The closest thing is the penalty shot in soccer, which only rarely results in a score.

I think at least 90% of penalty shots result in scores.

Perhaps you are thinking of free kicks?

Penalties in soccer are highly controversial a lot of the time. But they are not commonplace, like free throws are. But an even easier way for a ref to fix a game is to whistle a star player for two quick fouls. There is so much pushing allowed in the NBA it is easy to find something to justify.

Quite seriously, why and how did Scalia ever get a reputation as anything more than a hack? The United States is going to "regret" not allowing the President to indefinitely lock up whomever he wishes?

This kind of thinking is appalling. What planet do these people live on? Are they in constant fear? It's really very sad to see.

I have not seen anything in biology and evolution (a field I have worked in) to convince me that behavior is not largely determined by psychological role-playing, as opposed to anything biological. The usual discussions about "pick-up artists" need to be weighed against the fact that

a) I know few actual pick-up artists in real-life

b) I know as many female pick-up artists as male.

I would hope that any discussion about sexual roles and biology that was purporting to be scientific would do more than bandy about stereotypes without reference to actual scientific methodology. It is easy to generate hypotheses - testing them, especially in questions of psychology, is not as easy.

Joan - Clinton's out of the race. Lots of other things are going on in the world.

Tomreedtoon, that's a strange definition of the word.

A person is not considered a 'whore' for doing something he/she doesn't want to do. A person is considered a 'whore' for doing something shameful for money, in particular sex, though the word can be used more loosely. For example, a Shakespearean actor who does soap operas for money could be a whore.

The key here is that whatever is being done is

a) below one's dignity

and

b) pays money

Being reluctant to adhere to basic standards of cleanliness just doesn't enter into the picture.

Yes, Russert would often have some reference to an obscure quote made by his guest. But is this really journalism? All it said to me was that he had a staff that was good at researching gotcha questions and that he managed to make certain people squirm.

But Russert never turned that kind of scrutiny on Cheney or Bush. And while the biggest story of the past decade happened, Russert never offered any kind of interesting take on it. I never heard anything on his show that deviating from the standard MSM worldview on how the world was run. I never heard Russert talk intelligently about WMDs or torture or stolen elections or any of the real issues of the past decade. His show was primarily about power worship.

And I'm sorry there are readers who think that public figures should be exempted from public criticism in the aftermath of their death. But it seems to me that now is the time to put the record straight, if any. And over-the-top emotional insults don't seem appropriate in any case. This is a news website, not a church.

Using ALL CAPS is a good way to alienate readers..

Nobody cares any more how much money Obama spent in Pennsylvania.

This choice is Obama's to make. It is very rare for the Presidential nominee to choose the runner-up as his VP candidate, and it is rarer still for the nominee to pick a running mate who had a higher public profile than he did at the beginning of the year.

Obama needs to pick a person who will be perceived to be a deferential team player. Based on the way Clinton ran her campaign, and her connection to the old guard in the DLC (which is amply represented on Salon), it is very hard to see Clinton filling that role.

The poison of DLC thinking can be seen in the various commenters who apparently think that the only way Obama can win is by adding Clinton to the ticket. Recent polls demonstrating this to be a false assumption are simply ignored. (If I have to hear about another sub-demographic cherry picked to make Obama look bad, I'll scream. No, white suburban moms are not uniquely positioned to decide the election.)

Clinton supporters and DLC types are trapped in a historical fallacy. All they remember clearly is the history since the 70s, and so they think that the US is a nation inevitably and inexorably politically position to be right-of-center. And so they inevitably cooperate with the right and never fight for left-of-center ideas. The fact that right-of-center ideas have been failing miserably for the past 8 years is something that these people throw out of their consideration.

The possibility that the nation might be positioned to move away from conservative ideology is something that is never considered.