The recent commentary "Intergenerational poverty creates a permanent underclass" in Sunday’s Tribune is spot-on in its assessment of state earned income tax credit (EITC) being a data-backed effective public policy that contributes to improved educational outcomes for disadvantaged children.

As a matter of fact, state EITC programs have been shown to have a number of positive impacts on the families who qualify. EITC reduces dependence on other social programs, incentivizes work, and improves maternal and infant health outcomes for those who receive it.

Attempts to approve a state EITC in Utah have been made for years. During the 2018 legislative session, the Utah Intergenerational Poverty Work and Self Sufficiency Tax Credit passed the House and the Senate. Unfortunately, it did not get prioritized for funding.

If the state wants to encourage work and reduce intergenerational poverty, EITC is a perfect first step. Constituents must call on their state legislators to prioritize funding for a state EITC to strengthen working families in Utah as a moral imperative.

Carrie Butler, Action Utah policy director, Salt Lake City

Congratulations to Ambassador Jon Huntsman for staying the course and remaining in his position. It is the right thing to do.

I have had the pleasure to meet the ambassador, his father and two sons who are Navy officers. All are true patriots and love America. As Sen. John McCain has so often said, they all are part of something larger than themselves! I thank them all for their service and with others like them, I am not worried about the future of our great country.

Ret. Rear Admiral James R Fowler, MC, USN, Salt Lake City

Ambassador Jon Huntsman’s feeble attempt to justify his continued support of the president’s treason (“Ambassador Huntsman to Gehrke: Why I’m Staying,” July 21, 2018) was weak, deflecting and condescending.

Like many Utah Democrats, I have respected Jon Huntsman and appreciated his moderate views. His decision to join someone who is demonstrably racist, xenophobic and misogynistic, however, was disappointing at the least. Now that Huntsman has remained complicit in the president’s recent actions regarding Russia, he has surpassed the limits of my outrage.

Ambassador Huntsman’s response completely ignored the main issue of Gehrke’s column, deflecting the glaring actions of the president. The tone of his response was condescending and implied that Gehrke and Americans do not understand the importance of protecting our interests. Believe me, we all do!

I cannot overstate my disappointment with Ambassador Huntsman. He is either incredibly lacking both judgment and integrity or has chosen to join the president in his treason. Either way, he is not the man I thought he was. His colleagues laughed when asked if he should resign. I wonder what their reaction was after he left the room.

Charlotte Maloney, Millcreek

There had to be a special session to reduce the taxes paid for large families because the government reduced these deductions?

I always thought that having large families was a choice, and the costs should remain with them. Where does the so-called $30 million come from to reduce their burden? Oh, I know … other people get to pay for it.

The large families’ children grow up and overload schools and roads, but no one ever talks about this. My property taxes went up $339 or roughly 12.5 percent, and my Social Security monthly check went up by 0.02 percent.

I worked for almost 50 years, then got to retire, but can’t afford to golf very much because of the costs, which are close to $400 per month. I’ve wondered what parks, swimming pools and tennis courts cost the people using them.

I’ll also continue to pay the 88 percent tax on alcohol so the children can get free lunch.

Randy Epperson, Murray

Ambassador Jon Huntsman’s response to Robert Gehrke’s heartfelt and well-reasoned column was condescending and off point.

Rather than address the actual facts in Gehrke’s article, Huntsman tried to belittle the importance of Gehrke’s job, then misdirected into a strawman argument wherein he defended the work of his staff rather than address Gehrke’s legitimate, fact-based concerns about the actions of a president whose behavior and policies many Americans, including many Republicans, consider irresponsible and reckless, if not criminal.

The haughty tone and oversimplified perspectives in Huntsman’s response were all the more shocking given the unprecedented nature of the allegations against Russia and the fact that Huntsman himself is tasked with helping to carry out Trump’s policies, which Huntsman seems determined to do despite widespread opposition from American citizens and serious concerns from our intelligence agencies about the relationship between Trump and Russia.

It appears that Huntsman neither respects the role of a good political columnist nor understands the importance of being civil and serious-minded in his role as an official representative of our country.

Matt Connelly, Bountiful

Once again, what President Trump called ‘Fake News’ turns out to be true. Love, McAdams spar over position on abortion rights. South Salt Lake councilwoman questions sexism after female mayor denied a raise.

Happy Friday. There have been a number of times in which President Donald Trump or his surrogates have flatly denied something — only to have that denial contradicted weeks or months later by new documents or statements. That’s again the case with the audio recording of the president talking about the agreement by the National Enquirer to pay $150,000 to a former Playboy centerfold model for her story of an affair a decade ago with Trump. Trump and aides denied any knowledge but the audio reveals the president knew about it. [WaPost]

Topping the news: Incumbent Rep. Mia Love accused her 4th District opponent, SL Co. Mayor Ben McAdams, of supporting “unrestricted abortion,” but the mayor insists that he shares Love’s anti-abortion stance. [Trib]

-> South Salt Lake Mayor Cherie Wood was denied a pay raise, leading Councilwoman Sharla Bynum to question whether sexism was a motive. [Trib]

-> The $1 million medical bill of a man in Utah County custody awaiting trial for allegedly repeatedly sexually abusing his step-daughter has caused a rift between the county’s sheriff and its commission. [Trib]

Tweets of the day: From @dsamuelsohn: “I’ve been the victim of more than six minutes worth of white noise butt-dial voicemails over the last 24 hours from both Rudy Giuliani and Lanny Davis. That’s a reporter’s life in 2018 in a nutshell.”

-> From @MEPFuller: “If ‘ghosting’ is when you just disappear, ‘shadow banning’ should be when you take three days to respond and are like, ‘oh sorry, just saw this LOL.’”

