Today marks a big change in the blog world, readers: We are closing down Various Things & Stuff and starting up an all-new blog, called SlashPolitics.com.

Don’t fret: You’ll still get all the blogging you’ve come to expect from us at Various Things & Stuff, although we will be losing the royal “we,” along with the cigar and sweet fedora. In exchange, you’ll get a lot more political news and headlines, both local and national, analysis, totally unscientific Internet polling and even videos.

SlashPolitics.com is up now, and we hope you’ll check it out, bookmark the page and return frequently for updates. (In the near future, we’ll find ways for you to subscribe so you can get an e-mail alert whenever we post.) As always, you can follow us on Twitter for breaking news, political updates and the occasional personal anecdote thrown in for good measure.

We’re excited about the new blog, and we hope you’ll be, too. So head there now!

The Response, a short film about a panel of military judges weighing the guilt or innocence of a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, has been selected as one of 10 short films to advance in the voting process for the 82nd Academy Awards. We featured this riveting movie in CityLife back in October, shortly after it had been screened and discussed by a panel of experts at the William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV.

The Las Vegas monorail is “a mess” in terms of its flagging ability to repay its debts. It seems overly optimistic ridership and revenue projections are the culprit, but there’s a lot more detail in this story by Dan Seymour in The Bond Buyer, a public finance newspaper.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele today called for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid to step over his references to then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama as “light-skinned” without a “Negro dialect.” The comments came on Fox News Sunday.

“I think he should,” said Steele. “There is a standard where Democrats think they can say these things and apologize when it comes from the mouth of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism. It’s either racist or it’s not. And it’s inappropriate, absolutely. So if the standard is the one we saw with Trent Lott as leader at the time, then I think this absolutely falls in that category here. … Remember, this is the same leader who just a few weeks ago was talking about health care in the context of slavery. Clearly he is out of touch.”

Whether or not Reid should step down aside, Steele clearly has a point here. As we wondered on Saturday, if this had been uttered by Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Minority Leader John Boehner, would Democrats have had the same reaction? Would the Rev. Al Sharpton be as willing to forgive? Somehow, we can’t picture that.

Then again, Steele was battling a racial slip-of-the-tongue problem of his own, having used the phrase “Honest Injun” recently in reference to the Republican Party’s platform. Steele rebuffed the notion that he ought to step aside from his job because of what he said.

“No, absolutely not,” he said. “Why should I Chris [Wallace]? I’m pushing the ball. I’m raising the money. I’m winning elections. I have got the base fired up.”

“If [the comment] is [offensive] I apologize for it,” he added. “I wasn’t intending to say a racial slur at all. The reality is that’s not the same as what we were talking about before.”

But wait: If the need to resign is mitigated by how well you’re doing in your job, would we not have to give Reid a break, given that he kept the Democratic caucus together on the health-care bill, albeit a bill watered down significantly from its original incarnation? And if the standard for guilt is whether one intended to use a racial slur, is it not possible that Reid is innocent, and that this is just another of the senator’s well-known gaffes?

In either case, we doubt that Steele will be the last person to call for Reid to quit, which is undoubtedly why he marshaled as much support as he could on Saturday, including from President Obama himself. Reid’s theory is clearly this: If the man who was the target of Reid’s remarks can forgive, why should anyone else hold a grudge?

Then again, we’ll bet this is not the last call for Reid’s resignation that we’ll see, and not just from the right. Las Vegas Gleaner Editor Hugh Jackson on Saturday said Reid should “take one for the team.”

UPDATE: Add Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn to the list of those calling for Reid to step down. Then again, Cornyn is the guy in charge of electing more Republicans to the Senate, so it’s somewhat self-serving, kind of like Jay Leno calling on David Letterman to quit. (Don’t do it, Dave!)

