Just_A_Guy

FWIW, Will, I think what you did in California is honorable. But it seems to me that the claim that "government shouldn't control marriage" is more of an argument for government to stop recognizing straight marriages, than it is for government to start recognizing gay ones.

Senator Reid allegedly becomes "very active" in a host of different LDS wards during election season. Does this statement mark a shift in his 2010 campaign strategy?

Surgical Scalpel Sniffs Out Tumors While it Cuts

There are probably far worthier causes, but it would be fun to be the guy to conclusively, once-and-for-all, disprove man-made global warming.

Of course they're going to scream and howl. President Obama is on-record as saying, in effect, that his long-term goal is to put them all out of business. For the HMOs this isn't just about preserving a sweet gig (health insurance is not a particularly profitable industry, anyways). This is about survival. Never, never forget that.

Wasn't there a French scientist who went to the guillotine and beforehand told an assistant to watch how many times he blinked after his head was severed, and he blinked once a second for twenty seconds or so?

I'd like to see a clear-cut solution on what to do with the waste; if that can be worked out, I'm for it. But the article presents nuclear industry insiders as stating that no one in the US has ever been hurt by nuclear energy, and then presents stats on people who have been hurt from radiation--without pointing out that those people were hurt by test blasting of nuclear weapons, not nuclear energy. That's quite a bait-and-switch, if you ask me.

The two scriptures that come immediately to mind for me, as a Mormon, are Moroni 7 (whole chapter) and Isaiah 8:19-20. EDIT: I think that the end of Matthew 7 also demonstrates how we can insulate ourselves from being deceived by false spirits: by completely submitting our own will to the will of God. Interestingly (to me), this counsel comes right after Jesus has taught the disciples how to pray.

Yeppers. People will pass blame about how the Dems "ruined it" after Mitt left office. But the beast was born on his watch.

Depending on the state, actually, you might be able to do something like that. One of the requirements for adverse possession is that the use is hostile--not by consent of the person who holds the title to the land. If you own land (or an appurtenant right to land, like an easement or a water right (though water law is a whole other ball of wax, especially in the West)), you can often stop an adverse possession claim from arising by merely drafting a "license" that allows the person to use the land, but states clearly that you can revoke the license anytime you want. Sign it, and get the person using the land to sign it, and you should be good to go. No "hostile" use = no adverse possession. FWIW, when the LDS Church was suing the RLDS Church over the Kirtland temple some years ago, I'm told the court dodged the issue of having to choose the "real" successor to Joseph Smith by simply giving the temple to the RLDS on a claim of adverse possession.

I think so; but you'd be better off talking to someone who specializes in property law. B)

Lattelady-- For the Mormon view, you'll have to look at a couple of scriptures that are unique to our faith. See, e.g., 2 Nephi Chapter 2 and Moses Chapter 5, Verse 11.

Here's a website that compares different states. What it says about Utah sounds right (I don't do much property law), though I thought the period in Utah was 10 years (the website says it's 7). I'm too lazy to look up the appropriate statute right now, though.

Story here. Most states have some form of adverse possession legislation. If you own land you don't live on, be sure to drop in on it periodically and know what's happening there. Otherwise, you may lose it.

My opinion: If you can, stick it out. But if you see this having an effect on your kids and changing the way they look at church--bail.

Barely ten weeks after passing its annual budget, California is already in the red (again).

For the legally-inclined: The Food Stays in the Kitchen: Everything I Needed to Know About Statutory Interpretation I Learned by the Time I Was Nine (You'll need to download the paper from the above-linked website.)

Name them.

Ya gotta love this, from the DNC: Nice to know some people are having fun with the whole thing, though. :)

Some interesting developments in the global warming discussion, brought to you via the BBC.

Fined for Inadequate Insurance in Massachusetts. From what I gather, this couple's plan was initially approved by the state. But a few years later the state rules changed; the state withdrew its approval because health care plans were now required to have a deductible no higher than $2000 and the couple's plan deductible was $2500. As a result, the couple is now paying an additional $1000 per year to Massachusetts in addition to $300 per month to their health insurer. ObamaCare will inherently set a bar. How do we keep that bar from moving?

Well, now that you're here, it appears some of our members are in need of milk. And cream.

. . . because her blog earned her $1.30 per day.

One of the "Baywatch" actresses was temple-going LDS, at least according to her brother whom I knew at BYU.

Isn't age regression a kind of controversial practice?