Memo to the Republican Party:

You might want to stop messing with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She's a freshman congresswoman with no significant legislative achievements, so it makes little sense that you spend so much time and energy on her. Besides, every time you do, you end up getting pantsed.

You'd think you'd learn. Yet, like Charlie Brown trying to kick that football, you keep coming back for more.

The latest example began when one of your rank and file, Rep. Sean Duffy, took aim at the Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez's wish list of social, economic and policy goals to stem the impact of climate change. He called it "elitist."

She responded forcefully. “You want to tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is elitist?” she said. “Tell that to the kids in the South Bronx, which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. Tell that to the families in Flint, whose kids have their blood ascending in lead levels. ... Call them elitist.”

That speech prompted another of your members, Rep. Andy Barr, to issue a dare disguised as an invitation: "Come to Eastern Kentucky where thousands of coal miners no longer have paychecks," he said. "...Go underground with me and meet the men and women who do heroic work to empower the American economy."

Whereupon Ocasio-Cortez did what Barr never expected: she accepted, noting that the Green New Deal envisions fully funding miners' pensions "because we want a just transition to make sure we are investing in jobs" in mining communities.

His bluff called, Barr backtracked. He withdrew the invitation, claiming Ocasio-Cortez had to first apologize for an unrelated Twitter spat about a different issue with another legislator.

As fig leaves go, it was Saran Wrap.

For all his huffing about an apology, Barr’s real concern was obvious. Namely, if his constituents ever got to meet and listen to Ocasio-Cortez up close — that is, without the horned-demon-with-"666″-tattooed-on-her-scalp spin you Republicans always apply — they might like her.

Indeed, another Kentucky lawmaker, Rep. James Comer, suggested last week in an interview on "Hey Kentucky," a local public affairs show, that you Republicans are "making a mistake picking on" Ocasio-Cortez, whom he described as smart and well prepared. Republicans, he said, "need to be very prepared when we debate her on issues that we're having a hard time with."

And here, it seems apropos to recall how participants in a town hall convened by Fox "News" recently caught people off guard by applauding another horned demon, Bernie Sanders. "Weird," tweeted Donald Trump.

Weird, indeed. It seems strange things can happen if light and air are allowed into the closed and musty silo that is conservative political thought.

Not to treat her like the Second Coming — she is, again, just a neophyte lawmaker — but in her passion, her preparedness, and her pugnacity, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is conducting a master class on the power of light and air, using the notoriety you gave her to do so. A new generation of progressive leaders is surely taking notes.

So a smart party would up its game, would quit manufacturing demons and start manufacturing ideas. Start manufacturing hope. It would be nice to believe that's what you'll do. On the other hand, Charlie Brown always said he wasn't going to let Lucy trick him again.

It would have been nice to believe that, too.

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

Our nation has reached a critical crossroads when it comes to strengthening election security, accessibility, integrity and efficiency. It’s against this backdrop that members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) Board of Advisors convene this week in Salt Lake City to examine critical election administration issues.

Supporting election administrators and the voters they serve is at the heart of the commission’s mission, as defined by the Help American Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, watershed legislation that established the EAC. HAVA also established the EAC’s 35-member Board of Advisors that is comprised of representatives from a broad spectrum of national election stakeholder organizations, as well as congressionally appointed election experts. Among them is Weber County’s County Clerk/Auditor, Ricky Hatch. Our goal this week is to ensure that the EAC’s work boosts efforts underway by state and local election officials and makes it easier for all eligible Americans to exercise their right to vote.

One critical role of the EAC is the administration of federal grants to improve elections. Last year, Congress appropriated $380 million in HAVA funds to improve the administration of elections across the nation, the first new appropriations for HAVA funds since fiscal year 2010.

Utah received more than $4.1 million of those funds which the state will invest in upgrading voting systems, replacing its voter registration database, and implementing additional security measures.

Administering federal funds is only part of the support provided by the EAC. Another key component of our work is the EAC’s testing and certification of voting systems. Under HAVA, the EAC develops and maintains Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), requirements against which voting systems can be tested and certified if they meet federal certification standards.

Earlier this year, the EAC unanimously voted to publish the proposed VVSG 2.0 Principles and Guidelines in the Federal Register for a 90-day public comment period that concludes next month. At this week’s meeting, we will examine the VVSG 2.0’s proposed testing requirements and how these standards will shape the next generation of voting systems in the United States.

While many of the discussions this week are about taking the proper steps to secure and prepare for Election Day, sometimes the unexpected happens. As Utah knows, natural disasters such as flash floods, blizzards and tornadoes, as well as man-made disasters, can happen without warning. While the commission is gathered in Utah, we will take a closer look at the challenges these unexpected disasters pose for election officials and voters.

We are also committed to making sure voters know their rights, including those with disabilities or limited English proficiency, Americans living overseas and armed service members serving away from home. The EAC and its Board of Advisors work in lockstep to make sure that these voters are able to vote privately and independently. It is imperative that our work to address election administration challenges protect – not hinder – equal access to the polls for all.

As we prepare for the 2020 presidential election, we encourage voters across Utah to register to vote or verify that their current registration is up to date. Locally, please contact the Salt Lake County Clerk or visit the county’s website for the most accurate election and voter registration information. In addition, on Election Day, please consider volunteering as a poll worker or serving as an observer. While state and local election administrators and the EAC work tirelessly to instill voter confidence and improve elections, nothing boosts confidence in our election system like directly being a part of the process.

The EAC is pleased to bring its Board of Advisors to the Crossroads of the West. We are hopeful that our work here will help election officials and voters navigate the unique crossroads we now face and set the stage for a 2020 President Election rooted in enhanced security, accessibility, and efficiency.

Thomas Hicks, Ben Hovland, Christy McCormick and Donald Palmer are the current commissioners of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an independent and bipartisan commission established to help America vote. The commission will hold public hearings in Salt Lake City Wednesday and Thursday at the Salt Lake Marriott Downtown at City Creeek, 75 South West Temple.

Humans are an intelligent, rational species. We build upon existing knowledge to understand ourselves and the world around us. This trait has allowed us to overcome almost every obstacle and reign as the dominant species on the planet.

So why haven’t we been able to incorporate the science around greenhouse gases into our collective consciousness and adjust our behavior accordingly?

In addition to being highly rational creatures, it seems, we’re also highly irrational.

Smart, intelligent people will throw a pinch of salt over their shoulder. We’ll avoid walking under a ladder, change direction if a black cat crosses our path. We worry that if we break a mirror, we’ll have seven years bad luck. We believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Sure, we grow out of many superstitious beliefs over time, but not all of them. Most of the adults in my life still say “Knock on wood” so as not to tempt Fate. I see adults cross their fingers, make the sign of the cross, don their lucky shirt. They play the lottery using their lucky numbers, repeat unique rituals before a game or a job interview.

We watch “Charmed” and “Touched by an Angel” and every Harry Potter movie because part of us not only hopes there is something greater out there but also believes on some level that magic and the supernatural are real forces, if we can only tap into them.

Many of my Mormon friends and family don’t feel the need to act on climate change because they believe Jesus will return any day now and take care of everything.

These are people who wear magic underwear every day of their adult lives.

I mean no disrespect. I used to wear them, too. I still keep a pair, 30 years after being excommunicated.

My previous partner taught at a religious university. An avowed atheist, Tom still maintained his fair share of superstitions. When he was diagnosed with liver cancer, I saw first-hand how humans cling to irrationality like a life preserver. Tom refused to write a will out of fear that doing so would jinx him.

Of course, superstition is not an effective treatment against biology, and he was dead three months later. His superstition had real-life consequences, however, if not for him, then for those around him. Because gay marriage wasn’t legal at the time, Tom’s estranged sister was legally his next of kin and inherited the house, his pension, his CDs in the bank, and everything else.

Perhaps our refusal to act on climate change won’t affect us personally very much, but it will certainly affect the billions of others left here after we die. Are our grandchildren spoiled brats, selfish for wanting to inherit a habitable world?