UPDATE 2: After Reid declared via a spokesman (hat tip to Jon Ralston) that he would not quit the race, his No. 1 primary opponent, Sue Lowden, lowered the boom. Her statement:

Nevadans do not need any more of Harry Reid’s “help” during these difficult times. Harry Reid uses his power for himself and his Washington liberal interests. Radical, left-wing interest groups have overlooked Reid’s pattern of insensitive remarks because they need him to do their bidding, rather than serve the interest of Nevadans.

His “help” for Nevada has bankrupted our state and made a bad recession worse. Harry Reid is raising our taxes during the worst recession we’ve faced in a generation. He is saddling our nation with trillions of dollars of debt. He is using the tax dollars of hardworking Nevadans to bribe fellow senators on unpopular, unaffordable legislation in the Senate.

Harry Reid is running as the most powerful politician Nevada has ever had, yet under his failed leadership, Nevadans face the highest home foreclosure rate in the country. We face the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation. We continue to face record business and personal bankruptcies in Nevada. And now, Reid is trying to strip us of our private health care decisions and hand them over to Washington bureaucrats.

Harry Reid has spent the last year helping bail out financial institutions, big insurance companies, and sitting on his hands while the President was steering convention business away from Las Vegas. What has he really done for Nevada aside from making matters worse? Nothing.

Voters tell me everyday that they have had enough and that they can no longer afford more “help” from Senator Reid. Not only do I agree with them, but I will ensure that when I’m in Washington, “help” means always putting Nevada first.

Why do we think that somebody in Reid’s camp has already considered taking Lowden’s line and running with it? “Harry Reid is … the most powerful politician Nevada has ever had.” — Sue Lowden. We can see the fliers now!

In addition to criticizing U.S. Sen. Harry Reid for what it called “racially insensitive” comments about President Barack Obama, the National Republican Senatorial Committee dug up Reid’s remarks from 2002, after former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was forced to step down, after it was revealed that Lott said the country would have avoided “all these problems” had Strom Thurmond’s 1948 pro-segregation Dixiecrat presidential bid been successful.

Reid was quoted thus by the Associated Press, back in 2002:

Sen. Harry Reid said Republican Senate leader Trent Lott’s decision to relinquish his post Friday came as no surprise.

“He had no alternative,” the Nevada Democrat and Senate minority leader said. “Senator Lott dug himself a hole and he didn’t dig it all in one setting. He dug it over the years. And he couldn’t figure out a way to get out of it.”

…

Asked if the episode would serve as a warning to weigh his own words carefully, Reid said: “You play how you practice.”

“If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

And if by that Republicans mean to indict Reid for harboring secret racist thoughts, it’s a failure, since there’s no evidence that Reid has ever told an ethnic joke in a back room. In fact, there’s no evidence that Reid has ever successfully told a joke of any kind, in any room. (When he tries, he usually ends up sending his critics into a paroxysm of overblown, misinformed and misdirected rage.)

But, if the Republicans mean to indict Reid for an overt consciousness about race, and the possible ways race can be manipulated in politics, that’s another matter. If we can draw nothing else from Reid’s comments about Obama, we can draw this: The 2008 presidential race was most definitely not a colorblind affair, at least as far as Reid was concerned. (Then again, how could it be? The entire country was transfixed by the election of the first black president in the history of a nation still scarred by the legacy of slavery.) To Reid, however, Obama’s race was a positive, inasmuch as the president didn’t look or sound too black, which apparently would have been a political liability. So, Barack Obama, good. Sidney Poitier or Chris Rock, bad?

It’s most definitely not something Reid wanted to have voters — especially black voters — wondering about him as he heads in to his final and toughest election ever.

It goes without saying that when your enemies are gunning for you, don’t hand them a loaded gun. Yet that’s precisely what U.S. Sen. Harry Reid may have inadvertently done, if the revelation in a new book is accurate. According to a story posted on The Atlantic website, Reid had this to say about then-fellow Sen. Barack Obama:

He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

Not only is the language offensive, but the quote seems to portray Reid as thinking of Obama’s race only in political terms, with a healthy dose of contempt for the American voter thrown in for good measure. Voters would be more willing to accept a black candidate if he’s not-so-black in appearance or speaking? Ouch. Plus, it’s clear that Reid, 70, is unaware of the passing into history of the term “Negro.”

