If memory serves, such penalties (if successful) were waived and the offending penalty taker awarded a yellow for 'unsportmanlike conduct'(whatever the nomnclature was)... but that was more thana decade ago. I only ever recall seeing one doled out back then... I think it was '92.

At any rate, I am not sure the new rule really helps shooters... the attempt to be tricky as such seems to hurt more shooters than it helps, yesterday being just on example. Robbie Keane used to be a reliable penatly man for Leeds and Tottenham, but as his tendancy to stutter-step increased, his reliability decreased ... and finally this year he was relieved of his penalty duties having lost any consistancy.

Ah well... it is the old 'be careful what you wish for' scenerio for the players.

you'll never get me to say anything nice about Arsenal! And their poor sportsmanship on general (especially Wenger and Lehmann, the latter of which is at long last about gone) made that all the easier.

It is one of the most repeated myths spouted about Arsenal. Given the rivalry between Tottenham and Arsenal, it is often cited, without regard to fact that Tottenham are much less successful despite having higher transfers and payroll scales. On transfers, some years that can be argued, but even in the well informed English press, it would seem to go as fact that they have a pitence for a payroll.

The second great story about Arsenal: If they lose they must have been playing their 'reserves' or 'the kids'... even if the payroll and tranfer fees on the socalled 'kids' dwarfs their opponents ... The endless ass-licking by the press regarding Arsenal can only be compared to the loathesome adoration thrust upon the hateful Dallas Cowboys of US's NFL during the early 90s.

I would say Hagee has shown more class and loyalty to a far worse candidate than Wright did for his close friend in Obama. Hagee saw he was damaging McCain and at least TRIED to distance himself and put positive spin on his words. Wright decided to come out and humiliate his 'friend' and make a pompous and gasbaggy speach at exactly the worst time.

Gore informally conceded to Bush and was about to formally concede when an aide intercepted him at the last minute

I don't believe there is any 'formal' conceding in the laws or in legal jurisprudence that would have impacted susequent events. That is, while it would have been publically more confusing for Gore to have given the speech, he still could have called for a recount.

William Daley (son of the Chicago mayor, who was long suspected of throwing the 1960 election for Kennedy)

Well, it is a popular myth propogated by conservatives to illuminate what in there mind is the inherently corrupt nature of Democratic big city party machinie politics. However, the facts are that Kennedy won with electoral college results of 303 to Nixon's 219. Illinois only accounted for 27.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1953_1957.html#1960

there=their, obviously.

You know, Salon made a mistake not buying into a message board system thet does not allow people to edit their own posts.

"It must sometimes feel like sweet vengeance to shake a man down for his part in denying women access to financial independence otherwise."

Erm... are you just completely daft? Not every parcel of American existence can be jammed into the crucible of post-structuralism and existential dialectic. This statement is offensive.

While one could make the case that a man in 1940 was without a doubt a part of a culture in which women were intractibly locked in domestic, or possibly, low paying service jobs. The same, in general can not be said of today's world. Plenty of marriages dissolve as the result of female infidelity, misbehaviour, addictions or, really, just two people growing ill of each other.

Sure, there can be said to be inequalities in 'business' although, mind you, being an executive is not exactly the dream job for everyone. But true, average pay disparities cross into several fields. However, it can not be said that an individual who has made sufficient efforts to educate or train themselves should be unable to support themselves. If, in 2008, a woman of 45 divorces, only to find herself un-hirable (at what payscale she feels she deserves) due to lack of experience or training, that may be because she has spent the last many years either idling her mind OR has been raising children.

If the latter is the case, then one might say his inability is due to her service of the family, for which reason she might well deserve the money -- this is recognized in law in various foms, the family as financial entity. I can't see how anyone could argue, either morally, logically or legally, that were the situation reversed gender-wise, that the male was any less disadvantaged by his 20+ years on the sidelines. To argue against this is clearly malicious or a form of darwinistic classism... both of which Mr Hannaham's tenor seem to indicate. And really, to argue against this is tantamount to arguing against one of the only truly liberal (in the modern sense) legal consistants to precede the new deal.

Now, without proof-reading, I post

"remember what our mom's said - two wrongs don't make a right"

If memory serves correct, she usually said this, while turning and running away from me and the scissors after having given me a bloody, fat lip.

Nail polish is absolutely delicious when paired with the right cheese, or as a side dish.