The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a potentially landmark Second Amendment case, the first time in roughly a decade that the justices will consider gun rights.

At issue is a New York City handgun regulation that put tight limits on licensed gun owners’ ability to transport firearms outside the home. The case presents the justices an opportunity to go further than ever before in defining the scope of the individual right to bear arms.

“The big question is whether the conservative justices want to use this case — which features an arguably extreme and silly form of gun control — as a vehicle for expanding Second Amendment rights and further constricting governmental options for meaningful gun control,” said Carl Bogus, a law professor and Second Amendment expert at Roger WilliamsJohn (Roger) Roger WilliamsSupreme Court poised to hear first major gun case in a decade Live coverage: Zuckerberg testifies before House on Facebook’s Libra project Population shifts set up huge House battleground MORE University.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: azzaro parfum

This latest chapter in the nation’s long-running debate over Second Amendment rights has drawn in familiar interest groups. It has also intensified the political fight over the high court’s future, with Senate Democrats warning about a rightward shift under President TrumpDonald John TrumpPerry ends final day as Energy secretary Mexican officials detain suspects in massacre of members of Mormon sect READ: White House’s letter to Nadler saying it won’t participate in impeachment hearing MORE.

The plaintiffs are three licensed handgun owners who sued New York City for, among other things, infringing on their constitutional right to bear arms. They are backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) as well as an NRA-associated firearms advocacy group, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which is also a plaintiff.

In the spring of 2013, the three New York City men sued the city over its handgun licensing scheme. Under the ordinance, residents could apply for a “premises” license, which allowed for the possession of a handgun in the home. Outside a gun owner’s specified address, however, the law granted few rights. 

Gun owners could carry their firearms to about a half-dozen authorized shooting ranges in New York City. Even transporting a gun to a second home outside the city was forbidden. Guns also had to be unloaded and locked in a container during transport.

The lawsuit arose after the city denied the men’s request to travel with their handguns outside the city to participate in target practice and marksmanship contests. The district court sided with New York City, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The Supreme Court in January granted the gun owners’ petition for an appeal.

The decision to take up the first major gun rights case in years alarmed some Democrats who fear the court, with two Trump nominees, is poised for a rightward shift.

ADVERTISEMENT

In an unusual move, five Democratic senators filed a sharply worded amicus brief in support of New York City. In it, they suggested that a win for the NRA and gun rights advocates would raise questions about the court’s legitimacy.

“Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a ‘project’ to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gun safety regulations,” wrote Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseSupreme Court poised to hear first major gun case in a decade Pelosi heading to Madrid for UN climate change convention Overnight Energy: Protesters plan Black Friday climate strike | ‘Father of EPA’ dies | Democrats push EPA to abandon methane rollback MORE (D-R.I.), the lead author of the brief, which implored the justices not to expand gun rights. Sens. Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoSupreme Court poised to hear first major gun case in a decade Overnight Defense — Presented by Boeing — Senate eyes sending stopgap spending bill back to House | Sondland delivers bombshell impeachment testimony | Pentagon deputy says he didn’t try to block official’s testimony Pentagon No. 2 denies trying to block official’s impeachment testimony MORE (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinSupreme Court poised to hear first major gun case in a decade Protecting the future of student data privacy: The time to act is now Overnight Health Care: Crunch time for Congress on surprise medical bills | CDC confirms 47 vaping-related deaths | Massachusetts passes flavored tobacco, vaping products ban MORE (D-Ill.), and Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandSupreme Court poised to hear first major gun case in a decade Booker campaign announces six-figure ad buy to qualify for December debate Buttigieg campaign returns donations from Kavanaugh’s lawyers: report MORE (D-N.Y.) also joined.

Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, said the Senate Democrats’ unusual warning to the court’s conservative bloc has fueled suspicions that “the law is being bent to politics,” and he questioned how the court would react.

“That is a perception that [Chief Justice John] Roberts, [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh and, perhaps more surprisingly, [Justice Clarence] Thomas may be eager to dispel,” he said. “Keep an eye on them.”

The case also poses a complicated legal question for the justices.

Freedman and other court watchers say it’s a very real possibility the justices choose to sidestep the Second Amendment question altogether. That’s because New York City and the state of New York changed their gun laws between the lawsuit’s initial filing in 2013 and this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments.