-> From @byrdinator: “a fun thing about automated transcription is that it will always end up writing ‘terrorists’ instead of ‘tariffs,’ which makes trade interviews more interesting. ‘manufacturers are fearful of terrorists and they’re fearful of interest rates going up,’ local lawmaker says”

Happy Birthday: Today to Weber State’s Julie Snowball and Lt. Gov.'s Office Special Assistant India Nielsen, on Saturday to state Sen. Ralph Okerlund, Utah Insurance Commissioner Todd Kiser, BYU football video coordinator Errol K. Seaver, UTA planner Leo Masic and Caroline Updike, and on Sunday to state Rep. Bruce Cutler.

Behind the Headlines: Tribune reporter Taylor Stevens, government and politics editor Dan Harrie and editorial page editor George Pyle join KCPW’s Roger McDonough to talk about the week’s top stories, including the opening of a cop shop on the west side of Salt Lake City and a mother who left a loaded gun in the bathroom at the Living Planet Aquarium.

Every Friday at 9 a.m., stream “Behind the Headlines” online at kcpw.org or tune in to KCPW 88.3 FM or Utah Public Radio for the broadcast.

In other news: Utah Lake reopened Lincoln Beach and its marina after test results showed a drop in concentrations of toxic cyanobacteria, but the health department says levels are still over the threshold for safe human contact. [Trib] [DNews] [ABC4] [DailyHerald]

-> The death of Steve Powell, father-in-law of a woman missing since 2009, Susan Powell, has ignited grief and frustration in those who hope to find answers in the nearly decade-old case. [Trib]

-> As the state’s strong economy continues to attract people and housing prices keep climbing, home sales are down in most of the state, leaving officials to worry about the effects of a housing deficit in Utah’s urban center. [Trib]

-> Video released by Utah Transit Authority shows the moments before cyclist Cameron Hooyer was stuck and killed by a FrontRunner train while biking with hundreds of others. [Trib] [Fox13]

-> While Utah law mandates that public libraries and schools filter access to pornography, a new study from the United Kingdom suggests that filtering technology is not efficient enough to do so. [Trib]

-> Pat Bagley illustrates an incident at the Loveland Living Planet Aquarium where a mother left her loaded handgun inside the bathroom of a children’s play area. [Trib]

-> Robert Gehrke says SLC Mayor Jackie Biskupski’s passivity, especially towards a controversial inland port proposal, could cost the mayor her re-election next year. [Trib]

Nationally: Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say the agency has met the court-ordered deadline to reunite migrant children with their families, but hundreds of children remain in federal custody. [NYTimes] [WaPost] [NPR]

-> Facebook’s market value dropped more than $100 billion, the largest single-day drop in value in Wall Street history, showing how the social media platform’s privacy policy controversies have caught up with it. [WaPost] [CNBC]

-> President Donald Trump accused Twitter of “shadow banning” Republican accounts and taking methods to suppress prominent conservatives. [NYTimes] [BusinessInsider]

Got a tip? A birthday, wedding or anniversary to announce? Send us a note to cornflakes@sltrib.com.

-- Thomas Burr and Connor Richards

Twitter.com/thomaswburr and Twitter.com/crichards1995

All she asked was that someone pray for her.

As relayed on Twitter by the activist Brittany Packnett, the unnamed woman certainly had good reason to seek help, divine or otherwise. She was one of the people held hostage by a gunman last week in an L.A. Trader Joe’s. According to Packnett, her friend was hiding in the back of the store with her husband and a pregnant woman. All three survived, though another woman was killed.

The prayer request was too much for "Elizabeth Post," a self-described "Australian who is sickened by hypocrites." Though she has the name of a famous etiquette writer, Post responded with a series of tweets noteworthy for their remarkable lack of grace.

"Has that worked in all the other shootings?" she demanded. "No. Prayer does nothing. If prayer worked, there would be no shootings."

And: "It only makes you feel good. You only ask others to pray on Twitter & Facebook to gain popularity for yourself."

And: "It gives people's egos a huge boost to believe they have the power to influence 'Almighty god' ..."

Post's snotty tirade struck a nerve, recalling exchanges I've had over the years whenever I've spoken my conviction that God is. While that tends to leave conservatives sputtering about how you can't be a "real" Christian while supporting LGBTQ rights, some liberal responses are even more irritating.

With oozing condescension, they lament that someone otherwise so smart and perceptive — i.e., someone who agrees with them on the issues — can't let go of faith. For them, faith and progressive politics are incompatible. Which would likely come as a surprise to the Revs. Jim Wallis of Sojourners and William Barber of the Poor People's Campaign. To say nothing of Barack Obama. And Jimmy Carter. And Rosa Parks. And Martin Luther King Jr.

Look, I get it.

I get that "thoughts and prayers" has become the go-to cliche for those who intend to do nothing about gun violence.

I get that some putative Christians use faith as justification for racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia.

I get that others ally themselves with a president who could not be less Christian if he had three sixes carved into his forehead.

But I also get that none of that, none of the failings of the human structure we call religion, has the slightest thing to do with the question of whether God is.

This being America, you have the right to answer that question in whatever way satisfies you. Many of my liberal friends will come to conclusions different from mine, and I respect that. I wish more of them would return the favor. Because I'm here to tell you: the condescension is getting old. Moreover, I find it interesting that folks who would never judge a Muslim by the lunatics who share her faith are so ready to judge me by the lunatics who share mine.

If all of time, space, history and reality — everything that is, ever has been and ever will be — could be represented by a vast arena, then you and I, in our piddling 70-something years of mortal life, are like someone looking in to that arena through a peephole. So a little humility might not be a bad thing for any of us, no matter what we believe, or don't.

That, as “Elizabeth Post” spectacularly failed to understand, is precisely what a prayer is, a confession of one’s own humble state, a realization that you cannot see much through a peephole — and a decision to be OK with that. Life is vicissitudes, vicissitudes are life. And as a preacher I know recently observed, prayer is not just a plea to get out of those trials.

It's also a way of getting through.

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald. lpitts@miamiherald.com

For the record, I have never intentionally shot another person. Not with a gun larger than .22-caliber.

However, I’ve accidentally shot other people with lots bigger stuff — fireworks, pellet guns, dart guns, blow guns, even a cannon.