As a Mormon missionary in Rome, I was instructed not to dust my feet off on anyone, no matter how provoked I might be. Dusting our feet was a ritual so powerful even God couldn’t refuse to act on it and would be bound to afflict whoever we’d cursed.

As elders in the LDS Church, we held the priesthood, a mystical power that would allow us to heal the sick. My missionary companion and I blessed a member of our congregation in Sardinia, promising him a full recovery.

He was dead the next day.

My companion and I “knew” that if we had only been more righteous, the man would have lived.

If faith or priesthood or other magical powers can only function on occasion, in a few isolated cases, when we’re exceptionally devoted, then relying on those as our primary tools to solve an existential crisis is not a very solid plan.

Mormons are told to pray as if everything depends on God but act as if everything depends on us.

Maybe the Messiah is coming back, and maybe he isn’t. What’s clear, though, is that it’s up to us, through real, concrete, scientific measures, to take drastic action and transform our civilization to something sustainable.

Giving climate scientists and activists the Evil Eye is not good policy. So let’s use the brains evolution gave us, put aside our superstitions, and act as if the world is real, with the belief — no, the knowledge — that reality matters.

Johnny Townsend, Seattle, is the author of “Behind the Bishop’s Door” and many other collections of Mormon short stories. His latest book of essays, “Human Compassion for Beginners,” was recently released by BookLocker.

According to hydrologists quoted in Bryan Maffly’s Tribune article, “It’s official: Utah’s snowpack is fantastic this year!” Does this mean we can ignore the longer-term trends of warming temperatures and less snowfall?

The answer is a resounding no!

We quickly forget that 2018 was the driest year ever recorded in Utah and wildfires burned a near-record number of acres in the West. Lake Powell sits at 37% of capacity. Globally the last four years were the warmest in human history. Add to this the extensive lag between the time we stop adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and the time that global warming diminishes, and you see the scope of the problem.

Why is there such inertia in our climate system? At the risk of oversimplifying, I’ll highlight two processes.

The first concerns the ocean, which absorbs 93% of excess heat trapped from human-derived greenhouse gasses. It takes years or even decades for this heat to equilibrate with the atmosphere. The second is feedback loops, which play out over decades or centuries. For instance, bright white arctic sea ice reflects energy back into space, but as our climate warms and sea ice melts, the dark ocean water absorbs heat and adds to the warming caused by greenhouse gasses.

Unfortunately, there is also a stubborn lag in the political process that will bring about energy transition. This lag is much more obvious. Beyond the time needed to create the political will for a policy, it takes time for a new law to take effect, for it to stimulate innovations, and for our behavior to change. Also, an enormous infrastructure is already in place to support the use of fossil fuel energy.

So what can we do this Earth Month? Action must occur at all levels of society. As President Obama’s Science Advisor John Holdren has said, “There is no silver bullet. We need silver buckshot-we need to do a lot of things at once.”

On an individual basis, perhaps no clearer direction exists than that given in the Provo Clean Air Toolkit, created under the direction of Rep. John Curtis when he was mayor. Check out https://provocleanair.org to learn what individuals, business and cities can do. From walking or riding a bike for short trips to adopting “Meatless Mondays,” many personal actions will be healthier for you and for the air we breathe.

While we can all take personal responsibility, the scale of this problem demands federal action. Properly designed federal policy will stimulate innovation and create ripple effects throughout the world. Fortunately, such legislation is now within our grasp with the bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, which now has 30 sponsors. This legislation will put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. It will return the proceeds equally to Americans with a monthly dividend to spend as they see fit. The Republican cosponsor, Rep. Francis Rooney affirmed, “When you think about a carbon tax, that’s the most free-market, least intrusive way to price carbon.

This policy will be effective, reducing greenhouse gas production by 40% over the first 12 years. It will be good for people, as it improves health by reducing air pollution. It will protect those with lower incomes, as most will receive more in the dividend than they pay from increased costs. It will be good for the economy by creating 2.1 million jobs, thanks to economic growth in local communities across America. It will be revenue neutral, meaning the government will not keep any of the fees collected, so the size of government won’t grow.

Here’s where personal action comes back in during this Earth Month. Our elected officials work for you. Ask Sens. Mike Lee and Mitt Romney, and your representative — Rob Bishop, Chris Stewart, John Curtis or Ben McAdams, to support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act now. Only by responding to the challenge of climate change, can we create healthier and more resilient communities.

David Folland, M.D., is a retired pediatrician and volunteer with the non-partisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby

A letter to the prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a mental health practitioner.

President Russell M. Nelson,

I want to address your recent talk to the general membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stating how not all families will be able to enjoy the afterlife together.

Let me remind you of the families I work with on a daily basis as a clinical practitioner:

• Mixed-faith families

• LGBTQ+ individuals, couples and their families (who were desperate to hear anything healing after the recent policy reversals announcement)

• Families of people who have struggled with and even died from drug and alcohol dependence (we are currently experiencing an opioid epidemic that knows no religious bound)

• Single parent families, co-parenting families after divorce and other non-traditional families

• Families where there have been complicating factors of abuse/trauma and are trying to make sense of horrific realities while still identifying as a loving entity

• Families of sexual assault survivors

• Families who are dealing with serious mental health diagnoses that affect behavior (i.e. bipolar, impulse-control, etc.)

• Families who are survivors of a loved one’s death by suicide

• Any family who has an individual struggling with some behavior they are trying to improve (basically all of us)

This list is obviously not comprehensive. Most of these families are loving, dedicated, loyal and committed to their relationships. Your message will negatively affect them in regards to mental health (i.e. increased symptoms of depression, anxiety, OCD preoccupations, PTSD triggers, etc.), emotional health (i.e. worry, sadness, doubt, confusion, pain, etc.) and relational health (i.e. young impressionable children/teens worried about being separated from their parents/siblings; mixed-faith believing partners who often choose divorce because of these types of narratives; parents rejecting/shaming their adult or teen children; parents feeling responsible that they did not do enough when children use their agency to find other successful ways to live/think/believe; loss of respect and trust among family members; etc.).

As a prominent leader of a worldwide church, you have impressionable power which you wielded irresponsibly. There are serious consequences to what you say and how you say it. This week alone I’ve had numerous clients painfully present these in our sessions referencing your talk (teen and adult panic attacks, domestic violence towards a transitioning spouse, several suicide assessments, divorce decision made final, and resignation from the church).

Please stop causing the type of wreckage I, and my many concerned colleagues, have to sew up in the cardiac surgical room of the therapy chair. Hearts are breaking.

As a mental health practitioner, I am trained to ask people how they can use their religious values and spiritual tools to help edify their goals towards mental and relational health. As a church member and a therapist, I see vast benefits when the Gospel of Jesus Christ is taught and lived from the lens of love, inclusion, personal agency, comfort and peace. I see great harm and un-Christlike behavior when it’s taught from a place of division, rigid obedience, exclusion and hierarchy.

The teachings and truths of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be in contradiction with basic concepts of mental and relational health which have been well studied and become universal standards of best care practice.

Please use your vast resources to become better informed in issues of mental health, relational health and trauma informed congregations as you serve our membership.

Natasha Helfer Parker, MS, LCMFT, CST, Wichita, Kan., runs an online practice, Symmetry Solutions, which focuses on helping families and individuals with faith concerns, sexuality and mental health. She hosts the Mormon Mental Health and Mormon Sex Info podcasts, is the current past-president of the Mormon Mental Health Association and runs a sex education program, Sex Talk with Natasha. She has more than 20 years of experience working with primarily an LDS clientele.

Utah’s governing and business elites are doing their best to convince Utahns that the state’s tax system must be modernized. However, their solutions are to do more of the same rather than doing something really innovative, such as implementing a lottery and online sports betting.

For example, the Salt Lake Chamber — dubbed an “Enemy of the Taxpayer” by Americans for Tax Reform — is the driving force behind imposing a sales tax on services, as that option allows their big business members to further socialize their costs while privatizing their profits by shifting the tax burden onto low and middle-income Utahns and small businesses.

