The first leg, New York to London, covered 3,180 nautical miles and burned 72,400 pounds, or 10,800 gallons of fuel. The return trip was slightly shorter in distance but longer in time. It covered 3,160 miles and used 85,700 pounds, or 12,800 gallons of fuel. With a full complement of passengers in both directions, that worked out to 752 pounds, or 112 gallons per person. Maybe it sounds like a lot, but each passenger driving that same distance would have consumed double the fuel.

This is true, but overlooks a few points.

1. Many flights don't operate with a full complement of passengers, so the fuel per person is correspondingly greater.

2. This is only true if each passenger drove in a car, by themselves. Carpooling comfortably at 4 to a car, for instance, would mean that the plane is consuming double the fuel of the car.

3. Airplane emissions are worse than car emissions in terms of global warming, due to their composition and their high altitude, or so scientist seem to agree.

So it is a long stretch to say flying is eco-friendly. It may account for a very small percentage of global emissions presently, but that is mostly because it is only economically within the reach of a small percentage of the world's population. Maybe it seems like everyone flies these days, but there are still a lot of people even in America and other wealthy countries who have never stepped into a plane (or at most once or twice). Even of those who do fly, only a tiny percentage are regular air commuters, compared to daily drivers.

On the balance, if you have to travel a long distance, best to take a train or bus, or carpool with at least a two other people. If that's not possible, then fly. (Carpooling with one other person is probably a wash when it comes to the environment, but flying is so much safer and faster for long distances than driving alone or in twos, that it is preferable.)

This almost makes me want to switch from supporting Obama to Clinton.

Attacking an attorney for doing her job? What, was she not supposed to zealously defend her client because the accusation was heinous, or because he couldn't afford to hire his own lawyer?

Should we just let the government throw poor people in jail for heinous crimes because they can get some little kid to mouth some words, and then expect the government-appointed attorney not to test the case?

Guess what, you accuse someone of a crime, you have to expect to go to court and be cross-examined. That's too bad for crime victims, but you would want the same if you were accused of a crime. Otherwise we might as well declare martial law and burn the Constitution.

So many distortions and false assumptions here.

1. Clinton didn't want this case. She wasn't doing it for the money--this was an indigent client in Arkansas for crying out loud; she got a pittance. A couple hundred dollars for a felony rape--and had to pay court costs out of her own fee. She hadn't done much criminal defense, was appointed by the court because she was one of only a few female attorneys in the county, and asked to be excused but was not allowed.

2. She didn't even "grill" the girl or cross-examine her. If you read the article, these issues were raised in relatively private, pre-trial court proceedings in order to secure him a good plea, and AVOID trial or the girl having to testify. In fact, the woman (who is now in jail) said herself that she had no idea that Clinton had raised these issues about her credibility, and she also said that Clinton was doing her job and she didn't hold it against her. As well she shouldn't, having gone through the system herself, she knows the value of a good attorney doing her job.

In fact, although filings may be public records, but as the article makes clear it is only Newsweek itself that is publicizing these filings. It is they, and not Clinton, who are dragging it before the woman and making it a matter of national attention.

Clinton had not just a professional but a moral duty to give her client the best defense possible. It is too bad people here think that there is a problem with that. No doubt if they ever have the pleasure of being a criminal defendant or being falsely accused they may feel otherwise.

As someone who posts with my real name and not some cutesy screenname, I haven't used the "Anonymous" option much but I'll miss it on a few threads if I continue to post. This will just force me or others to register anonymous-sounding sockpuppet accounts to achieve this effect. I think making people register and log in to post was as good as it got for you. The additional step of eliminating the "anonymous" button won't help stop abusers. It may stop people from embarrassing themselves and amusing others by accidentally posting and forgetting to check the anonymous box.