Note: Did you know that mini-marshmallows traveling at 200-feet per second from a cannon start to melt and will stick to human skin? Yeah. Have Sonny show you his marshmallow-burn dance. It’s hilarious.

On a more serious note, as a cop, I came close to shooting people in defense of myself or others a few times. I’m thrilled to go through the rest of my life not having had to actually follow through.

Now that we have my personal experience out of the way, we need to address the issue of when it should be legal for you to shoot someone else.

Whenever you want is the wrong answer.

So is whenever you get mad enough. Ditto, whenever someone calls you names or utters impossible threats like “I’ll hit you so [bleeping] hard your dog will bleed.” Credit the movie “Dutch” for that.

And you definitely, positively, absolutely shouldn’t shoot somebody for pushing you during an argument over a parking space.

I am, of course, referring to the recent stupidity in Florida, where a dispute over a handicapped-accessible parking spot resulted in the murder of an unarmed father in front of his significant other and their children.

Yes, I said “murder.” That’s what it was. Watch the video. In it, you will see Michael Drejka, 47, gun down Markeis McGlockton, 28, when the latter pushed him away from his girlfriend, whom Drejka was cursing for being in the wrong parking spot.

McGlockton shoved Drejka to the ground. Drejka then pulled a handgun and shot McGlockton, who was turning away at the moment the shot was fired.

Apparently — and I’m not sure at this point because I have a hard time reading when I’m disgusted — Drejka was treated for his, ahem, “injuries” before being allowed to reload and proceed on his peace-loving way. No charges.

If the killing of McGlockton is legitimized by that sort of “stand your ground” law, then theoretically I could have shot about, oh, say, a hundred people during the time I was standing my ground as a cop. Even more since then.

As far as I know, Drejka, who has a history of being a parking space vigilante, remains a free man who probably believes the world is a much safer now that another person is dead over a push.

In a telephone interview — one I am forced to fabricate because Drejka isn’t answering his phone — the defender of parking lot freedom says shooting his assailant was justified.

Me • “You don’t think you overreacted?”

Him • “Sir, what the video doesn’t show is that [McGlockton] had a grenade in his hand and two Glocks in his pockets. There I was, on the ground, completely at his mercy. I had to do something to protect myself and those children?”

Me • “His children.”

Him • “Well, who knows what a man like that is capable of when he pushes loudmouthed jerks to the ground? What would you have done?”

Me • “Hmm, that’s a tough one. Probably jumped up and down on your head until exhaustion set in.”

Having blown what meager journalistic objectivity I had, I hung up and decided to never go outside again. Who knows whom I might be expected to shoot just to stand my ground.

A gravel pit proposed near Capitol Reef National Park won’t be mined under a deal reached Thursday between Teasdale residents opposed to industrial development in their historic town and Utah trust land officials.

A group affiliated with the owners of Red River Lodge, which runs cattle on the land, offered $525,000 for the 120-acre parcel overlooking the Fremont River. At its monthly meeting, the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, or SITLA, accepted the offer in a 5-2 vote.

“I’m glad we are able to come to a reasonable offer,” said group leader Dave Van Dyke. “We wanted to have the property sit within the general plan with how it’s zoned by [Wayne] County, which is agricultural and residential.”

In accepting Van Dyke’s offer, which aligned with the land’s appraised value, the trust lands board rejected a mineral lease proposed by Brown Brothers Construction Co., the Loa firm that had sought to mine gravel for nearby road projects. SITLA had previously approved such a deal, but it drew a lawsuit from residents in nearby Torrey. They argued extractive operations were not compatible with surrounding land use. But a judge ruled trust parcels are exempt from local zoning and county oversight.

To wash its hands of the matter, SITLA tried to sell the land at auction last October, but no one submitted an offer that met the minimum bid of $790,000.

So the agency entertained sealed offers from interested parties. Brown offered a $50,000 bonus for mining rights, plus $1.10 royalty on each of the 325,000 cubic yards it expected to extract over a 10-year term, or $381,535 total.

That offer couldn’t beat the $525,000 tendered by Van Dyke’s group, which formed a limited liability company called Alexis XI. A newly formed group called Friends of Redrock Utah proposed a conservation lease with an option to purchase potentially worth $625,000.

The board chose to take Alexis XI’s $525,000, which will be added to a trust fund to support the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind.

“I feel we still overpaid, but if you add in what we would have spent in litigation, it is better to just put it in,” Van Dyke said. “We made the decision from a business rather than an emotional standpoint.”

SITLA manages about 3 million acres in trust for public education and other institutions. Twice a year it auctions desirable parcels that it has trouble making money from.

But one potentially valuable parcel will be sold for a low sum without the benefit of an auction because neither SITLA nor any other other owner can do much with it.

The agency announced plans Thursday to sell a parcel that by all appearances should be a cash cow: a 12.4-acre rectangle with about 500 feet of frontage on the busy Snow Canyon Parkway northwest of St. George, a rapidly growing region where the shrinking inventory of undeveloped land fetches a premium.

But the land is effectively landlocked by protected desert tortoise habitat, a developed subdivision and a steep slope leading down to the parkway, just west of Bluff Street, the main road out of town heading north that is also known as State Route 18.

SITLA has accepted accepted an offer of $8,000 per acre, reflecting its appraised value of $100,000 for land that would be worth a lot more if it could be accessed.

Dear Ann Cannon • Recently my neighbor cut down a solid wall of ivy and vines that happened to be the dividing line between our properties. Because this “wall” extended about 2-3 feet onto my property, I assumed it was mine because there was so much growth on my side.

Anyway. Back to the cut. It exposed my entire yard to this neighbor and two other neighbors. It also exposed a rundown fence that was probably built in the years following the Great Depression. You know. With old pioneer wagon wheels. I had no idea this “fence” was even there. Because there are so many gaps in the fence, my dog can now escape, so I’ll be forced to pay for a new fence. Neat!

What should I do? Should I ever speak to my neighbor again? What are some rules to follow in the wake of this disaster?