A lobbyist for the Utah Realtors is pushing a new statewide property tax. Apparently, the Realtors are willing to do anything to avoid a sales tax on their agents’ services and real estate transactions — except cut government spending that is.

Certain legislators want to amend the state Constitution so the income tax, which is currently dedicated 100% to public education, can be used for other purposes as well. Of course, this is a non-starter since the powerful education lobby will never let it happen.

Still other legislators argue that the solution is to require the federal government to turn over federal lands to the state, or to at least pay property taxes on the land at fair market value. That isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Of course, no one talks about reducing spending, despite the fact that during the past 20 years, the Utah state budget, exclusive of federal funds, has increased by a whopping 146% while the median household income of Utahns has only increased by 55%.

So if everyone is determined to find a way to ensure that the state budget continues to grow faster than median household income, how about implementing a lottery and online sports betting?

After all, Utahns already support gambling, whether it be by participating in home poker games, driving to Idaho and Wyoming to buy lottery tickets, participating in office pools, playing Bingo, taking the senior citizen bus to Wendover or engaging in online games of chance.

The lottery and online sports betting have a lot going for them. They can provide the state with a new source of revenue. They can create new jobs and help grow the economy without taxpayer subsidies. They can make Utah more hospitable to tourists and improve Utah’s overall national image. They do not require small business owners and others to become tax collectors for the state, as a sales tax on services would.

But, perhaps best of all, unlike a new property tax, the lottery and sports betting would not force Utahns to share ownership of their homes and other property with the state.

In Idaho, lottery dividends have provided $846 million for public schools and the state’s permanent building fund. In addition, eight states have adopted online sports betting in order to tap into a $300 billion to $400 billion business, and 31 states are actively considering adopting it.

Ah, you say, but won’t all of those low and middle-income folks just squander all of their money on the lottery or on online sports betting? Of course not! And they certainly don’t need a condescending state government to protect them from their own choices while forcibly taking their money through a new sales tax on services or a new property tax.

At least, when Utahns play the lottery or bet on sports, they do it of their free will and for their personal pleasure, not because the state is forcing them to do it.

Ronald Mortensen, Ph.D., Bountiful, is a co-founder of CitizensForTaxFairness.org.

Climate change is a threat to national security but, this time, it really hits home here in Utah.

In January of this year, the Department of Defense issued a report to Congress stating that “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense missions, operational plans, and installations.” The Salt Lake Tribune highlighted this report earlier this month.

Utah’s Hill Air Force Base has been ranked the most vulnerable facility, not just within the Air Force but in the entire U.S. military. It is the only base that is subject to, and is already facing, four of the five major threats of climate change: flooding, drought, desertification and wildfires.

As local Utah military members and veterans, we know a thing or two about threats. Most importantly, we know how to recognize a threat and how to react, mitigate, and even prevent one from happening. We do this every day in order to protect the people and communities we love, and we expect our leaders to do the same thing. But are they?

We are calling on one of Utah’s leaders, U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, to make this hazardous situation, a situation that puts the working and living environment of Hill’s 21,000 soldiers and civilians in peril, one of his top priorities. These patriots who work every day to keep us safe should be protected from hot, dry, fire-prone conditions and the health problems, decreased productivity and property damage that accompany them.

In January of 2015, Romney said, “I'm one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that.” And just this February, a local Utah NPR station reported that when meeting with Utah legislators, “Romney said reducing the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change will require the United States and other nations — especially China, India and developing countries — to work together.”

We applaud these and other clear and fact-based statements Romney has made about climate change. These threats are not unique to Hill Air Force Base, but affect all public and private enterprises that provide jobs and services here in this beautiful state we call home. Romney has the leadership experience and necessary media attention to move the national conversation and policies on this issue forward, quickly and in a non-partisan way.

We are proud to have been part of the legacy of the United States’ armed forces in setting aside our personal differences in order to protect our way of life, defeat serious challenges, and solve problems together. We ask Senator Romney to draw on that spirit and resolve to tackle what has now clearly become just as dangerous to us as any enemy fighting force.

The enemy of climate change is fast approaching and if we don’t defeat it soon, there will be no winners, only losers.

Submitted by Justin Krier, sergeant, Marine Corps veteran; Travis Parsons, sergeant, Army veteran; Gary Jarvis, senior airman, Air Force veteran; Brandon Smith, petty officer third class, Navy veteran; Kyle Wynn, sergeant, Marine Corps veteran; and Daniel C. Pohorelsky, techincal sergeant, Air Force Reserve.

The full gamut of leadership in Utah, from University of Utah President Ruth Watkins to Gov. Gary Herbert, have set aside the principles of personal responsibility and accountability for the myriad failures by U. staff and leadership that facilitated the on-campus brutal murder of University of Utah stellar senior student and accomplished track athlete Lauren McCluskey.

How do I know this? Watkins was on record. I then interacted with the Governor’s Office, and after hearing nothing, messaged the Lt. Governor’s Office.

I asked the following question:

“Does the Governor, as well as you, agree with the President of the University of Utah and its Board of Trustees Chair that no personnel should/will be fired, disciplined, or held responsible and accountable for the myriad of failures that occurred in Lauren’s interactions with them?”

One week later, I received a communication from a representative of the governor apologizing for the delay in responding, thanking me for expressing my concerns, and indicating that I would receive a reply addressing my question. I eventually received a perfunctory response stating that updated policies and procedures were being put in place, but not answering the question I had asked.

I then sent the question to the governor a second time, shortening it to ask whether any individuals would be held accountable or responsible in this case, yes or no? I indicated that if I did not receive an answer within three days, I would treat that lack of response as an implicit no.

I heard nothing and have been stonewalled since. The position of the leadership of the U, and now the state’s top leadership, is established. Evidently no one is personally responsible or accountable for failures at the U., including those contributing to the murder of one of their students who would have graduated this May.

The University of Utah is a world-class institution of higher learning. However, it has a campus safety problem that is now obvious to everyone. One necessary component of properly addressing the issue is to accept personal responsibility and admit personal failures, together with changing the culture and competence of university entities charged with the safety and welfare of students. In the longer run, it is the only way to provide full assurance that all dimensions of the institution’s failures have been appropriately addressed.

In that vein, it is hard to imagine that the current police chief and university president can be part of that longer run, given their steadfast refusal to admit that any personnel negligence or outright incompetence could have contributed to, or even been the principal causes of, the fatal failures. I suspect Watkins’ tenure as president of the U. will be abbreviated for not acknowledging and addressing egregious failures by personnel at the U. She chose instead to make the astonishing statement that there was no reason to believe that Lauren’s death could have been prevented, and then segued into the equally astonishing blanket position that personnel involved will not be held responsible or accountable or separated from the U.

The U. needs more effective and forthright leadership, needs to ensure that individuals who contributed to the loss of a young life are prevented from doing so in the future, and overall is in desperate need of a safer environment for women on campus. With all due respect, the governor would have been well-advised to take a firmer hand in providing effective oversight on these issues.

I and numerous others are very grateful for the positive actions taken by the Utah Legislature to pass the Campus Safety Bill, which addressed many of the glaring deficiencies in processes, procedures and actions that Lauren’s murder tragically revealed. Given Herbert’s announcement that he will not seek another term in office, Utah will now soon need to elect a new governor. I respectfully suggest that important personal characteristics to be considered in that choice should include belief in the principles of personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions and job performance. Such expectations are commonplace for all employees of all organizations, and they are absolutely critical when students’ lives are at stake.

Ron Mittelhammer is a regents professor in the School of Economic Sciences at Washington State University. The opinions expressed are his own personal views, and not necessarily those of his employer.

Greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, global warming is becoming a bigger threat, and cow farts are partly to blame.

Methane from cows is a big contributor to the greenhouse effect, trapping 30 times more heat than carbon dioxide. In recent years, a report from United Nation’s Food mentioned that “methane from livestock accounted for 39 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.” The expansion of meat production and raising livestock has significantly increased the number of cows being raised. More cows mean more methane, and more methane means warming of the planet.

