I'm not agreeing with the interpretation, but if there is a chance that it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (and research has not conclusively said it doesn't), that is enough for people to rationalize that it qualifies as an abortion. I think it's incredibly dumb and when I teach sex ed emphasize up and…

Research hasn't proven that it doesn't. Facts do matter if you can offer facts. Otherwise they are easily manipulated by one side or the other.

Well, "no more" would be inappropriate wording becuase we don't know what is accurate but I was just saying she cited the number, not that I agree with it.

The 80% is "according to directors of migrant shelters interviewed by Fusion." Anna links it in the article. Fusion doesn't go into what this means — did they interview 2 shelters? 5? Every one in America? Do the directors communicate directly with the immigrants? What proportion of people crossing the border go…

I get in this debate a lot with religious folk so here's where the hang up is:

Odds are overwhelmingly inaccurate but fingers crossed!

You're right, I retract. I'd argue that 7 cases a year is still not a plague threatening the American populous, but yes, there are scattered cases of plague still popping up. Thanks for the link.

me too man, me too. Stay tuned though, my book of beat poetry lamenting the reporting of scientific studies by the mass media is being self published in the Spring. Get your beret ready.

I haven't actually. There is no infection known as the plague currently threatening the populous. Relevant to this article, the fleas in question were not carrying infection.

Nope. That study was widely misreported. Rats are still guilty of spreading the plague.

I haven't read the full article but I imagine that kind of variation is part of the flaws involved. Unless it's a temperature controlled room, post watching home videos of your mom, with a neutral appearance examiner, environmental factors are almost certainly a caveat in the results.

most men's penises are 5.16 inches long and 4.6 inches around

Mutual cheater-person?

People who work at non profits typically make way less than those who work for profit companies, so it is still worthy of praise (when you're making 50K a year and could double your salary in another sphere but stick with the nonprofit you get credit). What irritates me is heads of non profits who get the brush of…

literally. I just sighed a little for the unrequited (fictional) love of my youth.

Wow, thank you so much for doing that. I wish I could outsource research this easily for all of my life questions.

Ah, I didn't realize that, thanks. But I more meant a watch dog organization that keeps track of these things for lazy people like me. I doubt it would actually impact my shopping habits, but I am curious how much of what they raise actually goes to helping rather than buying ad space, running campaigns, and paying…

Does anyone know if there is a charity navigator equivalent for non profits like this? What proportion of money raised goes to the women employed in India v US based employees and costs of running? And where the rest of it goes? Google failed me.

I, for one, am sure that at least a few sitcom episodes have been based on my brilliant bon mots.

NOT AT ALL. I miss that inexplicably old school roller skate.