— How Rude! or Fencing Lessons! or Angry and Exposed!

Dear How Rude • First, good job on your sign-offs!

OK. The situation you describe, unfortunately, isn’t unusual. And it’s the kind of thing that can affect neighborly relations for years to come. I’m sorry this has happened to you and (frankly) to your neighbor, as well.

Since the vines originated on your neighbor’s property, I suppose he’s within his rights to do whatever he wants to with them. But, for what it’s worth, I think he should have conferred with you first, especially since his decision dramatically changed the look, not to mention the privacy, of your place. Also, what’s up with people who want to hack down a green wall, leaving a ratty-looking fence in its place? I don’t get it. But that’s just me.

Now, on to your question: How should you proceed where your neighbor is concerned? I think you need to figure out what you want your relationship with him to look like in the future. If you don’t want to speak to your neighbor ever again, then don’t. Throwing a rock through a window or perhaps a Molotov cocktail into his backyard would obviously have the same chilling effect, although I do not recommend that course of action.

Or you could always opt for the other extreme, i.e. pretend that nothing has happened and carry on as usual. Lalalalala! That’s an option, too.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a bad idea for you to ask your neighbor why he decided to cut down the wall so that you can hear his side of the story. Then tell him (politely and calmly) that you were surprised by and unhappy with the decision to cut down the ivy for all the reasons you mention here. The fact that your dog can escape is especially problematic. You might even put the ball in his court by asking, “So what can we do about this?”

He probably won’t offer to help cover the cost of a new fence. And your relationship may suffer anyway as a result of your conversation. But it’s possible you’ll find some satisfaction in having said your piece, and your neighbor may think twice about making a decision that affects someone besides himself.

Dear Tribune Readers • I’m the oldest of my siblings, and whenever people tell me I look younger than my brothers, I’m thrilled! In fact, I actively encourage people to tell me (and them) that very thing. But the following letter from a reader provides a different and useful point of view.

Dear Ann Cannon • I don’t have a question, but I do have a request aimed at all people who see two or more siblings and feel compelled to ask them, “So who’s the oldest?” DON’T. Someone will get his or her feelings hurt, especially if the younger sibling looks older. My sister and I are five years apart, but time after time we are asked who is older. I’m older but look several years younger than my sister. I’ve started jumping in when I sense the question is coming and say, “I’m the oldest,” or “This is my baby sister.” She laughs it off, but I can tell she is wounded by being asked so often. There must be a better way to find out who is older. Please help these well-meaning (I hope) but clueless people.

— Concerned Sibling

Washington • “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

When the history of the Trump era is written, this quotation from our president will play a prominent role in explaining the distemper of our moment and the dysfunction of his administration. Trump was talking about media coverage of his trade war, but he was also describing his genuinely novel approach to governing: He believes that reality itself can be denied and that big lies can sow enough confusion to keep the truth from taking hold.

This has advantages for Trump, because it dulls the impact of any new revelation. Old falsehoods simply get buried under new ones. Take the recording of his September 2016 conversation with his one-time lawyer Michael Cohen that was released Tuesday night.

Cohen’s attorney put out the tape, which, as The Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig and Robert Costa reported, shows that Trump “appeared familiar with a deal that a Playboy model made to sell the rights to her story of an alleged affair with him.” Karen McDougal sold her tale to the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc. The tabloid never ran her account, which clearly protected Trump from this embarrassing tale before the election, although its management has denied that this was its intention.

Trump's lawyer and battering ram Rudy Giuliani insisted that the recording portrayed a Trump who "doesn't seem that familiar with anything" that was discussed. This was, shall we say, an eccentric way of hearing the conversation.

Obfuscated in this back-and-forth is the fact that four days before the 2016 election, Hope Hicks, Trump's campaign spokeswoman, denied the affair altogether and said that the campaign had "no knowledge" of any payoff.

Trump's behavior would be bad enough if it were only about his personal life and his treatment of women. But the big lie strategy extends to policy and national security as well.

For example, the Commerce Department, which runs the census, claimed earlier this year that it added a question asking if respondents were citizens in response to the Justice Department's desire to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The question is a terrible idea. Six former Census Bureau directors under both Republican and Democratic presidents urged Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross not to include it. They warned that doing so "will considerably increase the risks to the 2020 enumeration."

The fear is that many immigrants, documented and especially undocumented, would be reluctant to answer the census if the question were part of it, leading to an undercounting of places with substantial foreign-born populations.

But for the Trump administration, this is not a problem. It's the goal. Undercounting immigrants would have the effect of shifting political power — as well as federal money — largely to Republican areas that have lower immigrant populations.

And documents turned over this week in response to a lawsuit against the addition of the citizenship question showed that Ross lobbied for its inclusion much earlier and more actively than his later sworn testimony had indicated. "Lying to Congress is a serious criminal offense, and Secretary Ross must be held accountable," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon had also pushed for the question when he was in the White House.

The Justice Department acted months later, a clear sign that the department's alleged concern for civil rights was simply a pretext for a politically motivated skewing of valuable public information. Distorting data collection is an attack on the truth, too.

And when it comes to creating new and unhinged narratives to displace those rooted in fact, Trump has no equal. Thus did the man who stood next to Vladimir Putin when the Russian leader said he wanted Trump to win in 2016 declare this week— with no evidence whatsoever — that Russia “will be pushing very hard for the Democrats” in this fall’s election.

Contrary to liberal fears, most of the country doesn’t believe him. Trump’s core support, measured by the proportion in Wednesday’s NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist Poll who strongly approve of him, is down to 25 percent.

The bad news is that among Republicans his strong approval number stands at 62 percent. Trump's hope of clinging to power rests on the assumption that he can continue inventing enough false story lines to keep his party at bay. His theory seems to be that a lie is as good as the truth as long as the right people believe it.

E.J. Dionne writes about politics in a twice-weekly column and on the PostPartisan blog. He is a government professor at Georgetown University, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and a frequent commentator on politics for National Public Radio and MSNBC. He is most recently a co-author of “One Nation After Trump.”E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionne.