To put the toxicity of methane in perspective, you would have to sit and idle your car for 21.3 hours a day in order to produce the same amount of gas as one cow does per day.

So, what can be done about this problem? Well, first, cows mainly live off eating grass, which not only inflicts damage to land that could be more efficiently used, but grass-eating cows produce more greenhouse gases than grain-eating cows do. If farmers were to switch to feeding their stock grain, rather than grass, the average amount of methane produced from the cattle would be significantly reduced.

Here in Utah, 11 million acres of land is used for agricultural purposes. Shifting cows away from a grass diet to a grain diet will help farmers use that land more efficiently. Furthermore, some farmers have begun to introduce a new feed to their cows that contains the same nutrients and proteins as grass, but that doesn’t upset the cows’ stomachs, thus preventing them from farting as much. The impact would be significant if all farmers would take this step.

One of the biggest factors leading farmers to feed their cows grass is that the “grass-fed beef” label appeals to consumers. People, when purchasing meat or ordering a hamburger, often prefer “grass-fed” because of an inaccurate marketing campaign that suggests that grass-fed meat tastes better. However, it is the nutrients, not the grass itself, that impacts the meat’s taste -- nutrients which grain also provides. Therefore, if all farmers shifted to grain, it would significantly decrease the amount of gas going into the atmosphere by reducing the methane the cows produce when eating grass.

Another solution to manage the methane being produced would be to have a Cow-Free day, in which people dedicate one day every month to not consuming any cow products. There are many benefits to having a Cow-Free day. These benefits include creating more land for growing populations, ending animal suffering and preventing gas from getting into the atmosphere.

It could also help solve the world’s hunger problem by freeing up much-needed resources currently being devoted to raising cows, from water to feed to excessive amounts of land. All of those resources could instead be redirected to produce food for people who are struggling with hunger.

Elizabeth Buff from One Green Planet Earth noted that “We currently produce enough calories to feed 10-11 billion people worldwide, however, the majority of this food goes to feed livestock, not hungry people.”

While the majority of these benefits would not be seen immediately, taking small steps like one day dedicated to Cow-Free consumption, will help hasten their arrival. In an article written by Dr. Joel Khan, he explains that if our whole country went Cow-Free for one day, we would save “100 billion gallons of water, 1.2 million tons of CO2, and 3 million acres of land.”

There are many ways to reduce emissions going into our atmosphere; whether they are big or small, they exist. Little acts like these can have a bigger impact than we often think. Imagine what the result would be if people went Cow-Free for a year, or if all farmers shifted to grains for feed. It could help end world hunger, prevent global warming from getting worse, create more land for the world’s endlessly growing population and end cow suffering. Small steps for big results.

Ian Brown and Olivia Fuhrman are high school seniors at Rowland Hall. They are participating in a writing project with Alliance for a Better Utah and live in Salt Lake City, Utah.

At a recent lunch with United Methodist colleagues, I asked, “Why has LGBTQ inclusion been such a lightning rod?” The answer came quickly.

“It isn’t about LGBTQ people. It is about getting the votes and control.”

The conversation stopped.

Ruminating on that answer, I remembered a class I took on the Civil War at Salt Lake City Public Library. The white man sitting next to me said authoritatively, “The Civil War was not about slavery,” and then he spoke of the underlying issues of states’ rights, economics and political control.

However correct or incorrect that pronouncement (many respected historians do list slavery as a primary cause), the emancipation of enslaved humans was the lightning rod of its time that drew John Brown and his followers to Harper’s Ferry. It was the motivation for freed men to fight to the death for the Union Army.

Without the Civil War, slavery would have continued and indeed the attitudes that supported slavery are still so strongly held that aspects of slavery transformed into Jim Crow laws and live on in the War on Drugs and the school to prison pipeline.

During the decades overlapping the Civil Rights Movement begun by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the inclusion of LGBTQ folks has attracted fire, most recently threatening to split the United Methodist Church asunder.

I have felt the heat of that fire since I was 21 years old and fell in love with the woman who is still by my side. The religious underpinnings of the exclusionary practices that turned away our communities, fueling the fears of what we could spread within those groups, left the enactors of exclusion without remorse.

Around the time I met my love, the president of the church I grew up in, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that homosexuality was “more serious than any other sinsexcept murder.”

The punishment was being carried out at the church’s university, Brigham Young University, that I was attending. During my junior year, students were being taken out of theater and dance classes and asked to turn in fellow students who were involved in “homosexual activities.” The friends they turned in for their own good were given choices of electric shock, vomit aversion therapy and/or dishonorable expulsion from school.

University security police patrolled undercover by the gay bar in the nearby city and took down license plate numbers of cars that held the university parking sticker. The owners of these cars were given the same options as the artists.

This time would be called a “purge.” Later, I saw this purge as part of the identity-building of a marginalized religion with polygamous and polyandrous history seeking entrance into the mainstream Christian right.

Three years ago, the LDS church issued a policy, and later re-classified it as a revelation from God, that delayed the baptism of children with a gay parent (transgender people are treated differently) from the usual age of 8 to the age of 18 at which time they could be baptized only if they disavowed the gay parent.

I believe that the “revelation,” which was rescinded a week ago, was economically motivated: to shore up the support of tithe-paying people who had given generously, sometimes their entire savings, to support Proposition 8 that overturned same-sex marriage in California.

To the children who were affected by the policy, that underlying intention had no meaning. They were publicly excluded from a rite of passage because they had a gay parent. In my experience as a pastor who ministered to these gay parents, many of the penalized children were from marriages resulting from the counsel of church leaders that such a marriage might “change them.” As important as elucidating causes are, can this focus on cause disconnect us from the suffering? Writers unpack this sad progression of history but where is the lament?

Perhaps instead of considering the causes which make actions appear less cruel, we should take actions at face value and rally a counter crusade. As high schoolers all over the country staged a walkout of their schools on a certain day, do those of us who belong to a church that is discriminatory against LGBTQ folks need to stage a walkout after the opening hymn? How about doing the same during general meetings? Fifteen minutes in, all those who care about their LGBTQ brothers and sisters, get up and walk out.

The question remains. Why are LGBTQ being used as a lightning rod that attracts forces that can rip families, communities and denominations asunder?

Could this question be seeking to become the first sentence of a lament rather than an explanation? Fifteen minutes into a service, are you willing to worship with your feet and walk out?

Rev. Patty C. Willis is the former pastor of the South Valley Unitarian Universalist Society in Cottonwood Heights. She is studying for a doctorate of ministry in public theology at Drew Theological Seminary,

America is now a secularized, post-Christian nation! Secularism has conquered American Christianity!

Such declarations are regularly pronounced by social scientists, pollsters and even clerics. Reviewing today’s Christian membership rolls, they appear to be right.

During the past decade, as a percentage of the population, American Christianity declined by 8%. Most of the decline came from mainline Protestants, some Catholics and fewer evangelicals. Although several American Christian religions are still growing, their rates of growth are trending downward.

But is it really true? Is the decline of American Christianity the result of external, secular forces victoriously overwhelming it? Are Christian clerics right when they blame secularism for their failures to convert new members and retain old ones? Or, is there something else afoot that more accurately accounts for the decline of American Christianity?

Early Christianity faced far worse profanity, paganism and persecution than Christianity today. Yet, for the first 300 years, under the most oppressive conditions, it triumphantly grew at a phenomenal average rate of 40% each decade, while concurrently reshaping the development of Western culture.

Early Christianity prospered because, as Christ counseled, it rigorously rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and religiously rendered unto Christ what is Christ’s — the perfect model for Christianity’s prosperity. It was no surprise when, in 312 A.D., Emperor Constantine stopped the persecution and shrewdly hitched his ruling fortunes to the rising fortunes of Christianity.

Mahatma Gandhi once mused: “If all Christians acted like Christ, the whole world would be Christian.” On the other hand, if American Christianity fails to act like Christ when attempting to Christianize the culture, it is corrupted into Christless Christianity, which inevitably inspirits secular supremacy.

