Washington • Sgt. Temo Juarez was a Trump guy. An Iraq combat veteran who served as a Marine infantryman and then an Army National Guardsman, his friends called him a “super conservative.” With his wife, he brought up their two daughters in Central Florida. He supported Trump in 2016, eager for a change.

But now, "I am eating my words," he told the military newspaper Stars and Stripes in an interview published last week.

On Friday, Juarez and his family became the latest victims of Trump's zero-tolerance policy on immigration.

On that day, his wife, Alejandra, left the country under a deportation order. She had come to the United States from Mexico illegally as a teenager two decades ago and had until now been living undisturbed with Temo, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and daughters, both natural-born Americans. This week, Temo will fly to Mexico with his daughters, 9-year-old Estela and 16-year-old Pamela -- and leave his younger daughter there, even though English is her first language. He can't do his construction job and take care of her in Florida by himself.

Temo Juarez believed Trump would deport only illegal immigrants who were criminals, and his wife had no record.

Instead, as the family fought Alejandra's deportation, young Estela, with unicorns on her T-shirt, wept as she spoke to TV cameras: "I really do want to stay with my mom and dad. I want us to be together and stay in my house. I don't want to go to Mexico. I want to stay here."

For Sgt. Juarez, this was the Trump administration's unique way of saying, "Thank you for your service."

Trump's "family separation" policy is most visible on the border. Last week, the administration said it still had not reunited 572 immigrant children it separated from their parents. The administration, in a court filing last week, said it should be up to the American Civil Liberties Union -- the group that sued over family separation -- to locate the parents.

But, as the Juarez case shows, the wanton cruelty of the immigration policy isn't limited to new arrivals. "Zero tolerance literally ripped this family apart," Rep. Darren Soto, D-Fla., the Juarezes' congressman, told me Monday. "The administration is so extreme on immigration that they're deporting the spouses of military veterans."

Soto and colleagues introduced legislation and wrote letters to help the Juarez family. No use.

At political rallies, Trump often exults: "Oh, do we love our veterans!" He also talks about illegal immigrants who "infest" the country.

In real life, the ones Trump loves and the ones Trump demonizes are not so far apart. Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells me it doesn't track the number of military spouses subjected to deportation. But the advocacy group American Families United, extrapolating from census figures, estimates there are as many as 11,800 active-duty military service members with a spouse or family member vulnerable to deportation. And that doesn't include veterans' families.

Since the Marquis de Lafayette during the Revolutionary War, and the Irish Brigade during the Civil War, immigrants have had a central role in the U.S. military. That's true now, too, says Jon Soltz, an Iraq veteran who founded the group VoteVets. If zero tolerance is enforced, he said, it will feel as if "everybody has a family member who is affected."

As many as 1,000 foreign nationals, recruited to the military for their critical language or medical skills, face potential discharge over delays in background checks. The Trump administration's removal of protected status for Salvadorans and Haitians means many more military family members will face deportation. Many veterans themselves have been deported because of missed application deadlines.

ICE, in a statement, says it "removed Alejandra Juarez, a citizen and national of Mexico, to her home country." ICE said she had attempted in 1998 to enter the country by falsely claiming she was a U.S. citizen and was issued an "expedited order of removal."

She returned, illegally, and remained without incident until a traffic stop led ICE to reinstate her removal order in 2013. But the Obama administration did not prioritize the deportation of military family members.

These are different times.

Juarez hasn't spoken much in public about his family's ordeal. But in the Stars and Stripes interview, he spoke about preparing his daughters for the impending family separation. "I've been preaching to them you've got to be mentally tough -- pretty much what they teach you in the Army," he said.

But nothing the military taught him could have prepared him for the cruelty his country just inflicted on his family.

A government-paid mailer sent by Rep. Mia Love features a big-type quote that it attributes only to “The Salt Lake Tribune.” She never mentions it actually is from a opinion piece that she wrote herself for the newspaper’s commentary page.

Such labeling “seriously misleads readers into believing that The Tribune as an institution supports Love’s environmental positions,” Tribune Editor Jennifer Napier-Pearce complained in writing to Love’s office.

“At best it lacks transparency; at worst, it’s deliberately deceptive,” she added.

It is the second such controversy involving Salt Lake City’s two major newspapers. The Deseret News complained last week about another mailer that Love sent at government expense where the newspaper’s masthead appears over a statement not written by its editorial board, but by outside authors in a signed opinion piece.

“The mailer misrepresents a statement of a guest opinion writer as an official position of the Deseret News,” Deseret News Editor Doug Wilks and its opinion editor Boyd Matheson wrote at that time, noting that a later mailer properly attributed the statement.

“There is nothing improper about the [Tribune] mailer,” said Richard Piatt, spokesman for Love. “There was no intention to mislead anyone in that mailer. The quote was represented as one that was published in The Salt Lake Tribune, which it was.”

He said it was mailed out a year ago and raised no complaints until the campaign of her opponent, Democratic Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, pointed it out to reporters. Piatt said that came after records show that Democratic Party officials inspected House files containing copies of Love’s government-funded mailers, looking for dirt.

“This is a bullying tactic to benefit her political opponent and distract from Rep. Love’s work in Congress,” Piatt said.

He added that “another Utah congressman has sent out similar mailers and didn’t receive any criticism from The Salt Lake Tribune.” He provided copies of two mailers sent by Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, which quote the Tribune as saying he was appointed to the powerful House appropriations committee.

The quotes in the Stewart mailers, however, are from a news article written by a Tribune reporter — not an outside opinion piece.

McAdams criticized Love. “What we’re seeing here is a pattern of abusing her privilege as a member of Congress. She’s using tax dollars to do what seems like blatantly campaigning, and it’s misleading. It’s dishonest.”

He added, “She’s disrespecting the role of independent journalism. She’s misleading her voters with fluff pieces that she’s attributing to independent journalism, when it’s just really coming from lobbyists or herself. These deceptive practices should stop.”

The latest controversy involves a mailer that Mia Love sent with the headline “Politics can’t get in the way of effective environmental stewardship.”

It includes two large-type inserted quotes attributed only to The Tribune. One says, “We can find climate solutions and have a thriving economy.”

Napier-Pearce complained that “is actually a quote from an op-ed written by Rep. Love herself and published in The Tribune on Feb 11, 2017, but it’s not attributed that way.”

The other quote comes from a 2016 Tribune news story about a clean energy group spending $100,000 to campaign for Love, but it deletes a reference mentioning the oil and gas industry.

The original Tribune story said: “When it comes to clean energy, Faison points to a bill Love co-sponsored that would allow clean-energy groups to tap an investment vehicle often used by oil and coal to raise money cheaply, and another bipartisan proposal that would make it easier to site wind and solar projects on federal lands.”

This is what the mailer quoted: “Love co-sponsored a bill that would allow clean-energy groups to tap an investment vehicle … and another bipartisan proposal that would make it easier to site wind and solar projects on federal lands.”

Love also sent out another mailer earlier this year about abortion that may be murky about whether the Tribune or someone else is praising her stands on that issue.

“Rep. Love on right track with over-the-counter birth control,” it says, attributing that to “Salt Lake Tribune, op-ed, March 12, 2017.”

It was the headline on what is correctly identified as an “op-ed,” or an outside opinion column. But it does not say who the author is. It was written by Shelby Cate, a University of Utah graduate student in business.

The controversy at the Deseret News arose over a mailer that Love sent about her efforts on a banking bill.

Under the newspaper’s masthead, the mailer quotes, “It will be the most significant bipartisan action taken by Congress this year, and Love sponsored several key provisions in the bill.”

The quote came from an op-ed written jointly by Scott Simpson, Utah Credit Union Association president and CEO, and Howard Headlee, president and CEO of the Utah Bankers Association — not from the Deseret News editorial board.