I once flew to Germany for 19 hours to watch Ivanka Trump sit on a panel with a bunch of female leaders and to be summoned by her later that evening for an off-the-record chat in her hotel lobby, where she ordered red wine in a white dress, which seems, in retrospect, like the boldest act I’d ever seen her make.

I once spent several weeks trekking to the White House, repeatedly, for additional conversations that were supposed to be on the record, but then suddenly weren’t, and that then collapsed into afternoons at a nearby bakery where my reporting partner and I would eat scones and try to dissect what had happened. What was Ivanka saying? What was she really saying? What, on the record, could we say about her?

The reporters who cover Ivanka Trump have spent as much time as anybody trying to figure out how to meaningfully cover Ivanka Trump: the deep moat surrounding her, the careful way she measures her words like a Weight Watchers subscriber trying not to go over her daily allotment of almonds.

I’ve asked the questions that the public has asked: Is she trying to moderate her father? Is she actually moderating him? How much does she care about her publicized issues — job training and economic opportunities for women? How much is she just trying to sell books? Sell sleeveless floral sheath dresses? Shoes?

The last question was answered on Tuesday: She’s not trying to sell clothes at all. Her eponymous clothing brand — her defining symbol, which seemed to tie together and represent everything she cared about in terms of women and their success — is shuttering.

“I do not know when or if I will ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable future will be the work I am doing here in Washington,” she said in a statement, closing off the possibility of returning to the company’s helm. (She’d officially stepped down after taking a White House job as her father’s adviser.)

As with most things Ivanka Trump does, the news was immediately interpreted in a dozen ways: Perhaps she was heroically eliminating her escape hatch so she could go all-in on the nation’s affordable-child-care problem. Perhaps this was a face-saving maneuver: Nordstrom had stopped carrying the line because of deteriorating sales, other stores had scaled back, the clothes had become controversial.

I don’t know. After dedicating days, weeks, months to understanding how Trump saw herself and the world around her, I understand mostly that Germany is a long way to fly to watch someone tour an educational center, when you’re pinned out of earshot in a press scrum and your notes read only, “Careful eye contact. Excellent posture.”

In public interviews, Trump has been a master of careful excellence, the artful dodge, the well-phrased nothing. As for her influence: She’s said only that if she disagrees with her father, it’s expressed privately and “with total candor.”

From time to time, Trump’s believers have tried to imbue meaning into what she left unsaid, or what they perceived as subtweets: “I am proud to support my LGBTQ friends and the LGBTQ Americans who have made immense contributions to our society,” she posted last June. A few weeks later, her father announced a ban on transgender people serving in the military.

She could have forcefully come out against it. She could have forcefully opposed (or supported?) a lot of her father's controversial decisions.

But the biggest question surrounding Trump has always been this one: How much of her identity is about herself? Her own name, her own brand, her own legacy? And how much of her identity is tied up in being her father’s daughter?

As gleeful Ivanka takedowns began circulating this week, I’m again analyzing her: wondering what it would be like to have a truly unguarded conversation with her, wondering whether she’d ever had an unguarded conversation with anybody. Wondering about soft power, and beautiful-white-woman power, and the agony of seeking parental approval — even as an adult! — and how silence is sometimes actually wisdom and sometimes actually fear.

Either way, here we are: the death of her company. It had her own name on it; it represented her own values. But it will ultimately be associated, inextricably, with the politics of her dad. Again and again, Ivanka Trump has sublimated her own voice and her own views. Even when speaking out would have been good for her. Even when it might have been useful for the country.

One way to look at the shuttering of the Ivanka Trump brand is as a definitive act of filial piety. And an answer to the biggest question: Her identity is entirely tied up in being a Trump.

Of course Ivanka isn’t coming to save you. She couldn’t even save herself.

Monica Hesse is a columnist for The Washington Post’s Style section and author of “American Fire.”

I am not fearful of firearms. I believe the Second Amendment was written with purpose and with sensitivity to generational circumstances. But what I am extremely concerned about is who has access to firearms and the devastation firearms are capable of in the wrong hands.

Imagine a world in which anyone — including terrorists, convicted felons and domestic abusers — has immediate access to untraceable guns. Now imagine that many of these guns are made entirely of plastic or other materials not recognized by traditional metal detectors.

This unmanageable scenario may soon become a reality. In fact, as soon as Wednesday, Aug. 1, anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer — readily available in stores and online — will be able to make an untraceable handgun, rifle or assault weapon with just a few clicks. This is because the State Department has decided to allow a private company to post gun blueprints online for anyone to access. This is a reckless and dangerous action that will enable the uncontrolled distribution of downloadable, do-it-yourself firearms.

As sheriff of the fourth-largest and fastest-growing county in the nation, I know firsthand the threat such weapons pose to society. But it doesn’t require my 25 years of experience in law enforcement to know how dangerous firearms in the wrong hands can be. Downloadable guns undermine our federal and state gun-violence prevention laws, which help prevent people who pose a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms. These laws are effective when law enforcement can conduct background checks and identify firearms through legally required serial numbers leading to a first point of purchase.

The ability to circumvent lawful and reasonable processes for purchase will undermine the work of all law enforcement. Our ability to trace guns recovered at crime scenes is a critical step in catching criminals and getting killers off our streets. Untraceable firearms will ultimately cripple investigations and provoke further violence by criminals.

Until recently, the State Department shared these concerns about the threat of downloadable, untraceable guns. For years, the agency had been fighting back a lawsuit from an online, open-source company that was forced by the department to pull down downloadable gun blueprints. That's because the department considered the online posting of the technology a violation of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

But the State Department reversed course a few months ago, unjustifiably and irresponsibly settling with the company and giving it a license to publish. And now, the company is scheduled to make its gun blueprints available online yet again on Aug. 1.

