We never grow out of it.

Imagine:

It's nondenominational-mid-winter-gift-giving-day. You've just opened the gift you wanted with all of your young being. Your parents haven't had a moment's peace since you decided that this is what you want.

Somewhere deep down inside you know that this gift cost more than your folks could afford. That you should be more thankful for the act of the giving than the gift itself. Or maybe not. How many kids really think on that mature an emotional level?

The gift, though. This they understand.

So you have the thing. You cherish it. All other things are set aside as this consumes you. Interactions with other things becomes all about the new thing. Unless, of course, it's part of a set. Even then, though, it's still more about the new thing than any of the old.

Everywhere you go, the new thing goes. For weeks. Months, if it was a really great thing.

Then, one day, you play with one of your other things. Just for a few minutes. The new thing is still the best. Later that week, it happens again.

Eventually you will put the new thing on a shelf and it will no longer be the one.

It will just be one.

If you are a careful steward of your things, it may come back out to play occasionally. If it's a good fit with the others, you may even still incorporate it often.

Still... it is now one of many; no longer the thing.

We still do this same thing as adults: as the exceptional becomes the commonplace, the magnificent is taken for granted.

Is there a word for emotional entropy? Is this fading of interest as inevitable as it is universal?

Don't tell me you've outgrown it; I know you haven't. You do, too.

This

is pretty much right on.

Chances are

that this will be my only comment on the race (and it's not even really mine):

Kathleen Parker:
Palin is everything liberals have always purported to want for women -- freedom to choose, opportunities for both career and family and a shot at the top ranks of American political life. With five children and an impressive resume, Palin should be Miss July in the go-girl calendar.

There's just one hitch: She doesn't believe in abortion except to save a mother's life. That's hard-core, even for pro-life Republicans, most of whom allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest. Women who won't budge on abortion have hit fast-forward in their heads and, given McCain's age, consider the risk too great that a President Palin would load the Supreme Court with pro-lifers who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Whether that is a realistic concern is debatable, but what's perfectly clear is that feminism today is not about advancing women, but only a certain kind of woman.

There may yet be reasons to find Palin an unacceptable vice presidential choice, but making pro-life decisions shouldn't be among them. Her candidacy, meanwhile, has cast a bright light on the limitations of our old ideological templates.

Should Palin and McCain prevail come November, feminism can curtsy and treat herself to a hard-earned vacation. The greatest achievement of feminism won't be that a woman reached the vice presidency, but that a woman no longer needed feminists to get there.

Also...

Next Government Press Release:

"Deficit Spending Good for Your Children"

Perhaps Washington had no choice but to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, considering what we now know about years of self-serving lying by the management of both institutions. But taxpayers have been put on the hook for at least $200 billion in loan guarantees. Buried in the conservatorship declaration is word Congress may add extra subsidies to Fannie and Freddie to keep mortgage interest rates low. Washington has been involved in many loan guarantees, but never in mortgage rates. This all-new subsidy will make mortgage markets political on a permanent basis -- any time rates rise, borrowers seeking mortgages will demand taxpayers subsidize them. By shifting to taxpayers (and to our children, via still more deficit spending) some of the cost of borrowing, this may only further distort the mortgage market, encouraging buyers and brokers to generate imprudent loans and then passing costs along to taxpayers.

Note another aspect of the Fannie-Freddie takeover that politicians don't want to talk about. On paper, the takeover looks like a bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy, creditors receive preference (because they hold a promise of payment) while shareholders are wiped out (because equity positions are speculative and known to buyers to guarantee nothing). The Fannie-Freddie takeover preserves the companies' bondholders, while making shareholders appear to get clobbered -- the government receives a warrant to claim up to 80 percent of shares, which would slash a share in Fannie or Freddie to 20 percent of current value. But the government must exercise that warrant. If not, shareholders are bailed out too. As soon as attention shifts to the next screw-up, lobbyists for the rich quietly will twist White House and Congressional arms for assurances the warrants are never exercised. If this happens, average people will be taxed to protect the wealth of Fannie and Freddie shareholders. "We only wish [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson had gone further and erased all private equity holders the way the feds do in a typical bank failure … [share]holders deserve to lose everything." Who said this, some left-wing fanatic? The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

BW: So, yes. Raving liberals said that. They are the press, after all. Anyway, back to Gregg:

Stock prices rise on news that corporate dividends will now be billed directly to taxpayers.
Anyway, get a load of the headline on the Treasury Department announcement of the takeover: TREASURY AND FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY ACT TO PROTECT FINANCIAL MARKETS AND TAXPAYERS. We're reaching into your pockets for hundreds of billions of dollars -- to protect you!