Controversy also arose over government-funded mailers in Love’s 2016 campaign. Democrat Doug Owens at that time attacked her use of nearly $275,000 in government funding for mailers he said were little more than thinly veiled campaign ads — and amounted to campaigning with government money.

In a debate between Love and Owens that year, Love dismissed Owens' attack on the topic, saying, “The whole idea of the self-promoting mail is absolutely dishonest, I mean both papers actually agreed that it was dishonest and they rarely agree.” However, neither newspaper wrote editorials on that topic.

President Donald Trump is acting with a desperation I've seen only once before in Washington: 45 years ago when President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. Nixon was fixated on ending the Watergate investigation, just as Trump wants to shut down the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

A lesson for the president from history: It turned out badly for Nixon. Not only could he not derail the investigation, but also, 10 months later, he was forced to resign the presidency.

In fact, in some ways, Trump is conducting himself more frantically than Nixon, all the while protesting his innocence. Nixon fought to the end because he knew that what was on the tape recordings that the prosecutor wanted would incriminate him. We don't know what Trump is hiding, if anything. But if he is innocent of any wrongdoing, why not let special counsel Robert Mueller do his job and prove it?

In October 1973, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliott Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. As deputy attorney general and next in line, I was ordered by the president to fire Cox; I also refused and resigned. Cox was finally fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork. The result is what came to be known as the Saturday Night Massacre.

Neither Richardson nor I saw any justifiable reason for Cox's dismissal. When it became clear that Cox would not give up his pursuit of the Oval Office tapes, Nixon took the only action he could to protect himself: He tried to get rid of the man charged with investigating him.

Nixon was desperate. His goal was to shut down the Watergate investigation by ridding himself of Cox. Instead, Nixon got Leon Jaworski, the highly respected former president of the American Bar Association. Nine months later, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision forcing Nixon to release the tapes that proved his guilt. Shortly thereafter, the president resigned.

Not only was that Saturday night the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency, but it also accelerated the growing wave of political cynicism and distrust in our government we are still living with today. One manifestation of that legacy: a president who will never admit he uttered a falsehood and a Congress too often pursuing only a partisan version of the truth.

Trump might attempt to shut down the Mueller investigation, but if he fires the special counsel, he could face the same result Nixon faced. He would look like a president with something to hide. He would unleash forces bigger than one man, because Americans believe no one is above the law, not even the president.

Nixon was brought down by his disrespect for the rule of law. The hundreds of letters that I received after my refusal to fire Cox enshrined this thought in my head for the rest of my life.

It's hard to believe that, 45 years later, we may be in store for another damaging attack on the foundations of our democracy. Yet the cynical conduct of this president, his attorneys and a handful of congressional Republicans is frightening to me and should be to every citizen of this country. We are not playing just another Washington political game; there is much more at stake.

The vehemence and irresponsibility of the rhetoric attacking the Mueller investigation tear at the very structure of our governance. Men who have sworn to use and protect our institutions of justice are steadily weakening them. Should the president finally decide to fire Mueller and put in place someone who will do his bidding, the country could be thrown into a political crisis that would scar our democracy and further erode the trust of our people in our governmental institutions.

We need leaders who tell the truth. This is not now happening. Mueller is living up to his superior reputation as a model public servant. His is a search for the truth; we should not complicate his job. Support him, and when he has finished his work, listen to what he has found.

What Mueller unearths will guide our next steps and will strengthen our trust in our institutions — including the one we are now using to find the truth. I hope the president at last studies the lessons of a history I lived — and that he heeds its warning.

William Ruckelshaus served as acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and as deputy attorney general in 1973. He was also administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1973 and 1983 to 1985.

Brigham Young University biblical scholar Eric D. Huntsman always asks his students what Jesus’ disciples meant when they called some of the Master’s words “hard sayings.”

In the past, students at the LDS Church-owned school said “hard sayings” — any doctrine or practice that is difficult to understand, accept or follow — referred to questions about Mormon history or theology.

These days, though, young Latter-day Saints tell Huntsman the expression includes “gender disparities, sexual and other identities, and racial and ethnic discrimination.”

And the professor of ancient scripture has been deeply troubled by reports of escalating numbers of youth suicides by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So, in a rousing BYU devotional speech Tuesday, Huntsman urged hundreds of listeners to create “environments that are, on the one hand, places of faith where we can seek and nurture testimony, but are also, on the other, places where our sisters and brothers can safely question, seek understanding, and share their pain.”

He specifically addressed the tensions faced within the faith by LGBTQ students, Mormons of color and LDS women — topics rarely mentioned directly from the podium during BYU devotionals.

Whatever their individual realities, Huntsman said, “the unchanging fact is that they are children of loving Heavenly Parents, and the same Jesus suffered and died for them as for us.”

For many people, not only LGBTQ Latter-day Saints, he said, “the choice to love can literally make the difference between life and death.”

As a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Huntsman relished the chance to participate in the June 1 “Be One” pageant, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the church lifting its ban on black boys and men gaining the priesthood and on black girls and women entering LDS temples.

In the weeks leading up to the performance, Huntsman followed the continuing debate about how the racial ban had harmed black Mormons and how various participants perceived the event itself — including whether “a white ally … should even sing a traditional song of Negro liberation.”

He needed to “resist the temptation to come up with answers or defenses,” he said in his speech, “and instead I just needed to sit with them, listening and trying to understand.”

As the choir went on tour to the West Coast, it had occasion to join with the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus, an unexpected bridge-building move that thrilled Huntsman.

Later, though, the BYU professor and singer met a young gay Mormon who felt, he said, “like he was still under a rock.”

The young man’s “continued choice to stay in the church,” Huntsman said, “comes at the cost of constant struggle, frequent pain and considerable loneliness.”

On gender issues, even his own daughter Rachel, then a seventh-grader, asked him, after reading the words of Paul in the New Testament: “Daddy, why doesn’t Heavenly Father like girls as much as boys?”

In the years since, he said, he has worked to include “models of powerful women of faith and testimony” in his classes. “I must find and share faithful witnesses of all sexes, tongues, peoples and life experiences.”

When it comes to Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor,” Huntsman said, “there are no outsiders.”

Even those who “find themselves outside of formal church fellowship or membership,” he added, “should never find themselves outside of the fellowship of our friendship and the circle of our love.”

Without diluting LDS “doctrine or compromising our standards,” he said, “we must open our hearts wider, reach out farther, and love more loudly, making space for struggle and faith” — a not-so-subtle reference to the recent LGBTQ fundraising LoveLoud concert.

Rachel Huntsman, now a BYU senior, said her friends and co-workers responded enthusiastically to her father’s approach.

“These are issues that my generation is grappling with,” she said. “We are trying to be sensitive and open about them.”

Renata Forste, director of BYU’s David M. Kennedy Center for International Studies, found Huntsman’s speech particularly timely.

“As we think about our lives as followers of Christ, and especially as members of the LDS faith,” Forste said, “we need to reach out and love all of our brothers and sisters and reach across racial, gender, class, and sexual orientation and identity boundaries.”

Mormons need “to live what we preach,” she emphasized. “We can do better. Especially in the current political climate of exclusion and nationalism, we need to reach out and cross boundaries and be inclusive — not create walls and borders to separate us as human beings.”

For his part, Huntsman was gratified by the response. After the collective “amen” at the end of his sermon, the students clapped.

