Toyah

-a month or so ago i volunteered to help another branch fill some of their staffing issues. when i did this i did not realize that i would suffering through a stretch of 14 straight days at 5/3. anyone want to work a day or so for me? on a brighter note, we did receive a bunch of new mini-basketballs, so i have a comfort during my 2-week distress.

-before anthony's wedding i was thinking about making a spring trip to texas. although not out of the question, i think it has now been replaced by a similar voyage in the fall. congrats, again, phil.

-today at work i spent a great deal of my time between customers developing a draft board for fantasy baseball. unfortunately, i cannot check any of my usual pre-season websites from the computer at work. only e-mail. and the occassional blog.

Hillsdale's Prof. Craig posts at No Left Turns that an emerging "dark horse" for the 2008 Republican nomination is the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty. Prof. C. links to an ABC News report that describes Pawlenty's appeal, which is considerable. (It can't be his name!) Looks good so far, and I think no matter how appealing a potential Rice-Bush (Jeb) match up may be, I think America is still more than a few years removed from electing a black woman as president.

For fairness' sake, here is a list of the top 50 names being mentioned as potential Democrat contenders. Most are laughable, and, unsurprisingly, Hillary and Boy Edwards top the list.

Check out this link for the whole story.

Sir James takes a moment to educate on Washington and his army.

A-Train's wedding is Saturday. Please keep him and the future Mrs. A-Train in your prayers. Especially the future Mrs. A-Train. :)



Or, try this.

As you might imagine, I've been looking at wedding vows and things of that sort this morning. This is a modernized version of a medieval ceremony, mostly from Elizabeth I's Book of Common Prayer. Don't know that we'll be use it, but I do think it is quite cool. I especially like the ring going on several fingers while a specific promise is made.

---------

Priest say unto the Man: Wilt the have this Woman to be thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt the love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?

The Man shall answer: I will.

Then shall the Priest say to the Woman: Wilt the have this man to be thy wedded husband, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt the obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?

The Woman shall answer: I will.

Thus ends the formal betrothal. The couple shall advance to the Altar, led by the Minister, who shall then turn to the assembled company, and say:

Who giveth this Woman to be married to this Man?

The person who gives the Woman shall answer, and shall place the Woman's right hand in the hand of the Minister, and then shall retire. Then shall they give their troth to each other in this manner: The Minister, receiving the Woman at her father's or friend's hands, shall cause the Man with his right hand to take the Woman by her right hand, and to say after him as followeth,

GROOM' VOW: "I, ___________, take thee __________ to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, for fairer or fouler, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us depart, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereunto I plight thee my troth.

Then shall they loose their hands; and the Woman, with her right hand taking the Man by his right hand, shall likewise say after the Minister,

BRIDE'S VOW: I ___________ take thee___________ to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to be bonny and buxom at bed and at board, to love and to cherish, till death us depart, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereunto I plight thee my troth.

Then shall they again loose their hands; and the Man shall give unto the Woman a Ring, laying the same upon the Book with the accustomed duty to the Priest and Clerk. And the Priest shall bless the Ring(s) in the following manner:

Bless these Rings, O merciful Lord, that those who wear them, that give and receive them, may be ever faithful to one another, remain in your peace, and live and grow old together in your love, under their own vine and fig tree, and seeing their children's children. Amen.

And the Priest, taking the Ring, shall deliver it to the Man, to put it on the fourth finger of the Woman's left hand. And the Man holding the ring there, and taught by the Priest, shall say,

GROOM: With this Ring I thee wed, (here placing it upon her thumb) and with my body I thee honor, (here placing it upon her index finger) and with all my worldly goods I thee endow; (here placing it upon her ring finger) In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

If it be a double-ring ceremony, let the Woman do the same as the Man, giving him the ring, and repeating the same words as he. They both shall kneel down; and the Minister shall say,

Let us pray. O Eternal God, Creator and Preserver of all mankind, Giver of all spiritual grace, the Author of everlasting life; Send thy blessing upon these thy servants, this man and this woman, whom we bless in thy Name; + that, as Isaac and Rebecca lived faithfully together, so these persons may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made, whereof this Ring given and received is a token and pledge, and may ever hereafter remain in perfect love and peace together, and live according to thy laws; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

And here shall be said the LORD'S PRAYER.

Then shall the Priest join their right hands together, and say,

Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder. Then shall the Minister speak unto the people. Forasmuch as N and N have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth each to the other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a Ring, and by joining of hands; I pronounce therefore that they be Man and Wife together, in the Name of the Father, + and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen

Here is an interesting little post I found in a blog found at www.overlawyered.com:
If the government wants to save money, it could start here
Logan Young loves Alabama football. He loves it so much that he paid a Memphis-area high school coach $150,000 in exchange for the coach steering a top recruit to Alabama. This act was certainly immoral and violated about twenty NCAA violations. But because the coach works for a public school, the act was also bribery of a state official. And so the federal government prosecuted Young under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and convicted him for conspiracy, bribery and money laundering. (AP, "Shady boosters can now fear federal prosecutors," (Feb. 5); "The real outrage was Young's conduct," Birmingham News, Feb. 6). Was this really the best use of government resources? RICO, a statute originally targeted at organized crime, has been extended far beyond this purpose and is now used to go after abortion protestors and immoral boosters. I do not agree with what Logan did, but I would argue that the detriment to society is not so great to warrant such an expenditure of tax dollars and judicial resources.
Posted by Greg Skidmore

My question is what do you guys think, is this the sort of thing the Fed. Govt. should be spending our money on? I think the argument in the negative should start with the question, is this sort of "crime" that the drafters of RICO really envisioned the statute to be used against?

Abortion may increase a woman’s risk for generalized anxiety disorder, study shows

Well, I was watching the State of the Union on Fox this evening and they showed the lone representative of the Jedi Council, errr...Supreme Court waltzing in, Justice Breyer. (Breyer, J. dissenting)(law school humor there). And the commentator stated that their Excellencies on the Court don't take the Union Address very seriously anymore, sending usually no more than one justice. (paraphrase)
This just seems to me to be very indicative of the political philosophy taken by the Court - mere lip service given to the other branches, while the court continues to plough forward in it's crusade, erecting unsermountable walls, discovering long lurking privacy rights, and defining "unquestionable" compelling state interests.
Anyway, /rant off. I just thought I would share that little thought.