“The New York regulation, which was unique to begin with, has already been repealed and replaced with a state law, which seems to render the case entirely moot,” said Joseph Blocher, a law professor and Second Amendment expert at Duke University. “Ruling the regulation unconstitutional literally changes nothing in the larger landscape of gun laws.”

But if the justices do decide to address the Second Amendment issue head on, Blocher said, the impact could be felt across the country.

“The real question — and the reason that the case is so important — is whether the justices will announce a new test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws going forward,” said Blocher, who co-directs the Center for Firearms Law at Duke.

In a landmark 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court said the Second Amendment enshrines an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The court decided two years later that right applies at both the federal and state levels.

But the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in the Heller case left key questions unanswered about the scope of the Second Amendment and how courts should determine when those rights were infringed.

Lower courts have filled the gap over the past decade. In more than 1,000 cases decided since Heller, lower courts have generally embraced a two-step test to figure out if a gun control measure passed by a state or city is unconstitutional, according to research by Blocher and co-author Eric Ruben, a law professor at Southern Methodist University.

ADVERTISEMENT

The test first asks whether the law under review is covered by the Second Amendment and then if the law’s burdens are justifiable in regard to the public interests being served. Courts have effectively used this legal test to strike down overly strict laws but have upheld most mainstream gun regulations. 

The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to adopt that standard, modify the test or even generate an entirely new one.

“If the court decides to replace that consensus with some other test, then everything could change,” Blocher said. 

The NRA hopes the justices do exactly that. The national gun rights advocacy group told the court in an amicus brief that the judicial test developed in the lower courts is mistaken. 

“This approach is contrary to the text and purpose of the Second Amendment — which was enshrined in our Constitution because the People already weighed the competing interests at stake, and solemnly concluded that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,'” the group wrote. 

For gun control advocacy groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the prospect of a new legal standard is cause for concern.

“If [the NRA-backed plaintiffs] are successful, Americans could lose their longstanding rights to enact the public safety laws they want and need to protect their communities,” said Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Campaign.

“The stakes could not be higher.”

President TrumpDonald John TrumpPerry ends final day as Energy secretary Mexican officials detain suspects in massacre of members of Mormon sect READ: White House’s letter to Nadler saying it won’t participate in impeachment hearing MORE‘s proposed border wall is looming as a central obstacle to passing spending bills by a December deadline.

The top appropriators in the House and Senate have already struck an agreement ahead of Thanksgiving on how to divide $1.37 trillion in annual spending among 12 bills. But lawmakers still need to agree on how to deal with the border wall — a top issue for Trump that precipitated a government shutdown last year.

With just 15 legislative days between the Thanksgiving recess and a deadline of Dec. 20 to pass the spending bills, appropriators will face long odds to avoid another shutdown unless they punt on the issue with a continuing resolution (CR). 

“It takes some time just to get that bill written by the staff, so we’re running out of time,” warned Rep. Mario Diaz-Ballart (R-Florida).

ADVERTISEMENT

The process of passing 12 annual spending bills has already stretched months beyond the October 1 start of the new fiscal year, and despite a deal on allocations, thorny issues such as the wall remain.

“We reached the agreement on numbers, but each individual subcommittee is going to be charged with making decisions within their bill. We did not prejudge any of those,” a Democratic aide said, alluding to the wall.

Trump is loath to back down on a central campaign promise, and has seen conservatives turn on him in the past when he was ready to compromise on the issue. Meanwhile, Democrats, many of whom were elected to be a check on Trump, see their political fortunes tied to blocking the wall effort.

Trump has insisted, as he has each year of his presidency, that Congress allocate $5 billion toward the wall in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill, a condition Democrats dismiss out of hand.

Last year, the impasse over funding for the wall led to a 35-day closure, the longest in the nation’s history.

Lawmakers punted on the issue earlier in the summer, when the House, Senate, and White House came together over the summer to agree on overall spending limits.

Unlike past years, where the sides were able to find a compromise by passing a small amount of funding to reinforce existing barriers and build some new ones in the Rio Grande valley, where experts said it could be helpful, the two sides face a more daunting challenge this year.

President Trump’s use of emergency powers to reprogram funds from other departments including Defense for his border wall incensed Democrats, who vowed not to backfill Military Construction projects he effectively defunded and defense accounts he drew down from when transferring the cash toward the wall.