This Pat Bagley cartoon appears in The Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday, Aug. 7 2018. You can check out the past 10 Bagley editorial cartoons below:

• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/08/06/bagley-cartoon-air-we"><u>The Air We Breathe</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/08/03/bagley-cartoon-orrins/" target=_blank><u>Orrin’s Outrage</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/08/02/bagley-cartoon-enemy" target=_blank><u>Enemy of the People</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/08/01/bagley-cartoon-bringing/" target=_blank><u>Bringing Copiers to a Gun Fight</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/07/31/bagley-cartoon-smoke-gets/" target=_blank><u>Smoke Gets in Your Eyes</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/07/31/bagley-cartoon-wilderness/" target=_blank><u>Wilderness Trafficking</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/07/27/bagley-cartoon-physics/" target=_blank><u>Physics for Dummies</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/07/26/bagley-cartoon-toting/" target=_blank><u>2A Toting Tots</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/07/25/bagley-cartoon-monumental/" target=_blank><u>Monumental Bull</u></a>
• <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/07/23/bagley-cartoon-pioneer/" target=_blank><u>Pioneer Parade is for the Birds</u></a>

Want more Bagley? Become a fan on Facebook.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last year sought proposals for where to build a new detention facility somewhere in the Salt Lake City area — or at least within a 180-mile ground trip from its field office and immigration court there.

None of the three proposals received are in Utah, and they’re not easy commutes: 83 miles away in Evanston, Wyo.; 481 miles away in Pahrump, Nev.; and 522 miles away in Aurora, Colo. Different private prison companies are proposing each of them.

That may make it difficult for the Utah families of criminal aliens or other immigration violators to visit them, or for their local attorneys to represent them. It comes as detainee numbers are growing amid immigration crackdowns by the Trump administration.

The three far-distant proposals for a new Salt Lake City facility were revealed in a response by ICE to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Chicago-based National Immigrant Justice Center, and posted online.

That group, joined by 14 legal service providers, had earlier protested plans for the new Salt Lake detention facility and others contending that “adding any additional jails to the already massive immigration detention system would severely undermine due process and civil rights for thousands of detained immigrants.”

Chris Keen, an Orem immigration attorney, says that when Utah County recently ended its contract to hold ICE detainees in its jail, the agency started moving them out of state — and many have already been sent to Nevada and Colorado.

Before that happened, he said it was much easier “to see my clients. I could pass papers to them. They could sign. I could interview them. I could prepare them for hearings. Their families could come see them.”

But now, he is often forced to travel out of state — or clients must find a new out-of-state lawyer — as most, but not all, detainee cases originating in Utah are being transferred to out-of-state immigration courts.

“You can always request a telephonic hearing in immigration court, but that just is not as good as being there, especially in a tricky case,” Keen said.

“They can always get an out-of-state attorney. But if the family is all based here, they can’t see them in visits — and it’s also harder for the family to select an attorney who they know through reputation,” he said.

“A far-away detention center is not a good answer for the Utah immigration court,” Keen said, adding it is also pushing many detainees “simply to accept a deportation” rather than fight it far from their families and attorneys.

Luis Garza, executive director of Comunidades Unidas (Communities United), says while a new facility in the Salt Lake area might make life easier for some detainees, his group and many Latinos still oppose adding it because more jails help further policies and crackdowns they say help separate immigrant families.

“That is still a private detention facility gaining benefit by detaining and separating families,” Garza said, adding he is saddened that one of the three firms seeking to build a new facility for Salt Lake is Centerville-based Management and Training Corp. It is proposing a new 640-bed facility in Evanston, Wyo.

MTC spokesman Issa Arnita said, “We chose Evanston, Wyo., primarily for the tremendous local support for the project and its proximity to the ICE Salt Lake City Field Office.” An earlier story by WyoFile detailed how excited some Wyoming official are for a facility there — which would create jobs for locals but long bus rides to Salt Lake City for detainees appearing in immigration court.

MTC has not enjoyed such support in Utah, and has faced protests here over the detention facilities it operates nationally. Eight protestors were arrested last month after some had chained themselves to the company’s headquarters.

Psarah Johnson, one of the group protesting, said then, “The reason we were all willing to do this is what we were seeing, so many families being taken away from their children; we’re seeing children being put into detention centers” although MTC said it holds no children in its facilities.

When ICE was asked if such distant facilities proposed to serve the Salt Lake area would adequately serve justice, ICE spokesman Carl Rusnok emailed a response saying simply, “To maintain the integrity of the contracting process, ICE does not discuss contracts that may be in negotiation.”

Besides MTC’s Evanston proposal, GEO Group is proposing to use an existing 432-bed facility in Aurora, Colo. And CoreCivic is proposing to expand the Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, Nev., to 640 beds.

When the NFL acted swiftly in March, with little to no advance warning, to put in place its new safety rule about a player lowering his head to deliver a hit with his helmet, league leaders hailed it as a major development with broad and significant implications for safeguarding players. But they also knew there would be considerable consternation surrounding the arduous process of actually putting the rule into effect.

They were oh-so-right about that.

One game into the NFL’s preseason, some players and other observers remain highly skeptical and sharply critical of the implementation of the rule, which subjects a player to a 15-yard penalty and possible ejection, fine or suspension for lowering his head to use his helmet to hit an opponent. With the first full slate of preseason games coming this week, there is certain to be intense scrutiny of how the on-field officials are enforcing the new rule.

“We’ve always known on the competition committee that change is hard,” Atlanta Falcons President Rich McKay, the chairman of that rulemaking committee, said in a phone interview. “People are resistant to it. They don’t know what’s going to happen.”

McKay compared the transition period that players, coaches, officials and fans now face with this rule to the gradual acceptance that followed the NFL’s enactment of its first rules regarding illegal hits on defenseless players in the mid-1990s.

“When we first put the defenseless player rules in, people said, ‘You’ve changed the game. This isn’t football anymore. You won’t see any hard hits ever again,’ “ McKay said. “But within two years, I didn’t hear that much complaining. It became part of our game and part of how our game was taught. I’m sure this will be like that. But I don’t ever discount the fact that there will be an adjustment period for everyone.”

The new rule was called twice during last week’s Hall of Fame Game in Canton, Ohio, between the Baltimore Ravens and Chicago Bears. Ravens linebacker Patrick Onwuasor was penalized about four and a half minutes into the game. Another Baltimore linebacker, Kamalei Correa, was called for a third-quarter penalty.

Both calls were made against defensive players in open-field situations. Both were fairly obvious violations. That may have provided an early hint as to how the rule will be enforced, although it potentially applies to all players on the field in a variety of situations — including a ball carrier lowering his head at the end of a run or an offensive lineman lowering his head to deliver a block.

“The rule is so simply written but it expands so far, depending on how it’s applied,” former NFL referee Terry McAulay, now a rules analyst for NBC, said at the end of the network’s broadcast of last Thursday’s game.

Still, there was confusion and controversy. There were two personal fouls called for illegal hits during the Ravens-Bears game not based on the new rule. Yet each one prompted a discussion of the helmet rule on the broadcast and on social media. Overall, many did not like what they saw.

“I cannot emphasize enough how bad this rule is for the [NFL],” agent Blake Baratz wrote on Twitter. “They are literally ruining their game. It will be a complete disaster come the regular season.”

Others hold similar views. Minnesota Vikings safety Andrew Sendejo has been spotted in training camp wearing a hat that says, “Make Football Violent Again.” Washington safety D.J. Swearinger greeted passage of the rule in March by writing on Twitter: “THE GAME WE LOVE IS GETTING DESTROYED EVERYDAY”

But other players are more accepting.

“Some of it is kind of tough because I feel like they’re taking a little bit of the aggressiveness out of the game,” Houston Texans cornerback Aaron Colvin said last week at his team’s training camp in White Sulphur Springs, W. Va. “But also, I can understand it because they’re trying to protect players as well. ... It’s kind of [like being between] a rock and a hard place, honestly.”

