Al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden is dead and the United States has his body, a person familiar with the developments says. (May 1)
George W. Bush has to be the happiest man in the world tonight. The mastermind of 9/11 was killed by the USA, and to me that tells the world that the USA will get our enemies eventually. I remember like yesterday the video clip of President Bush telling the people of New York that justice will be served.
George W. Bush visits police, firemen, and rescue workers at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.
The Associated Press reported today in the article,"Sources: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead" by Julie Pace:
Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, is dead, and the U.S. is in possession of his body, a person familiar with the situation said late Sunday.
President Barack Obama was expected to address the nation on the developments Sunday night.
Two senior counterterrorism officials confirmed that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan last week. One said bin Laden was killed in a ground operation, not by a Predator drone. Both said the operation was based on U.S. intelligence, and both said the U.S. is in possession of bin Laden's body.
Officials long believed bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world, was hiding a mountainous region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak ahead of the president.
The development comes just months before the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon, orchestrated by bin Laden's al-Qaida organization, that killed more than 3,000 people.
The attacks set off a chain of events that led the United States into wars in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and America's entire intelligence apparatus was overhauled to counter the threat of more terror attacks at home.
Al-Qaida organization was also blamed for the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 people and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in Yemen, as well as countless other plots, some successful and some foiled.
_____________________________________________________________
My son Hunter has done a tour in Iraq and will be heading to Afghanistan for a second tour. My nephew Jeremy Parks is in Afghanistan right now finishing up his first tour. Probably neither one of them would have even joined the army if it had not been for 9/11.
A september 11 2001 tribute, and a watch of what happend that horrible morning near World Trade Center buildings, A terrible saw of what happend on the towers basements also. Never Forget 9/11/01
But that didn’t mean journalists were spared any ridicule Saturday night.
The evening’s celebrity host Seth Meyers, “Saturday Night Live” writer and star, mocked some of the industry’s best-known faces.
“Katie [Couric] was known best for asking those tough questions like, ‘name a newspaper,” Meyers said, referencing Couric’s 2008 interview with Sarah Palin. “Years of hard-hitting questions, and she’s going to be remembered for the one that could have doubled as a category on ‘The Family Feud.’ “
On Juan Williams, the NPR journalist fired after saying he gets nervous on a plane when he sees people dressed in “Muslim garb,” Meyers said, “so Juan is black and afraid of Muslims, making him the least likely man to get a cab in New York City.”
But some of Meyers most biting remarks were reserved for 2012 hopefuls and the president himself.
Meyers suggested Romney’s book “No Apologies” actually indicated Romney made many mistakes. “If I come home from a trip to Vegas and the first thing I say to my girlfriend is ‘no apologies,’ we’re gonna have a follow up conversation,” Meyers quipped.
Meyers made fun of Trump’s hair, likening it to a fox that would be happy to finish the leftovers at his table, said Pawlenty makes Al Gore look like drag queen RuPaul, and joked that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and son Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have something in common with Meyers and his own father: “we’re also not going to get elected president.”
Meyers also took a few digs at Obama.
“Who knows if they can beat you in 2012?” Meyers said of the potential GOP field. “But I’ll tell you who can definitely beat you, Mr. President–2008 Barack Obama,” he said, standing feet from the commander-in-chief as the audience roared with laughter. “You would have loved him–so charismatic, so charming. Was he a little too idealistic? Maybe. But you would have loved him.”
And Meyers also took note of the toll the presidency has apparently taken on the president’s appearance. Meyers said the First Lady looked even more beautiful at Saturday’s dinner than she did on Inauguration Day 2009. “But you, Mr. President have aged a little,” Meyers said. “What happened to you? When you were sworn in you looked like the guy from the Old Spice commercials. Now you look like Louis Gossett Sr.,” he said, referencing 74-year-old actor Louis Gossett Jr.
“Maybe you should start smoking again,” Meyers said. “If your hair gets any whiter, the tea party is going to endorse it.”
Jason Tolbert reported that Mike Huckabee is coming to Arkansas for a big fundraiser. If it goes well there be a great chance that Huckabee may throw his hat into the ring. Just think about the fact that Huckabee just might be in the same seat President Obama was in this year where he hosted the dinner. I wonder if he could take getting hit by all those jokes or not.
Donald Trump took the jokes leveled at him in stride. I personally think Donald Trump himself is a joke. I think most conservative republicans think the same. Take a look at what Tolbert wrote on the subject.
Over the last decade, we have become a society obsessed with reality shows. That culture seems to be bleeding over to presidential politics.
How so?
Well, three of the top contenders — at least to some degree — are already reality show stars. Donald Trump of NBC’s “The Apprentice,” Mike Huckabee of Fox News’ “Huckabee,” and Sarah Palin of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” all are mentioned in the same breath as Republican Primary 2012.
In fairness, unlike the winners of Big Brother or Survivor, these three were well-known pre-primetime TV.
Donald Trump’s fame was mostly based on being filthy rich. A real estate developer and owner of hotels and casinos across the country, Trump’s net wealth is somewhere in the millions, although no one really knows for sure. He has practiced a tradition of putting his name “Trump” on virtually everything he owns, increasing the public perception of him as a mega-rich guy.
After weeks of keeping his thoughts about Donald Trump largely to himself, President Obama on Saturday night ridiculed the real estate magnate in front of a live televised audience at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, D.C.
As Trump and wife Melania sat among the guests gathered at the Washington Hilton, Obama poked fun at Trump’s reality show, said Trump lacked the “credentials” to be president, and mocked the businessman’s recent crusade to get Obama to release his long-form birth certificate.
“I know that he’s taken some flack lately,” Obama said of Trump. “But no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.”
But then the president quickly changed gears. “And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like–did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” Obama said, referencing rap icons Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur.
You can watch Obama’s 19-minute speech in its entirety below:
But Obama didn’t stop at making light of the mutual infatuation of Trump and the birther movement.
The president next mocked Trump’s background, saying, “All kidding aside. Obviously we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience,” a dig at Trump’s political background that evoked laughter from the audience of journalists, politicians and celebrities.
Obama then chose to reference a recent episode of “Celebrity Apprentice” that featured Trump, the star of the program, firing actor Gary Busey instead of singer Meatloaf and rapper Lil Jon in an Omaha Steak challenge. “And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night,” Obama said as the audience roared with laughter and applause. “Well handled, sir. Well handled.”
