Then perhaps it’s the offsides rule that needs revision. Do you think the spirit of the rule is captured by foot position analysis? If two players bodies are in alignment and the attackers leg is just beyond the leg of the defender, does that really matter? The rule was designed to stop attackers from sitting deep between the defenders and the goalie.
The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation.
The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender.
I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
This is shameful. S3 buckets have not been public by default for many years. You have to make a choice to make them publicly accessible. And to not have the contents encrypted at rest. I just can’t.
The lack of respect that some companies have for their customers is appalling.
So I'm going to be that guy. It wasn't until Nixon and his southern strategy that the modern Republican Party became the Party we know today. The coalitions that formed the political parties before then were based more on tradition and geography than on ideology. The Republican Party has been moving ever more rightward (and pulling the Democratic Party along with it) since Reagan. America doesn't even have a Center-Left party anymore as result of this.
I'm not talking about the 1st amendment. I'm talking about the rhetoric of those on the right in America. They are constantly congratulating themselves on being the champions of freedom. But if someone wants to read a book they don't like, or if someone wants to use a pronoun they disagree with, or if someone wants access to certain medical procedures then they pass laws to restrict those freedoms. It's incredibly hypocritical.
I recognize what you’re saying and you’re right. I’m well aware of different approaches and traditions. And I completely agree that ignoring religious writings across history deprives us of understanding the full range of human experience. I for one am not one of those people. I realize that I’m engaging a bit in the very thing I’m criticizing, but this is a comment on HN not a well thought out and twice revised essay.
You're absolutely right. The thing is that in America, Catholicism isn't the cultural force that it is in other parts of the Americas or in Continental Europe. Protestantism is the brand of Christianity that fights the culture wars here. So for me "Christian" has become a shorthand for "Evangelical Christian." This is somewhat intellectually dishonest and definitely sloppy.
Right, which is probably part of why most Evangelicals think Catholics aren't Christian.
After I finished my BA in English, I considered going for a MA in Catholic Studies because it offered an opportunity to study Philosophy, Theology, and Literature in a way that was fascinating to me, but by that time my faith had withered and died.
Many years in the future, after global warming wrecks our world, when humanity rebuilds civilization, they will be glad for folks like this person. Without physical books there will be no way to reconstruct our time and tell our story. Digital media will be useless to future generations if there’s a blip in continuity.
I think with the suburban explosion and rise of the personal automobile we’ve seen individualism trump collectivism. I don’t think we’ll ever see a new deal or social security like initiative in America until the power structures in our society are changed fundamentally.