I see your point and I'd like to add one. Unless this was done in private, this kind of behavior is going to be pretty obvious to anybody looking on. If you see something like this underway, even if it's not something you are involved in, you do have a responsibility to say something. All to often the helpless are left that way because people around them didn't care enough to give them a hand. I've seen it in the school yard with children and as an adult...

Why do you think? It's the same reason we hear about a white cop shooting a black kid but never about a black cop shooting a white one. What fits the PC narrative?

So you didn't watch how the bullies worked all this out on the playground as a kid? Or better yet, when you where an adult, watch your kids playing with a group of kids?

Seemed pretty straight forward to me how the abusers identify likely targets and how the suitable targets would react to situations. Even as adults, the behaviors are similar, even if the fine details of how it's done are a bit more nuanced.

No, only that THESE women where without the necessary self respect to RESIST this dirt bag and tell him to get lost. This lack of self respect is not related to gender, even though their gender was apparently part of the reason they where targets.

Oh man... This whole "They where manipulated into doing this by some guy" is just plain SAD. I have no doubt this guy did some pretty despicable things and violated the rules he agreed too. I also have no doubt that these women where at least partially responsible for what happened because they didn't say "NO!" to the guy in authority for what ever reason.

Clearly Lewin gets punished for violating the code of conduct, but it's just as clear that he was taking advantage of a set of women who where ill prepared to tell him to bugger off. I know it's not PC to ascribe blame, but these poor women do need to realize that they do have control and are not powerless to say no and they need to respect themselves enough to give the abuser the boot, and thus have some level of responsibility for what happened to them.

Look ladies, yea I'm a middle aged white male, but why do some of you let these things happen to you?

Now I'm not saying this guy doesn't deserve to be castigated for demeaning women, but shesh ladies, you need to have some self respect. I'm not saying this wasn't harassment, but don't let some scumbag do this kind of thing to you. Where is the outcry for the way this woman was raised? Where is the outcry for the mentalities that lead to a woman who cannot or will not stand up for herself? Who thinks that this kind of behavior is OK? That asking for and expecting racy pictures over the internet is something you can do? Why do we see situations where women are OBVIOUSLY bullied into doing things they wouldn't or didn't really want to do?

I raised my daughter to not be afraid to say no and mean it. To tell these abusers to take a hike, don't be manipulated into doing things you don't want to. If they don't respect you, they are not worth dealing with. Don't suffer fools who disrespect you and above all, respect yourself enough to say "NO WAY scumbag!" and mean it regardless who's asking or what position they hold.

I'm not discounting that modern technology hasn't drastically improved efficiency in automatic transmissions. I'm sure it has. I'm just saying that manuals have the ability of being more efficient by virtue of being simpler and lighter.

The added weight of the actuating devices in an automatic will lower your efficiency if nothing else. I understand that they've come a long way, but there are *still* losses when automating things. All things being equal, the manual transmission simply has to be more efficient, if for no other reason than it weighs less, so for a highway trip with the same payload over the same road, manual will win, even if by a very little bit.

Now if you don't drive the manual correctly and don't choose perfect shift points, you might induce more inefficiency than an automatic, but that's about driving habits and skill and not the efficiency of the transmission. Plus it may be that for city driving, no human can be accurate enough with the shift points to stay within an automatic computer controlled modern automatic, but again that's about the ability of the operator, but on the highway with the cruse control set, a manual will be better.

There is no way a manual transmission isn't more efficient in most cases, providing you drive them correctly. Manual transmissions are lighter, cheaper to build, and have lower operating losses (no torque converter and hydraulic pumps to run). Now if you drive a manual wrong and don't shift at the right times, MPG could be bad, but on the highway where shifting isn't done, you are going to literally drive away from an automatic efficiency wise.. Oh, and a manual transmission will last a LOT longer and cost you a lot less to maintain than that automatic.

Also #1 rule in driving efficiency isn't ditching the manual shift.... The #1 is managing your driving to minimize how hard you press either the gas or break. The less you press the peddles, the more MPG you will get and the less wear and tear you will do to your car. Don't be aggressive, drive smooth and calm. I find that I use more efficient shift points too, when I'm not trying to eek out that last ounce of performance... Well, that and keeping your tires inflated...

I see what you did there....

Hmmm.. So your argument is that because the internet crosses state and international boundaries the Fed is free to regulate it. The problem with this is that the commerce clause is about regulating TRADE as it crosses the boundaries between the states and other countries. The Fed can regulate, tax and otherwise control things that cross the state's border, but what happens within the state is the business of the state. The Fed has been justifying a LOT of things using the Commerce Clause, which are really pushing us into some very grey areas.

So, my reading says that the Fed can regulate buying/selling (commerce) that crosses the state line over the internet, but if the state wants to regulate ISP's within it's borders, it is free to do so w/o Federal involvement as long as the state doesn't stray beyond it's constitutional power. A state can force the collection of Sales Taxes on internet sales, they can asses fees and taxes on internet service, and if they want they can prohibit public entities from being ISP's.

The Federal government has slowly been increasing it's reach using the commerce clause as justification. THIS is what needs to stop.

Oh, and your Interstate Highway system example wasn't exactly the same as this. Interstates where built using Federal funds in cooperation with the states for the expressed purpose of interstate commerce. I don't see the Federal government doing the same with the internet, which is nearly 100% privately funded infrastructure with very little continued Federal involvement in it's design, construction or operation. Plus, if a state wanted to weigh commercial trucks as they entered and left and levy fines for being overweight, they are free to do that. Just like they are free to say to 18 wheelers "You cannot drive down this public road" and "You can only go this fast."

You want to give a stab at my question? OR Are you saying the 10th amendment doesn't apply here? Do feel free to enlighten me with your take on history.

You are correct. This is yet another liberal attempt to squash states rights with federal mandates.... (or madness if you like)

This kind of usurping of states authority has got to stop and we need to go back to "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So if you support such nonsense, WHERE in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the power to regulate internet providers?

THAT stinks.....

As I've told others... This is about FRACKING not drilling, so be sure to carefully consider what you read from that Google search. There is inherent risks in drilling a well, Fracking that well does not add to the risks. We've drilled wells for 100+ years now and they are considered safe. Why do we now blame fracking? It's DRILLING you need to blame, it's just that is not as powerful PR tool when you couch it the correct way eh?

Yea, so where is a study that proves the link between fracking and polluting ground water? I have one where they specifically looked for it over a year and found nothing.

Here's a hint... I'll be surprised if you can find anything that proves that fracking does anything to ground water... There are a whole lot of theories and a whole lot of people looking, but nobody has found the proof.

Oh, and here's another hint so you can avoid getting tripped up. I'm discussing FRACKING, not drilling, here. Don't get confused by the two operations. Drilling, which we have safely done for 100+ years now, DOES have various risks. Fracking, does nothing to add to the existing risks when drilling a well, it just adds to the cost and possibly what we can extract from the well...