It’s typical for the speeches at the annual dinner to play out as a roast, poking fun at the self-importance of the national political scene. But Obama’s lampooning of Trump and the birther crusade held special significance, since the Correspondents Dinner festivities marked the first time the president and Trump were in the same room since Trump began his highly publicized campaign to get Obama to release his birth certificate.
The president made fun of the controversy, saying that he was prepared to “go a step further.”
“Tonight, for the first time, I am releasing my official birth video,” he told the audience. But then he played a clip of lion Simba’s birth in Disney’s cartoon movie The Lion King.
“I want to make clear to the Fox News table–that was a joke,” the president said of the Disney clip.
Obama also made some jokes at his own expense, noting how his “honeymoon” as president was over and referencing the perception that he’s too professorial and arrogant. At the star-studded gala, he also paused to note that he’s even losing support from Hollywood—a mainstay of fundraising for the president’s 2008 campaign. (Though he dinged actor Matt Damon for the celebrity’s recent criticism, saying “Matt, I just saw ‘The Adjustment Bureau,’ so right back at you, buddy.”)
Obama also joked about starting conspiracy theories about his potential 2012 opponents: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was born in Canada; Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has the middle name “Hosni”; Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman is Chinese; and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney passed universal health care. (The last allegation, of course, falls into the “funny because it’s true” category, since Romney had presided over the passage of a state-level version of the same individual-mandate plan that Obama signed into law in 2010.)
The light-hearted evening was interspersed with more serious matters. The Correspondents Association issued awards students and journalists for their achievements, while also honoring journalists abroad who have lost their lives or faced grave physical hazards in the course of their work.
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. Take a look at this clip.
In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that suggested to him that he seek to marry a virgin.
Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple?s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past Photo: PA.
The Archbishop of York backed Prince William and Kate Middleton’s decision to live together before marriage, saying that many modern couples want to “test the milk before they buy the cow”.
Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple’s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past.
But Anglican traditionalists criticised the Archbishop, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, for failing to reinforce Christian teaching which prohibits sex outside marriage.
The row came as Prince William and Kate Middleton unveiled their choices for the royal wedding service, which include classically British music and hymns, and an updated choice of marriage vows in which the bride omits the word “obey”.
In a television interview, Dr Sentamu was asked whether it was appropriate for the Prince, who is in line to become head of the Church of England as King, to have been living with his bride before marriage.
He said he had conducted wedding services for “many cohabiting couples” during his time as a vicar in south London.
“We are living at a time where some people, as my daughter used to say, they want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow,” he said. “For some people that’s where their journeys are.
“But what is important, actually, is not to simply look at the past because they are going to be standing in the Abbey taking these wonderful vows: ‘for better for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health; till death us do part.’”
However, the Rev David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, a conservative evangelical group, said the Archbishop had “missed an opportunity to set out Christian teaching”
“What he said wasn’t appropriate as he,” Mr Phillips said. “He gave the impression it doesn’t matter whether people live together before marriage. I thought he would have tried to get across Christian teaching on marriage that says it is not appropriate to have sex outside marriage.”
In another sign of their modern approach, the Prince and Miss Middleton published their order of service online for millions of people to join in at home.
The 28-page booklet confirms that Kate Middleton will follow the example of Diana, Princess of Wales by omitting the word “obey” from her vows.
Instead she will “love, comfort, honour and keep” him, mirroring the vows the Prince himself will make.
In the article below you will notice this sentence:
“People who cohabit are much more likely to come from broken homes. Among young adults, those who experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood are more likely to form cohabiting unions than children who grew up in families with married parents who got along.”
Prince William’s parents divorced when he was young. Could this observation above apply to him?
“Why has unmarried cohabitation become such a widespread practice throughout the modern world in such a short period of time? Demographic factors are surely involved. Puberty begins at an earlier age, as does the onset of sexual activity, and marriages take place at older ages mainly because of the longer time period spent getting educated and establishing careers. Thus there is an extended period of sexually active singlehood before first marriage. Also, our material affluence as well as welfare benefits enable many young people to live on their own for an extended time, apart from their parents. During those years of young adulthood nonmarital cohabitation can be a cost-saver, a source of companionship, and an assurance of relatively safe sexual fulfillment. For some, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage, for some, an alternative to it, and for yet others, simply an alternative to living alone.”36
“More broadly, the rise of cohabitation in the advanced nations has been attributed to the sexual revolution, which has virtually revoked the stigma against cohabitation.37 In the past thirty years, with the advent of effective contraceptive technologies and widespread sexual permissiveness promoted by advertising and the organized entertainment industry, premarital sex has become widely accepted. In large segments of the population cohabitation no longer is associated with sin or social impropriety or pathology, nor are cohabiting couples subject to much, if any, disapproval.”
“Another important reason for cohabitation’s growth is that the institution of marriage has changed dramatically, leading to an erosion of confidence in its stability. From a tradition strongly buttressed by economics, religion, and the law, marriage has become a more personalized relationship, what one wag has referred to as a mere “notarized date.” People used to marry not just for love but also for family and economic considerations, and if love died during the course of a marriage, this was not considered sufficient reason to break up an established union. A divorce was legally difficult if not impossible to get, and people who divorced faced enormous social stigma.”
“ In today’s marriages love is all, and it is a love tied to self-fulfillment. Divorce is available to everyone, with little stigma attached. If either love or a sense of self-fulfillment disappear, the marriage is considered to be over and divorce is the logical outcome.”
“Fully aware of this new fragility of marriage, people are taking cautionary actions. The attitude is either try it out first and make sure that it will work, or try to minimize the damage of breakup by settling for a weaker form of union, one that avoids a marriage license and, if need be, an eventual divorce.”
“The growth of cohabitation is also associated with the rise of feminism. Traditional marriage, both in law and in practice, typically involved male leadership. For some women, cohabitation seemingly avoids the legacy of patriarchy and at the same time provides more personal autonomy and equality in the relationship. Moreover, women’s shift into the labor force and their growing economic independence make marriage less necessary and, for some, less desirable.”
“Underlying all of these trends is the broad cultural shift from a more religious society where marriage was considered the bedrock of civilization and people were imbued with a strong sense of social conformity and tradition, to a more secular society focused on individual autonomy and self invention. This cultural rejection of traditional institutional and moral authority, evident in all of the advanced, Western societies, often has had ‘freedom of choice’ as its theme and the acceptance of ‘alternative lifestyles’ as its message.”