On that date, drug cartels, arms traffickers and terrorists will be able to increase their revenue and the volume of weaponry at the expense of our safety through an untraceable and unlimited method of firearms manufacturing and distribution. Ultimately, it is uncontrolled, irresponsible and unconscionable.

The State Department can stop this from happening by standing by its original decision to prevent digital, downloadable gun files from being posted online. This is absolutely a clear and present danger to public safety.

Paul Penzone is the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Some evacuations have been lifted, but the Middle Canyon fire continues to burn out of control in Tooele County on Friday afternoon.

Crews from the North Tooele Fire District arrived on the scene shortly after 9 p.m. on Thursday to discover a 2-to-3-acre blaze that shifting winds quickly spread; by Friday afternoon, the fire had burned at least 88 acres.

(After aerial reconnaissance, officials lowered earlier estimates that more acreage had burned.)

"While there was no imminent threat to homes, there were several that were evacuated as a precaution,” the North Tooele Fire District posted on Facebook. Residents on Grimm Hill Road were allowed to return to their homes shortly after 3 a.m., although campers in the canyon were evacuated.

North Tooele firefighters were joined by crews from Tooele City, Tooele County, the Tooele Army Depot, the Bureau of Land Management and the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. There were no reports of injuries, and no structures were threatened.

Helicopters were deployed to fight the fire on Friday morning, and continued work through the afternoon. The fire is 0 percent contained.

Warning: This story contains graphic images and descriptions of how hookworms burrowed into a teenage boy’s skin.

Kelli Mulhollen Dumas said she thought the small, red bumps on her son’s skin were bites from chiggers or mosquitoes.

Her son, Michael, had just returned from Florida, and she knew he had spent a lot of time outdoors. But within days, she said, the 17-year-old had several more spots — then “his whole backside” was covered. Ultimately, Dumas said, areas on her son’s feet, legs and buttocks were covered in a red, itchy rash — the telltale sign of certain type of hookworm, a parasite that can infect both animals and humans.

Dumas said the doctor confirmed that it was cutaneous larva migrans, a skin condition caused by larvae from animal hookworms, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I can’t stress enough how traumatic it is for a teenage boy — and his mother — to know that there are worms living in his body,” Dumas said Wednesday in an interview The Washington Post .

Dumas, from Memphis, said she believes that her son contracted the parasite in mid-June on a beach in South Florida.

Hookworm is spread through the feces of animals or humans who have the parasite, and people can contract it by simply walking barefoot on sand or soil that has been contaminated, according to the CDC.

Michael had been buried up to his neck in sand.

The state and county health departments in Florida did not respond to requests for comment on potential contamination.

Dumas said the doctor gave Michael an antibiotic and an anti-parasitic but the medication "wasn't working fast enough," so she made an emergency appointment with a dermatologist earlier this month.

Dumas said the dermatologist used cryotherapy, a treatment in which liquid nitrogen is commonly used to "freeze" lesions off the skin. But during treatment, the teen's mother said that her son urged the doctor to stop, saying he felt as though he could "feel it running from the liquid nitrogen."

“It’s disgusting,” she said. “It’s beyond disgusting.”

There are two main types of hookworm — human hookworms and animal, or zoonotic, hookworms. But Bobbi Pritt, director of the Clinical Parasitology Laboratory in Mayo Clinic’s Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, said both kinds can be transmitted to people, and it happens in a similar way — animals or humans infected with the parasite defecate into sand or soil and, because their feces carry the parasite’s eggs, the ground then becomes contaminated. Once in the ground, Pritt said, the eggs hatch into larvae, or immature hookworms, and when people come into contact with them, they can penetrate the skin.

The results vary based on the type of hookworm.

Hookworm is an intestinal parasite, so when human hookworms penetrate a person's skin, they migrate into the bloodstream and take up residence in the gut.

However, animal hookworms cannot adapt to the human body, so the larvae usually never make it into the person’s intestines, Pritt said. Instead, Pritt said, the larvae, which are microscopic, roam around in the person’s skin — causing those red, squiggly marks — trying, but unable, to mature or to reproduce. Pritt said that eventually the larvae die.

That itchy and sometimes painful rash is called cutaneous larva migrans — the same one that Michael’s mother said he was diagnosed with — and it’s caused by the animal form of hookworms.

Susan Montgomery, epidemiology team lead of the Parasitic Diseases Branch of the CDC's Center for Global Health, said that animal hookworm infections in humans are typically treated with medications, such as an anti-parasitic. But even without treatment, Montgomery said, the parasite will die within several weeks. She said people do not usually report feeling larvae move in the skin.

Dumas said her son's ordeal " has been a nightmare."

The mother said that her son has also developed a staph infection from the hookworms. He is on medications to treat not only the parasite but also the staph, a bacterial infection that, when not promptly and properly treated, can become life-threatening, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Last week, Dumas posted a prayer request — and a warning to other parents — on Facebook:

"Urgent prayer request!! Michael went to Miami June 20 for a mission trip. He was buried in the sand for fun and it has become our nightmare. Four of our people contracted a parasitic infection, hookworms, from the Pompano Beach. Michael has the worst case, by far. He has taken Clindamyacin, Ivermectin, a steroid dose pack, and Albenza which cost $1356 for 6 pills (yes that is with insurance and yes I had to pay it!). But you can get them for $0.30 per pill in Honduras. Thank you, FDA. We have been to the pediatrician 4 times, to a dermatologist and have a follow up appointment today. He is in pain and this is AWFUL. Never be buried in sand or allow your children to be either! I am only showing a few pictures because it is so disturbing. Please, please pray for him to heal. Also feel free to SHARE THIS POST AND WARN OTHERS. The Health Department in Pompano Beach said "Everyone knows to wear shoes on the beach because you can get parasites." I assured them everyone does NOT KNOW THAT!!"

Although some people may not experience symptoms with hookworms, the most common symptoms are itchy skin and rashes, according to the CDC. People with more severe infections may also have abdominal pain, diarrhea, a decreased appetite and weight loss, among other things.