To illustrate, American Christianity split, polarized by two opposing campaigns that distorted Christ’s true character and teachings to serve their objectives. The first campaign, started by social justice warriors, pushed its churches to contrive a “nicer-than-Jesus” gospel, fitted to promote a progressive culture. The second campaign, started by reactionary culture warriors, pushed its churches to create a “fiercer-than-Jesus” gospel, weaponized to combat the first campaign.

One campaign fights trying not to offend the devil, while the other fights trying not to offend Christ. Both marshal out of their sanctuaries to battle, pouring into the public square, pitting churches against churches, and Christian against Christian, plunging the nation into perpetual dissension and division, while shamelessly claiming fidelity to Christ.

American Christianity’s ceaseless warring over social and political stakes heedlessly disfigured the faith, unrecognizable to many disciples and unattractive to most searchers. It became what Christ called, “whited sepulchers full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

No, secularism didn’t cause the decline. It never does. Christless Christianity caused it. It always does.

Still, American Christianity can recover by reincorporating Christ’s five principle purposes: 1) conform to Christ’s true character and commandments; 2) sacrifice first for the love of Christ and then for others; 3) promulgate Christ’s otherworldly salvation messages, elevating the earthly through eternal aspirations; 4) seek foremost the kingdom of Christ and freedom from state entanglements; and 5) preach Christ’s prophesied return and millennial reign.

Christian doctrine and deportment do indeed determine Christian demographics, which in turn determine Christianity’s destiny. When American Christianity precisely promotes Christ’s principle purposes, dedicated disciples gather, have larger families and devoutly share their authentic faith with family and friends, resulting in increased Christian growth and prosperity.

If American Christianity will return to its roots, rigorously rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and religiously rendering unto Christ what is Christ’s, it will not only survive, as early Christianity proved, it can overcome its woebegone weaknesses and triumph even in the worst of times.

Stuart C. Reid, Ogden, is a former Army chaplain and former Utah state senator.

Dear Brigham Young University,

I’ll be honest. When I first got your acceptance letter, I wasn’t all that excited. I was happy to be offered admission, but only because it meant I had a backup plan. What was so amazing about you anyways?

All I really knew was that you encouraged weird things like praying before class and that professors talked about spirituality. Although your interesting characteristics seemed amazing to some, they didn’t seem amazing to me.

I believe my distaste came from what I perceived as extreme religion and a strict honor code. You were unlike anything I had ever experienced, and the thought of your different culture scared me. Though I had no interest in you or religion, there was something about you that pulled me in.

And BYU — you were everything I dreamed of. There were times where I’d stay up late with people I came to love, and other times where I cried because of the difficulty of my classes. You gave me moments that I will treasure forever, and for this reason, I want to thank you.

Thanks BYU, for being there for me. As a sophomore in the finance program, my semester was filled with tears and stress as my husband’s cancer flooded our lives. His dormant cancer had metastasized, forcing him to undergo chemotherapy. His pain and diminishing personality during treatment left me feeling alone. His empty expressions and the lack of energy in his eyes broke every piece of me as I watched my husband disappear.

While all of this was happening, BYU, you were there for me. Although most of your students didn’t know, their smiles, optimism and humor filled my hurting heart. When I went to class and the person sitting next to me asked about my weekend, I was happy to have someone to talk to. Just for a second, just for a minute, my heart was filled by our human connection.

Thanks BYU, for challenging me. Walking around campus, there was always something new. From a sewing class to a fascinating 3D printing course, a new challenge was always available. With everything you provided, I was eager to accept your offer to try new things. One day, as I was headed up to my apartment in Heritage Halls, I read a poster saying, “Give Rugby a Try!” Eagerly, I put the try-out dates on my calendar and prepared for the big day.

Rugby quickly became my college adventure. From traveling to Washington State or playing local universities, I loved representing my school with the blue and white stripes on my back. I never thought I would be considered a collegiate athlete, but you, BYU, inspired me to try.

Thanks BYU, for giving me love. Coming to BYU, I thought I knew what love was about. As I left my previous idea of love and relationships, I entered a world where love was defined by an engagement ring. Although I stayed away from the dating scene, I met someone who left me daydreaming.

One afternoon the courtyard was filled with clubs. As I wondered if I wanted to stop by, one club caught my attention. I read “BYU Triathlon Club,” and my eyes slowly moved up into the light green eyes of the most gorgeous man I’d ever seen.

My quirky, fun-loving personality filled our first encounter with awkward questions about tri-suits and what sports were involved. I could have never guessed that our conversation that afternoon would lead to my greatest joy. I quickly fell in love with a man who would treasure me forever.

Although you are not perfect, BYU, you were perfect for me. You gave me everything I have now and lifted my efforts into something I couldn’t have accomplished on my own. I am sad to have to say goodbye, but I am grateful for our time together.

So thank you, BYU. Thank you for filling these last four years with optimism and love. Thank you for giving me endless opportunities to learn, grow, and challenge myself. Thank you for the spiritually-strengthening experiences and for allowing me to pursue my dreams.

Oh BYU, I simply can’t thank you enough.

I’ll miss you,

Genesis Hinckley

Genesis Hinckley, a first-generation college student, recently graduated with a degree in finance from BYU. She will be heading to Boulder, Colo., to work for Google as an associate account strategist. Her passion is helping underprivileged teens realize their potential to escape the cycle of poverty. You can learn more about her story and efforts at www.genuinelygenesis.com.

“It’s like being a drop of soy sauce in a bowl of white rice,” said one minority student at Brigham Young University.

Ethnic diversity is one of the greatest things an organization such as a university can achieve. Many future college students take ethnic diversity into consideration when choosing a place of study, including my younger sister, who chose not to apply to BYU due to its lack of ethnic diversity.

BYU claims to value this type of diversity, but are they really doing enough to promote it? I’m here to say that from my experience, BYU has not valued ethnic diversity enough to make a difference.

As a BYU student with an Hispanic background who lived all his life in Provo, the, “drop of soy sauce in a bowl of white rice,” metaphor seems very applicable.

Some may say, “OK. But this doesn’t apply to me so why does it matter?”

Having had the experience to travel and live in different parts of the world, I have seen the value of cultural awareness and the impact it has on an individual. When a student learns in a culturally diverse setting, they become much more aware of the world around them and of the different peoples and cultures. In experiencing these things first-hand, an individual may be able to recognize that there are more beliefs, thoughts and ways of life than the ones in which they live. An ethnically diverse place of learning allows for more opportunities to learn from the experiences and perspectives of others, which expands the learning of all students in the class.

Now looking a little closer at BYU, one might say, “How can BYU not be ethnically diverse? Have you not seen the defensive line on their football team?”

To that I say, yes, I have noticed the 6-feet-plus Polynesians defending our Cougar pride. But to know how ethnically diverse the university really is, we must look beyond simply the athletic fields.

According to BYU’s own published statistics, 82 percent of its student body is Caucasian. That is very much the opposite of diverse and, when one begins to walk around campus, the numbers stand out.

Despite the fact that the BYU student body may not be very ethnically diverse, it’s true that many of the students have had the opportunity to be exposed to other cultures through LDS mission service. The problem is that when these missionaries return to attend school here in Provo, that cultural exposure disappears in the flow of normal life, despite the one cultural awareness class requirement. The fact that a student may get away with only taking one class in their entire college career to expand their cultural awareness shows the disvalue of ethnic diversity.

BYU has a somewhat lower acceptance rate for applicants and has very high academic standards for applicants to be admitted. Even for someone such as myself, who has benefited from a good education all his life, it is a very rigorous and challenging process to apply to BYU. Due to this, BYU has inadvertently made it difficult for minorities to be accepted into the university. Minorities tend to be from a lower socioeconomic background, with less access to educational resources. If this continues, ethnic diversity within BYU will fail to grow.

Respectfully, BYU has made its attempts to increase cultural awareness and increase ethnic diversity. May BYU and surrounding universities recognize a greater need for our minority students. Our community’s future depends on it.