The rule is enacted as the NFL continues to deal with issues related to concussions suffered by players and the possible long-term health consequences of brain injuries. NFL leaders said the new rule comes after data showed an increase in the percentage of players’ concussions that were being caused by helmet-to-helmet hits. The technique of lowering the head to deliver a hit, they say, is dangerous to both the player delivering the hit and the player receiving it. Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker Ryan Shazier suffered a serious spinal injury on a hit last season.

The goal, the NFL says, is to stop players from using their helmets as an on-field weapon. The new rule has been called the NFL’s version of a college-style “targeting” rule. But it’s not a targeting rule, NFL leaders say. It is not based on the target of a hit being an opponent’s head. It is broader than that, being based on the technique of the player delivering the hit.

“It’s a safety thing,” Texans cornerback Kevin Johnson said last week in West Virginia. “I get it. It’s safer hitting with the front of your helmet than the top of your helmet as far as neck injuries and concussions. I understand it. I’ll try to do my best to keep my head up.”

The NFL has enlisted the help of coaches, some of whom attended a player-safety summit at the league office in New York in May. Head coaches narrated a set of videos about the new rule distributed to teams. But many have remained confounded. Philadelphia Eagles players complained after officials made their annual visit to the team’s training camp late last month that the officials could not explain the new rule clearly to them.

Some observers speculate that the new rule will be called often during the preseason, but the penalties will come with less frequency during the regular season.

“I think in the preseason they’ll probably address it and people will adjust to it,” Johnson said last week. “We’ll probably see some flags. I think in the regular season, people will probably get used to it. Just like anything, it’s adjustments. ... I guess we’ll see when they implement the rule, and see how the game is being played and see how the hits are being made and how close they’re calling that type of stuff.”

But McKay said he doesn’t expect officials to approach preseason application of the rule any differently than regular season application of it.

“I think the enforcement will be even,” McKay said. “A lot of times when you have a point of emphasis for the officials, you might see something like that. .... This is different than that. This is a new rule. I do think for the officials — where your eyes are and what you’re watching — it’s not like it’s easy. But I think they’ll adjust and handle it well.”

McKay was speaking as he traveled back to the Falcons’ camp on the morning after the Hall of Fame Game. He hadn’t been able to watch the game on TV because of a commitment. But he’d been on an email chain about it soon afterward. No one needed to tell him what the reaction would be.

“We understand what change means,” McKay said. “Change leads to some uneasiness, some complaints. But I think we’ll be fine. People underestimate the ability of our coaches and our players to adjust. They will adjust.”

Colvin agreed that players will adapt. After all, they aren’t being given a choice.

“I don’t have to change much,” Colvin said. “I’ve been kind of taught that my whole career, to tackle with your head up. I like to shoot the legs, shoot the thighs, whatever that is, and make the tackle. ... Guys have been playing football their whole lives. They’re here for a reason. If they couldn’t tackle, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be playing defense. Unfortunately that’s just what the rules are. We have to adjust. If you can’t do it, then I’m sure they’ll find somebody that can.”

Boise • The U.S. government does not have to turn over documents to an environmental law firm about the legal arguments for President Donald Trump’s decision to shrink national monuments, a judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge David Nye said Monday that the records are protected presidential communications.

Boise-based firm Advocates for the West had sued for 12 documents withheld from a public records request related to Trump’s decision to reduce Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments in Utah. Trump also is considering scaling back other monuments.

“This decision shows how difficult it is to force sunlight on a government that flourishes in secrecy,” group attorney Todd Tucci said.

The group contends that the documents may justify why former presidents made monuments as large as they did and thus undercut Trump’s order in December to shrink the monuments in Utah.

Tucci said the group hasn’t decided whether to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Department spokesman Andy Reuss said Tuesday that the agency had no comment.

Tucci said the 12 documents, based on dates, appear to relate to national monuments formed or expanded between 2006 and 2016 and written during previous presidential administrations. Likely 12 national monuments are represented, Tucci said.

President Barack Obama created Bears Ears National Monument in 2016, and President Bill Clinton created Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument in 1996. Like other presidents, they cited the 1906 Antiquities Act, which sets guidelines calling for the “smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

Trump said he was scaling back the two monuments to reverse federal overreach and had acted within his authority. Past presidents have trimmed national monuments 18 times, but there’s never been a court ruling on whether the Antiquities Act also lets them reduce one.

“President Trump’s abrupt change in interpretation of the Antiquities Act should be subject to the light of day,” Tucci said.

The withheld documents “contain legal advice to the president and his advisers and should remain protected,” the judge wrote. “While public disclosure is an important and necessary part of any free society, so too is candor and privacy when those at the highest levels of government strive to determine the best course of action.”

The Trump administration is facing other lawsuits from conservation groups, tribes and outdoor retail company Patagonia over the monument reductions in Utah. The groups argue that the president exceeded his power and jeopardized protections for irreplaceable archaeological sites and important lands.

Tucci said those lawsuits aren’t likely to result in the 12 documents becoming public.

“I expect the federal government to jealously guard these documents in all future litigation,” he said.

In the wake of dismissive comments directed at him in February by Fox News’s Laura Ingraham, LeBron James defiantly said, “We will definitely not shut up and dribble.” He will, however, use that widely noted phrase as the title of an upcoming documentary series his production company is creating in partnership with Showtime.

“Shut Up and Dribble,” a three-part series set to air in October — when James makes his debut with the Lakers — aims to provide “a powerful inside look at the changing role of athletes in our fraught cultural and political environment, through the lens of the NBA.” That’s according to Showtime, which announced Monday that the series is being executive produced by James and longtime friend and business partner Maverick Carter.

Gotham Chopra, who has worked on video projects with Kobe Bryant and Tom Brady, is directing the series, with the controversy over Ingraham’s comments serving as a “prologue,” per Showtime. The Fox News pundit was reacting to a video featuring James and Kevin Durant, which included the latter saying, “I feel like our team, as a country, is not run by a great coach,” while James said that President Donald Trump doesn’t “give a f--- about the people.”

“Must they run their mouths like that? Unfortunately, a lot of kids — and some adults — take these ignorant comments seriously,” Ingraham said then. “And it’s always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid a hundred million dollars a year to bounce a ball.”

“Oh, and LeBron and Kevin: You’re great players but no one voted for you,” she continued. “Millions elected Trump to be their coach. … So keep the political commentary to yourself or, as someone once said, shut up and dribble.”

Amid growing criticism of her comments, Ingraham issued a statement, saying, “If pro athletes and entertainers want to freelance as political pundits, then they should not be surprised when they’re called out for insulting politicians.” She added that there was “no racial intent” in her remarks, claiming that “false, defamatory charges of racism are a transparent attempt to immunize entertainment and sports elites from scrutiny and criticism.”

Nevertheless, her comments were the subject the following month of a “Saturday Night Live” opening monologue by Charles Barkley, who noted that “this country has a great tradition of athletes speaking their minds” and told James to “keep on dribbling and don’t ever shut up.” March also saw a pointed reference to Ingraham at the Academy Awards, when Bryant won a best animated short film Oscar for “Dear Basketball” and sarcastically told the audience, “As basketball players, we’re really supposed to just shut up and dribble.”

The Showtime series, Chopra told ESPN, is “really an exploration of how basketball is truly America’s game and the NBA has been a vessel for black athletes to claim pieces of the American Dream.”

“If being a star athlete is inherently a political experience, ‘Shut Up and Dribble’ tells that complex and dramatic story from the past to the present and from the inside out,” David Nevins, president and CEO of Showtime Networks Inc., said in a statement. “LeBron James is one of many competitors whose place in the spotlight has led not to silence but perspective, and he, Maverick Carter and Gotham Chopra have given us an important, insightful docuseries that should bring their fans and fellow citizens to a higher level of discourse, rather than the dismissal satirized in the title.”

