Lightning hits preacher after call to God
A congregation in the United States was left stunned when lightning struck a church moments after a visiting preacher asked God for a sign....
the one groping savage in the college of the learned
Das Tulip Cafe in der Opatovicka 3 im Zentrum von Prag ist genau der richtige Ort, um entspannt abzuhaengen und zu quatschen. Die kleine Bar hat einen Garten und im Keller eine Lounge. Tagsüber kann man hier sehr gut und lange brunchen, abends trinkt man hier "Bernards", ein ausgezeichnetes Bier aus Prag, das dafür berühmt ist, nicht pasteurisiert zu sein. Im Tulip ist man immer in Gefahr, die Zeit zu vergessen. Es kommt vor, dass man eigentlich nur kurz im Tulip vorbeischauen moechte, um sich für eine ausgedehnte Club-Nacht in Form zu bringen, und nach Stunden ist man immer noch da, trinkt zwei, drei "Bernards" und diskutiert mit Freunden.Abzuhaengen?!
Seamus Heaney, 64, says Eminem has "sent a voltage around a generation".It's good to see genius getting the recognition it deserves. Also, see these funny picks of my man Marshall dressing up like Michael Jackson and dangling a baby out a hotel window in Glasgow.
Mr Heaney was speaking prior to the start of the Prince of Wales' Educational Summer School in Norwich, where he was a guest.
He was asked by journalists whether there was a figure in popular culture who aroused interest in poetry and lyrics in the way that Bob Dylan and John Lennon did during the 1960s and 70s.
Mr Heaney, former Professor of Poetry at Oxford University, said: "There is this guy Eminem. He has created a sense of what is possible.
"He has sent a voltage around a generation.
"He has done this not just through his subversive attitude but also his verbal energy."
[W]as it the U.S. Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Texas? Does it mean that all similar laws in the entire country were appealed, or even declared unconstitutional?Yep, it was the SCOTUS itself (Supreme Court of the Unites States) and yep, that means all anti-sodomy statues across the land are instantly struck down. It's easy to be dismissive of this -- indeed, these laws are rarely enforced, and the decision was rather expected -- but it's important to note the momentousness of this particular decision, and the way it was worded, if only on purely legal grounds. For instance, the Court doesn't generally like to overturn its own decisions; it's a legal doctrine called stare decisis (and no, I don't know enough Latin or Czech etymology if that's stare like the Czech word for "old") that basically says the Court should proceed gradually with changes in interpretation of the law (case law, I think it's called), respecting the precedents set by previous Court decisions and altering them only slightly, if at all. They did no such thing in Lawrence v. Texas (last week's decision), completely trashing the 1986 decision in Bowers v. Georgia, a similar case of cops busting in on two gays guys getting it on. SCOTUS upheld the Georgia law at the time. Last week, they could have struck down the Texas law and still left the basic legal principles set forth in Bowers alone, which is sort of what Justice Sandra Day O'Conner tried to do in her written opinion, but the majority said:
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.Ka-boom! Sexual chaos unleashed across the land, instantaneously. My word, what shall we do now that it's legal to commit sodomy? I must say I'm thoroughly confused now that there are no legal guidelines telling me where to hide the sausage.
If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.In other words, it might a stupid law, but it should be up to the voters (via the Texas state legislature), not the Court, to strike it down. (Funny how Thomas didn't apply that same logic in Bush v. Gore.)
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners [that is, the two guys caught with their pants down] and others similarly situated.