The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stephens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter joined the majority opinion. The Supreme Court explained that homosexuals have a liberty privilege which is protected. The liberty interest of homosexuals entails private sexual activities. The sexual and moral choices of homosexuals are entitled to adequate constitutional protection. The majority opinion also held that moral disapproval is not a legitimate justification for the laws that illegalize sodomy in Texas. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that Lawrence and Garner, the petitioners, are constitutionally entitled, to respect in terms of their privacy. The Texas state cannot control their actions or ignore their existence, through illegalizing or criminalizing their private sexual activities (Lithwick 107).

Justice Anthony Kennedy reviewed the Supreme Court’s assumption made in the case, Bowers v. Hardwick, using the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Burger, that condemning homosexuality is deeply rooted in the ethical and moral standards of the Judeo-Christian. Kennedy reviewed the trends of laws that illegalized certain sexual activities, without consideration of gender of individuals involved. Kennedy cited recommendations of the Model Penal Code since 1955, the European Court of Human Rights 1981 decision, and the 1963 Wolfenden Report (Lithwick 121). Kennedy agreed with the dissenting views of Justice Stevens as illustrated in the Bowers v. Hardwick. He illustrated that the decision in the case should not be a binding precedent in the current cases. and that the case should be overruled.

The majority decision explained that adult consensual conduct, the intimate sexual matter under discussion, was an important component protected by the due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.&nbsp.

According to him, public opinion is a means of a collective community that is controlled and arranged by the media (Katz, 1991). Furthering the previous thought, Bowes (1997) confirms that this relationship further gained strength in the 1920s and thus has now become indivisible. According to this study, for collective action, communication between citizens and individuals is an important function for initiating a combined action, with the collective action being stimulated and expressed through the media.

Of course, when it comes to finding the relation between these two variables, it is obvious to understand the definition of community. According to Hillary (1955), the community can be explained in 94 ways. However, three essential components can be found in the explanation of this variable. Beginning with a person involved in a specific community contact, the author mentioned geographic area as the second component with the common ties completing the collection. Bracht (1990) also revolves around the same concept of community. According to this study, a community can be explained as a cluster of individuals that share the same ethics, ideals, and institutions. Further adding to the definitions, the author explained interpersonal relationships, culture, and social groups as the interdependent basic components.

Therefore, the above-mentioned components work collectively towards a common good. This means that these components are food for the community that is intellectual and conscious in nature and are thus a highly necessary requirement Dewey (1946). Bell and Newby (1971) added more to the definition and stated that communities have nowadays adopted a virtual nature. According to this study, the idea of physical space has currently adopted a less physical approach to communication. Nonetheless, the relation between community and communication was Gabriel Tarde in the 1980s. According to him, public opinion is a means of a collective community that is controlled and arranged by the media (Katz, 1991). Furthering the previous thought, Bowes (1997) confirms that this relationship further gained strength in the 1920s and thus has now become indivisible.

Although many Chinese still believe that Nian exists, it has never appeared in the community or to a human again. Today, many of the Chinese light fireworks, as well as beat drums and gongs to drive the monster away.

Modern people living in major towns and cities are the most notorious with the annual Spring Festival in commemoration of Nian the monster (Wong 27). In addition, the day signifies what most Chinese consider the unprecedented breakthrough after some villagers successfully tamed a horrible, ferocious monster that intimidated, attacked or even killed innocent people. Incidentally, tribulations of the village and the ultimate breakthrough forms the basis of contemporary traditions and customs associated with beating of drums, wearing red outfit and lighting of fireworks. The two other articles focus on Momo, an American monster. Momo (also known as the Missouri Monster) is hairy and foul-smelling (Hamilton 16). In general, the key differences between Nian and Momo highlight the fundamental cultural variation between China and the United States of America.

The Big Book of Missouri Ghost Stories (2013) by Troy Taylor examines and analyzes the circumstances leading to the discovery of Momo the Missouri Monster. Apart from Momo, the article analyzes various legends and ghostly tales of Missouri (Taylor 130). In addition, the article asserts that most of the legends and ghostly tales consist of a mystery, bloodshed, and tragedy. Taylor further states that copious other stories about Missouri have since been lost in time, hidden or remained secret. Although a number of legends seem to have significantly impacted villages, towns and states, Americans do not take them seriously unlike the Chinese (Taylor 130). Louisiana residents have never considered the day some residents purportedly saw Momo special in their cultural history.