James had criticized Trump before the February remarks that raised Ingraham’s ire, and he has continued to do so, most recently in late July, when he told CNN’s Don Lemon that the president has “used sport” to “divide” people. Asked what he would say to Trump if he were sitting across from him, James replied, “I would never sit across from him. I’d sit across from Barack [Obama], though.”

That drew a predictable response from Trump, who tweeted, “Lebron [sic] James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron [sic] look smart, which isn’t easy to do.” Trump also attempted to needle James by appearing to claim a preference for Michael Jordan, to whom the former Cavaliers star is often compared in greatest-ever debates.

However, a spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump applauded James’s funding for a school at-risk children in his hometown of Akron, Ohio, in a statement in which she said, “It looks like LeBron James is working to do good things on behalf of our next generation. And just as she always has, the first lady encourages everyone to have an open dialogue about issues facing children today.”

No word yet on whether the first lady — or Ingraham, for that matter — is open to watching “Shut Up and Dribble” when it airs this fall.

Cedar City • American Travis McCabe won the first stage of the Tour of Utah after a sprint finish in which the top 10 finishers all recorded the same time of 4 hours, 17 minutes and 15 seconds.

A bike length separated McCabe from second-place Ulises Castillo of Mexico and Colombia’s Edwin Avila.

“Coming into this, I trained really hard. I've had a few months now of just being home and training. Utah was a big goal,” said McCabe, who took advantage of a late race attack by teammate Serghei Tvetcov to claim his third stage win in three years at the Tour of Utah. “Taking that third win was what I was waking up every morning, dreaming about. Getting three wins in three years is pretty awesome.”

Overall race leader Tejay van Garderen of BMC Racing retained the leader’s yellow jersey by finishing safely in the peloton. By capturing the 10-second finish time bonus, McCabe moved up to second overall behind van Garderen, two seconds back. American Joey Rosskopf is in third place overall, a further two seconds down. Neilson Powless is fourth overall and retained the Best Young Rider jersey.

“We were able to keep things relatively under control, it was a hard-fought day,” said van Garderen. “Our plan was to let a breakaway get up the road to stop the attacks. We found a breakaway that we were comfortable with, let them get a little time, establish a chase. We were banking on a couple sprinters' teams to help close the gap in the final so that we didn’t have to do all the work today.”

The start and finish of the stage was at Southern Utah University, and the stage was highlighted by a climb up Parowan Canyon near Cedar Breaks National Monument, topping out at 10,600 feet.

“It was the first time I raced at this altitude, which makes it pretty hard, but I think it was a really nice climb,” said Daan Olivier of the Netherlands of the Category 1 climb, which gains 4,500 vertical feet in 15 miles, with some sections at Brian Head Ski Resort challenging riders with a 15 percent gradient.

Wednesday’s second stage will start and finish in Payson City and last 88.6 miles, including scaling the peak of Mount Nebo.

Charlotte, N.C. • NASCAR needed 99 races for budding superstar Chase Elliott to finally win his first Cup race and didn’t even get a full day to celebrate the milestone.

NASCAR Chairman Brian France has taken a leave from his family owned company following his arrest Sunday night on charges of driving while intoxicated and criminal possession of oxycodone . France blew through a stop sign in Sag Harbor, New York, police said, not long after Elliott crossed the finish line some 350 miles away in Watkins Glen.

Police said at the time he was pulled over France struggled to keep his balance during field sobriety tests, his eyes were red and glassy, and tests showed his blood-alcohol content was nearly twice New York’s legal limit. Officers found five oxycodone pills during a subsequent search, police said.

The head of the most popular racing series in the U.S. spent the night in jail — a punch to the gut for a series reeling from slumping attendance and television ratings, and a decline in blockbuster sponsorship deals. France shifted the attention away from Elliott’s victory, which signified a passing of the torch and a rare feel-good moment at a time of almost constant negativity in NASCAR .

Jim France, uncle to Brian France, has assumed the interim titles of Chairman and CEO and is assisted by Lesa France Kennedy, Brian’s sister.

A day after the shake-up, few seemed concerned about the direction of NASCAR with Brian France sidelined.

“Lesa and Jim are going to do a great job,” Denny Hamlin said Tuesday. “I’m confident in the leadership of NASCAR. I know all of the executives really, really well. I get invited into some very intense meetings with them at times, and am very confident that those guys can take the reins and do a great job.”

Because NASCAR is privately owned and run in large part by Brian France, Jim France and Lesa France Kennedy, there is no clear indication of how hands-on Brian France was or what kind of void his absence will create. The stakeholders are hopeful Jim France, the second son of NASCAR’s founder, can be a steadying hand in trying times for the series.

“We’ve got to look to our sport’s future, what we can change and what we can do next,” said Kyle Busch. “Brian’s been our leader for a long time. Look forward now to the opportunity to have Jim France in there.”

Jim France and Lesa France Kennedy have always been in the mix of both NASCAR and International Speedway Corp., but the role of face of the family fell to Brian. He’s the grandson of founder Bill France Sr. and replaced his father, Bill France Jr., as head of NASCAR in 2003.

Brian France took charge during a time the sport was booming in popularity and sponsors were beating down the door to get their logos on a race car. Although many of Brian France’s initiatives were progressive and needed in some form, staunch fans have vehemently rejected his vision.

Brian France introduced a playoff system, overhauled the design of the series’ cars and pushed for diversity within the circuit’s predominantly white, male ranks.

But as viewership has declined, sponsors have pulled out of NASCAR and Brian France has not made himself available to the public. He appeared increasingly detached from NASCAR over the past several seasons and is rarely seen at a race. Aside from an occasional random call to SiriusXM NASCAR Radio, Brian France has said almost nothing about NASCAR’s woes this season.

His lack of engagement created a logjam at the top of NASCAR. Chief Operating Officer Steve Phelps and executive vice president Steve O’Donnell have tried to clean up NASCAR’s mess, but they have been handcuffed like many NASCAR executives by an absence of leadership at the very top. Both Jim France and Lesa France Kennedy have become more involved this year and had privately been picking up the slack for Brian France.

If the rest of the France family is taking charge, the message needs to be delivered publicly, said Ramsey Poston, who spent more than 10 years as a communications executive for NASCAR.

“It will be important for NASCAR leadership to reassure key partners that the sport is in good hands and is positively moving forward,” said Poston, who is now president of consulting firm Tuckahoe Strategies. “Very quickly, Jim France and others should be working on a plan to restore confidence in the sport and roll out a definitive vision for the future.”

It’s not likely to happen soon as Jim France and Lesa France Kennedy are not accustomed to public roles. So neither said anything as of Tuesday, and the attention instead was steered back toward Elliott. He was greeted by several hundred supporters Sunday night when his plane landed in Georgia, which he touched on during a national conference call conducted by NASCAR.

As for the off-track news that usurped his victory?

“I haven’t ever had any issues with Jim,” Elliott said. “I expect them to do fine, and it doesn’t change my job, so I’m going to do my thing.”

So it is basically business as usual for NASCAR, and that’s exactly the way it should be, said longtime France family adversary Bruton Smith. Owner of rival company Speedway Motorsports Inc., Smith sparred with Bill France Jr. during his 31-year leadership reign, but has a better relationship with Brian France.

“Our sport is big, big, big and it’s bigger than just one person,” Smith said. “We go forward. We have to in this sport. At this point in time, NASCAR needs friends and people that will help. It’s a great sport and we go forward and we all should be very protective of it and be willing to lend a helping hand.”

Smith also noted France’s arrest gave NASCAR an opportunity to make a change after years of race fans calling for the ouster of Brian France.