“In general, cohabitation is a phenomenon that began among the young in the lower classes and then moved up to the middle classes.38 Cohabitation in America-especially cohabitation as an alternative to marriage-is more common among Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and disadvantaged white women. One reason for this is that male income and employment are lower among minorities and the lower classes, and male economic status remains an important determinant as to whether or not a man feels ready to marry, and a woman wants to marry him.40 Cohabitation is also more common among those who are less religious than their peers. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the act of cohabitation actually diminishes religious participation, whereas marriage tends to increase it.”41
“People who cohabit are much more likely to come from broken homes. Among young adults, those who experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood are more likely to form cohabiting unions than children who grew up in families with married parents who got along. They are also more likely to enter living-together relationships at younger ages.42 For young people who have already suffered the losses associated with parental divorce, cohabitation may provide an early escape from family turmoil, although unfortunately it increases the likelihood of new losses and turmoil. For these people, cohabitation often recapitulates the childhood experience of coming together and splitting apart with the additional possibility of more violent conflict. Finally, cohabitation is a much more likely experience for those who themselves have been divorced.”
36. R. Rindfuss and A. VanDenHeuvel. 1990. “Cohabitation: A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?” Population and Development Review 16:703-726; Wendy D. Manning. 1993. “Marriage and Cohabitation Following Premarital Conception.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:839-850.
37. Larry L. Bumpass. 1990. “What’s Happening to the Family?” Demography 27-4:483-498.
38. Arland Thornton, William G. Axinn and Jay D. Treachman. 1995. “The Influence of School Enrollment and Accumulation on Cohabitation and Marriage in Early Adulthood.” American Sociological Review 60-5:762-774; Larry L. Bumpass, James A. Sweet, and Andrew Cherlin.1991. “The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:913-927.
39. Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J. Smock. 1995. “Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors.” Demography 32-4:509-520; Wendy D. Manning and Nancy S. Landale, 1996. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in Premarital Childbearing.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:63-77; Laura Spencer Loomis and Nancy S. Landale. 1994. “Nonmarital Cohabitation and Childbearing Among Black and White American Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:949-962; Robert Schoen and Dawn Owens. 1992. “A Further Look at First Unions and First Marriages.” in S. J. South and Stewart E. Tolnay, eds., The Changing American Family. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, p. 109-117.
40. Daniel T. Lichter, Diane K. McLaughlin, George Kephart, and David J. Landry. 1992. “Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?” American Sociological Review 57-6:781-789; Pamela J. Smock and Wendy D. Manning. 1997. “Cohabiting Partners’ Economic Circumstances and Marriage.” Demography 34-3:331-341; Valerie K. Oppenheimer, Matthijs Kalmijn and Nelson Lim. 1997. “Men’s Career Development and Marriage Timing During a Period of Rising Inequality.” Demography 34-3:311-330.
41. Arland Thornton, W. G. Axinn and D. H. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation and Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology 98-3:628-651.
42. Arland Thornton. 1991.”Influence of the Marital History of Parents on the Marital and Cohabitational Experiences of Children.” American Journal of Sociology 96-4:868-894; Kathleen E. Kiernan. 1992. “The Impact of Family Disruption in Childhood on Transitions Made in Young Adult Life.” Population Studies 46:213-234; Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. 1995. “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood.” Demography, 32-3:299-318.
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
January, 1999
Exchanging Rings
In this image taken from video, Britain’s Prince William, left, places the ring on the finger of his bride, Kate Middleton, as they stand at the altar at Westminster Abbey. (AP Photo/APTN)
Prince William and Kate Middleton wed on April 29, 2011, in an hour-long ceremony at Westminster Abbey. We offer excerpts.
n the final installment, all four of the Queen’s children talk frankly for the first time about their working roles as part of the Royal Family. The younger generation are also seen to be getting involved. There’s an early-morning surprise for the residents of an inner-city hostel when they come down to breakfast and find Prince William making the coffee. Prince Harry attends a strategy meeting for his African charity, Sentebale. And we see what happens when all the family turn up for a very proud moment at Sandhurst
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 9am CST on May 1, 2011.
After Republicans swept into office in 1994, Bill Clinton famously said in his State of the Union address that the era of big government was over. Nearly $10 trillion of federal debt later, the era of big government is at its zenith…
Last month I introduced legislation to do just that. And though it seems extreme to some—containing over $500 billion in spending cuts enacted over one year—it is a necessary first step toward ending our fiscal crisis.
“The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each and to cause justice to reign over us all.”
–Frederic Bastiat
The court systems in the U.S. provide an important and necessary function of providing checks and balances, as well as providing a means of enforcing justice. Providing funding levels that are sufficient for the Judicial Branch to carry
out their important task is essential. However, since 2001 funding has increased nearly 30 percent faster than the rate of inflation. The integrity of our justice system becomes vulnerable if the integrity and strength of our government becomes weakened, a situation that is currently developing with the unsustainable amount of spending, deficit, and debt.
Strengthening our fiscal situation and promoting smaller government will require the need for every agency at every level of government to make sacrifices, but ultimately, a more accountable and fiscally responsible government will increase our liberty and the rule of law. This proposal suggests taking the Judicial Branch back to FY2008 spending levels.
Thomas P. “Boston” Corbett (1832 – presumed dead 1894) was the Union Army soldier who shot and killed Abraham Lincoln‘s assassin, John Wilkes Booth. He disappeared after 1888, but circumstantial evidence suggests that he died in the Great Hinckley Fire in 1894, although this remains impossible to substantiate.
Corbett was born in London, England. His family emigrated to New York City. He became a hatter in Troy, New York. It has been suggested that the fumes of mercury used in the hatter’s trade caused Corbett’s later mental problems.[1]
Corbett married, but his wife died in childbirth. Following her death, he moved to Boston, and continued working as a hatter. He joined the Methodist Episcopal Church and changed his name to Boston, the name of the city where he was converted.[2] In an attempt to imitate Jesus, he began to wear his hair very long.[3] On July 16, 1858, in order to avoid the temptation of prostitutes, Corbett castrated himself with a pair of scissors. He then ate a meal and went to a prayer meeting, before going for medical treatment.[4]
In April 1861, early in the American Civil War, Corbett enlisted as a private in Company I of the 12 Regiment New York Militia. He was discharged in August, at the end of the regiment’s 3 month enlistment. Corbett re-enlisted in September 1863 as a private in Company L, 16th New York Cavalry Regiment. Captured byConfederate Colonel John S. Mosby‘s men at Culpeper, Virginia on June 24, 1864, Corbett was held prisoner at Andersonville prison for five months, when he was exchanged.[2] On his return to his company, he was promoted to sergeant. Corbett would later testify for the prosecution in the trial of the commandant of Andersonville, Captain Henry Wirz.[5][6]
Corbett was a member of the 16th New York Cavalry Regiment sent, on April 24, 1865, to apprehend John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln, who was still at large. Two days later the regiment surrounded Booth and his accomplice, David Herold, in a tobacco barn on the Virginia farm of Richard Garrett. The barn was set on fire in an attempt to force them out into the open. Herold surrendered, but Booth remained inside. Corbett was positioned near a large crack in the barn wall. He saw Booth moving about inside and shot him with his Colt revolver despiteSecretary of WarEdwin M. Stanton‘s orders that Booth should be taken alive. Booth was struck in the neck, the bullet severing his spinal cord, and he died a little more than three hours later.