Nathan Winward is a first-year undergraduate student at Brigham Young University.

Update (10:30 a.m.):

The United States says that "several" American citizens have been killed in the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka.

More than 200 people have died in a series of blasts against churches and hotels that the Sri Lankan government is blaming on religious extremists. And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a statement says that even as details of the attacks are still emerging, the U.S. government can confirm that Americans are among the casualties.

Pompeo says the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, the capital, is working to assist U.S. citizens and their families.

America's top diplomat says "these vile attacks are a stark reminder of why the United States remains resolved in our fight to defeat terrorism"

He says targeting “innocent people gathering in a place of worship or enjoying a holiday meal are affronts to the universal values and freedoms that we hold dear.”

Earlier:

Colombo, Sri Lanka • At least 207 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in eight bomb blasts that rocked churches and luxury hotels in or near Sri Lanka’s capital on Easter Sunday — the deadliest violence the South Asian island country has seen since a bloody civil war ended a decade ago.

Defense Minister Ruwan Wijewardena described the bombings as a terrorist attack by religious extremists and said seven suspects had been arrested, though there was no immediate claim of responsibility. Wijewardena said most of the blasts were believed to have been suicide attacks.

The explosions collapsed ceilings and blew out windows, and the dead included worshippers and hotel guests. People were seen carrying the wounded out of blood-spattered pews.

The three bombed hotels and one of the churches, St. Anthony's Shrine, are frequented by foreign tourists, and Sri Lanka's foreign secretary said the bodies of at least 27 foreigners were recovered. Sri Lankan TV said the dead included people from Belgium, China, Britain and the U.S.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said he feared the violence could trigger instability in Sri Lanka, a country of about 21 million people, and he vowed the government will "vest all necessary powers with the defense forces" to take action against those responsible for the massacre, "regardless of their stature." The government imposed a nationwide curfew from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.

The scale of the bloodshed recalled the worst days of the nation’s 26-year civil war, in which the Tamil Tigers, a rebel group from the ethnic Tamil minority, sought independence from Sri Lanka, a Buddhist-majority country. During the war, the Tigers and other rebels carried out a multitude of bombings.

The Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, called on Sri Lanka's government to "mercilessly" punish those responsible "because only animals can behave like that."

Police spokesman Ruwan Gunasekara said 207 people were killed and 450 wounded.

The first six blasts Sunday morning took place nearly simultaneously at St. Anthony's Shrine, a Catholic church in Colombo, and three hotels in the city. The two other explosions occurred after a lull of a few hours at St. Sebastian Catholic church in Negombo, a majority Catholic town north of Colombo, and at the Protestant Zion church in the eastern town of Batticaloa.

Three police officers were killed while conducting a search at a suspected safe house in Dematagoda, on the outskirts of Colombo. The occupants of the safe house apparently detonated explosives to prevent arrest, Wijewardena said.

Countries around the world condemned the attacks, and Pope Francis expressed condolences at the end of his traditional Easter Sunday blessing in Rome.

"I want to express my loving closeness to the Christian community, targeted while they were gathered in prayer, and all the victims of such cruel violence," Francis said.

Sri Lanka, a small island nation at the southern tip of India, has a long history with Christianity. Christian tradition holds that St. Thomas the Apostle visited Sri Lanka and southern India in the decades after the death of Christ. The majority of the island's Christians are Roman Catholic.

Local TV showed damage at the Cinnamon Grand, Shangri-La and Kingsbury hotels. The Shangri-La's second-floor restaurant was gutted, with the ceiling and windows blown out. Loose wires hung and tables were overturned in the blackened space. From outside the police cordon, three bodies could be seen covered in white sheets.

Foreign tourists hurriedly took to their cellphones to text family and loved ones around the world that they were OK.

One group was on a 15-day tour of the tropical island nation, seeing such sites as huge Buddhist monuments, tea plantations, jungle eco-lodges and sandy beaches. The tour was supposed to end in Colombo, but tour operators said the group may skip the capital in light of the attacks. The tour started last week in Negombo, where one of the blasts struck.

"Having experienced the open and welcoming Sri Lanka during my last week traveling through the country, I had a sense that the country was turning the corner, and in particular those in the tourism industry were hopeful for the future," said Peter Kelson, a technology manager from Sydney.

"Apart from the tragedy of the immediate victims of the bombings, I worry that these terrible events will set the country back significantly."

Sri Lankan security forces defeated the Tamil Tiger rebels in 2009. The United Nations initially estimated the death toll from the civil war at 100,000, but a U.N. expert panel later said some 45,000 ethnic Tamils may have been killed in the last months of the fighting alone. Both sides were accused of grave human rights violations.

Utah wanted the Rose Bowl bid that accompanied a Pac-12 football title last season, but the Utes' loss to Washington in the conference championship game came with its own reward. Leki Fotu stayed in school for another year.

NFL teams would have taken defensive linemen Bradlee Anae and Fotu in this week’s draft, but the players decided they had to more to do at Utah.

They played major roles as first-team All-Pac-12 players in a history-making season, as the Utes won their first Pac-12 South title. Utah’s 10-3 loss in the conference title game definitely played into Fotu’s decision. “We didn’t get the outcome we wanted, so I thought it was only right to come back and try to go there again and win it this year,” he said during the Utes’ spring practice.

Anae similarly is motivated by what he labels “unfinished business,” including the opportunity to graduate in December. “Never thought I could do it,” he said. “I really wasn't a 'school guy.' [But] here at this program, you go through the system and it's kind of hard not to succeed, especially with school.”

Utah defensive end Bradlee Anae on why he stayed in school for his senior season. pic.twitter.com/5KkaR1zEuy

— Kurt Kragthorpe (@tribkurt) March 27, 2019

If they had entered the NFL draft as juniors, Anae and Fotu likely would have fit into a top tier of players with safety Marquise Blair, contending to become the first former Ute selected. Along with running back Zack Moss and defensive back Julian Blackmon, they went through the NFL evaluation process and stayed at Utah, hoping to improve their draft grades.

Fotu was surprised by his evaluation in the third or fourth round. “I thought it was pretty high for me,” he said, “but I knew I was capable of doing better.” Anae was mildly disappointed with a similar rating.

Ute coach Kyle Whittingham credited the players for making informed decisions, and Fotu appreciated Whittingham's approach. “He talked me through it,” Fotu said. “He didn't really [influence] my decision, he was really helpful with it. He helped me through the process of really understanding, if I leave or if I stay. After that, I just felt comfortable.”

The timing may be be better for Anae and Fotu in 2020, anyway. Oakland general manager Mike Mayock has said the 2019 group of defensive tackles and edge rushers is the best in a decade, according to ESPN.

So they will become highly regarded prospects next April, after anchoring one of the top defensive lines in the country. Fotu, from Herriman High School, is another in Utah's series of run-stopping tackles, with more athletic ability than that job description suggests. He posted three sacks and 5.5 tackles for loss last season. He already has learned a lot from Ute defensive tackles coach Sione Po'uha, who played the position for seven seasons in the NFL and joined the staff in December.

Ute defensive tackle Leki Fotu on what he's learned from coach Sione Po'uha, who played the position in the NFL. pic.twitter.com/Lzx8yfNCBs

— Kurt Kragthorpe (@tribkurt) March 27, 2019

Anae, from Hawaii, is a pass-rushing force as an end, having led the Pac-12 with eight sacks in 2018, while ranking third overall and first among linemen with 15.5 tackles for loss in 14 games.

In the NFL evaluation, “I learned a lot about how I can improve with certain things … little things that might not be harped on here,” Anae said.

The players will watch the draft coverage, see at least a few teammates selected (others will sign as free agents) and picture themselves in that position next April.

And they will spend this week as typical college students, preparing for semester final exams and getting a break from football, after winter workouts and spring practice. Anae and Fotu soon will resume preparations for their senior seasons. They will hope to make more history in Utah’s football program and, like any other college graduates, increase their earning potential.