“They were catching a lot of heat by not doing something,” Smith said.

But Felix Sabates, who has had at least partial ownership of a top-level NASCAR team since 1989, believes Brian France has been unfairly blamed for the downturn in the series. He said the entire industry shoulders blame for NASCAR’s slide, and owners and drivers have combined to drive operating costs through the roof.

“I think NASCAR, owners and drivers need to get on the same page to reverse the trend, and everyone has to share in the responsibility,” Sabates said, arguing Brian France deserves a spot in the sport when he decides to return.

“We need to find it in our hearts to forgive Brian for his mistakes,” Sabates said. “Whenever he finishes what he needs to do, we all at NASCAR need to welcome him back with open arms. There is a side of Brian most people don’t see. He is fun to be with, he knows as many funny jokes as his daddy, he is very charitable. He is a very simple person.”

An Enoch police corporal remains employed and on leave despite prosecutors ruling that he unlawfully shot a suspect of a car break-in at a Parowan truck stop.

Cpl. Jeremy Dunn acted “within department policy” when he shot Ivonne Casimiro on June 28, a committee of Enoch officials ruled Tuesday — contrasting the Iron County attorney’s finding that the shooting was “unjustified.”

The city’s board that reviews officers’ use of force differed from prosecutor Scott Garrett in its analysis of the threat posed by Casimiro, who was arguing and had earlier swung a screwdriver at another officer who was called to investigate people accused of prowling cars at TA Travel Center.

Video from Dunn’s body camera shows Dunn point his gun at Casimiro, who, holding the screwdriver in her right hand, raises it against her left shoulder. She takes one step, turning toward Dunn, as he fires three shots at her legs, striking her twice in the right knee. Casimiro survived and faces second-degree felony charges of assaulting a police officer and receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle.

In a letter released Monday, Iron County Attorney Scott Garrett wrote that Casimiro was not fleeing, that she had not verbally threatened the officers and that she was far enough away from them and from any bystanders to “remove any imminent threat of harm.”

But Enoch’s review board — which comprises the mayor, the city manager, a city councilman, the police chief and a police officer — wrote that Casimiro’s arm was “cocked” for “an attempt to strike” Dunn, and that Dunn “observed an immediate and severe threat” to himself, the other officer, other suspects and bystanders.

The committee’s memo states that Dunn has worked for the department for seven years as a certified peace officer and “was acutely aware of the potential for injury.”

The two findings also differed in their analyses of events leading to the shooting.

“We took into [account] the officer’s perspective: What he was thinking, what he was dealing with, his understanding of the situation,” said Enoch City Manager Rob Dotson. “He made that decision, and we believe he followed our policy to do so.”

The city committee noted that Dunn was aware that Casimiro had twice swung the screwdriver at Parowan Sgt. Mike Berg before Dunn arrived, that Casimiro “exhibited erratic behaviors as she defied lawful commands of both officers” and that Dunn saw signs that Casimiro may have been intoxicated or in a “diminished mental state.” In the video, Berg can be heard telling Dunn that Casimiro and the man who was with her were “10-96” — code for people believed to have mental health problems.

But Garrett, the prosecutor, wrote that Berg had successfully de-escalated the encounter after Casimiro swiped at him with the screwdriver. Berg had backed up behind the open door of a nearby vehicle and was talking with her as he waited for backup, Garrett wrote.

“Casimiro … did not make any furtive movements with the screwdriver or come at Sergeant Berg,” Garrett wrote. “... Berg believed he was in good shape. … In fact, [Berg] stated that he went from being fully drawn with his weapon to dropping to the low-ready position, and that he felt the situation was manageable.”

Dunn, by contrast, said he had “‘mentally purchased’ the idea that he would have to shoot Casimiro when he first arrived on scene as he had been informed that she was armed and combative and had taken a swipe with a screwdriver at Sergeant Berg,” Garrett wrote.

In the video, Dunn raises his gun and tells Casimiro, “You come [at] me with that knife, I guarantee I’ll smoke you. I guarantee it,” apparently referring to the screwdriver.

Later, Dunn refers to a 2012 shooting in which Dunn wounded a knife-wielding man who was moving toward him and Berg “in a threatening manner.” Dunn had shot the man in the leg, and Garrett then ruled that deadly force was justified. In the video of Casimiro’s shooting, Dunn says to Berg: “I can take her out like last time. Do you want me to take her out like last time?”

That wasn’t necessary, Garrett wrote.

“It appears that the situation was manageable at the time Corporal Dunn arrived and it would have seemed reasonable for officers to continue de-escalation tactics until the situation could be more fully contained,” Garrett wrote. “Corporal Dunn was only on scene for three minutes before firing shots.”

The board also cleared Dunn in his tactic of firing at the woman’s legs. Firing at a person’s extremities goes against police training in which officers are instructed to aim at a person’s “center mass” to disable the subject and reduce the risk that stray bullets will strike other people or objects.

“According to Corporal Dunn, he wanted to give Casimiro one more chance at life, so he shot her in the knee to save her life,” Garrett wrote. “[Dunn] confirmed that this type of shooting is inconsistent with his training and that he would not recommend that others take this type of shot. However, he felt that he was skilled enough to make this shot, as he had done it before.”

The board found that Dunn’s “statement that he felt the need to disable her without killing her is acceptable to us,” Dotson said.

However, the board found that Dunn did violate city policy by drawing his stun gun and his gun at the same time, one in each hand. Dunn will receive training on stun gun use, “as all our officers will,” Dotson said. Enoch has four police officers, including Police Chief Jackson Ames.

“That is something we’ll address in the future,” Dotson said. “I’m going to guess other departments will do the same thing [once] they see this video.”

Dunn “is currently on administrative leave until a determination can be made in compliance with and by all relevant agencies,” according to the Enoch news release. The city has sent its findings to Utah’s police certification division at the Department of Public Safety, and it is communicating with its insurance company, Dotson said.

The case is unusual, Dotson acknowledged, in that the city and the county attorney reached different conclusions and that Dunn deviated from training norms.

“This is new to everybody,” Dotson said. “You don’t see this very often with an officer.”

The members of the committee were Dotson, Ames, Mayor Geoffrey Chestnut, City Councilman David Harris and police Officer Josh Hildebrand.

Garrett said he had not seen Enoch’s ruling, but he reiterated that in his view of the video footage, Casimiro “doesn’t ever take a step toward him or threaten him with the screwdriver” before he shoots.

In order for deadly force to be legally justified, there has to be a reason for an officer to believe it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury, Garrett said.

“There just wasn’t,” he said.

A new Yale University study says eastern Utah’s Emery County is one of just three counties in the nation where less than half of all adults believe that global warming is happening.

And that is out of 3,142 counties researched by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Joining Emery with less than half of adults believing in climate change are Heard County, Ga., and Grant County, W. Va.

Residents in the coal-producing county in southeastern Utah say it’s not that they don’t believe in climate change. Many just don’t agree with prevailing theories on what is causing it.

Nationwide, nearly 70.2 percent of U.S. adults believe global warming is happening, according to the Yale Climate Opinion Map 2018. In Emery County, about 49.6 percent of adults believe it is, based on the study, which also involved researchers at Utah State University in Logan and University of California, Santa Barbara.

Calculated at the state level, shares of adult residents believing in climate change ranged from a high of 82.2 percent in the District of Columbia to 58.6 percent of adults in West Virginia. And on that same scale, about two-thirds of Utahns age 25 and older — or about 65.6 percent — believed in global warming, placing the Beehive State 33rd highest among U.S. states for climate-change acceptance.

Reached at the county government seat of Castle Dale, Emery County Commission Chairman Lynn Sitterud said it was no coincidence that Emery’s numbers were on par with those in another rural, coal-producing county in West Virginia. He cites an urban-rural divide for differing views on the causes of climate change.