Democrats now want to block Trump’s ability to use transfer authority under emergency powers for the wall, a major sticking point.

Both the House and Senate twice passed resolutions overturning Trump’s emergency declarations, but were unable to overturn Trump’s veto on the matter.

“He’ll never consent to giving up transfer authority, so holding to that rigid position is, frankly, a recipe for a year-long CR, which would probably then be followed by another year-long CR because it’s an election year,” said appropriator Tom ColeThomas (Tom) Jeffrey ColeTrump’s border wall hangs over spending talks House, Senate reach deal on fiscal 2020 spending figures New hemp trade group presses lawmakers on immigration reform, regs MORE (R-Ok.).

“You either have the ability to compromise or you don’t. And I think on this issue, the Democrats have turned it into a holy grail,” he added.

Because the two sides were working under agreed-upon spending limits, the wall issue bled into talks over how overall spending should be split up among the 12 bills, with Democrats concerned that every dollar steered toward the border wall will take away from other domestic priorities.

Going into the Thanksgiving holiday, Democrats and Republicans made progress, agreeing to finalize allocation levels without first finding a wall solution. That, they said, would be left to the subcommittee on Homeland Security to battle out.

“We’ve still got to deal with the wall, too. It’s two separate things. The wall is still there,” said Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbyTrump’s border wall hangs over spending talks The job no GOP senator wants: ‘I’d rather have a root canal’ Lawmakers bypass embattled Mulvaney in spending talks MORE (R-Ala.).

Some say there is room to put politics aside and work out a deal.

“Look, the bottom line is everybody knows ultimately what’s going to have to happen, which is everybody has to have a little bit of a victory and everybody has to give in a little bit. It’s not rocket science,” said Diaz-Ballart.

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerWhy a second Trump term and a Democratic Congress could be a nightmare scenario for the GOP Army taking security assessment of TikTok after Schumer warning Trump signs short-term spending bill to avert shutdown MORE (D-N.Y.) said the ball was in Trump’s court.

“On the first path, President Trump stays out of our way and gives Congress the space to work together and find an agreement. On the second path, President Trump stomps his feet, makes impossible demands, and prevents his party—the Republicans—from coming to a fair arrangement,” he said.

One proposal that has been floated is passing 11 of the bills alongside a CR for Homeland Security, allowing big increases in defense and domestic spending to go through while cordoning off the wall issue.

Shelby said he was open to the idea, while urging all sides to work together.

“We’ve got to work with the White House, because they’ve got the power of signing or not signing any bills. It’s not just the House and the Senate, it’s the White House, too,” Shelby said.

“We can get it all done if we work together,” he added. “If we don’t work together and continue to slow-walk, we’ll be where we are today,” said Shelby.

Former Secretary of State John KerryJohn Forbes KerryKerry: Fight against climate change should be treated like a ‘war’ John Kerry launches ‘World War Zero’ climate activism coalition Sunday shows preview: Washington gears up for next round of impeachment hearings MORE said Sunday that the fight against climate change should be treated like a war as he touted a newly formed initiative that he claims is more diverse than other groups with the same mission. 

“Things are getting worse, not better. And so we have our unlikely allies coming together here. There’s no group that has people as diverse as ours in terms of nationality, age, gender, ideology, background, life experience and all of these people have come together saying, we’ve got to treat this like a war,” Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The interview came a day after he announced his new initiative, “World War Zero.” The more than 60 founding members include celebrities and politicians of both parties including former presidents Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonKerry: Fight against climate change should be treated like a ‘war’ Trump’s culpability is greater than Nixon’s Trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and hardly a voice of caution to be heard MORE and Jimmy CarterJimmy CarterKerry: Fight against climate change should be treated like a ‘war’ John Kerry launches ‘World War Zero’ climate activism coalition Presidential historian predicts public support for Trump will collapse MORE, former governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Kasich, and entertainers Leonardo DiCaprio, Sting and Ashton Kutcher.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I’m going to be a bit of a cynic here. But you go out of your way to say you’re not backing a single climate plan with World War Zero, this is about creating more attention to the issue,” NBC host Chuck ToddCharles (Chuck) David ToddKerry: Fight against climate change should be treated like a ‘war’ Chuck Todd challenges John Kennedy on Ukraine: Putin is only other person ‘selling this argument’ Klobuchar knocks Bloomberg late 2020 entry: ‘We have strong candidates’ MORE said. “Is attention to the issue really the issue right now? This feels like a ten-year-ago problem. The issue right now is convincing a certain president of the United States to act.”