Reid didn’t deny he’d made the remarks, which come in a new book, Game Change, by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. Instead, he immediately apologized for them in a statement:

I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans, for my improper comments. I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda. Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas Strip and the gaming industry to opposing racial judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues important to the African American community.

Nobody, however, is saying Reid is a racist. (The charge was raised after Reid objected to the seating of now-U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, but Reid had reasons aplenty to object to that appointment at the time.) What people may be saying after this revelation is that Reid is a cynic, acutely conscious of race and willing to use it as a political advantage when he can.

The timing of the revelations is bad, too: Next week, political operative Donna Brazile is scheduled to be in town for an event sponsored by African-Americans for Reid, one of several interest-specific caucuses formed to support the senator. We’re told today that the Brazile event is still on.

The Reid camp spin is that, while the senator expressed himself poorly, he was ultimately right: The nation was ready for a black president, and Obama did have impressive oratorical skills. There’s no denying either point. (Reid’s private and early backing of Obama while staying neutral publicly until the primary for the supposed benefit of other would-be presidents in his Senate caucus, including Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton, is another matter.)

But there’s also no denying that, in matters of race, the way a person expresses himself is as important as what he’s saying. And that, perhaps ironically, goes double for those who offer themselves as members of a party supportive of equal rights.

The question now is, will this revelation kill the Reid campaign, or simply be added to the long list of things Reid has said that he undoubtedly wishes he could erase from the public record? We’ll bet he stays in the race, but we’ll also bet he will see that material again. And again. And again.

UPDATE: As if to prove us right, Reid opponent Danny Tarkanian wins the first-to-slam sweepstakes, putting out a statement moments ago attacking Reid for his remarks and comparing him to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who called Obama “tanned” shortly after Obama’s election.

Here’s the statement:

A few weeks ago, Harry Reid compared his health care opponents to slavery defenders. Now he’s talking about our president’s ‘light skin’ and ‘Negro dialect.’ He disgraces himself almost monthly with some disparaging remark about his constituents, political opponents or now the president.

I notice he’s apologized already for these remarks, but we’re still waiting for his apology to the majority of Nevadans who oppose his health care plan.

Harry Reid isn’t just America’s most vulnerable senator — as he demonstrated daily, he’s also its most embarrassing.

UPDATE 2: The Republican National Senatorial Committee wasn’t too far behind Tarkanian. Here’s the group’s take, via Communications Director Brian Walsh:

For those who hope to one day live in a color-blind nation it appears Harry Reid is more than a few steps behind them. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a long history of embarrassing and controversial remarks by the senior Senator from Nevada. He always shares exactly what’s on his mind with little regard to perception or consequences, and it’s one of the reasons he is the most vulnerable incumbent Senator in either party facing re-election.

Nevada deserves better from its leaders and this November, voters in the Silver State will have an opportunity to elect a new senator who will put their views and values first and foremost. In the meantime, we hope Reid’s fellow Democrats in the Senate and on the campaign trail will stand up and rightly condemn these racially insensitive remarks by their elected leader.

Ouch, baby. Just in case reporters didn’t get it before, they will now, sure to ask Senate candidates elsewhere, “Do you repudiate Harry Reid’s remarks about President Obama?” This has the consequence of reinforcing the central perception that Reid is apt to speak without thinking (most kind interpretation) or that he harbors racist thoughts (least kind interpretation) without a pause to focus on Reid’s actual remarks or his attempt to explain them.

UPDATE 3: Reid called President Obama to apologize for his remarks, and Obama has accepted that apology, according to the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza. “I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years, I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart,” said Obama. “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.” Yes, Mr. President, but as far as the Republicans are concerned, Reid is an open book, and it’s not How to Win Friends and Influence People.