Gregg says...

"Hold Your Horsepower:

Gasoline demand has declined slightly since 2005. And a few months ago, Congress enacted the first tightening of vehicle fuel economy rules in two decades; barrel prices of oil are declining. So far, so good. But oil is still well over $100 per barrel, versus about $74 at this time last year, and gasoline still costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than at this time last year. The longer-term picture is bleak. In 1973, America imported 6 million barrels of petroleum daily. Currently it imports more than 13 million barrels each day. Yesterday I heard a radio announcer say, "Now that the gasoline price crunch is over …" Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that America's petroleum addiction is even close to fixed.

For cars, SUVs and light trucks, there are two forces at play in oil-addiction trends, but only one is generally recognized. Everybody knows the fad of big vehicles increases petroleum needs -- according to the EPA, the average weight of passenger vehicles has risen 30 percent since 1988, while average MPG is down. The other factor, little acknowledged, is horsepower, which has risen even more sharply than weight. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle sold in the United States had 120 horsepower. For this model year the figure is 230, almost double. There will be no fundamental change in oil import levels until horsepower numbers change.

Like weight, horsepower depresses fuel economy. Simply knocking a third off the horsepower of new U.S. passenger vehicles would, in about a decade -- as efficient new vehicles replace wasteful old ones -- eliminate approximately the amount of oil the United States imports from the Middle East. Yes, it's that simple. Race cars need lots of horsepower; suburban family cars do not. Excessive horsepower causes the United States to be dependent on Middle East dictatorships, engages military commitments to those dictatorships, drives up the price of oil and pushes down the value of the dollar. Horsepower is also the enabler of road rage -- rapid acceleration allows cutting off, drag racing and sudden lane changes. Road rage entered national consciousness as a problem in the mid-1990s, exactly when the horsepower ratings of new vehicles began to spike.

Yet nearly all auto companies selling in the United States continue to introduce overpowered cars that require far too much fuel. The problem transcends brands, whether domestic or international. The new BMW 550i sedan has 360 horsepower and records just 18 MPG. Pontiac's new 361-horsepower G8 GT is a small car that gets just 18 MPG. Only in America do small cars waste gasoline. Ford's new Taurus sedan has a 263-horsepower engine which delivers only 22 MPG in its front-wheel-drive variant, an awful 19 MPG in the all-wheel-drive version. The Taurus isn't a sports car, it's a family car! Toyota's new Camry, another family car, offers 263 horsepower and just 22 MPG. The Dodge Avenger, a family car, when ordered with the optional 255-horsepower engine posts just 18 MPG. Infiniti's 320-horsepower FX45, Cadillac's 403-horsepower Escalade and the 500-horsepower Porsche Cayenne Turbo achieve a dreadful 14 MPG. (All mileage figures in this column are the "combined" numbers that blend city and highway driving. Under real-world circumstances, especially stop-and-go commuting, many drivers average well below the official number.) Plus, the more horses, the more greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits 13.1 tons of greenhouse gases annually. Check any car's MPG and greenhouse numbers here.
A 1968 Corvette -- which had less muscle than a typical 2008 family car.
Less horsepower would mean better fuel efficiency, diminished petroleum imports and lower carbon emissions but, inevitably, reduced acceleration. Don't buyers crave speed? Most cars are already too fast! Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did zero to 60 MPH in 14 seconds; for 2008, the average is about 8.5 seconds. That new 263-horsepower Ford Taurus family sedan does zero to 60 in 6.5 seconds -- the same acceleration as the 1968 Corvette with the famed 427 big-block V8. The new Camry and Honda's comparable new Accord do zero to 60 in about 7 seconds. Acceleration of this type is not needed for everyday driving; such power is useful mainly for speeding, running lights and cutting others off. Lexus has aired ads boasting that its new IS-F model, with a 416-horsepower engine, does zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds; the new 480-horsepower Nissan GTR is even faster at 3.8 seconds. Both have dismal mileage ratings. Lexus is telling the business media the IS-F is intended for the United States and won't be pushed in the company's home market of Japan. There, the IS-F's road-rage engineering and 10.2 tons of greenhouse gases released annually might be controversial.

