Why mess with something that's obviously working?

Right on the heels of the previous entry, we've found the following item in an article titled, "Another Cuban custody fight simmers":

"The facts are different this time around, and neither the U.S. government nor the Cuban-exile community, burned by its negative portrayal during the Elian case, have a desire to repeat the past." (emphasis ours)

Like the previous entry, this is a tricky case of subject-verb disagreement where the language would seem to indicate that the verb should reflect plural subjects. However, the tip-off is the use of neither/nor. The use of these words indicates that we are talking about neither one subject nor another - these are singular. If you need further proof, the sentence could be rephrased, using clearly singular subjects, to read, "...neither one has a desire..." or "...neither party has a desire..." without changing the meaning. On the other hand, you would never write, "...neither party have a desire..." (Just lie to us, ok?)

As this is the second time today we've found the AP to be guilty of this infraction, we feel compelled to give them an Oops! Is My Lazy Showing? In addition, they have earned the following Drunken Proofreading rating:

**** (four stars) - Yesh, I take thish waterbottle everywhere I go. It'sh water. No, you can't have any.

(Repeat offenses merit stiffer penalties.)