UPDATE 4: State Sen. Steven Horsford added his voice to the controversy today, too. Here’s what he had to say:

While I am disappointed in Senator Reid’s comment and choice of words, I accept his apology. I have known Senator Reid for many years and he has consistently been supportive of advancing the interests of the African-American community as he has for all Nevadans and all Americans.

I have known Harry Reid for many years — he is a good man.  I know Senator Reid’s character and I know, now more than ever, why his leadership is needed in Washington.   No one is more qualified to ensure the President is successful in helping this country recover from this economic recession.

UPDATE 5: And the Rev. Al Sharpton:

I have learned of certain unfortunate comments made by Senator Reid regarding President Barack Obama and have spoken with Senator Reid about those comments. While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing health care or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid’s door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.

(Notice Sharpton, like Reid, does not address the thoughts behind the poor word choice; that is the real issue here, no matter how much the Reid camp wishes it were otherwise. But having Sharpton in your corner on this is not at all a bad thing. Rev. Jackson, what have you to say…?)

UPDATE 6: And this, from House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who just happens to be a Democrat and black:

Senator Reid should be judged by his record which includes his efforts to promote diversity in the Senate, respond to issues of importance to the African-American community and advance President Obama’s agenda.

I am one of ‘those who wish to one day live in a color-blind nation,’ but the fact is that none of us do today. Senator Reid’s apology for his private assessment of President Obama’s candidacy should be accepted and our time and energy should be devoted to helping him overcome current obstacles to job creation, health care reform and energy independence.

We hate to be the cynical ones here, but we wonder if, perhaps, the speaker had been, say, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Minority Leader John Boehner, would Sharpton and Clyburn be so conciliatory?

UPDATE 7: Well, that tears it. Reid-hater and Review-Journal Publisher Sherm Frederick just posted an update on his blog in which he vouches for Reid as not being a racist. Guess that makes it unanimous?

Readers, your humble correspondent is heading back to broadcast television!

We’ve been hired to join the highly respected I-Team at KLAS Channel 8, to cover — what else?! — Nevada politics. We’ll be appearing on Channel 8’s 6 p.m. newscast twice each week to discuss political news, as well as covering Nevada’s sure-to-be-riveting 2010 elections in June and November. To be frank, we’re honored (and a little nervous) about joining respected I-Team journalists George Knapp, Colleen McCarty and Jonathan Humbert. After all, the last time we appeared regularly on TV, “high definition” was just a concept; now, it’s a graphic reality!

For our print and new media fans, don’t worry: We’ll continue to Tweet and blog all sorts of political news, as well as to edit CityLife and pen our weekly “Coffee & Outrage” column. And even more changes may be in the works soon. Bottom line: Red Bull. Lots and lots of Red Bull. And makeup. Nobody wants to be exposed to us — especially in high-def! — without makeup.

We’re excited for the opportunity, and extremely grateful to the powers-that-be at Channel 8 to get an opportunity to tell compelling political stories in a new medium, and to work with the most respected news team in Las Vegas. And we hope you readers will tune in. That way, we can say, “as always, thanks for reading … and watching!”

Those lucky few readers who follow us on Twitter learned earlier today that U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., has announced he’ll retire instead of seeking re-election in November, further imperiling U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s slippery grasp on the 60-vote majority. But Reid was gracious in his response.

“Byron Dorgan is a friend and has been a strong voice for North Dakotans during his 30 years of service in Congress. I respect his decision to pursue other interests and wish him and his family the best in the future.”

Of course, that was edited down from Reid’s original response, uttered when Dorgan first called to tell him the news: “Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!”

Here’s the thing about the F-word. When you use it, you have to think ahead. You have to be sure that it’s the thing to say, because once you deploy it, you’re committed. There’s no going back. If you later are forced to eat your words, the F-word goes down hardest of all.