Being outside, in the wild, and looking at the beautiful Rocky Mountains, while talking to the Ranger, meant that I could see what he is so concerned about. The views, the fresh air and the information we were sharing made me more committed to conservation than ever. As we talked, we walked on a sort trail, allowing me to get a view of the mountains and valleys surrounding us, and being influenced by all the natural beauty all around us.

I was interested to learn that Idaho is 60% owned by the Federal Government and that this has made it possible to preserve so much of the natural environment. When the Ranger spoke of this fact, he smiled, saying that not many people liked this situation. People would rather develop the land, cut down timber, and start cattle ranches in these areas. But the Ranger did point out that as “we keep chipping away” more and more land will be lost to development. What we need an island to camp and fish, hunt and go boating and skiing, according to the Ranger. Again, as he made this comment, he smiled and his face lit up. This is a man who believes passionately in conserving the habitat he works in. He also knows the value of the natural environment for all of us.

He told me something of the history of Idaho, and his beliefs about what has gone wrong in the past were clear. Even though Europeans did not arrive on the east side of the US early, so a lot of wildlife managed to survive, they did get there eventually. By the early 1900s, much of the wildlife had been depleted – he especially mentioned bison. What was positive was the feeling that the seedlings of the wildlife were still available, and people started to conserve. So today, there is a lot of wildlife again, but again, it is being threatened. While there is, as mentioned, a fair amount of public land, the demand is growing for development and farmland. As we sat next to a small stream, it hit home that so much of this environment is vulnerable to humans.

Already, there are very serious problems with the number of weeds growing in the area. These are aggressive weeds and they stop the growth of the natural sagebrush. This happens especially in the lowlands. In the higher elevations, the weeds tend not to grow as much.&nbsp.

The play has been produced, directed, and enacted manifold times. One presentation is by Crash Box Players and Lost Angels, directed by Steven Friedland and produced by Kathleen Dunn, Laura Niemi, and Elise Robertson. The cast of the play includes Jake Alston (as Danny/Second Soldier), Kelly Boulware (as Cathal/First Soldier), Ed Cunningham (as John McDermot), Kathleen Dunn (as Donna), Darrel Guilbeau (as Gabriel/Policeman), David Lane (as a musician), Jack Mungovan (as Liam/Musician), Laura Niemi (as Frieda), Elise Robertson (as Josie), Joel Stoffer (as Joe Conran), and Joseph Whipp (as Malachy). The cast is very talented, giving extra beauty to the theme of the play.

The play made its appearance in London during 1985-86. Anne Devlin, the daughter of a controversial labor leader in Belfast, Paddy Devlin, has attempted to accomplish a surmountable job telling the story of Belfast when it was seeing some of the worst days of its history, through the weaving of the story related to three Catholic women, whose lives underwent many changes brought about by the ongoing incidents and happenings in Belfast. Anne Devlin shows, in the play, how men reveal their macho by converting society into a war zone. These men also included those who were struggling for the Irish independence, who were unknowingly converting the community into a zone of never-ending siege. The culture was being ignored. Family lives were suffering. “…where women suffer double oppression–subjugated as much by their brothers, fathers, husbands, and lovers as by the Brits. Ourselves Alone tries to expose the ugliness of the Belfast blood knot”, writes Adler (para.2). It was hard to decide where Belfast was heading to.

The storyline revolves around three ordinary Catholic women, including two Andersonstown sisters, Donna and Josie McCoy, and their brother’s wife, Frieda, who has been a Long Kesh prisoner, as shown in the play’s early scenes. Donna is kind of superficial, Josie possesses a strange hidden agenda, and Frieda is shown struggling with life in order to bring up her infant alone when her husband is in prison. Frieda’s pro-IRA father has disowned her, and she wants to be a singer but her father sends her into the arms of a Workers’ Party organizer and anti-IRA zealot.