“Well it’s not just the president, Chuck. There are great efforts out there, many environmental groups, young people, particularly, but no country is getting the job done,” Kerry responded. 

“I mean, it has to require decision making and organization and efforts that are just not taking place,” he said. 

Kerry said the group is going to mobilize, organize, and “talk to literally millions of Americans over the course of the next months” with the goal of making climate change a “primary issue.”

Schwarzenegger, who appeared alongside Kerry in the interview, said environmental activists have to “communicate better and talk about pollution.”  

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think the way to convince the whole world is by not just always talking about climate change, which doesn’t mean that much to most of the people,” he said. 

“The environmental community has to communicate better and talk about pollution, because pollution is a threat right now,” Schwarzenegger added. “And when you introduced this piece, you talked about, in 2050. People can’t think about 2050. They think about now. How can I survive? How can I provide jobs? How can I go and feed my family? Those are the kind of issues and that’s why it’s important that we talk about the health issue.”

Diplomats will gather in Madrid on Monday for global climate negotiations meant to strengthen the 2015 Paris Agreement. President TrumpDonald John TrumpPerry ends final day as Energy secretary Mexican officials detain suspects in massacre of members of Mormon sect READ: White House’s letter to Nadler saying it won’t participate in impeachment hearing MORE has begun formally withdrawing from the pact, making the U.S. the only country in the world not a part of the accords. 

A United Nations report released last week found greenhouse gas emissions would need to fall by nearly 8 percent each year in order to keep the earth from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius. 

Recent polling has suggested that Americans want lawmakers to take action to combat climate change. A CBS News poll from September found 6 in 10 respondents said they believe immediate action is necessary on climate change. 

Moreover, climate change appears to be a top priority for Democrats. A CNN poll from April found that 82 percent of the party’s voters listed climate change the top issue they’d like to see a presidential candidate address.

Click Here: azzaro parfum

The United States international couldn’t control his excitement while waiting to get the 2019-20 campaign underway in his new surroundings

Christian Pulisic has admitted that he “wore a Chelsea jersey around the house all the time” during pre-season, while itching to begin the next chapter of his career in west London.

Pulisic signed for the Blues in a £58 million ($75m) deal way back in January, before being sent back to Borussia Dortmund on loan for the remainder of the 2018-19 season.

The 21-year-old came agonisingly close to winning a Bundesliga title during his last few months at Westfalenstadion, but said his goodbyes after Bayern pipped BVB to the finishing post on the final day of the campaign.

Since arriving at Stamford Bridge, Pulisic has had to be patient in pursuit of a regular starting spot, with Frank Lampard integrating him gradually rather than throwing him in at the deep end.

The Chelsea manager’s approach seems to have paid dividends in recent weeks, with the United States star now firing on all cylinders to help the team fight for a place in the Premier League’s top four.

Pulisic has admitted that he couldn’t wait to “get started” at Stamford Bridge and even wore a Blues shirt around the house as he prepared to make his move to join Lampard’s side.

“The focus on football at this level means the pressure’s always there too, but it’s not something that worries me too much or that’s important to me,” he told Chelsea’s matchday programme ahead of a home clash with West Ham on Saturday.

“I have myself to worry about and I keep high enough standards for myself, so the pressures from outside don’t really affect me as much.

“I expect a lot of myself and I have good people around me who care – the coaches, my team-mates – that are more important, so I try to focus on that.

“Just to be in England, to be here in London, playing for Chelsea, it’s awesome. I have a confession to make about that, actually.

“During the summer, I had a short time off after playing for the national team in the Gold Cup, and I had this Chelsea jersey at home that was made for me when I signed back in January.

“I was wearing it around my house all the time – I just wanted to be here so bad, I just wanted to get started because I was excited for the challenge, excited for everything about it.”

The Blues will be looking to tighten their grip on the final Champions League spot by beating the Hammers this weekend, before hosting Aston Villa on Wednesday.

Lampard’s men are six points clear of fifth-place Wolves at the moment and 11 behind runaway leaders Liverpool, who are in action against Brighton at Anfield later on Saturday.

