the advantage of incumbency. Put this one on your “races to watch,” junkies. We certainly will.

That’s not to say the end is near, however. In fact, if the Democrats pick up the District 13 seat (where incumbent Chad Christensen is term-limited and running to challenge state Sen. Dennis Nolan), the Democrats will be safe. That seat has a roughly 3,500 Democrat advantage. And the Democrats have a registration advantage in Assemblywoman Melissa Woodbury’s District 23 seat, too. Two other districts — Republican Lynn Stewart’s District 22 and Democrat Ellen Spiegel’s District 23 — are almost evenly split, which is always tense in a year that might see an anti-incumbent or anti-Democratic backlash.

But more on that in the new year. For now, let’s let Parnell say goodbye, via her statement:

“It has been my honor and privilege to represent AD 40 in the legislature,” Parnell said. “I am proud of the legislation we passed as a result of real concerns brought to me by my constituents—laws ranging from new protections for victims of domestic violence and measures to better protect Nevadans from identity theft.”

As chair of the Assembly Education Committee during the 2005, 2007 and 2009 sessions, Parnell was known for extensive hearings on issues facing our schools, with impressive participation by teachers, parents, administrators, students and the public. She is currently chairing an interim committee looking at ways to improve school governance.

Parnell said she will continue to be very active through the rest of her term, which ends in November, 2010, through her chairmanship of the education governance committee and through activities in her district. Parnell said she wants to continue to work in different venues on issues she is passionate about, particularly education and health care. She said she also looks forward to being able to travel more to see her two grandchildren, who live in Arizona and Illinois.

The last decade has been awful. Just awful. The death of Michael Jackson. Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. An economy in shambles. Can we get a do-over?

Turns out there’s a reason we may not want one. This dark cloud of a decade actually had a green lining — at least according to a report issued by the National Wildlife Federation. While the organization dedicated most of the piece to touting its own accomplishments, it also highlighted some very real progress on a couple of key issues.

Those include passage of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, which designated an additional 2.1 million acres of wilderness area. The federal government made its largest investments to date in high-speed rail, as part of the stimulus bill, and rewrote the tax code to stimulate investment in efficiency and renewable energy. There’s even a chance that Congress and the president will pass meaningful regulations on carbon emissions, a first step toward defeating the climate change boogeyman.

Of course, a lot of this is catch up. President Obama’s predecessor let the oil and gas companies have their way with public lands in Utah. And forget global warming. That guy didn’t even believe in basic biology.

Before we get caught up in the good news, it should be noted that the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen was an unmitigated disaster, with participants essentially agreeing not to agree on anything. But that’s just one setback, which isn’t so bad, considering it’s still the aughts.

On Sunday, the Las Vegas Sun printed an op-ed from Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, crowing about the “outrage” visited upon him by the attorney general’s office, which sought an indictment against Krolicki for allegedly misusing state funds. While entertaining, the op-ed fails to survive the close scrutiny that we at Various Things & Stuff are only too happy to provide.

We won’t do our usual paragraph-by-paragraph dissection, since the op-ed is fairly easy to knock down. And we promise that we’ll stop telling the truth about this case just as soon as the lieutenant governor stops spinning the facts.

