Recently I was on a United flight... the guy next to my b/f was watching a film with nudity on his laptop and someone from behind was watching according to my b/f (i noticed at the end of the inflight movie, which was not on purpose I was talking to my b/f and as close as the seats are, it was difficult not to). For him, it was quite obvious and surprising, as he got glimpses of some more stuff (not completely explicit though) Would have been really creepy had I been sitting next to him. But he was in the aisle, and in front half of plane. Noone complained.

This article said the woman had no part of her breast showing. Only her husband next to her, near the back of the plane.

When I was in elementary school, we went to see the state capital where there were statues of women with their bare breasts showing. We were shown them beforehand so not to giggle, and while we stared, noone giggled or acted immature. We were more mature than the Delta workers, apparently. Are we a country still stuck in elementary school where that stuff is to be giggled at? Really? We haven't grown up since then?

What is ironic, is the letter writer appears to get so angry at what someone calls "carbon neutral" vs "carbon dioxide neutral". If one does any research (even with good ol' Wikipedia) one can get a better ideaof why carbon was chosen and not carbon dioxide. Which is disappointing that Cary chose not to do any research on the terminology and encouraged the ignorance by letting the LW just assume everyone else was being ignorant (and therefore being guilty of what the LW is complaining about!). The combustion of non-renewable energy sources like oil and coal increase carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, which contain various mixtures of hydrocarbons, even gasoline is a mixutre of various molecules containing different numbers of carbon atoms, which use of these causes increase in an individuals carbon footprint, and carbon neutrality is a method devised to find a means to offset this usage, or not using carbon energy sources to begin with. To refer to it as carbon dioxide only would dismiss all the other components of the carbon cycle! And imagine how long every article would be if you started listing every carbon containing compound involved in the creation of carbon dioxide by name.

Only one "Editor's Choice" letter even points out that other compounds other than carbon dioxide!

Now if the LW had written to complain about how people think they are carbon neutral (when this is virtually impossible... I think Al Gore is full of himself when he says he is carbon neutral). It is admirable to try to be so, but I believe the majority who think they are carbon neutral probably aren't even close.

I haven't gotten to finish the article yet, but I started reading because it reminds me of the following website I came across a few months ago:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

This places four quadrants of the political being, not just socially left and right, but socially left authoritarian, socially left anarchist, and socially right authoritarian and anarchist....

Which very interestingly points out how there are both left wing and right wing fascists... where hitler is more right and though i don't believe they have mussolini pegged on this site, based on Goldberg's essay seems he would be the upper left quadrant, i.e. authoritarian and socially left.