En marge de la promotion de “Budapest”, à l’affiche ce mercredi, Jonathan Cohen aka Serge Le Mytho nous a confirmé que le film dérivé du format court de Canal+ était bel et bien en écriture. Le tournage devrait avoir lieu en décembre prochain.

Il y a un presque un an jour pour jour, Serge le mytho faisait ses adieux sur Canal+ avec son format court en 30 épisodes, faisant la part à l’impro. Le mytho le plus bavard du PAF vous manque ? Alors bonne nouvelle, Serge pourrait faire son retour au cinéma et à la télé.

A l’occasion de la promotion de Budapest, à l’affiche ce mercredi, Jonathan Cohen nous a confirmé qu’un film était en écriture. “Oui, il aura son propre film. On est en plein dedans, on l’écrit avec les deux créateurs de Serge, Kyan [Khojandi] et Navo. On bosse dessus. Ce sera un film dans lequel il y aura énormément d’impro.“

“C’est un tournage de combien de mois du coup“, relance Monsieur Poulpe. “7 mois, plaisante Jonathan Cohen. 7 ans, renchérit Manu Payet. Non, c’est un montage de 7 ans !, poursuit Jonathan Cohen. Mais le tournage va durer vraiment très peu de jours, comme d’habitude.” A quand le tournage ? “On espère en décembre“, indique Jonathan Cohen.

Jonathan Cohen a par ailleurs indiqué à nos confrères du Tube de Canal+ que Serge Le Mytho pourrait revenir dans un format de 26 minutes sur Canal+, dans un nouveau concept imaginant une vraie-fausse télé-réalité. 

Budapest : Manu Payet, Jonathan Cohen et Monsieur Poulpe, l’interview quiz !

Budapest : Manu Payet, Jonathan Cohen et Monsieur Poulpe, l'interview quiz !

Vous ne savez pas quoi regarder ce soir ? La Rédaction d’AlloCiné vous indique les films et séries à voir à la télé. Au programme : la voiture tueuse de Carpenter, des super-héros décadents chez Zack Snyder et un affrontement attendu dans l’écurie DC

« Permis de mater »

Christine de John Carpenter avec Keith Gordon, John Stockwell (OCS Choc, 22h04) : “Brillante adaptation d’un livre de Stephen King, John Carpenter a réussi avec Christine le difficile pari de rendre une voiture largement aussi terrifiante qu’un tueur en série de la trempe de Michael Myers ou Jason Voorhees. Les effets spéciaux n’ont presque pas vieilli et les scènes où la voiture s’en prend à l’une de ses malheureuses proies sont très efficaces.” Laurent Schenck

Watchmen – Les Gardiens Bande-annonce VO

Watchmen – Les Gardiens de Zack Snyder avec Jackie Earle Haley, Patrick Wilson (Canal + Cinéma, 20h50) : “Avant “Man of Steel” et “Batman v Superman” Zack Snyder nous offrait le très bon « Watchmen ». Réussissant à faire mentir le tout Hollywood – qui jugeait le roman graphique de Gibbons et Moore inadaptable – Snyder nous captive de bout en bout en dressant le portrait de super-héros décadents évoluant dans un monde totalement désenchanté. Porté par des comédiens plus charismatiques les uns que les autres (mention spéciale à Jackie Earle Haley et Jeffrey Dean Morgan) Watchmen est également servi par une bande-son électrisante et une esthétique sombre, assez rare en 2009. Bien que d’une grande complexité, l’histoire est totalement fidèle à celle de la BD. Un film passionnant.” Laetitia Forhan

Batman v Superman – Bande annonce IMAX VO

Batman v Superman : L’Aube de la Justice de Zack Snyder avec Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill (Ciné + Frisson, 20h45) : “La confrontation cinématographique entre l’Homme chauve-souris et l’Homme d’acier était attendue par toute la planète ! Elle a enfin eu lieu et a fait couler beaucoup d’encre. Zack Snyder parvient à mettre en scène un film d’une grande ampleur, brassant de nombreux thèmes et symboles. Ben Affleck campe un Batman crédible, implacable et cruel face à un Henry Cavill toujours éblouissant dans le costume de Superman. On regrettera toutefois la fin bâclée, se vautrant dans une bouillie visuelle indigne et un grand méchant caricatural en la personne de Lex Luthor, campé par un Jesse Eisenberg très mauvais, à fond dans le cabotinage.” Vincent Formica

« Permis de parler »

Et sinon, parmi tous les films qui passent ce soir, quel est votre favori ?

