I should point out that (at least so far) all information about Tweede's church court have been provided by Tweede himself. The church treats these as sensitive and will not make them public (including the outcome) except in serious cases. [Thus, for example, the article has no comments from Tweede's leaders.]

I have to say I was quite surprised to learn that the website owner is a member of the church. I'm not going to judge whether he is actively working against the church. But having skimmed the site, it seems much like other anti-mormon sites. Some correct historical information, mixed with some incorrect information, given a definite negative spin.

Getting back to more secular concerns - This piece by the NYT's Timothy Egan discusses the likely effects of Romney's stated "drill, baby drill" energy philosophy on the US's public lands:

[url=opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/the-geography-of-nope/?ref=opinion]The Geography of Nope[/url]
[quote]SALT LAKE CITY — In a part of Italy where chestnut trees are thick in the Apennine foothills, I once asked a neighbor in the little community where we lived how I might kill a wild boar. This impulse was driven by appetite, mostly — glimpses of those feral beasts on my morning runs that had me dreaming of a blood-red ragu made of local cinghiale.

The answer was, dream on. If you want to hunt in Italy, or most of Europe for that matter, you’d better belong to a private club, with access to a rich man’s estate.

It struck me then, in the kind of epiphany that takes living in another country to appreciate, that the public land endowment of the United States is one of the greatest perks of this democracy. Rich or poor, every citizen of the United States of America has title to an area almost the size of Italy.

This ticket to roam free in the American backyard is no constitutional guarantee. The great, unfenced public domain, much of it forested or hidebound in sage and mesquite, is the envy of the rest of the world only because a few visionary souls bucked the powers of their day.

But now the powers of this day are trying to tear away at that inheritance. The election could determine whether big sections of our shared setting continue to be held by the general public. A radical plan to overhaul a century of sensible balance has been embraced by the Republican presidential ticket.

Handing over millions of acres of public land has long been a dream borne on the vapors of single-malt Scotch sipped inside trophy homes in the 1 percent ZIP codes of the West. Usually, the idea vanishes with the vapors. Not this year.[/quote]
By way of an amusing coda, you may want to ask if Paul "marathon man" Ryan applied similar "math" to his deficit-reduction proposals as he did to his running times:
[quote]I had some hope for a more mainstream view when Paul Ryan was named Romney’s running mate. He boasted that he’s summited 28 of Colorado’s 14,000-foot mountains. Alas, Ryan also claimed to have run a sub-three-hour marathon, only to get caught lying — shaving off more than an hour — when Runner’s World fact-checked him.[/quote]

Thanks for posting the Egan column. I have always liked and respected his writing.

Xyzzy,

Since you seem to have been interested in the Mormonthink website, I thought the following also may be of interest. [URL="http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Media_efforts_by_MormonThink_editor_David_Twede"]A chronology[/URL] of Twede's actions. Also, [URL="http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink"]a general response[/URL] to his website by those in the church who like to respond to such things.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

[QUOTE]Also, [URL="http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink"]a general response[/URL] to his website by those in the church who like to respond to such things.[/QUOTE]That is certainly a lot of reading! Thanks for the link!

:uncwilly:

Former [i]Daily Show[/i] correspondent Mo Rocca has some observations on the Electoral College:

[url=www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/opinion/electoral-college-101.html?ref=opinion]‘Electoral College 101’[/url]: [i]In the latest episode of the Op-Docs series "Electoral Dysfunction," the political humorist consults a third-grade class on the fairness of the Electoral College.[/i]
[quote] “How long did you rehearse the scene where those third graders freak out about the Electoral College?” I’ve been asked that several times after screenings of “[url=http://www.electoraldysfunction.org/]Electoral Dysfunction[/url],” from which this Op-Doc video is adapted.

The answer is we didn’t. We simply held an election: Colored Pencils vs. Markers. When Markers won the popular vote but Colored Pencils prevailed in the Electoral College, it got ugly fast. Turns out third graders have an uncorrupted sense of fairness.

The men who foisted this system on us were hardly more enthusiastic about it. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted at least 60 times on how presidents were to be chosen. They rejected the idea of popular election — and they repeatedly scrapped versions of the Electoral College. In other words, they were against it before they were for it.

Proponents like to say it was created to protect “small states,” which is a much nicer way of saying it was created to protect “slave states.” Indeed, that’s one of the reasons it was created. Under the Constitution’s 3/5 clause, each slave — otherwise treated as 0/5 of a person — was counted as 3/5 of a person, thereby bolstering Southern states’ share of electoral votes.
...[/quote]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/whos-undecided-voter-may-walmart-mom-123637490.html[/url]

I watched the first Presidential debate. I thought that it fulfilled its purpose well. It made clear the differences between the two candidates. It covered their major policy differences, and different thoughts about the economy and their governing styles.

I'm hoping many people watched it and paid attention.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;313569]I watched the first Presidential debate. I thought that it fulfilled its purpose well. It made clear the differences between the two candidates. It covered their major policy differences, and different thoughts about the economy and their governing styles.

I'm hoping many people watched it and paid attention.[/QUOTE]

I watched it as well. However, it didn't play out as I expected. At least Romney didn't hold him down and cut his hair.

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/romney-47-percent-completely-wrong-021604130--election.html"]Romney on '47 percent': I was 'completely wrong'[/URL]

[QUOTE]"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said, and that his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."[/QUOTE]:rakes:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;313689][URL="http://news.yahoo.com/romney-47-percent-completely-wrong-021604130--election.html"]Romney on '47 percent': I was 'completely wrong'[/URL]

:rakes:[/QUOTE]Good on him.

Now, is Obama going to recant his racist diatribe against the response to Katrina? Is he going to apologize for first voting against waiving the payback requirements, then (even though the waiver passed) trying to race-bait?