In testimony before Congress, special counsel Robert Mueller can shed much-needed light on the content of his report, the investigation that preceded and will flow from it, and the actions of Attorney General William Barr. Rather than engage in the normal scattershot questioning punctuated by speechifying, the House Judiciary Committee should assign its able attorney Norman Eisen to conduct the questioning. Members could then follow up with additional questions.

Here is an array of potential questions (aided by Benjamin Wittes's must-read Lawfare blog summary):

* Mr. Mueller, the attorney general said you did not find “collusion.” However, you did not look for collusion. Please explain what you looked for and how that differs from Barr’s assertion that you essentially cleared President Donald Trump of collusion?

* Did the Carter Page FISA warrant initiate the Russia investigation? Your report states that “a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos.” Was that what precipitated the investigation?

* You state that you have transferred 10 cases and made 14 referrals. Do these involve Russia? Do any involve the president?

* You say the Trump campaign welcomed and expected to benefit from Russian meddling. Did the numerous contacts and the president’s public call to find Hillary Clinton’s emails encourage that meddling? Within a few hours of Trump’s call to find Clinton’s emails, Russian hacking efforts began. Can you conclude that there was a connection between the two?

* The numerous contacts between Russian officials and surrogates and the campaign were unprecedented. Were the Russians trying to cultivate or manipulate the Trump team?

* You did not find a basis for prosecution in the June 9 Trump Tower meeting because you did not find Donald Trump Jr. had the requisite intent. Is it fair to say he intended to seek help from a foreign hostile power but was so ignorant of the law that prosecution would be difficult? To your knowledge, has any campaign ever sought the help of a hostile foreign power?

* You established that no criminal conspiracy between the Trump team and the Russian government occurred. Did you rule out such a conspiracy between Roger Stone or other Trump associates and WikiLeaks? Is that a matter of ongoing investigation?

* The president and numerous associates claimed there was no contact between the Russians and the campaign. Was that a lie?

* The campaign had been advised of Russian efforts to interfere with the campaign. Did anyone from the Trump campaign contact the FBI to report any of the Russian contacts? Had they done so, would the FBI have investigated?

* When the president says the report shows “no collusion,” is that accurate?

* Did you reject Barr’s concept that a president acting under Article II powers can’t be found to have obstructed justice?

* You state that, “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” Because you did not “so state,” is it correct that there is evidence of obstruction of justice? Can you describe the level of evidence (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt)?

* Have you prosecuted cases with less evidence of obstruction than what you found in this case?

* Is it correct that, because an Office of Legal Counsel guideline prohibits prosecution of a sitting president, the judgment as to what action, if any, should be taken is up to Congress? If the OLC guideline were not present, would you have reached a decision on indictment? You cannot tell us what that would have been, but would indictment after Trump leaves office be justified?

* Did you in any way invite or call upon Barr to “make the call” on indictment? He is bound by the same OLC guideline as you are, correct? Was it appropriate for him to insert himself when the OLC expressly says this is Congress’s job.

* Does the report serve as a referral to Congress to consider impeachment?

* Why is obstruction such a serious crime?

* The president swears to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed. Did the sitting president do so with regard to the investigation of the Russia situation? Would interfering with an investigation of this importance violate his oath?

* Did the president fully cooperate with the investigation? Is refusing to sit for an interview the action of someone fully cooperating? Are firing the FBI director, attempting to influence witnesses, lying to the public, writing an inaccurate account of the Trump Tower meeting and other actions detailed in your report consistent with “full cooperation”? If not, why did Barr say they were?

* Was Barr’s letter an accurate representation of your work? Did you express your concerns to him? Did he reply to them?

* The report states that “many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view.” Can that still be actionable? If such actions occurred secretly, would there be any doubt they were criminal? As a matter of law, there is no difference between telling someone privately not to cooperate with authorities and telling someone publicly, correct?

* Of the 10 episodes you describe in the obstruction of justice section, you look at actions to obstruct the investigation, evidence of corrupt intent and a connection to an ongoing proceeding. Lawfare blog notes that, “in six of these episodes, the special counsel’s office suggests that all of the elements of obstruction are satisfied: Trump’s conduct regarding the investigation into Michael Flynn, his firing of Comey, his efforts to remove Mueller and then to curtail Mueller’s investigation, his campaign to have Sessions take back control over the investigation and an order he gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn to both lie to the press about Trump’s past attempt to fire Mueller and create a false record ‘for our files.’” Is that correct?

* “In the cases of Comey’s firing, Trump’s effort to fire Mueller and then push McGahn to lie about it, and Trump’s effort to curtail the scope of the investigation, [you describe] ‘substantial’ evidence that Trump intended to obstruct justice.” Is that correct?

Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post.

@JRubinBlogger

The stroke of midnight was near and the final bits of Utah Jazz fans slowly shuffled their way Saturday night out of Vivint Smart Home Arena. Some young fans, sporting their oversized red, orange and yellow T-shirts, cried. Others, still dazed by the reality that their team now faces a 3-0 deficit in the first round of the NBA playoffs, could only bite down on their special edition postseason shirts as they made their frustrating walk back to their cars, back home, knowing full well this season is very much on the brink.

Outside of the Jazz locker room, Donovan Mitchell’s mom and sister stopped at the new playoff banner that lines the concrete walls toward the entrance to the floor and took selfies in front of his photo, proud of his bounce-back performance. Beyond the glass double-doors, however, Mitchell later sat slumped in a chair in front of his locker, despondent, for moments just staring down at the carpet. Mitchell finally awoke for Game 3, had a game-high 34 points, but after a sizzling start, cooled significantly, and like most Jazz players Saturday night, missed several wide-open 3’s.

His last, where he found himself comfortably open with less than 10 seconds remaining, hit iron instead of twine. It would’ve tied the game. The Jazz, bullied by the Houston Rockets in the first two outings of this series in Texas, finally pushed back Saturday night at home in front of an ear-splitting crowd. But despite holding James Harden to 3 of 20 shooting — the reigning MVP astoundingly didn’t score a field goal until midway through the fourth quarter — Utah has no crooked number in the win column. It sits pat at a goose egg still.

“I don’t think they felt us the first two games,” Jazz center Rudy Gobert said. “We should play that way every night.”

Demoralizing is about the best and only way to describe the scene afterward, because even now, beyond facing a deficit that’s never been overcome in the history of the NBA playoffs, the Jazz were themselves once more Saturday. They weren’t scrambling, weren’t overthinking; they bossed portions of the game. It wasn’t enough, though. And now, they have to find a way to bury thoughts that are impossible to bury, knowing a 50-win year, a No. 5 seed earned in the vaunted Western Conference, another building block to where this team wanted to rise toward, is suddenly near the end.

“I don’t think anybody’s going to just lay over Monday,” Mitchell said. “I don’t think that’s going to be the case. ... Yeah, you could say no team’s come back from 3-0, but no team could come back from 3-1 and that happened. That’s where our mindset’s at. It’s an uphill battle. [We’re] not just going to lay over and just give them a game. That’s not who we are, that’s not who any of us are.”

As fans filed out after the Game 3 loss, their conversations were similar to players’ postgame talks with the media in the locker room: a few more open 3’s made, better free-throw shooting, the Jazz presumably handling Game 3. The Jazz are 27 of 106 from 3 in this series and were 12 of 41 Saturday. That’s 11 percentage points (25 percent) below their season average of 36 from deep.

“This is it — it’s win or go home,” said Jazz forward Kyle Korver. “I think leave it all out there, keep on trying what we did [Saturday] and hopefully make more shots.”

Game 3 was Utah’s shot at wiggling its way back into this thing. It was a chance to prove to the Rockets, to the fans, and yes, even to themselves, that the Jazz could resemble the team that for the second year in a row, stormed its way through the second half of the regular season and looked like a team that could make even more noise. Now, a third-consecutive first-round playoff series win doesn’t seem part of the equation. Instead, the Jazz have only one guarantee left, one game left.

One game to show up again, to try and play with as much determination and grit and spirit as Game 3, but to walk off the floor inside Vivint Smart Home Arena showered in confetti instead of congratulating the Rockets for the second time in as many postseasons.