Boston Corbett
Corbett was immediately arrested for violation of his orders, but Stanton later had the charges dropped. Stanton remarked, “The rebel is dead. The patriot lives.” Corbett received his share of the reward money, amounting to $1,653.84.[7]
In his official statement, Corbett claimed he shot Booth because he thought Lincoln’s assassin was preparing to use his weapons. This was contradicted by the other witnesses. When asked later why he did it, Corbett answered that “Providence directed me”.[8]
After his discharge from the army in August 1865, Corbett went back to work as a hatter, first in Boston, later in Connecticut, and by 1870 in New Jersey. His life was marked by increasingly erratic behavior. In 1875, he threatened several men with a pistol at a soldier’s reunion in Caldwell, Ohio. In 1878, he moved to Concordia, Kansas.
In 1887, because of his fame as Booth’s killer, Corbett was appointed assistant doorkeeper of the Kansas House of Representatives in Topeka. One day he overheard a conversation in which the legislature’s opening prayer was mocked. He jumped to his feet and brandished a revolver. No one was hurt, but Corbett was arrested and sent to the Topeka Asylum for the Insane. On May 26, 1888, he escaped from the asylum. He went to Neodesha, Kansas, and stayed briefly with Richard Thatcher, whom he had met when they were both prisoners of war. When he left, he told Thatcher he was going to Mexico.[9] His “madness” may have been the result of exposure to mercury, an element commonly used in hat manufacturing. It is so well known for this side effect that it has given rise to the expression “mad as a hatter“.
Rather than going to Mexico, Corbett is believed to have settled in a cabin he built in the forests near Hinckley, Minnesota. He is thought to have died in the Great Hinckley Fire of September 1, 1894. Although there is no proof, the name “Thomas Corbett” does appear on the list of dead and missing.[10][11]
In 1958, Boy Scout Troop 31 of Concordia, Kansas built a roadside monument to Boston Corbett. It is on Key Road in Concordia. A small sign also was placed to mark the dug hole where Corbett for a time had lived.[12]
I really hope that things go well for Prince William and Kate Middleton. This article below is about the affect on children during cohabitation. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the Royal Couple. This post today is mainly about the best way you can prepare for marriage. In this series of posts I will look at this issue of living together. It is based on the article “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation before Marriage,” by Josh McDowell. Here is a portion of the article below:
“Why Cohabitation Is Harmful For Children”
“Of all the types of cohabitation, that involving children is by far the most problematic. In 1997, 36% of all unmarried-couple households included a child under eighteen, up from only 21% in 1987.22 For unmarried couples in the 25-34 age group the percentage with children is higher still, approaching half of all such households.23 By one recent estimate nearly half of all children today will spend some time in a cohabiting family before age 16.”24
“One of the greatest problems for children living with a cohabiting couple is the high risk that the couple will break up.25 Fully three quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born to married parents face a similar fate. One reason is that marriage rates for cohabiting couples have been plummeting. In the last decade, the proportion of cohabiting mothers who go on to eventually marry the child’s father declined from 57% to 44%.”26
“Parental break up, as is now widely known, almost always entails a myriad of personal and social difficulties for children, some of which can be long lasting. For the children of a cohabiting couple these may come on top of a plethora of already existing problems. One study found that children currently living with a mother and her unmarried partner had significantly more behavior problems and lower academic performance than children from intact families.”27
“It is important to note that the great majority of children in unmarried-couple households were born not in the present union but in a previous union of one of the adult partners, usually the mother.28 This means that they are living with an unmarried stepfather or mother’s boyfriend, with whom the economic and social relationships are often tenuous. For example, these children have no claim to child support should the couple separate.”
“Child abuse has become a major national problem and has increased dramatically in recent years, by more than 10% a year according to one estimate.29 In the opinion of most researchers, this increase is related strongly to changing family forms. Surprisingly, the available American data do not enable us to distinguish the abuse that takes place in married-couple households from that in cohabiting-couple households. We do have abuse-prevalence studies that look at stepparent families (both married and unmarried) and mother’s boyfriends (both cohabiting and dating). Both show far higher levels of child abuse than is found in intact families.”30
“One study in Great Britain did look at the relationship between child abuse and the family structure and marital background of parents, and the results are disturbing. It was found that, compared to children living with married biological parents, children living with cohabiting but unmarried biological parents are 20 times more likely to be subject to child abuse, and those living with a mother and a cohabiting boyfriend who is not the father face an increased risk of 33 times. In contrast, the rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child lives with a biological mother who lives alone. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the most unsafe of all family environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father.31 This is the environment for the majority of children in cohabiting couple households.”
“Part of the enormous differences indicated above are probably due to differing income levels of the families involved. But this points up one of the other problems of cohabiting couples-their lower incomes. It is well known that children of single parents fare poorly economically when compared to the children of married parents. Not so well known is that cohabiting couples are economically more like single parents than like married couples. While the 1996 poverty rate for children living in married couple households was about 6%, it was 31% for children living in cohabiting households, much closer to the rate of 45% for children living in families headed by single mothers.”32
“One of the most important social science findings of recent years is that marriage is a wealth enhancing institution. According to one study, childrearing cohabiting couples have only about two-thirds of the income of married couples with children, mainly due to the fact that the average income of male cohabiting partners is only about half that of male married partners.33 The selection effect is surely at work here, with less well-off men and their partners choosing cohabitation over marriage. But it also is the case that men when they marry, especially those who then go on to have children, tend to become more responsible and productive.34 They earn more than their unmarried counterparts. An additional factor not to be overlooked is the private transfer of wealth among extended family members, which is considerably lower for cohabiting couples than for married couples.35 It is clear that family members are more willing to transfer wealth to “in-laws” than to mere boyfriends or girlfriends.”
