14 in 1000 vs. 15 in 1000. Is that a big difference?

Well, it's a drop of about 6.7%.

**********************

I think that Ms. Harris might be confused either because dropping from 15 to 14 is just a drop of 1, or dropping by 1 out 1000 doesn't seem that big. But either way, she is not looking at it proportionally.

Perhaps dropping from 15000 in a million to 14000 in a million -- a drop of 1000!! -- would seem a bigger deal?

On the other hand, one might also see that less than 1/5 of 1% of women aged 15-44 get unsafe abortions, itself a very small number. So, perhaps no drop could seems that big, as it would be a drop in a number that is small in the first palce.

***********************

But I think that the most likely cause of the problem, however, is just bad journalism. The report says, on page 4, "The estimated number of unsafe abortions changed little during this period—from 19.9 million to 19.7 million...the unsafe abortion rate declined hardly at all—from 15 to 14 per 1,000."

Ms. Harris does not appear to be reporting on the this report, or analyzing. Rather, she is summarizing. Or, perhaps she is writing a press release for the Guttmacher Institute? If any of these, however, she misses the difference between a rate and a total.

It is true that the reports says that the number of unsafe abortions "changed little." But it DID drop, despite a presumed increase in population. The total number dropped by just a little over 1%. But the rate? The rate dropped by nearly 7%!!

The rate dropped more than FIVE TIMES as much as the total number -- due to population inceases, of course.

A drop of just over 1%? Not a big deal. But a drop of nearly 7% in less than a decade? That's bad? What would a decent sized decline be, over such a period?

**************************

Is this a big deal? Well, understanding statistics and how to present **is**, in fact, a big deal. If you are going to present them, it is incumbant upon you to understand them.

It is highly unlikely -- actually completely unbelievable -- that the judge himself wrote this whole order himself.

Rather, he devoted the resources of his office to it. No doubt, he led the effort. But the grunt work of research and drafting likely fell to one or more clerks.

So, let's give them their due, whomever they may be.

Athletes in sports like tennis are supremely physically conditions. Strong, quick, powerful.

Officials are not.

Officials put themselves in harm's way to get the right angle to make a call. They are weaker, slower, an vulnerable. They serve the sport, and thereby serve the athletes.

But most highly compensated professional athletes could snap an official in two. No, not the marathoners. But someone like Serena -- big, strong and powerful -- holding a potential weapon which is like a natural extension of her own body?

That line cannot be crossed. Any athlete who truly assaults an official must be kicked out of the game permanently. And any athlete who threatens must be suspended.

You see, officials who fear physical assualt for making a particular call simply cannot do his/her job. The sport therefore immediately dissiningrates.

I love tennis. I think that Serena has been great for tennis. And I understand that she is far from the first athlete to lose his/her temper, or even to yell at an official. But threatening officials? Like that? Unacceptable.

She doesn't have to apologize to me, but the US Open should ban her from next year's tournment.

Watch the Friday Night Lights sex talk.

Tell me that that was not what the kid needed.

Tami: "So, umm. Do you love Matt?"

Julie: "I love Matt."

Tami: "Does he love you?

Julie : "Matt loves me."

Tami: "He does...And what about birth control?"

Julie: "Mom, I don't want to talk about it.

Tami: "Hon, that's the conversation."

Julie: "Yes, we're using birth control."

Tami: "What kind specifically?"

Julie: "Condoms. We're using condoms."

Tami: "Do you know how to use them properly?

Julie: "Yes, I know how to use them."

Tami: "You, know you have to use them every time, because you know sometimes boys try to tell you..."

Julie: "Yeah, Matt's really good about it."

Tami: "And you know, just cause you're having sex this one time doesn't mean that you have to all the time, and you know if it ever feels like he's taking you for granted, or you're not enjoying it you can stop anytime... and if you ever break up with Matt it's not like you have sex with the next boy necessarily."

[She tears up]

Julie: "Why are you crying?"

Tami: "Because I wanted you to wait...but that's just because I want to protect you because I love you, and I want to make sure nothing bad ever happens to you. And I always want to you to always be able to talk to me even if it's about something so hard like this."

Julie: "I didn't want to disappoint you."

[Tami shakes head, hugs Julie.]

Was she denied authorization?

If she asked and was denied, fine. Boycott.

But if she did not try to work with her employer, or did not keep to agreements?

My original birth certificate -- at least the one my parents got back when I was born -- is a piece of plastic the size and shape of a credit card.

It's not a piece of paper at all. But it is the one my family has has since I was a newborn.

I cannot begin to tell you how many people do not believe that it is a birth certificate.

Canuckistan Bob is right. There is nothing new, at least from what I have seen.