To avoid potential infection, the CDC recommends “not to walk barefoot in areas where hookworm is common and where there may be human fecal contamination of the soil” or to ingest the soil. Montgomery, with the CDC, said that people should wear shoes on the beach and then sit on a towel. She said it’s also important for pet owners to have their dogs and cats regularly dewormed.

Dumas told The Post on Wednesday she wants others to be aware of hookworms because "I don't want anyone else to go through what my son has been through."

“I’ll never walk on the beach again without shoes,” she said.

A 13-year-old boy who ran away from a wilderness program for wayward youth has been sighted in Washington County, prompting Beaver County officials to cancel their plans to search for him.

Roberto Madrigal, who is from California, had been in The Redcliff Ascent wilderness therapy program for about a month when he was reported missing on Tuesday. It was feared that he was at risk, without water in the remote desert area of western Beaver County.

But, according to the Beaver County Sheriff's Office, Madrigal was seen near Enterprise on Thursday, prompting the cancellation of the planned search. “A positive ID was reported in Washington County of him and BCSO no longer feels he is located in our area,” the sheriff's office posted on Facebook.

The boy has not yet been located by authorities as of Friday morning, however.

21st Century Fox and Walt Disney shareholders approved the sale of Fox’s entertainment assets Friday, moving one of the biggest media mergers in history nearer to completion.

The companies' investors gave their blessings to the $71.3 billion transaction in separate votes at the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan. When the deal was announced in December, Disney said it would take 12 to 18 months to close -- a timetable the company is sticking with. Upon completion, a new Fox will emerge focused on broadcast TV, sports and the Fox News Channel.

Disney Chief Executive Officer Robert Iger now must turn his attention to the deal's many loose ends -- to consummate the merger and prepare his company for life afterward. Below is a look at some of his remaining challenges:

To win regulatory approval in the U.S., Disney has agreed to divest Fox's 22 regional sports channels. The company already owns ESPN, the biggest sports network. Bidders for the properties, which could fetch as much as $20 billion, may include companies backed by cable billionaire John Malone, private equity and regional broadcasters.

Some analysts also see the possibility that Iger will look to cut a deal with Comcast Corp. over that company's 30 percent interest in Hulu. When the Fox deal closes, Disney will become the majority owner of the video-streaming service.

Although Comcast said last week it won't continue bidding for Fox's assets, the Philadelphia-based cable TV giant has the highest offer on the table for British satellite-TV provider Sky at $34 billion. Disney is acquiring 39 percent of Sky through the deal with Fox and still technically has a bid on the table for the broadcaster.

Some analysts have suggested Iger may cede Sky to Comcast, freeing Disney from the $19 billion or so it would take to purchase the rest of the business.

Disney has pledged to generate $2 billion in cost savings as a result of the merger, which will unite two of the six largest Hollywood studios.

That's created a lot of angst at Fox and Disney, where overlapping marketing, ad sales and distribution departments at their respective film and TV units could lead to hundreds if not thousands of job cuts. Fox had 21,700 employees at year-end, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, while Disney has 199,000.

Some executives are already negotiating their future, with Fox Networks Chairman Peter Rice expected to take a similar role overseeing the combined companies' TV business, with the exception of ESPN. Fox TV studio co-Ceo Dana Walden is expected to lead their TV production business.

Disney has dominated the worldwide box office in recent years, thanks the string of hits from Marvel, Pixar and "Star Wars." Post-Fox, Disney studio chief Alan Horn will have to make choices about which newly acquired franchises to greenlight, including "Avatar," "Planet of the Apes" and "Alien," all of which could also be ripe for expanded merchandise and theme-park attractions.

Fox has produced several movies based on characters licensed from Marvel, including the X-Men and Wolverine pictures and two "Deadpool" movies. Those rights will come back to Disney with the merger.

Disney has received clearance to buy the Fox assets from the Justice Department, but was also awaiting the approval of the Federal Communications Commission.

In addition, the company said in a recent filing it may need consent from regulators in 14 countries and the European Union.

Los Angeles • In Roseanne Barr’s first TV interview since her ABC sitcom was canceled for a racist tweet, the comedian apologized for her “ill-worded” post and insisted she isn’t a bigot.

During her hour-long interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News Channel show Thursday, Barr lamented the damage done to her by her tweet about Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama.

"It cost me everything," Barr said. "I wish I worded it better."

Hannity repeatedly urged Barr to apologize to Jarrett on air. The comedian eventually did, saying that she was sorry for the poorly worded tweet. She said she would tell Jarrett, "I'm sorry that you feel harm and hurt, I never meant that. I never meant to hurt anybody."

She repeated her assertion that she did not know Jarrett was black when she likened Jarrett to a cross between the Muslim Brotherhood and a "Planet of the Apes" actor.

Barr repeatedly said Thursday that her tweet was meant to address U.S.-Middle Eastern policy and had no racial overtones. She said she was stunned by the negative reaction to the tweet, which Hannity noted was nearly universal.

"I am a creative genius, and this is not a good feeling for an artist to be treated this way, and it's not a good feeling for a citizen, either."

It was the second time Barr addressed the controversy Thursday. The comedian also sat down for an interview with her longtime friend, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, at a New York City comedy club and stressed that the tweet was political and not racist. She called it "very awkwardly constructed."

"I'm sorry that anyone thought that was a racist and not a political tweet because it was, in fact, a political tweet and not a racist tweet whatsoever," she told Boteach. "And, you know, I can talk about it till I'm blue in the face and they're not going to accept that, but I accept that."

Despite apologizing at times, Barr also said on the Fox interview that she felt like she had apologized enough for her actions.

"I feel like I have apologized and explained and asked for forgiveness and made recompense," she said early in the interview. At another point, just before addressing Jarrett directly, Barr said, "I already have said I'm sorry for two months."

Barr, a supporter of President Donald Trump, brought him briefly into the conversation.

"I'm not a racist and the people who voted for Trump, they're not racist either, and Trump isn't a racist, sorry. We just have a different opinion," she said.