22. U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March, 1997.
23. Wendy D. Manning and Daniel T. Lichter. 1996. “Parental Cohabitation and Children’s Economic Well-Being.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:998-1010.
24. Bumpass and Lu. 1998. op.cit. Using a different data set, however, Deborah R. Graefe and Daniel T. Lichter conclude that only about one in four chilren will live in a family headed by a cohabiting couple sometime during childhood. “Life Course Transitions of American Children: Parental Cohabitation, Marriage, and Single Motherhood.” Forthcoming: May, 1999. Demography 36.
25. It is the case, however, that-just as with married couples—cohabiting couples with children are less likely to break up than childless couples. Zheng Wu, “The Stability of Cohabitation Relationships: The Role of Children.” 1995. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:231-236.
26. Bumpass and Lu, 1998, op.cit.
27. Elizabeth Thompson, T. L. Hanson and S. S. McLanahan. 1994. “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources versus Parental Behaviors.” Social Forces 73-1:221-242.
28. By one estimate, 63%. Deborah R. Graefe and Daniel Lichter, 1999, forthcoming.
29. Andrea J. Sedlak and Diane Broadhurst, 1996. The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Washington, DC: HHS-National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
30. See, for example, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly. 1987. “Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents,” in R. Gelles and J. Lancaster, eds. Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Aldine de Gruyter; Leslie Margolin. 1992. “Child Abuse by Mothers’ Boyfriends: Why the Overrepresentation?” Child Abuse and Neglect 16:541-551. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have stated: “stepparenthood per se remains the single most powerful risk factor for child abuse that has yet been identified.” Homicide (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988) p. 87-88.
31. Robert Whelan. 1993. Broken Homes and Battered Children: A Study of the Relationship Between Child Abuse and Family Type. London: Family Education Trust. See especially Table 12, p. 29. (Data are from the 1980s.) See also Patrick F. Fagan and Dorothy B. Hanks. 1997. The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family and The American Community. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
32. Wendy D. Manning and Daniel T. Lichter. 1996. “Parental Cohabitation and Children’s Economic Well-Being.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:998-1010.
33. Wendy D. Manning and Daniel T. Lichter. 1996.
34. Sanders Korenman and David Neumark. 1990. “Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?” The Journal of Human Resources 26-2:282-307; George A. Akerlof. 1998. “Men Without Children.” The Economic Journal 108:287-309; Steven L. Nock. 1998. Marriage in Men’s Lives (New York: Oxford University Press).
35. Lingxin Hao. 1996. “Family Structure, Private Transfers, and the Economic Well-Being of Families with Children.” Social Forces 75-1:269-292.
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
January, 1999
Leaving the Church
Britain’s Prince William and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, left, wave as they leave Westminster Abbey at the Royal Wedding. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II and her husband the Duke of Edinburgh attended a pre-wedding reception for foreign royals Thursday evening. Royals across Europe and the Middle East attend a reception at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Hyde Park. (April 28)
In the final instalment, all four of the Queen’s children talk frankly for the first time about their working roles as part of the Royal Family. The younger generation are also seen to be getting involved. There’s an early-morning surprise for the residents of an inner-city hostel when they come down to breakfast and find Prince William making the coffee. Prince Harry attends a strategy meeting for his African charity, Sentebale. And we see what happens when all the family turn up for a very proud moment at Sandhurst.
The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.
In Feb of 1983 Milton Friedman wrote the article “Washington:Less Red Ink (An argument that the balanced-budget amendent would be a rare merging of public and private interests),” and here is a portion of that article:
Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government:
**6. The key problem is not deficits but the size of government spending.**
My sentiments exactly. Which is why I have never supported an amendment directed solely at a balanced budget. I have written repeatedly that while I would prefer that the budget be balanced, I would rather have government spend $500 billion and run a deficit of $100 billion than have it spend $800 billion with a balanced budget. It matters greatly how the budget is balanced, whether by cutting spending or by raising taxes.
In my eyes, the chief merit of the amendment recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee is precisely that it does limit spending. Section 1 requires that statement outlays be no greater than statement receipts; section 2 limits the maximum increase in statement receipts; the two together effectively limit statement outlays. Moreover, if in any year Congress manages to keep statement receipts and outlays below the maximum level, the effect is to lower the maximum level for future years, thus fostering a gradual ratcheting down of spending relative to national income.
A further strength of the amendment is the provision for approving an exceptional increase in statement receipts (hence in statement outlays). The spending-limitation amendment that was drafted by the National Tax Limitation Committee required a two-thirds majority of both houses in order to justify an exceptional increase in outlays. The amendment passed by the Senate requires only “a majority of the whole number of both houses of Congress.” However, the majority must vote for an explicit tax increase. I submit that it is far easier to get a two-thirds majority of Congress to approve an exceptional increase in spending than to get a simple majority to approve an explicit increase in taxes. So this is a stronger, not a weaker, amendment.
Section 6 proposed by Senator Armstrong in the course of Senate debate, makes the debt ceiling permanent and requires a supermajority vote to raise it. That provision was approved by a narrow majority composed of a coalition of right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats–the one group demonstrating its hardcore conservatism, the other seeking to reduce the chances of adoption of the basic amendment.
I do not favor the debt-limit provision. Its objective–to strengthen pressure on Congress to balance the budget–is fine, and it may be that it would do little harm. But it seems to me both unnecessary and potentially harmful. I trust that it will be eliminated if and when the amendment is finally approved by Congress. I shall favor the amendment even if the debt-limit provision is left in, but less enthusiastically.
Weichmann was born in Baltimore, Maryland, the son of German immigrants. The family surname was originally Wiechmann, but as in the case of many who emigrated to the United States, the name underwent several phonetic spelling changes. His father Johann was a Lutheran, and his mother Maria was a Catholic. Johann Weichmann was a tailor by trade, and he moved with his wife and their five children first from the vicinity of Baltimore to Washington D.C., and later to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where Louis attended Central High School. He wrote in his autobiographical work A True History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865, that he desired to pursue a career as a pharmacist, but at the behest of his mother he reluctantly agreed to study for the Roman Catholic priesthood. At the age of seventeen he entered the seminary at St. Charles College in Maryland. There he met and befriended a fellow seminarian, John Surratt, Jr. This friendship was to later have profound consequences for both of them.
