The Bradley Effect

So this insn't about only scoring from set-pieces?

 

A related parrallel -- In 1992 in Colorado, the state I lived in at the time, there was an initiative on the ballot that year for something called Issue 2. What it said was that homosexuals could not claim a status as a discriminated-against group. In other words, if I said to a prospective employee, No I will not hire you because you are gay/lesbian, they would have had no legal recourse to claim discrimination.

In addition to the moral and ethical pitfalls of this initiative that you can probably imagine, it also had a second contentious point if it would pass. Denver, Boulder, and Aspen all had local ordinances in their cities saying that you could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. So, the people of Colorado would have told these three cities that they would lose the right to local rule on the issue.

The polls showed that this issue would fail; I can't find any info on the polls on Google, but I recall that Issue 2 was not going to fail by a margin of 53% to 57%. Well, it passed. The pollsters were shown to be incorrect in their forecasting.What that means for the current election, I have no idea.

The conclusion of this story diverges from the issue at hand, but Issue 2 was never enacted into law. It was deemed to be unconstitutional by the judiciary in the state of Colorado, the Federal Appeals Court, and ultimately the Supreme court (Romer v Evans, 1996). Here is a link that has more info on Issue 2 -- http://www.ciruli.com/archives/amend2-1 ... d2-704.htm

Sadly, someone hacked into my account and removed the photo of the lovely Audrey Hepburn, but wanted to say that I (I mean he) hoped you all enjoy the action photo of Mike Ashley and his friend with the heinous tattoo and the pendulous man-boobs.