She said she could have fought ABC over her firing, but that she walked away from the hit reboot because she didn't want anybody to lose their jobs. She said her contract was supposed to allow her to correct any misstatements she made within 24 hours, but she wasn't given the opportunity.

The new version of "Roseanne" was an instant smash for ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Co., and was counted on to lead the network's fortunes next season.

Its debut episode last March was seen by more than 25 million people with delayed viewing counted in, numbers that are increasingly rare in network television.

ABC has announced that it will produce a “Roseanne” spinoff called “The Conners” that features John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf and Sara Gilbert.

Washington • At the expiration of a court deadline to reunite migrant families separated during its “zero tolerance” border crackdown, the Trump administration said Thursday that it has delivered 1,442 children to parents detained in immigration custody, and is on track to return all of those deemed eligible for reunification.

But 711 children remain in government shelters because their parents have criminal records, their cases remain under review or the parents are no longer in the United States, officials said. The latter group includes 431 parents.

Chris Meekins with the Department of Health and Human Services, which has led the reunification effort, told reporters that “hundreds of staff have worked 24-7” to meet the court’s 30-day deadline. Administration officials said they would work with the court to figure out how to return the remaining children, including those whose parents have been deported.

Another 120 parents declined to be reunited with their kids, the government said, a decision some parents make to allow their children to remain in the United States with other relatives while their immigration claims are adjudicated.

President Donald Trump ordered an end to family separations June 20 amid public outcry and spreading criticism within his own political party, as searing accounts emerged of traumatized children and anguished parents. Within days, Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, a Republican appointee, ordered the government to return children to their parents as quickly as possible.

Sabraw’s order set off a bureaucratic scramble across multiple federal agencies, as workers sorted through case files by hand to match children to parents and plan their reunions. He set July 26 as a deadline but allowed the government latitude to determine which parents would qualify for expedited reunions.

The judge has praised the government's progress so far as a "remarkable achievement," and Sabraw is expected to rule Friday on a motion by the plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union, to make the government wait at least a week before attempting to deport families who've been reunited.

"The families have had virtually no chance to talk to each other about what decision they want to make," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said Thursday. "Those are incredibly difficult legal decisions to make for parents and children who haven't seen each other, and we believe seven days is more than reasonable."

In many cases, those families will have to decide whether to be deported together or to leave their children behind in the United States to pursue their asylum cases.

Government attorneys have told Sabraw they are proud of the round-the-clock reunification effort. But Gelernt said the government was praising itself for meeting benchmarks it set, and that it would take far longer to sort out the cases of children still in government custody.

"They shouldn't be proud of work they're doing," he told reporters.

"It should just be: we created a cruel, inhumane unconstitutional policy. Now we're trying to fix it in every way we can and make these families whole," Gelernt said.

The ACLU said in court documents filed Wednesday that many migrant parents separated from their children may have unknowingly signed away their reunification rights.

Some parents said they thought they were signing paperwork that would, in fact, allow them to reunite with their children, according to their lawyers. Others described being crowded into rooms with dozens of people, given only a few minutes to fill out forms that would determine whether they would reunite with their children or leave them behind in the United States. They signed the forms out of fear, or confusion, or a belief that they had no other choice, lawyers wrote in the court filing.

"One father was told that if he didn't sign the form presented to him, then he would not see his daughter again," lawyer Kathryn Shepherd wrote in a court affidavit.

These testimonies, described by more than a dozen lawyers, were part of the ACLU ongoing class-action lawsuit over the U.S. government’s separation of migrant families.

As Thursday's court deadline approached, the Trump administration faced increased scrutiny from Sabraw over its inability to sort out how many migrant parents have already been deported or released from federal custody.

The government is seeking to resume deportations and the administration has challenged the ACLU's motion, insisting the migrant parents it deported gave their consent.

But Wednesday's filing paints a picture of confusion and misinformation. Gelernt accused immigration officials of distributing paperwork to migrant parents in a "coercive and misleading manner," creating a chaotic reunification process.

Many of the parents speak indigenous languages, of which there are more than two dozen in Central America. Interpreters are scarce. And even among those migrants who speak Spanish, many do not know how to read or write. This means that many migrants have very little understanding of the current status of their asylum case, the whereabouts of their children or their legal options moving forward.

Luis Cruz, a lawyer counseling with migrant parents in Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico, described speaking with five fathers who were on the government's list of people who had relinquished their rights to reunification with their children.

"All of the five fathers wish to be reunited with their children," Cruz wrote in an affidavit as part of the ACLU's court filing. "All five said they can't read or write in Spanish or English. Each of the fathers told me that they were not given the opportunity to ask questions. . . . Each described feeling hopeless and believing that they had no alternative but to sign the form."

One broke down in tears, saying he hadn't spoken to his son in 25 days and was uncertain of his location.

Leah Chavla, who has been counseling reunited families at a residential center in Dilley, Texas, said it takes hours just to get basic information from families about the stages of their cases. This is in large part, Chavla says, because of the trauma these families have experienced.

Chavla described the struggle of clarifying information during an interview with a mother and her 11-year-old son.

“The boy would barely speak through the entire interview, only sometimes slightly nodding or shaking his head to answer simple — yes or no — questions,” Chavla said. “He only stared forward with an intent expression that looked like he was concentrating so as to not cry. His mother repeatedly told him to speak to us, but he could not speak.”

Albuquerque, N.M. • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is asking a federal court in New Mexico to toss out a lawsuit over a mine waste spill in Colorado that polluted rivers in three states.

The agency said in a motion this week that workers are already working on the cleanup of the accidental release of contaminated water from an EPA-monitored Colorado mine and a federal court doesn’t need to interfere.

New Mexico, Utah and the Navajo Nation are suing the EPA in federal court over the spill.

The 2015 Gold King accident in southern Colorado occurred at an inactive mine where polluted water had been accumulating for years before am agency crew accidentally released it during cleanup work.

The spill sent a yellow-orange plume of toxic heavy metals into rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah and on Native American lands.