• Krolicki says Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s case was weak because two judges in Clark County “issued opinions admonishing the attorney general for her handling of this case.” In fact, one judge ruled the attorney general’s office had a conflict of interest in the prosecution, and another ruled the indictment was insufficient on its face. Note that neither of these decisions ruled on the MERITS of the case, which remain strong. A conflict of interest in prosecuting the case is irrelevant to whether Krolicki broke the law, and failing to explain the case properly is a far cry from saying there is no case to be made.
• (BTW, the case is easy to explain: Krolicki oversaw college savings programs, which generated fees. The law said he had to deposit those fees into state bank accounts. But he deliberately, willfully and intentionally ordered contractors not to deposit these fees in state accounts, but rather to spend them at Krolicki’s direction, which direction included producing TV ads featuring Krolicki himself.)
• Krolicki says the attorney general negotiated and approved contracts under which he administered the college savings programs, “and was essentially prosecuting me for actions it had approved.” In fact, Krolicki was prosecuted for failing to deposit moneys owed to the state into state bank accounts, actions which were neither contractual nor approved by the attorney general. This is what we in the business call “a lie,” and Krolicki should not be able to get away with telling it ever again.
• Krolicki says the programs in question were well-run, operated within budgets and didn’t cost the taxpayers a dime. This is true, but irrelevant to whether he failed to deposit money where it was supposed to go.
• Krolicki says the AG’s office and the state Board of Examiners approved “each and every contract.” Also true, but also irrelevant, since the acts for which Krolicki was indicted took place outside the contract and outside the law. Neither the AG nor the Board of Examiners (nor the Legislature) approved of Krolicki’s extra-legal acts.
• Krolicki says the excess funds generated by the program could only have been used on the program, not potentially spent on other state programs as Cortez Masto stated. To be honest, we are not sure who is right on this point, but again, it’s irrelevant. Krolicki failed to perform his duty as specified by law, and was indicted on that basis. Where the money would have gone had it been properly deposited is irrelevant to his prosecution.
• Krolicki says the attorney general’s office misused the criminal justice system and the media “to malign my reputation.” We concede it is a debatable point whether Krolicki should have been indicted and prosecuted for what he did (our own view is well known — the state treasurer of all people ought to follow the state budget act, and suffer consequences for failing to do so). But if Catherine Cortez Masto believed a crime had been committed, could identify the perpetrator and had an honest belief she could secure a conviction by persuading a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, which, by all accounts, she did, then there can be no “abuse” of the criminal justice system. Krolicki’s reputation was maligned by his own bad acts, not by Cortez Masto.
• Finally, people, let’s not forget that this was not a battle between a Democratic attorney general and a Republican lieutenant governor. Nonpartisan state auditors discovered violations of law. Trained criminal investigators examined the case, and forwarded it to the AG for criminal prosecution. Veteran prosecutors looked at the evidence, weighed the facts and — after considerable deliberation — elected to proceed. A grand jury similarly examined evidence and heard from witnesses, and handed up a true bill of indictment. It wasn’t just the AG.

Sadly, however, because of procedural rulings by two judges — neither of whom entertained the case in chief — and because of a decision by Cortez Masto herself not to appeal the last ruling in the matter, a jury won’t ever hear the evidence. We don’t know what the jury may have ruled. We do know, however, that Krolicki’s defense in the Las Vegas Sun fails on almost every point. The only outrage here is that Krolicki expects the public to believe it.

That’s essentially what Robert Olmer, Gov. Jim Gibbons’s campaign manager, told my colleague Anjeanette Damon of the Reno Gazette-Journal today. Damon reported that Nevada would be without a first lady for the first time since 1915 once the divorce between Gibbons and his wife, Dawn, is finalized.

“Essentially, any first lady is to a large extent window dressing, just showing up for public events,” Olmer said. “I’m not sure how substantive having a first lady is.”

We wonder what Dema Guinn, Sandy Miller and Bonnie Bryan would say to that, to say nothing of Dawn Gibbons. To our recollection, all of those first ladies had worthwhile projects while in office. In fact, in a legacy-matching contest between the aforementioned firsts and Gibbons, we’ll take the ladies!

UPDATE: The governor’s spokesman, Dan Burns, can spot a public relations disaster when he sees one coming. He called Damon (who wrote a follow-up blog) to say, “The governor feels the office of first lady is an important and honorable position in Nevada.” Hey, don’t tell us, Dan, tell Robert Olmer!

This is a picture taken by photographer Marilyn Newton of the Reno Gazette-Journal at the conclusion of today’s divorce settlement between Gov. Jim Gibbons and his soon-to-be-ex wife, Dawn Gibbons. We thought you readers might enjoy a year-end caption writing contest. Let the wit flow! (To read the story, and see more photos, click here.)

A must-read article about the Arabic television network that’s revolutionized Third-World media and is poised to do the same in the English-speaking world.

The most interesting takeaway from the article is mention of an early 2009 Knight Foundation-funded study that found Al Jazeera “covers contentious issues in ways that contribute to an environment conducive to cooperation, negotiation and reconciliation.”