In addition to reducing fossil-fuel use, dialing down horsepower would reduce highway deaths. Researcher Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute has found that highway fatalities dropped sharply earlier this year as gas prices shot up, with highway deaths declining 22 percent in March and 18 percent in April. (Note: You can reach the Transportation Research Institute only by car.) This spectacular decline in deaths, receiving little public notice, came about, Sivak found, mainly when drivers slowed down in order to improve MPG. High-horsepower vehicles encourage speeding, because they make soaring above the speed limit feel effortless. If horsepower were reduced by sensible amounts, there would be less driving 80 MPH in 60 MPH zones, or 50 MPH in 30 MPH zones. Sivak's numbers suggest that if America became sensible about speed, perhaps 8,000 lives per year could be saved. Eight thousand lives per year would represent more Americans saved than if all incidents of drowning were eliminated.

Federal legislation to regulate the horsepower of passenger vehicles, perhaps by establishing a power-to-weight standard, would reduce petroleum consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower U.S. oil imports, strengthen the dollar, and take some of the road-rage stress out of driving. So what are we waiting for? Whatever your answer, don't reply, "No one can tell me what I can drive." Courts consistently rule that vehicles using public roads may be regulated for public purposes, such as safety and energy efficiency. NASCAR races occur on private property -- there, horsepower is nobody's business. On public roads, horsepower is very much everybody's business. You'd be laughed at if you asserted a "right" to drive a locomotive down the freeway. Where is it written we have the "right" to operate an overpowered car that wastes oil and pollutes the sky?

NASCAR cars need high horsepower, cars bound for suburban shopping malls do not.
Meanwhile, all the talk lately has been about getting drivers into hypothesized future vehicles that might get excellent mileage, such as plug-in hybrids. Even assuming such cars someday are in showrooms, the payoff is greater for getting people out of low-mileage vehicles right now, because low-mileage vehicles are disproportionate consumers of fuel. Assume an average year of 12,000 miles traveled. The driver who trades in a 15 MPG SUV or high-horsepower car for a 20 MPG standard-engine full-size car would reduce fuel use by 200 gallons. The driver who trades in a 20 MPG full-size car for a 25 MPG midsize would reduce fuel use by 120 gallons. The driver who trades in a 25 MPG midsize for a 30 MPG compact would cut fuel use by 80 gallons. The driver who trades in a 30 MPG compact for a 35 MPH current-technology hybrid would save 60 gallons. And the driver who trades in a 35 MPG current-technology hybrid for a 40 MPG advanced plug-in hybrid would save 40 gallons. By far the best oil-reduction bang for the buck lies in people giving up large SUVs, pickup trucks used for commuting, plus any type of overpowered vehicle, in favor of driving regular cars. The math is presented in detail in this paper by Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University. This suggests that instead of tax policy being focused on credits for buyers of high-mileage hybrids, and federal subsidies being focused on the development of high-mileage hypothesized future designs, tax policy should reward those who junk SUVs in order to buy regular cars. Tax programs to encourage drivers to junk old high-polluting automobiles were successful, so a junk-your-SUV program might work, too.

Horses + bruised? ribs + tires = a day off?

Background information:
I parked a truck and fifty-two horse trailer at my home last night. Said trailer had a horse in it when I went to bed.
Earlier this week, it became uncomfortable to breathe deeply and downright painful to sneeze or otherwise abruptly flex my chest cavity due to a mysterious ailment in my ribcage.
My minivan has a slow leak that left the tire flat over the course of not driving it this week.

Today (beginning around four forty-five):
Left for work with truck and trailer. Ten minutes from home: Sparks. Lots of 'em. Coming from somewhere at the back of the trailer. Pulled over; Blow Out. Spectacular. Most of the tread wrapped around the axle. Nearly the entire sidewall intact, still on the rim.

Look for tools:
Star wrench? Check. Spare Tire? Check. Cool little ramp to lift the axle so I don't need a death trap (AKA "jack")? Check. Painful to move in a twisty way? Check. Pain exacerbated when bent over (as in changing a tire)? Check.