Pour retrouver l’ensemble des programmes, accédez directement à la grille en cliquant ici.

Click Here: true religion jean short

La communauté transgenre salue la décision de la comédienne Scarlett Johansson, qui a renoncé à endosser le personnage transgenre Dante ‘Tex’ Gill dans le film “Rub And Tug” que devait réaliser Rupert Sanders.

C’est dans un récent entretien exclusif accordé au magazine Out, le 13 juillet, que la comédienne Scarlett Johansson a annoncé qu’elle abandonnait finalement le rôle du personnage transgenre qu’elle devait jouer dans le film Rub And Tug que devait réaliser Rupert Sanders. Ce choix fait suite à la fronde de certains représentants de la communauté transgenre, notamment les comédiennes Trace Lysette et Jamie Clayton. “A la lumière de certaines questions éthiques concernant le personnage de Dante ‘Tex’ Gill que je devais interpréter, j’ai décidé de renoncer respectueusement à ma contribution à ce projet. Notre compréhension culturelle des transgenres continue à évoluer et j’ai beaucoup appris de cette communauté depuis ma première déclaration sur l’annonce de ma distribution et j’ai compris que c’était indélicat” a déclaré Scarlett Johansson.

Un choix salué par la communauté, comme le note le Hollywood Reporter. Au moment de l’annonce faite par la comédienne, le journal était justement en pleine organisation d’une table ronde avec près d’une douzaine de talents issus de la communauté LGBTQ, pour discuter de la notion de représentativité dans l’industrie de l’Entertainment. “Le choix effectué par Scarlett est un bon exemple de l’écoute qu’il faut manifester envers la communauté, et c’était la bonne chose à faire” a déclaré Rhys Ernst, producteur de la série Transparent, et présent à cette table ronde. L’actrice et productrice Rain Valdez, est même émue aux larmes : “sa décision en dit long sur Scarlett Johansson. Ca me rend émotive parce que ce n’est pas une industrie facile pour les femmes et hommes trans”. Et la comédienne transgenre Alexandra Grey de balayer toute idée de chasse gardée : “ce que nous disons, c’est que les acteurs doivent avoir la liberté de choisir leurs rôles. Nous ne sommes pas en train de dire que vous ne pouvez pas jouer ces rôles [de personnages transgenres]. Nous disons juste que nous voulons avoir l’opportunité, nous aussi, de pouvoir jouer n’importe quel type de rôle”.

Four transgender devotees who were earlier denied permission by police citing ‘no clarity on issue’ finally offered prayers at the Sabarimala temple. They completed their darshan of the Lord Ayyappa shrine on Tuesday after securing permission a day ago.

Arriving at Erumely early in the day, the four devotees from Ernakulam draped in their choice of attire — saree — were given security cover as they started their climb from Pamba at 8 am.

By 9.45 am. amidst tight security they were on the hallowed 18-steps and completed paying their obeisance to the deity. There were no protests from any quarter.

Qui n’a pas chanté devant “Mamma Mia!” ou “Grease” ? Vous ne le savez peut-être pas, mais ces films sont sortis (ou ressortis) au cinéma, aux USA, en Angleterre et parfois même en France, dans leur version “sing-along” : leur version karaoké.

1. Mamma Mia!
+

Alors que Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again arrive sur les écrans français, on se souvient qu’outre-Atlantique, Mamma Mia! a été diffusé plusieurs fois dans sa version “sing-along”. Le principe ? Les spectateurs peuvent pousser la chansonnette grâce aux paroles des chansons projetées sur l’écran, comme dans un karaoké. L’Ecran Pop, premier cinéma-karaoké de France, a également proposé récemment plusieurs projections du film, à Paris et en province !
Lire la suite

© Playtone

World’s tallest statue- Statue of Unity of Sardar Vallabhbai Patel was inaugurated on October 31- the leader’s birth anniversary.

Much has been said about the 182-metre tall structure which is twice the size of the Statue of Liberty in New York. While many were thrilled at the sight of the statue constructed on an island near the Sardar Sarovar dam, others felt that the statue could have had more finishing.

Photo: Desh Gujarat