If true, it’s revealing to contrast those findings with our own experience of establishment broadcasters here in the U.S. which seem chiefly concerned with fanning the flames of war or swallowing, then regurgitating, the government’s official lines on important topics like torture, like why we’re really in Iraq and Afghanistan (oil, according to former Federal Reserve Bank chair Alan Greenspan) or on how a modern surveillance state (promoted by both major political parties) is somehow consistent with freedom.

If Al Jazeera fosters greater understanding, then don’t mainstream American characterizations of that broadcast network (which, somehow, we used to love before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks) just reinforce the truth that our mass media is chiefly a propaganda system?

I know that’s going all Matrix-y on you, but it’s a fair question to me, especially after reading some of modern journalism’s foundational thinkers like Walter Lippmann — who, although lauded in journalism schools for supposedly standing up to his fellow elites through his decades of characterizing American foreign policy as a “strategic monstrosity,” still believed the public to be a “bewildered herd” who must be ruled by a governing class dictating to the masses about what’s best for them.

Ironic, isn’t it, that foreign journalists could at last awaken the American public to what’s been done in their name for decades?

Reader Felix writes in response to our recent story on atheists’ billboards being censored:

Apparently freedom of speech is a great thing to support as long as it doesn’t feel offensive to anyone. Anyone of the majority that is. Of course the company has every right to react as deemed appropriate.
The people who should think again are those who would impose their own desires on the general public. Why is it always the religious majority whose members seek to censor, damage and (sometimes illegally) remove unwelcome messages? It seems that commandments about love and tolerance only go so far.

So says The Hill, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, in a story published today. The relevant passage:

Speaking of GOP governors who are in deep trouble: Perhaps no statewide official in the country can boast a disapproval higher than Gov. Jim Gibbons’s (R) 82 percent in a June Mason-Dixon poll. The good thing for Republicans is that they probably won’t have him as their nominee next year. Former District Court Judge Brian Sandoval is earning rave reviews and polling big leads over Gibbons, and he looks to be on the fast track to facing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) son, Rory, in the general election. Rory Reid’s candidacy is also interesting, because his father will be waging a highly difficult and visible campaign right next to him. Whether the Reid name is an asset or a liability, it will be on the ballot twice.

Oh, the Reid name is definitely a liability, but that’s no knock on Rory Reid. Since he entered public life as a Clark County Commissioner in 2002, Rory Reid has done nothing to earn the 28 percent unfavorable rating that a December Review-Journal poll found saddling him. The only explanation is the fact that his father’s unfavorables are even worse, and the fact that Rory Reid is a Clark County commissioner, a job that doesn’t have the highest respect among the public. (Hey, it’s still better than being a journalist, Rory.)

In an effort to combat the latter perception, Reid recently released a comprehensive plan to tackle public ethics in Nevada. He did something similar shortly after joining the commission, forming an ethics task force that produced a series of recommendations that were adopted by the county at the end of 2003.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, we’re just more than 24 hours away from what’s supposed to be the start of Gibbons’s divorce trial in Family Court in Reno. This, by the way, is not the way one wants to end the year or kick off a new year of campaigning or fundraising. Settlement talks are said to be going on in earnest, however, so Gibbons may yet be spared another humiliation.

Meanwhile, Sandoval hasn’t been very public lately, and we assume he’s been burning up the phone lines, dialing for dollars and letting Democratic lawmakers (and smart-aleck bloggers) take shots at his would-be primary opponent over the ongoing drama about how to handle the ever worsening state budget crisis.

Hey! We just realized The Hill totally left out mention of the other GOP candidate in the race, former North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Montandon. Unfair, Hill!

But the best news of all in the story for Rory Reid? The Hill labels the race a “toss-up.”

We’ve gotten tired of waiting around the office for our old partner Jacob Marley to come clanking around, so we’re hanging it up and heading home. But we wanted to say a special “happy Christmas” to all of our beloved readers, and to let you know how grateful we are for everybody who reads and/or comments on the blog. Readers are rare in this day and age, and we prize all of them that we can get. So have a great holiday, and we’ll see you back here on Monday for some end-of-the-year fun.

As our CityLife column this week reports, we’ve been in journalism for 20 years. And in that time, we’ve never, ever seen anything quite like this.