For example, say the governor of your state has asked you for a list of budget cuts. Deep budget cuts. Like, 10 percent of your entire budget. Because, you know, the state is out of money, and he won’t raise taxes, so cutting is all that’s left to do. You could provide him with the list, as painful and rotten as it is, and wait for the budget axe to fall. (Hey, at least its falling where you — presumably — told him to cut, the areas that will least impact the people you serve, right?)

Or you could deploy the F-word. You could tell him that you’re not going to make cuts, that you’re well into your budget year, that contracts have already been signed, people have already committed to your program, and that it’s well-nigh impossible to cut now. You could even tell him that you already cut a lot, and that he should go find other places to cut.

In essence, you could tell him to go F-word himself.

But be warned: That’s a risky strategy. See, the governor in your state might have a lot of power, thanks to a constitution that makes the Legislature weak by design. Even if you have a separate board elected to oversee your program, you still might not be safe from the budget-cutting demands of your chief executive. Heck, he might just cut your department a smaller check, at which point you’d have no choice but to cut. It’s not like you can pay for everything on your state-issued credit card, right?

In that instance, you’d be forced to eat your words, including the F-word. Yes, you could dress it up, make it look like it’s not a big deal, like you didn’t just a month earlier sit down and write a memo that clearly, unmistakably and universally was recognized by everybody involved — including the governor — as the F-word memo. You could try that. But nobody would believe it.

The moral of the story is not “never use the F-word.” Sometimes, you have to use the F-word. Sometimes, it’s a moral imperative, in fact.

No, the moral of the story is, “be careful when you do use the F-word.” Think ahead. War game it for a little bit.

Because there’s nothing worse than — after you think you’ve properly deployed the F-word — realizing that you miscalculated, and hearing your target say in reply, “F-word me? No, F-word you!”

Toward the end of Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid’s news conference today — the one where he announced several government reforms — he allowed that the political fallout could cut either way. “I think it’s impossible to measure the political impact [of the reforms],” he said. “It might help me, it might hurt me.” But, he said definitively, “I was elected to do a job.”

Indeed, he was. And, if nothing else, you’ve got to give Reid credit for speaking up when he did, when staying silent might have been the more politically prudent course.

As for the substance of his proposals, it’s a quick list when one boils it down to specifics:

• Transform University Medical Center into a non-profit, or a teaching hospital, “…or another financially viable model.” Since the county ran a deficit at UMC of $140 million in the last fiscal year, the number of “financially viable models” appear fairly limited.
• Re-open public employee union contract negotiations. This is the most politically perilous of Reid’s suggestions, although it’s not something new. (He asked for concessions last year, too.) Of this year’s move, he said that “our labor agreements are not sustainable in the long term” and that “everything’s on the table.” For unions that have won good contracts during boom times, that’s not so good. And for Reid, running for governor and needing all the help he can get, it’s not exactly the way to win an endorsement.
• Put about $300 million in public works infrastructure projects out to bid as soon as possible to create jobs.
• Consolidate some IT, finance and human resources employees. (Apparently, many county departments each have their own IT, HR and finance employees.)

Past that, there were some semi-vacuous sound bites, things about “public-private partnerships” to create jobs, or “partner with the private sector to create jobs.” (Hey, that’s a great idea! Why, if only somebody said that a year ago, we’d probably all be rolling in cash right now!) But there was enough of substance to make it worthwhile for Reid to hold the news conference the day before he’ll bring these ideas before his colleagues. A couple observations on the recommendations, and then on to the politics.

