Sometimes, news flies through the air so quickly a once-a-week column doesn't suffice. So here's some scattershot opinions on recent events:

• Gas boycott: Should anyone be remotely surprised that this week's one-day boycott of gasoline purchases was an abject failure? The boycott originated somewhere on the Internet, presumably by people who failed economics 101.

The only effective one-day boycott I can imagine would be one in which people agreed to go without air. Even a hunger strike would be considered laughable if it lasted only one day.

Want to force gasoline prices down? Boycott gasoline purchases for an entire month or more. Many people would say, "I can't do that because I would have to drastically change my lifestyle." And that's precisely the point. If people turned to mass transit, bicycles or other means to get around, demand for gasoline would subside, oil companies would see they had reached beyond a limit the market would bear, and prices would come down. Of course, by then a lot of people would be enjoying their new lifestyles and might refuse to go back, which would not be a bad thing.

• Utah's fourth congressional seat: At what point does the Constitution really mean what it says? Should we be able to elect an exceptional leader as president even if he happens to be 34 years old? (The Constitution says presidents must be at least 35.) Should we be able to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger president even though he wasn't born in the United States? Should the president be allowed to wage war without a declaration of Congress? (OK, maybe the ship has sailed on that one.)

The push by Utah's political leaders for a bill that would grant the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress and Utah a fourth representative confuses me. Utah, one of the nation's fastest-growing states, is virtually assured a fourth, or even fifth, seat after the Census in 2010. That would give Utah four or five representatives out of 435 total, not 437, as the bill pending in the Senate would provide. Utah's clout is small enough as it is without diluting it by making Congress bigger.

And then there is that little constitutional issue. The document specifically says the House shall be chosen by the "people of the states." Washington deserves congressional representation, but the Constitution deserves the respect of an amendment to make it legal.