“Your people in Salt Lake would like to blame it on our coal-fired plants that have been rebuilt and modernized and are burning pretty darn clean,” said Sitterud, referring to PacifiCorp electrical-generation plants in Hunter and Huntington. “And we would rather blame it on your cars and pollution problems up there being self-inflicted, and not brought on by our plants that are being upgraded continually."

Mike Jones, owner-operator of Jones Ace Hardware store on Castle Dale’s Main Street, speculated that local residents may doubt the effects of human actions on climate based because where they live, there are few visible sources of human pollution.

For his own view, Jones said, "I do agree that humans are polluting and wasting the Earth in a way, but as far as climate change is concerned, I wouldn't know what to say."

The same Yale opinion mapping also measured shares of adults who believed global warming is “mostly caused by human activities.” Emery County’s share of adults holding that opinion was Utah’s lowest, at 39 percent — nearly 18 percentage points below the U.S. average — though in 20 of the state’s 29 counties fewer than half of adults shared that belief.

Only 27 percent of Emery’s adult population believe that most scientists think global warming is happening. Statewide, only four Utah counties — Summit, Salt Lake, Grand and Cache — had more than 50 percent of adults believing there is a majority consensus among scientists on global warming.

It’s important to note that numbers generated in the Yale Climate Opinion Maps for the state, congressional district and county levels are based on modeling, using advanced statistical and geographic methods to “downscale” national public opinion to the local level. Findings based on those methods were then validated by statewide surveys in California, Texas, Ohio and Colorado, and in two cities — Columbus, Ohio; and San Francisco.

Data scientists at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication said the modeling has an average margin of error of plus or minus 8 percentage points for county-level numbers.

Utah counties with the highest shares of adults who believed in global warming were Summit, at 74.4 percent; Salt Lake County, at 73.6 percent; and Emery County’s neighbor to the east, Grand County, at 72.9 percent. In coal-producing Carbon County to Emery County’s north, the number was 59.5 percent.

One veteran Emery County observer said she agreed that the Yale findings probably reflected a more nuanced doubt among residents about the causes of global warming, rather than disbelief that it is actually happening.

The issue has been the subject of several community meetings over the years and received “a lot of discussion all over down here,” said Patsy Stoddard, editor of Emery County Progress, a weekly newspaper based in Huntington.

Stoddard recalled one longtime resident taking a visiting reporter out to view layers in ancient rock formations to compare the geological scale of time with the potential effects of human activity.

“Humans weren’t even here when all of these other things were occurring,” Stoddard said.

“That’s kind of the premise of the people in the county," she said. "The opinion is pretty much, yes, there is climate change and it is occurring, but it’s more of a cycle that has been occurring for millions of years.”

One of the major problems the NFL has been having with the issue of player protests during the national anthem is that while league officials desperately want the whole thing to go away, President Donald Trump might not. Criticisms of protests, and the league’s handling of them, have been a frequent theme for Trump in his tweets and speeches at rallies, amid strong indications that he thinks his hard-line stance plays well with his base.

That has greatly exacerbated the problem for the NFL, but Aaron Rodgers has a solution: Just "ignore" the president's provocative commentary.

“I think that the more that we give credence to stuff like that, the more it’s going to live on,” the Packers quarterback said Monday to NFL.com’s Michael Silver. “I think if we can learn to ignore or not respond to stuff like that - if we can - it takes away the power of statements like that.”

The league has already tried to tamp down the protests by announcing a new policy in May that called for all NFL personnel, players and staffers alike, to "stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem." However, an allowance was made for those who preferred to remain in the locker room as the anthem was being performed, and Trump was quick to seize on that as unacceptable.

"I don't think people should be staying in locker rooms," he told Fox News at the time, adding, "You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn't be playing, you shouldn't be there, maybe you shouldn't be in the country."

The suggestion that players who protest during the anthem should be deported was met with noteworthy derision by some NFL players, including the Seahawks' Doug Baldwin, who said of Trump, "He's an idiot. Plain and simple." The Broncos' Brandon Marshall described the president's comments as "disgusting," while the Eagles' Chris Long said the new policy reflected NFL owners' "fear of a president turning his base against a corporation."

Trump returned to the topic during a July rally in Great Falls, Mont., saying of the option to let players remain in their respective locker rooms, “Isn’t that worse than not standing? That doesn’t play. I actually think in many ways it’s worse.”

Later in the month, the NFL put the policy on hold as it attempted to come to a "resolution to the anthem issue" with the players union. That was spurred, at least in part, by an awareness that the issue had hardly been laid to rest, and that a portion of the policy allowing teams' to create their own rules regarding conduct during the anthem was likely to result in many more headaches for the league, but Trump offered his own solution.

"First time kneeling, out for game. Second time kneeling, out for season/no pay!" Trump tweeted, while declaring that the "$40,000,000 [NFL] Commissioner," Roger Goodell, "must now make a stand."

Shortly after that tweet, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who had reportedly said in a deposition earlier in the year that Trump told him, "This is a very winning, strong issue for me," described the president's "interest in what we're doing" regarding anthem policies as "problematic." Before that, Giants co-owner Steve Tisch had said of Trump, "He has no understanding of why they take a knee or why they're protesting. When the new season starts, I hope his priorities are not criticizing the NFL and telling owners what to do and what not to do."

Rodgers, in his comments to Silver, expressed frustration with the criticism he and other players have received, both from Trump and from many fans via social media, that those who stage protests during the anthem, or at least aren't overtly opposed to doing so, are disrespecting the U.S. military.

"I don't know how many times we can say, as a player and as a group, how much we love and support and appreciate the troops, and the opportunities this country allows us," Rodgers said. "But this is about equality and something bigger than ourselves, and bringing people together, and love and connectedness and equality and social justice, and putting a light on people who deserve to have the attention for their causes and their difficult situations that they're in.

“You know, people have their opinion — you shouldn’t do it during the anthem, you shouldn’t do it during this — that’s fine. But let’s not take away from what the real issue is.”

Of course, NFL players aren't the only prominent athletes singled out for criticism by Trump, with the most recent example the president's tweeted insult of the intelligence of NBA superstar LeBron James. Rodgers said the fact that James did not immediately return fire was "absolutely beautiful."

“At a time where he’s putting on display his school, which is changing lives, there’s no need,” the two-time NFL MVP said of James. “Because you’re just giving attention to that [tweet]; that’s what they want. So just don’t respond.”

The largest grizzly hunt in the Lower 48 in more than 40 years is set to open next month in Wyoming, and more than 7,000 people applied for a chance to kill one of up to 22 bears. Among the tiny number of people who won the draw for permits is a wildlife photographer who has produced some of the most famous images of the area’s grizzlies.

Thomas Mangelsen, who has lived near Grand Teton National Park for four decades, said in an interview this week that he will use the permit to shoot bears as he’s always done — with a camera, not a gun.

Mangelsen's luck in the lottery followed a campaign spearheaded by local hunt opponents to encourage like-minded people to apply for permits in hopes of preventing the death of at least one member of the Yellowstone area's grizzly population, which was removed from the endangered species list in 2017. Amid a hugely contentious debate over the hunt, their tactic is being hailed by some as a heroic protest and scorned by others as starry-eyed thievery of an opportunity that hunters deserve.

"Well, what other way are we going to do it?" said Mangelsen, 72, referring to hunt critics. "We've petitioned the government, we've gone to the meetings, we've talked and we've testified, we've gone to legislators. . . . We have a right to protest in whatever way we feel is necessary."