In 1862, a year after the outbreak of the American Civil War, both Louis Weichmann and John Surratt left the seminary without becoming priests. Weichmann went to Washington, D.C., where he taught school for two years at St. Matthew’s Institute for Boys. After leaving this position in 1864, he became a clerk in the Department of War, headed by Secretary Edwin Stanton. Surratt had in the meantime become a courier and agent for the Confederacy. As a result of his earlier friendship with John Surratt, Weichmann took lodgings in the boarding house of Surratt’s mother, Mary Surratt, in Washington D.C. This happenstance brought him into contact with the major conspirators involved in Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. According to Weichmann’s testimony at the trial of the conspirators, John Wilkes Booth, David Herold, Lewis Payne,George Atzerodt, John Surratt Jr., and others continually met at Mary Surratt’s boarding house. Weichmann testified that on the day Abraham Lincoln was shot, April 14, 1865, he accompanied Mary Surratt to her other property in Surrattsville, (now Clinton, Maryland), where she delivered items that Booth later retrieved after the assassination. He further testified that Mary Surratt met with John Wilkes Booth no less than three times on that fateful day. Dr. Samuel Mudd, who treated Booth’s broken leg on the night Lincoln was killed, and claimed to have no knowledge of the conspiracy, was linked by Weichmann’s testimony to the events for which he was tried and found guilty as well. Augustus Howell, a blockade runner who worked with John Surratt, claimed during the trial that Weichmann had provided classified information obtained by his position at the War Department over to the Confederates. He supposedly was hoping to obtain a better job from the Confederate government at Richmond in exchange for his services; however, these accusations were never substantiated.
In his later years Weichmann moved to Anderson, Indiana, where he opened a business school. One of his brothers, a Catholic priest, and two of his sisters had moved and settled there. Because of some lingering doubt as to the truth and motives of his testimony, Weichmann became a controversial and somewhat ostracized figure by many people. That Mary Surratt was the first woman tried and executed for a capital crime by the federal government caused a backlash against him. There also were strong anti-Catholic elements that attempted to link Lincoln’s death to aCatholic conspiracy. Partially because of this he swore out an affidavit, shortly before his death, reaffirming that all his testimony concerning Abraham Lincoln’s assassination was totally and completely true. He died a few days later in Anderson, and is buried there at St. Mary’s Cemetery. In spite of using the spelling Weichmann at the conspiracy trial, in all his official correspondence, and as the author of his book, the original family spelling of Wiechmann appears on his tombstone.
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. Take a look at this clip.
In this clip above the commentator actually suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle that suggested to him that he seek to marry a virgin.
“Most cohabiting relationships are relatively short lived and an estimated 60% end in marriage.11 Still, a surprising number are essentially alternatives to marriage and that number is increasing. This should be of great national concern, not only for what the growth of cohabitation is doing to the institution of marriage but for what it is doing, or not doing, for the participants involved. In general, cohabiting relationships tend to be less satisfactory than marriage relationships.”
“Except perhaps for the short term prenuptial type of cohabitation, and probably also for the post-marriage cohabiting relationships of seniors and retired people who typically cohabit rather than marry for economic reasons,12 cohabitation and marriage relationships are qualitatively different. Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents.13One reason is that, as several sociologists not surprisingly concluded after a careful analysis, in unmarried cohabitation ‘levels of certainty about the relationship are lower than in marriage.’”14
“It is easy to understand, therefore, why cohabiting is inherently much less stable than marriage and why, especially in view of the fact that it is easier to terminate, the break-up rate of cohabitors is far higher than for married partners. Within two years about half of all cohabiting relationships end in either marriage or a parting of the ways, and after five years only about 10% of couples are still cohabiting (data from the late 1980s).15 In comparison, only about 45% of first marriages today are expected to break up over the course of a lifetime.”16
“Still not widely known by the public at large is the fact that married couples have substantial benefits over the unmarried in terms of labor force productivity, physical and mental health, general happiness, and longevity.17 There is evidence that these benefits are diluted for couples who are not married but merely cohabiting.18 Among the probable reasons for the benefits of marriage, as summarized by University of Chicago demographer Linda Waite,19 are: 1) The long-term contract implicit in marriage. This facilitates emotional investment in the relationship, including the close monitoring of each other’s behavior. The longer time horizon also makes specialization more likely; working as a couple, individuals can develop those skills in which they excel, leaving others to their partner. 2) The greater sharing of economic and social resources by married couples. In addition to economies of scale, this enables couples to act as a small insurance pool against life uncertainties, reducing each person’s need to protect themselves from unexpected events. 3) The better connection of married couples to the larger community. This includes other individuals and groups (such as in-laws) as well as social institutions such as churches and synagogues. These can be important sources of social and emotional support and material benefits.”
“In addition to missing out on many of the benefits of marriage, cohabitors may face more serious difficulties. Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples.20 And women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse. Some research has shown that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married partners.”21
“Again, the selection factor is undoubtedly strong in findings such as these. But the most careful statistical probing suggests that selection is not the only factor at work; the intrinsic nature of the cohabiting relationship also plays a role.”
11. Larry Bumpass and James Sweet. 1989. “National Estimates of Cohabitation.” Demography 24-4:615-625.
12. Albert Chevan. 1996. “As Cheaply as One: Cohabitation in the Older Population.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:656-666. According to calculations by Chevan, the percentage of noninstitutionalized, unmarried cohabiting persons 60 years of age and over increased from virtually zero in 1960 to 2.4 in 1990, p. 659. See also R. G. Hatch. 1995. Aging and Cohabitation. New York: Garland.
13. Nock. 1995; Brown and Booth. 1996; Linda J. Waite and Kara Joyner, 1996. Men’s and Women’s General Happiness and Sexual Satisfaction in Marriage, Cohabitation and Single Living. Unpublished manuscript. Chicago: Population Research Center, Univ. of Chicago; Renate Forste and Koray Tanfer 1996. “Sexual Exclusivity Among Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Women.” Journal of Marriage the Family 58:33-47; Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth. 1997. A Generation at Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Table 4-2, p. 258.
14. Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin, 1991, p. 926
15. Bumpass and Sweet, 1989
16. Latest estimate based on current divorce rate.
17. Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite. 1995. “Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Disruption and Mortality.” American Journal of Sociology 100:1131-1156; R. Jay Turner and Franco Marino. 1994. “Social Support and Social Structure: A Descriptive Epidemiology.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35:193-212; Linda J. Waite. 1995. “Does Marriage Matter?” Demography 32-4:483-507; Sanders Korenman and David Neumark. 1990. “Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?” The Journal of Human Resources 26-2:282-307; George A. Akerlof. 1998. “Men Without Children.” The Economic Journal 108:287-309.
18. Allan V. Horwitz and Helene Raskin White. 1998. “The Relationship of Cohabitation and Mental Health: A Study of a Young Adult Cohort.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:505-514; Waite. 1995.
19. Linda Waite. 1996. “Social Science Finds: ‘Marriage Matters.'” The Responsive Community Summer, p. 26-35.
20. Lee Robins and Darrel Reiger. 1990. Psychiatric Disorders in America. New York: Free Press, p. 72.
21. Jan E. Stets. 1991. “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:669-680. One study found that, of the violence toward women that is committed by intimates and relatives, 42% involves a close friend or partner whereas only 29% involves a current spouse. Ronet Bachman. 1994. “Violence Against Women.” Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. p. 6
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
January, 1999
Adrian Rogers – [3/3] A Magnificent Marriage
Couple Singing
In this image taken from video, Britain’s Prince William, left, sings with his wife, Kate. (AP Photo/APTN)
Kate Middleton walked down the aisle of Westminster Abbey with her father on Friday to begin her wedding to Prince William. (April 29)
Royals at Wedding
In this image taken from video, From left, Britain’s Prince Philip, Britain’s Prince Charles, and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, sing during the ceremony at Westminster Abbey for the Royal Wedding. (AP Photo/APTN)
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 11pm CST on April 30, 2011.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third consecutive year in which the federal government is running a deficit near or greater than $1 trillion. The solution to the government’s fiscal crisis must begin by cutting spending in all areas, particularly in those that can be better run at the state or local level.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third year in a row in which the U.S. Government runs a budget deficit near – or greater-than $1 trillion. These deficits are far greater than what is economically sustainable, and far outpaces the political duty to produce budgets that are economically responsible. The solution to the government’s fiscal crisis needs to begin by cutting spending at the heart of the problem – right here, on Capitol Hill.
This proposal would be to cut the Legislative Branch by 23 percent or $1.283 billion in FY 2011.
Consistent with many of the spending cuts included in this proposal, the Legislative Branch is taken back to FY2008 levels, and includes the elimination of an outdated agency, the Government Printing Office [GPO].
Government Printing Office: Eliminated
The advancement in technology and innovation has brought about the electronic age, an era that includes very little reason for the government to continue printing large amounts of documents, most of which can be found and read on the internet. In addition, the waste at GPO is incessant. In 2010 alone, GPO spent nearly $30 million in taxpayer dollars to provide Congressional offices with the rarely read Congressional Record, and in September they released their first-ever comic book, “Squeaks Discovers Type,” meant to teach children “why printing is important.”
_________________________________________
Lincoln Assassination Witness appears on I’ve Got a Secret
At age five, Seymour’s godmother, Mrs. George S. Goldsboro, had taken him to see Our American Cousin. He claimed the two sat in the balcony on the side opposite Lincoln’s box. Seymour reported that ” I complained tearfully that I couldn’t get out of the coach because his shirt was torn-anything to delay the dread moment-but Sarah (nurse Sarah Cook) dug into her bag and found a big safety pin .”, I shook so hard from fright (earlier seen men with guns and seemed they were all pointed at him) (in Washington), it caused Sarah to accidentally stab him with the pin. he hollered “I’ve been shot! I’ve been shot!”.[citation needed] once in the theater Seymour settled down, saw the President across the balcony as he was waving and smiling at people, Seymour said ” I began to get over the scared feeling I’d had ever since we arrived in Washington, but that was something I never should have done. all of a sudden a shot rang out-a shot that always will be remembered-and someone in the Presidents box screamed. I saw Lincoln slumped forward in his seat”. Seymour did not actually see the assassination but did witness Lincoln’s assassin John Wilkes Booth jump off the balcony and break his leg. In fact, he revealed that because he did not know Lincoln was shot or that Booth had shot him, his real concern was for Booth breaking his leg.(Fact|date=February 7, 1954 American weekly Magazine Section-New York Journal-American)
Two months before his death at age 96, he appeared on the CBSTVquiz showI’ve Got a Secret as a mystery subject, in an episode in which Lucille Ball made an unusual appearance as a guest panelist. Seymour died ninety-one years to the day of Lincoln’s assassination. Died at the home of Mrs. Irene (Horn)Hendley, his daughter in Arlington, Va. He had been in failing health since February when he fell in a New York City hotel while preparing to appear on I’ve Got A Secret. He came on the show with his left eye swollen. Gary Moore had suggested he not appear, but Seymour insisted.
I really did like Robert Redford’s movie “The Conspirator” and I have enjoyed looking that the historical figures pictured in the movie.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS – DIGITAL VE / SCIENCE FACTION / CORBIS
The first man to kill an American President was chased with all the wrath of a wounded nation. After the April 14, 1865, assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Booth left Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., via the stage door — appropriate for an actor — and then fled south on horseback through Maryland, assisted by accomplices along the road. Troops flooded the state’s swamps in search of Booth, who secretly crossed the Potomac into Virginia on April 21, the same day the funeral train bearing Lincoln’s body left Washington for its westward procession. Thanks to intelligence tip-offs and the confessions of accomplices, Booth was tracked to the Virginia farm of Richard H. Garrett, and on April 26 he was shot and killed by Union soldiers who had set the barn he was in on fire. Booth died on the farmhouse porch, defending his actions to the last.
The Save Your sex Summit took place in Chicago featuring author and Speaker, Josh McDowell. Teenagers and youth groups came from all over the city to hear him speak on the Importance of Saving sex til Marriage. (Part 1)
I wish Kate and William the best of luck in their marriage. However, the fact that they lived together in college and about a year ago openly moved in together is not the best way to go as far as statistics go. You may notice the last paragraph in the article below which may apply to Kate and William.
“How Living Together Before Marriage May Contribute To Marital Failure”
“The vast majority of young women today want to marry and have children. And many of these women and most young men see cohabitation as a way to test marital compatibility and improve the chances of long-lasting marriage. Their reasoning is as follows: Given the high levels of divorce, why be in a hurry to marry? Why not test marital compatibility by sharing a bed and a bathroom with for a year or even longer? If it doesn’t work out, one can simply move out. According to this reasoning, cohabitation weeds out unsuitable partners through a process of natural de-selection. Over time, perhaps after several living-together relationships, a person will eventually find a marriageable mate.”