“That means we’ve got to go attack Game 4,” said forward Georges Niang.

“That’s all it’s about,” forward Jae Crowder added. “You can’t look at games already played; obviously, you move forward. That’s what the playoffs is about, moving forward.”

What is forward for this Jazz team now? The answer might seem a little existential. The answer is Monday night, where they have no choice but to lace up, to show up, to give the crowd more reasons to go nuts, and hope there’s a charter flight on the team itinerary that leads them all the way back to Houston for a fifth game.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said the Mueller report hasn’t changed his opinion of President Donald Trump and it likely won’t change the opinion of his colleagues, despite strong criticism from Sen. Mitt Romney, who in recent days said he was “sickened” by the behavior of the president.

Lee, who appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation" on Sunday was asked if he agreed with the rebuke from his fellow Utah Republican senator. Lee said, “There’s nothing in this report that changes my view of this president. I don’t think most Americans, I don’t think most senators, most members of Congress ... will have their view of the president of the United States changed by this report. There’s just nothing in there that should do that.”

On Friday, the day after a redacted version of the report was made public, Romney issued a statement, which read in part:

“I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President. I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia — including information that had been illegally obtained; that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement; and that the campaign chairman was actively promoting Russian interests in Ukraine.”

Trump hit back at Romney, tweeting out a video showing Romney losing his 2012 bid to unseat President Barack Obama and Trump’s 2016 victory. Trump wrote, “If @MittRomney spent the same energy fighting Barack Obama as he does fighting Donald Trump, he could have won the race (maybe)!”

While Lee didn’t agree with Romney’s criticism, he did say that Romney has “some credibility with regard to Russia.”

“Remember it was Sen. Romney as a presidential candidate in 2012 who pointed out that we ought to be very concerned about Russia. Sadly, his warnings went unheeded. And under President Obama’s leadership over the next four years, Russia’s activities, its nefarious efforts to undermine our system, continued," Lee said. "Perhaps that’s some of what’s motivating Sen. Romney to speak out about this.”

.@SenMikeLee reacts to @SenatorRomney’s criticism of @realDonaldTrump post Mueller report.
.@bobschieffer: Do you agree with him?
Lee: There’s nothing in this report that changes my view of this president… there’s just nothing in there that should do that. pic.twitter.com/JBRBqDpOoh

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) April 21, 2019

The Mueller report is the conclusion of a two-year investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The special counsel investigation found no conspiracy between Trump’s team and the Russians though Trump’s campaign welcomed help from the foreign adversary, which included the release of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign aides. The report leaves open the question of whether the president obstructed justice by trying to hobble the investigation itself.

Lee had joined Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and others on “Face the Nation” to talk about the political fallout and what steps Congress may take, including potential impeachment proceedings.

Cummings acknowledged a lot of people are tired of hearing about the Mueller report but said Russia isn’t getting tired of attacking the U.S. electoral system.

.@RepCummings responds to people saying they’re tired of the Mueller Report. “We don't have time to get tired because the Russians aren't getting tired. They are attacking our electoral system every single day, if not every hour.”

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) April 21, 2019

Congress, he said, has to stand up for the Constitution.

“If we do nothing here, what is going to happen is that the president is going to be emboldened. He’s going to be emboldened because he’s said, ‘Well, I got away with that.’ And then the people who — his aiders and abettors ... the Republicans in the Congress — they’ll say, ‘Oh, he is pretty strong,’ and they’ll continue to go along with him," Cummings said. "We cannot afford that, our democracy cannot afford that.”

Lee, who also noted Russia’s attempts to undermine the electoral process, said he expected Democrats would do what they wanted, even though the report showed there was no collusion. But it’s time to move on, he said, issuing a warning about continuing to investigate Trump.

“Politically speaking, it would be a mistake."

Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks exploring an independent run for the U.S. presidency, is coming to Utah next week for a series of town halls, his team announced Thursday.

The visit is part of Schultz’ “Heart of America” bus tour as he prepares to make a formal decision on whether to mount a third-party challenge against President Donald Trump in 2020.

Schultz is scheduled to meet with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday followed that day by a town hall at Davis Technical College in Kaysville.

The next day Schultz will tour the National Ability Center in Park City and meet with business owners there and in Lehi ahead of a town hall meeting at the headquarters of Silicon Slopes.

His visit comes after Democratic candidates Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro made recent campaign stops.

One by one, Jazz players and their coach expressed frustration after their latest loss to the Rockets late Saturday night, a game that was too sloppy, too inefficient on the Jazz’s part to take advantage of a gaping opportunity that was there for them. I mean, it was right there. How often is James Harden going to miss 17 of 20 shots, and 11 of 13 3-pointers?

Almost never.

All told, Houston made just 38 percent of its attempts.

But the Jazz could not capitalize. They could only come close, and we all know, especially the Jazz themselves, that a three-point playoff defeat is no less painful than a 32-pointer.

After three consecutive losses now, they have one more chance to stay alive, on Monday night in Game 4. If it doesn’t happen then … well, play a requiem for the eliminated. Already, the Jazz’s shot to beat the Rockets in this series is … shot.

It could still happen, but … no, no it cannot.

Donovan Mitchell talked about coming back from a zip-3 deficit, and such fantasies are not uncommon for everybody in every realm. We all have some kind of crazy hope, we all have pipe dreams. I’d like to be either the lead singer in a rock band or heavyweight champion of the world. But, no matter what I do, that ain’t happening.

Quin Snyder was keeping the faith.

“It’s how you react,” he said. “It’s more about being able to take a punch and get up, than it is [if] you’re going to get hit. It’s going to happen. it’s how you respond to it.”

The Jazz have been hit. It has happened.

Now, it’s just a matter of where the Jazz take the 10-count. They have little choice in the deal. If the Rockets show up and play to their capabilities, the Jazz will be done — either at Vivint Arena or back at Toyota Center.

Anybody who’s been paying attention knows, it’s just not agreeable to the Fates this particular postseason for the Jazz to climb a hill as steep as this. To their credit, they didn’t want to admit that after their most recent defeat, but that didn’t change the facts as they are.

In their basketball souls, deep down, they know this.

The Jazz simply are not as good as Houston. People as astute as Snyder and as savvy as GM Dennis Lindsey are fully aware. Lindsey said he is paying close attention to this series to determine where the Jazz are, individually and as a collection, and where their deficiencies are.

He could point and fire in darn near any and every direction and hit a fundamental need for improvement, including aiming a finger back at himself. The Jazz, from their stars to their role players, must improve, must be improved by subtraction and addition.

Mitchell is a great and growing player. But he’s not talented enough to do what the Jazz are asking him to do. He needs help — Snyder and Lindsey have noted the smoldering evidence.

In that way, this thumping the Jazz are absorbing should motivate the front office to make some moves in the offseason they might have otherwise been disinclined to make. Patience, for them, used to be a virtue.

Not anymore.

Long after the crowd dispersed from Vivint Arena on Saturday night, Mitchell was still beating himself up for starting hot but finishing cold in his 34-point effort.

“I just started missing shots,” he said. “You got to hit shots. I can’t miss 16 shots in the second half.”

As is his way, Mitchell also looked forward to Monday night’s Game 4, saying: “I don’t think anybody’s going to lay [down] on Monday. … It’s an uphill battle. But we’re not going to [roll] over. We’re going to keep playing.”

Said Chris Paul: “We just try to make it hard on [Donovan].”

The Rockets are slamming that attempt into the upper deck. They’ve made everything hard on Mitchell, everything hard on every Jazz player.

“We’ve got to capitalize,” Mitchell said. “We have to take advantage of opportunities. … Unfortunately, we didn’t finish.”

No, they did not.

And now, they are all but finished.

The details of their demise are mere footnotes, best forgotten for everyone except for the decision-makers who can actually do something about what’s happening here in the days, weeks and months ahead.

GORDON MONSON hosts “The Big Show” with Jake Scott weekdays from 3-7 p.m. on 97.5 FM and 1280 AM The Zone.