Appears in the Yoga Sutras as the मार्जार (marjaarah) pose.

What does it mean by "heart ache".

I read For Whom The Bell Tolls when I was 15, and it never occurred to me that it was glorifying war. It's true Death in the Afternoon glorifies bullfighting, but how many teenagers run off to be toreros?

And the painter who later got the job of covering up the naughty parts got nicknamed "Breeches".
But counterpoint: Michelangelo painted himself as St Bartholomew's flayed skin.
Did you ever read his poem about being old?

I went looking and see what you mean. Some of the other memes are better TBH.Z
PAYING CHILD SUPPORT WITH SCRATCH OFF TICKETS.
YOU CAN'T CHARGE ME WITH RECKLESS DRIVING BECAUSE I DRIVE RECKLESSLY EVERYDAY

The corruption aspect is what probably sparked the Administration's interest.

There's a mugshot so I suspect more than a speeding ticket was involved.
And it's Florida. Other than the Sunshine Skyway Bridge offramps, where is there a hill steep enough to do that?

I read the book as a teen (my parents had it on the bookshelf). Never seen the movie. Plot didn't seem odd. It was just evident Costain wanted to write something that similar to but yet wasn't an obvious clone of Ben-Hur and The Robe.
If you want to read something good by him, try The Tontine.

Which version of the Reformation finale does he use?
I have recordings of the oratorios, and I don't remember when I last played them.

Serebrier recorded it as part of his Stokowski series.

Not arguing with anything else you're saying, but antisemitism has deep roots that are older than Europe. It was already a thing in Ptolemaic Egypt, and the Christian version was really developed in the Levant. And then there's Muslim antisemitism...Europe took over a thing that was already there.

Other possibilities
Quiffelec
Bavouzet on MDG
Bavouzet on Chandos
Cho
Samson

I thought she illustrated something Abulhawa herself wrote?

Sign saying "Crocodiles in Area. Do not feed or harass."

You can assume that if you see a sign or label that says "do not do this obviously idiotic action", it's there because someone previously did that obviously idiotic action.
I was at a local park this week. Someone was swimming a few feet away from this sign.

They obviously have moved past my grandfather's opinion that humans were not supposed to leave Planet Earth (in response to 10 year old me being excited about Neil Armstrong stepping on the move).
(He was a tailor. His reasoning was simply Gen 1:1 differentiating between hashamayim and haeretz.)

I seem to remember it the other way around: a cohen could leave Eretz Yisrael walking on stilts to avoid contact with ground Chazal decreed impure.
Or alternatively be carried around in a box.

True. But that would mean no proofreading.

Note this is from a reporter who calls it the *Straight* of Hormuz.

The people who objected, I might mention, all became anti-Trumpers.
(The man who runs the site was prominent among the first Never Trumpers. Still is.)

King's bigotry had a wide spread of targets and mixed in anti-Blackness and misogyny. Have Ogles and Fine gone there?
I was regularly in an online conservative space for most of the Bush/Obama years. Comments like Fine's were regular there although others would object to them.

Ogles/Fine haven't said anything that wasn't a common idea among the GOP base for the last 25 years. Also iirc both stick to Islamophobia and its variants. King was explicitly white nationalist, it took a few years for them to actually take action, and they'd probably do nothing now about him.

A golem can observe the conditions around them. Can Adam do that?

Is he observant in any way?
I know nothing about him beyond his posts, but I never had the sense he is.

The emphasis on sex is just Christians imposing their own misreading on an already existing text. Just as they do with most of the "Old Testament".

Not only are there antisemites who have Jewish spouses and kids, but there are antisemites who are Jews.
There's a long line of them going back to Roman times.

Any relation?

At least he didn't mix it up with Chanukah or Pesach.
(And there is a gragger in there.)

Jesus's real innovation there was expanding the definition of adultery so that the man's status as married made it adultery even if the woman wasn't married.

Not divorce.
His view on divorce was almost exactly the one held by Beth Shammai: only for adultery. Beth Hillel were the ones who said a man could divorce his wife for any reason.

I can't even say it once. Slowly.