1. UMC: Reid and county officials admit that even if UMC closed its doors due to debt (a situation Reid said was possible) or is transformed into a non-profit, the county will still be on the hook to pay for indigent health care. It’s a mandate, and one the county cannot escape. If there was no UMC, the county would simply pay private hospitals for indigent health care. But, Reid argues, that cost would be much less than the $140 million in red ink UMC cost in the last year.
2. UMC officials: Reid said he has questions about the “competence” of UMC officials in light of recent news accounts, including the Las Vegas Sun’s revelation that patient information had been leaked from the hospital to personal injury lawyers. UMC CEO Kathy Silver told the Sun she looked into the allegations but dropped them after a cursory review. “I think that Kathy has done a good job up until now, but we have to continually review” operations, Reid said. County Manager Virginia Valentine will undertake that review, Reid said.
3. The timing: Reid said he held his news conference on Monday — even in light of that terrible courthouse shooting this morning at the Lloyd George federal building — because of the urgency of the need to get costs under control. “There are things that we just need to get going on. I didn’t want to wait,” he said.
4. Next up: Convincing his colleagues, including Chris Giunchigliani, Lawrence Weekly and Tom Collins. That starts tomorrow, when Reid’s ideas are on the county’s agenda for discussion. That should be worth the price of admission.

And now, the politics! Although Reid tried to downplay the political significance of his remarks, and say that he was just doing his job as a commissioner, the fact is, you cannot separate the two, especially since he’s an announced candidate for governor. He’ll be running in a state with a record of fiscal conservatism, and one cannot deny that it looks good for him to be:

1. Standing up to the big, bad public employee unions.
2. Calling for the county to tighten its belt, just like families have to do in tough times (thank God he avoided the cliche “Nevada families” line).
3. Calling to get spending at a decidedly liberal public institution — the county hospital — under control, by, in part, making it not a county hospital anymore.

If Reid was weak anywhere, it was in his stewardship of the county hospital. (Previously, the commissioner had informed people that UMC was a public service, and that it would always lose money. Reminded of that today, he said — in effect — that losing money is one thing, but losing $140 million is another thing entirely.) He was vulnerable to an attack along the lines of this: If Reid can’t even run the county hospital without massive debt, how can he be expected to run the state’s budget without massive tax increases? Today’s move blunts that attack somewhat, as well as providing him cover on the much-less-effective attack that he’s a union toady.

Of course, we’ve yet to see the final product. If Reid is unable to win concessions from organized county labor, or if the UMC “transition” turns into a drawn-out boondoggle, things might change for the worse. Conversely, if Reid is able to actually bring county labor costs under control and transform UMC into a better-performing operation, or at least take steps in that direction, he’ll be helped. Since he has no significant primary opposition, he’s got some time on his hands before the race begins in earnest in June.

The fact that Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid — son of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — is running for governor got a little notice in The Hill today. It seems the Reids aren’t the only potential political dynasty in the making in 2010. Sons of Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the late Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter may all be on ballots somewhere in the U.S. this year.

Of Nevada’s race, The Hill said this:

The son of the Senate majority leader is running for governor of Nevada and is the only Democratic candidate in the race. It’s not Reid’s first shot at elected office; he’s the chairman of the Clark County Commission.

But Reid’s last name could prove a burden since his father faces a difficult reelection battle. Harry Reid trails his potential GOP competitors in several matchups and the majority leader’s disapproval ratings hover around 50 percent.

When Rory Reid was in Washington earlier this month for a Democratic Governors Association meeting, he told reporters he and his father are running separate races. A campaign spokesman said there are no events scheduled with Sen. Reid.

[Rutgers University political science professor Ross] Baker says voters can differentiate between the men.

“Voters can distinguish between members of the same family,” he said. “I don’t think voters punish children.”

Really? They don’t? Then how to explain Rory Reid’s lopsided unfavorable ratings, especially given that he’s done a pretty good job serving on the Clark County Commission? It’s can’t all be G-sting fallout, can it?

We tend to think Nevada voters are kind of like the God of Exodus: “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…”

The Las Vegas Sun’s J. Patrick Coolican has two stories in today’s newspaper that every Las Vegas resident — especially those in positions of power in government and business — ought to read. The first details how this city built on illusion and deception ended up deceiving itself into thinking the good times were going to last forever. The second wonders if we’ll learn from our mistakes.

So, once the hangover wears off, check them out. Hell, clip them out; we sure did. And remember this most important lesson: The Las Vegas of the past is gone for good. We start today to make the Las Vegas of the future. And a lot depends on getting it right.

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?