“The social science evidence challenges this idea that cohabiting ensures greater marital compatibility and thereby promotes stronger and more enduring marriages. Cohabitation does not reduce the likelihood of eventual divorce; in fact, it may lead to a higher divorce risk. Although the association was stronger a decade or two ago and has diminished in the younger generations, virtually all research on the topic has determined that the chances of divorce ending a marriage preceded by cohabitation are significantly greater than for a marriage not preceded by cohabitation. A 1992 study of 3,300 cases, for example, based on the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households, found that in their marriages prior cohabitors ‘are estimated to have a hazard of dissolution that is about 46% higher than for noncohabitors.’ The authors of this study concluded, after reviewing all previous studies, that the enhanced risk of marital disruption following cohabitation ‘is beginning to take on the status of an empirical generalization.’”5
“More in question within the research community is why the striking statistical association between cohabitation and divorce should exist. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is that those people willing to cohabit are more unconventional than others and less committed to the institution of marriage. These are the same people then, who more easily will leave a marriage if it becomes troublesome. By this explanation, cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce but is merely associated with it because the same type of people is involved in both phenomena.”
“There is some empirical support for this position. Yet even when this “selection effect” is carefully controlled statistically a negative effect of cohabitation on later marriage stability still remains.6 And no positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has been ever been found.”
“The reasons for cohabitation’s negative effect are not fully understood. One may be that while marriages are held together largely by a strong ethic of commitment, cohabiting relationships by their very nature tend to undercut this ethic. Although cohabiting relationships are like marriages in many ways-shared dwelling, economic union (at least in part), sexual intimacy, often even children-they typically differ in the levels of commitment and autonomy involved. According to recent studies cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples in their dedication to the continuation of the relationship and reluctance to terminate it, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy.7It is reasonable to speculate, based on these studies, that once this low-commitment, high-autonomy pattern of relating is learned, it becomes hard to unlearn.”
“The results of several studies suggest that cohabitation may change partners’ attitudes toward the institution of marriage, contributing to either making marriage less likely, or if marriage takes place, less successful. A 1997 longitudinal study conducted by demographers at Pennsylvania State University concluded, for example, “cohabitation increased young people’s acceptance of divorce, but other independent living experiences did not.” And ‘the more months of exposure to cohabitation that young people experienced, the less enthusiastic they were toward marriage and childbearing.’”8
“Particularly problematic is serial cohabitation. One study determined that the effect of cohabitation on later marital instability is found only when one or both partners had previously cohabited with someone other than their spouse.9 A reason for this could be that the experience of dissolving one cohabiting relationship generates a greater willingness to dissolve later relationships. People’s tolerance for unhappiness is diminished, and they will scrap a marriage that might otherwise be salvaged. This may be similar to the attitudinal effects of divorce; going through a divorce makes one more tolerant of divorce.”
“If the conclusions of these studies hold up under further investigation, they may hold the answer to the question of why premarital cohabitation should effect the stability of a later marriage. The act of cohabitation generates changes in people’s attitudes toward marriage that make the stability of marriage less likely. Society wide, therefore, the growth of cohabitation will tend to further weaken marriage as an institution.”
“An important caveat must be inserted here. There is a growing understanding among researchers that different types and life-patterns of cohabitation must be distinguished clearly from each other. Cohabitation that is an immediate prelude to marriage, or prenuptial cohabitation-both partners plan to marry each other in the near future-is different from cohabitation that is an alternative to marriage. There is some evidence to support the proposition that living together for a short period of time with the person one intends to marry has no adverse effects on the subsequent marriage. Cohabitation in this case appears to be very similar to marriage; it merely takes place during the engagement period.10 This proposition would appear to be less true, however, when one or both of the partners has had prior experience with cohabitation, or brings children into the relationship.”
5. Alfred DeMaris and K. Vaninadha Rao. 1992. “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54: 178-190.
6. See: Alfred DeMaris and William MacDonald. 1993. “Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Instability: A Test of the Unconventional Hypothesis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55: 399-407; William J. Axinn and Arland Thornton. 1992. “The Relationship Between Cohabitation
and Divorce: Selectivity or Causal Influence.” Demography 29-3:357-374; Robert Schoen. 1992. “First Unions and the Stability of First Marriages.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:281-284; Elizabeth Thomson and Ugo Colella. 1992. “Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment?” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:259-267; Lee A Lillard, Michael J. Brien, and Linda J. Waite. 1995. “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-Selection?” Demography, Vol. 32-3:437-457; David R. Hall and John Z. Zhao. 1995. “Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada: Testing the Selectivity Hypothesis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:421-427; Marin Clarkberg, Ross M. Stolzenberg, and Linda Waite. 1995. “Attitudes, Values, and Entrance into Cohabitational versus Marital Unions.” Socia
Forces 74-2:609-634; Stephen L. Nock. 1995. “Spouse Preferences of Never-Married, Divorced, and Cohabiting Americans.” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 24-3/4:91-108.
7. Stephen L. Nock. 1995. “A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships.” Journal of Family Issues 16-1:53-76. See also: Robert Schoen and Robin M Weinick. 1993. “Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitations.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:408-414.
8. William G. Axinn and Jennifer S. Barber. 1997. “Living Arrangements and Family Formation Attitudes in Early Adulthood.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:595-611. See also Axinn and Thornton. 1992. op.cit., and Elizabeth Thomson and Ugo Colella. 1992. op. cit.
9. DeMaris and McDonald. 1993. op. cit.; Jan E. Stets. 1993. “The Link Between Past and Present Intimate Relationships.” Journal of Family Issues 14-2:236-260.
10. Susan L. Brown. “Cohabitation as Marriage Prelude Versus Marriage Alternative: The Significance for Psychological Well-Being.” Unpublished paper presented at the 1998 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Author is at Bowling Green State University, Ohio; Susan L. Brown and Alan Booth. 1996. “Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:668-678.
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers
The State University of New Jersey
25 Bishop Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181
(732) 932-2722
marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
Newly Married Couple
Britain’s Prince William and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge stand outside of Westminster Abbey after their Royal Wedding. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)
Soccer star David Beckham and his wife Victoria arrive for royal wedding. (April 29)
.jpg)