Their approach was possible because of regulations in the six hunting areas closest to Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks, prime grizzly habitat where federal biologists track the species' population. There, up to 10 hunters will be allowed into the field, one at a time, for 10 days each. The hunt in those areas will end when the first female is killed or after 10 males are killed.

In two other areas that are farther from parks and more populated by humans, up to 12 bears, male or female, can be killed. Hunting is not allowed in the parks, on the road that connects them or in a no-hunt buffer zone in a region east of Grand Teton.

Mangelsen is No. 8 on the permit list for the closer areas, which means his turn will come up only if none of the first seven hunters has killed a female bear. But he and organizers of the campaign said another supporter, a woman who lives in the Jackson Hole, Wyoming, area, drew the No. 2 spot and also planned to pay the $600 resident fee for a permit.

"That will be 10 days that another hunter will not be in the field," Mangelsen said. "We might be able to save a couple bears."

Yellowstone grizzlies were placed on the endangered species list in 1975, when the federal government estimated that just 136 remained. The population has since rebounded to about 700, and the bears are now spreading far beyond the parks, where threats include collisions with cars and conflicts with humans over property and livestock. Federal and state biologists say limited hunting will not imperil the population. Idaho also approved a hunt of a single male grizzly; Montana, the third state that abuts Yellowstone, considered but rejected a grizzly hunt this year.

Mangelsen is one of the best-known chroniclers of what he calls the Yellowstone area’s “rock star bears.” They include 399, a female grizzly he first spotted in 2006 who has produced dozens of offspring often seen with her near roads in Grand Teton, where tourist gawking regularly leads to “bear jams” — lines of cars stopped while passengers get an up-close look at an iconic American species.

He said 399 and others like her underpin his opposition to the hunt. Because elk hunting is allowed in and around Grand Teton, the grizzlies are accustomed to scavenging gut piles and consider the sound of a gunshot to be a "dinner bell" rather than a threat, he said. That would make them easier targets during a hunt.

While there's a chance 399 could venture into the hunting areas, Mangelsen said. some of the large males she's mated with, named Bruno and Brutus by local fans, are known to go to those areas. Their size would make them coveted trophies, he said.

To "rob the opportunity of millions of people from ever seeing a bear is really sad," Mangelsen said. "Bears do not belong to the hunters. They do not belong to the bear-watchers. They belong to themselves and the landscape."

Wyoming officials said that the non-hunter attempts to win permits violated no rules. But they clearly weren't delighted about the idea.

"We think we should all be grateful that over the last four decades hunters and anglers spent nearly $50 million to recover grizzly bears to ensure there is an opportunity for people to see and photograph grizzly bears in northwest Wyoming," Renny MacKay, a spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said in an email before the permit draw. "It is important to consider the fact that they did this during a time when those folks were using the resource by taking pictures of bears, not by hunting them."

The tactic has been mocked and lambasted by hunters and other critics who say the grizzly harvest is scientifically supported and argue that bears are becoming too populous and assertive in some areas. Sy Gilliland, a hunting guide, told USA Today that it was "like being Monday-morning quarterbacked by people who don't really have a clue what's happening on the ground."

Mangelsen, who has also long protested cougar hunting, argues that taxes on photographers' equipment, as well as tourist money, also fund state conservation coffers. (Federal dollars, too, go toward endangered species' recovery.) But he said he was heartened that the computer-run lottery gave him a chance to win and pay for a permit, even though he disagrees with how the state might use his $600 to manage wildlife.

“Managing by killing things is kind of archaic,” he said. “We always thought maybe [the draw] could be skewed. But the fact that I got it -- probably the least likely person in Wyoming to get a bear tag — we have to say that, well, Tom got a tag, so it must not be skewed.”

There remains a chance that the hunt will be canceled. Several lawsuits have challenged the delisting of Yellowstone-area grizzlies, and a U.S. district court judge earlier this year ordered all parties to combine their arguments into a single set of briefs. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 30, just before the September start of hunting seasons in Wyoming and Idaho.

I love football. I played high school football and coached for many years Little League (Ute Conference) football. I have had season tickets to the Ute games for over 30 years. And even though I choose to stand and cover my heart, I am not bothered by the professional players who kneel during the national anthem.

If you are bothered, there is a simple solution; don't buy tickets to the games, don't watch them on television and don't buy jerseys or other NFL gear. In other words, boycott the NFL and its product.

If you can't give up these things, then you value football more than you do standing up for the national anthem. And if these are your priorities, does this mean you are not patriotic, and/or how are you different than those players who kneel?

Bob Gilchrist, Millcreek

Submit a letter to the editor

Wow, Rep. Mia Love recently completed the Spartan Race. Way to go, Mia!

But, I'm confused. Rep. Love has expressed concerns regarding safety at townhalls, yet she is comfortable dodging obstacles in an open field? She’s definitely an expert in dodging voters. In fact, for approximately 76 percent of her time in office, she has failed to hold a public town hall. She’s even ignored requests for one with safety protocols built in.

It seems Mia will get muddy for a photo op, but won’t get down in the trenches with her voters. What kind of Spartan is that?

Her toughest race is ahead of her, against Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams. He faced a room full of angry constituents and listened to them. He isn’t afraid, he is steady. He has a proven track record of holding town halls, and it is highly likely he will continue when elected to Congress.

I'd prefer a representative who isn't afraid to listen to voters' concerns, even when we may not agree. That's a show of strength worth voting for.

Constance Patterson, Murray

Submit a letter to the editor

Republicans say that Obamacare is socialist. When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he promoted a health insurance plan that was basically the same as Obamacare. Was Romneycare socialist?

The word “socialist” has been used very loosely by people who have no idea what socialism is. Let me clue them in. Socialism is the total ownership of the means of production by the government. It is state capitalism. Obamacare is not the ownership of hospitals by the government. It is not the authority of government to tell doctors what to do. Socialism? Come on!

Republican politicians are using the strategy, “Give a dog a bad name and you kill it.” No, I’m not accusing ordinary Republicans of duplicity. They are not politicians. They sincerely believe what their politicians say. Democrats should stop demonizing Republicans and go to the trouble of convincing them.

Leon Johnson, West Valley City

Submit a letter to the editor

In her column on Aug. 4, titled “How can God-given rights only apply to Americans?”, Tribune columnist Holly Richardson implies a general proposition that all asylum seekers are entitled to the unalienable rights our founding fathers established in the Declaration of Independence and refined in the Constitution. In making her case, Ms. Richardson relates how eyewitnesses and advocates visiting the Brownsville-Matamoros International Bridge between Mexico and the U.S. in June met Laura and her 6-year old son, Nicolas. Laura was fleeing a violent police officer husband whose colleagues turned the other way when she sought help. Ms. Richardson goes on to make the case that Laura’s unalienable rights have somehow been denied — because she was not promptly granted asylum, but rather asked to return in five or six hours.

How would Ms. Richardson suggest that officials at the U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services Asylum Office handle Laura’s request for asylum from domestic abuse in her home country? A refugee, as defined by Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion or national origin. Domestic abuse is not included in the statute. By granting Laura, and similarly situated applicants, refugee status for domestic abuse, their home country law enforcement failures notwithstanding, U.S. Asylum officials would be violating U.S. law.

Congress sets limits on and funds the processing of asylum status grants. The current limit is 85,000 per year or 232 per day. Until Congress (1) amends the INA to include asylum seekers like Laura, (2) increases the number of annual grants of asylum status, and (3) increases funding for the foregoing, we should be grateful for the overworked women and men at U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement doing their difficult and currently thankless jobs of enforcing U.S. law. Those who feel differently might have a better chance of changing the status quo by lobbying Congress to amend the relevant statutes, limits and funding — rather than implying that our U.S. border employees are somehow incompetent, heartless, or even thuggish.

Fred W. Fairclough Jr., Salt Lake City