It is less than tons of fun to try to change a tire with bruised? ribs. I say, "bruised?", because I assume I would be far less functional were they broken.

Tire off. Spare tire... Hmmm, that nut seems to be awfully long winded. Oh, never mind, the bolt is turning with it. Seems a certain Montana weld did not hold.

Now I have to call in the big guns - dun da da dun daahhh!!! Pops to the rescue. Not the speedy rescue, of course. You get what you pay for, and I treat that poor bastard like family.

Whew! Glad that didn't go smoothly.

Three hours later, I call to tell Eddie that I'm not going to make it to his last day of work, because I don't want anyone to see me cry when he leaves.

Now my ribs hurt. I'm going to take some drugs and lounge.

Not, in all likelihood, for the... uhhh... "adults" in the crowd.

That means you, Pops, for sure.

My theory of naturopathic medicine is getting around, it seems.

While I'm posting in a not-for-Pops sort of way:

the new Savage Love has Sherman Alexie as a guest, Pedro.

Art?

I maybe agree with this guy 30% of the time. This time, however, I am in full agreement with his consternation. And, yes, for the record: This woman is scum, but her right to be scum must be preserved.

LEONARD PITTS JR.

You can't blame Karen Fletcher for deciding not to fight.

Had she lost, she faced the possibility of five years in prison. Under the plea agreement she accepted in early August, she got six months of house arrest, five years on probation and a $1,000 fine. But if the agreement allows Fletcher, of Donora, Penn., to avoid the more onerous punishment, it also allows us to avoid what surely would have been a violent collision between morality and the Constitution.

Karen Fletcher is a pornographer. And not just any old pornographer: the 56-year-old woman specializes in the rape, torture and murder of children. Indeed, children as young as infancy.

Here's the twist: no children were hurt by -- or even involved with -- Fletcher's pornography. She was prosecuted under federal obscenity statutes for writing fiction depicting the violent abuse of children. Fletcher has said the stories were her way of coping with sexual abuse she herself suffered as a child, a claim somewhat undercut by the fact that she was profiting from her work to the tune of 30 subscribers paying $10 a month to read the stories on her website.

All of which leaves me feeling . . . irresolute.

On the one hand, you have a woman doing a repellent thing with no discernible social value. By all available evidence, Fletcher's imagination is a garbage barge ripening under the sun. The world of arts and letters -- the world, period -- is not diminished

by the loss of her work.

On the other hand, you have a writer prosecuted -- in America! -- for something she wrote. That demands a ruminative pause if not, indeed, a full stop.

And here, I was going to draw a distinction between words and pictures, to say that Fletcher's sin, awful as it was, involved ''only'' words, not graphic, stomach-churning images. But that would have been a hypocritical cop-out from someone who makes his living with ''only'' words and has spent years proselytizing for their power. So let us concede: Words have weight.

No, the question here is not whether Fletcher's work is suitably repugnant, but whether the government has a role in regulating it or anything else whose production does not cause injury. If her stories did not harm any children, does the government have a compelling need to restrict them?

I don't know that it does.

You may well disagree, and you'd have ample ground to do so. But you'd want to be careful that ground did not become the proverbial slippery slope. If offensiveness alone is reason enough for government to abridge the right of free expression, then what protects Stephen King, whose novel Pet Sematary includes the grisly desecration of a child's grave? Or Vladimir Nabokov, whose novel Lolita depicts a middle-aged man's sexual obsession with an adolescent girl? Or, indeed, any writer whose work travels dark paths, sheds light on dank and shadowed corners of human existence?

What is the line where obscenity ends and art begins? And who gets to say?

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said of pornography that he could not define it with legal exactitude, ''but I know it when I see it.'' Many of us would doubtless agree with him.

But that standard, which works reasonably well among individuals, has potential to be a cudgel in the hands of government, particularly a government prone to extraordinary and even extralegal means of enforcing its vision of morality. So the prosecution of Karen Fletcher is a discomfitting thing.

I make no case for her as a great artist. My concern is for tomorrow's great -- or not so great -- artist whose work deals in the repugnant and the disgusting. To be sanguine about his freedom and Fletcher's fate requires that one trust government to understand and respect the difference.

And I, for one, do not.