If you’ve been reading, you’re caught up on most of the happenings. We include a few more herein. Also, we apologize for our recent tendency to make typos. It’s a poor excuse, but we typed up some of our instant blogging on a BlackBerry, which has a tiny screen unsuited to editing, especially late at night. But our mistakes are our fault; our thanks to the anonymous lawmaker who has graciously volunteered time as our copy editor. We hope not to press her into service much more.

Here we go!

• The state Senate doesn’t engage in the bizarre practice of inducting members into something called the “Cowboy Hall of Fame.” But if it did, the funny nickname given to state Sen. Dennis Nolan would no doubt be “The Terminator.” This guy never gives up, and he’s totally robotic in his mission.

Lawmakers have already voted down two Nolan initiatives — one to allow police to issue robo-tickets for red-light running via cameras that snap a picture of your car; another to allow police to pull you over just for not wearing your seat belt. But that doesn’t mean Nolan isn’t going to try, try again.

(To be sure, he was quoted by the Review-Journal saying, “I am not giving up. Nothing is dead until sine die. If something is worth fighting for, then it is worth irritating people for.” Unfortunately, Nolan’s idea of what’s worth fighting for is curiously authoritarian.)

So, Nolan tried to attach the so-called “primary offense” seat belt law to another bill, with a series of amendments designed to make it appeal to reluctant senators. But it failed on a voice vote Friday, dealing Nolan yet another defeat.

But he wasn’t finished: Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Kelvin Atkinson took to the Assembly floor Saturday to ask his colleagues to reject an amendment that Nolan attached to another bill that would legalize red-light cameras in a pilot program in North Las Vegas.

“Someone snuck some red-light camera action in this bill, and we’re not into red-light cameras in this house,” Atkinson said. The bill now will go to a conference committee, where we’re sure Nolan’s efforts will once again meet with defeat.

Why do we think Gov. Jim Gibbons will sign a tax increase, Mayor Oscar Goodman will give up drinking and we at Various Things & Stuff will go back to being a Republican before Nolan gets his favorite bills signed into law?

• Speaking of things said on the Assembly floor, the room filled with audible gasps after Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto rose to discuss an ethics bill. “We take ethics more seriously in this house” than in the Senate, she said.

Ouch, baby. Very ouch.

• The Las Vegas Sun reported Friday the rumors that had captured some attention in the legislative building: The attempted coup against Republican Minority Leader Garn Mabey.

Coup leader? Assemblyman Ty Cobb, who apparently thinks Mabey is too conciliatory and moderate. Cobb reportedly approached Republican Heidi Gansert, the assistant minority leader, to take over. According to the Sun, she demurred.

You know, Mabey seems like a nice enough guy to us. Sure, he was one of the votes against requiring insurance companies to cover the vaccine for a virus that causes cervical cancer, but he cited medical research to justify his vote. That makes a lot more sense than the stupid and hypocritical opposition to “mandates” cited by others opposed to the bill.

But we think Cobb would make a great minority leader. He obviously wants the job. And as a leader of the Nevada Socialist Workers Party and an officer of the Liberal World Revolutionary Council, we fully endorse Cobb for the job.

And that should tell you everything you need to know. No?

• Gov. Gibbons really, really wants you to know he’s against tax increases.

Last week, he came to the Legislature to tell the Republicans of both the Senate and Assembly he would veto any bill that contained a tax increase. The next day, he held a news conference in his office to tell the press the same thing. He followed up with a statement reiterating his stance, which we dissected on this blog.

And on Saturday, the governor repeated his stance once more, with a twist. He sent out a statement reacting to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority’s Friday special meeting, at which members lambasted the governor for his lack of communication and plan to take LVCVA money for road-building.

Let’s review that e-mailed statement:

“One of my most important jobs as governor is to raise issues and propose solutions that benefit the people of Nevada. If yesterday’s LVCVA meeting and some of the comments that came out of that meeting are any indication, I have certainly done my job and inspired some rather spirited discussions. People who at one point said that no money could be spared are now willing to step up with millions. That is progress.”

See? Gibbons is just like Jonathan Swift, making modest proposals. He only wants to spark debate! He doesn’t really want to gut the LVCVA’s budget, destroy its bond rating and prevent it from expanding its convention center! (Well, actually he does, but that’s another blog.)

But, Gibbons does have a point: The initial reaction from the LVCVA was that they couldn’t spare a dime, and on Friday, leaders admitted that it could spare, like, $20 million for roads. The first rule of politics, people: Always keep your options open. By saying "no way" from the starting gun, and later compromising, the LVCVA has hurt itself.

More Gibbons:

“We have a responsibility to address this transportation crisis — and as governor I have a responsibility to suggest solutions — solutions that can be debated and resolved.

“I have said from the beginning that my proposal is just that — a proposal — and that I was and am willing to listen to other suggestions and ideas in order to resolve this problem. I meant that then, and I mean that now.”

Why, he sounds downright reasonable. Open minded, even. Might the governor be actually willing to compromise?

No, not really.

“However, I also said last year and have repeated often this year, I will not raise taxes on the people of this state. For anyone who doubts my resolve on this — let me make it clear one more time — I will not raise taxes to fund the transportation problems of our state, period. I have said from the beginning that I do not believe the citizens of this state should be required to shoulder the burden of paying for growth through higher taxes. There should be no mystery here about my position on increased taxes.”

Actually, the only real mystery is this: Gibbons acknowledges that the growth in new residents is causing the problem, but doesn’t believe “…the citizens of this state should be required to shoulder the burden of paying for growth though higher taxes.”

So residents should get roads for free? We shouldn’t make growth pay for growth? Who should bear the burden, then? And can we get those sugar daddies to pay for our other stuff, too? For example, we at Various Things & Stuff are thinking of buying a new car. Can we make tourists pay for it?

Gibbons goes on to point out that the state budget has increased by 16.5 percent, or $954 million in increased spending. “We have existing revenue streams that can and should fund our needs. We can and will use those revenues, not create new ones," the statement reads.

Of course, we disagree. Some of the $954 million is eaten up by what they call “roll up” costs, or the regular increases in the cost of programs. (For example, more students in schools means more money is needed for schools.) Because of inaction from past legislatures, we’ve got backlogs in road and prison building. And it would be nice to get kids started earlier on their pathway to smartification, as our president might say, wouldn’t it? That costs.

Finally:

“I can accept compromise. I cannot, and the people of this state cannot, accept inaction. Therefore, I call on [Assembly] Speaker [Barbara] Buckley to schedule hearings on this transportation bill as soon as possible.”

Interesting, in two ways: First, because Gibbons didn’t step forward until very recently, there is no bill with his transportation plan to hold hearings on. Mabey has reportedly agreed to carry the measure, but has yet to introduce it. We’re all waiting on that one…

Second, we can’t help but notice that Gibbons didn’t also call on Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio to hold hearings on his plan, did he? Could that be because Raggio has already signed off on it? (Answer: NO! Raggio didn’t stand behind Gibbons at a news conference at which the governor’s plan was announced.) Perhaps its because Gibbons doesn’t want to annoy Raggio — always a good political possibility — since Raggio will soon be deciding on a final transportation plan that may involve the one thing Gibbons refused to compromise on: taxes.