My son’s voice on the other end of the phone was emotional.

“I need to come home from Orcas Island. The doctor here thinks I have cancer.”

Those are the words a parent never wants to hear. My experience at his side makes the passage of Proposition 2 the medical marijuana initiative, an issue I approach with passion.

The day after the phone call my son was lying in a hospital bed at Huntsman Cancer Institute awaiting tests to determine exactly what was wrong. He got the diagnosis of a young adult onset of acute lymphocytic leukemia. He was 24 years old and had recently graduated from a university in New York. Then spent months in Africa taking a humanitarian project to the University of Kigali in Rwanda to help to heal the strife between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes that left millions dead from genocide in that country.

Directly after his diagnosis was determined, a chemotherapy regime commenced. He was on the brink of living his life, yet instead found himself confined to a hospital bed using his energy to stay alive. Initially it seemed the chemo treatments would involve, at the most, three months time. A resident doctor when questioned thought that sounded right. But when his oncologist finally laid out what was needed in order to treat his cancer, a three and half-year protocol was mandated.

Acute leukemia remains one of the cancers with the best cure rates.

He remains in remission, but to learn at age 24 that it will require the next three and a half years of painful treatments is devastating.

More than once I knew that medical marijuana would have provided relief from the suffering if it had been available.

There are three aspects that would have made a tremendous difference.

1) Medical marijuana could have helped induce an appetite for my son. His taste buds were no longer functioning and he had to force himself to eat.

2) Medical marijuana could have literally picked him up off his bed and created a sense of hope and even joy in his daily routine although he faced long years of continued treatment.

3) Medical marijuana could have been administered to relieve the inflammation in his gastrointestinal system due to the harsh side effects of chemo.

Cancer patients are caught completely unaware when they receive their diagnosis. And so are their families. How many times I wished that I had been diagnosed so that he could go on living the dreams all of his friends were pursuing. Again and again I wanted to elevate his pain.

He met his cancer in an exemplary way. He explained to me one day when I dared to complain and say I hated that he had to be in the hospital, that he was no longer fighting his cancer. Instead he had invited the cancer to teach him what he needed to learn about life. The Huntsman Cancer Institute gave extraordinary care and we are deeply appreciative of this resource.

As I stood by and watched his excruciating suffering I felt I had let my son down. The chemo protocol designed for children inadvertently inflamed his pancreas, causing undue pain. I had to watch as a feeding tube was inserted to bypass his digestive system. His weight dropped precariously. Parents and patients deserve the option of medical marijuana. Everything that heals and everything that could benefit them needs to be on the table.

My son met the demands of his chemo regime with a courage that remains with me. As a parent I urge you to vote for Proposition 2 when you go to the polls in November. You have the chance to offer your children or any other family members their dignity in the midst of cancer. They shouldn’t be made to suffer receiving constrained and thus second-class medical care because they live in Utah.

Carlie Judd Hardy lives in Park City where she is a life coach and writer. She is wild about social justice and hiking in the Wasatch.

Utah legislators want to change the state Constitution so that they can call themselves into special session whenever they like. The only thing standing in the way of this power grab is Utah voters who, on Nov. 6, will vote on Constitutional Amendment C. The ballot will be crowded, but voters should be very wary indeed of this Trojan Horse.

Legislators would like voters to understand that this sweeping power would only be used in the event of war, natural disaster, “fiscal crisis,” or “an emergency in the affairs of state.” What is a “fiscal crisis” or “an emergency in the affairs of state”? Make no mistake: it’s whatever the Legislature wants it to be – and no one can second-guess that, not even a court.

It’s not as though no one else with power to call a special session isn’t minding the store. The governor, “on extraordinary occasions” may by proclamation convene the Legislature into a special session, and these are not rare occurrences.

And what, pray tell, birthed this power play? Ah – thereby hangs a tale.

No kidding, it was legislative pique over how Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s replacement would be selected – truly “an emergency in the affairs of state.” At its core, it was the demand of legislators who wanted Chaffetz’s replacement to be named by the Republican Party delegates in an end run around SB 54’s dual-path signature route to a primary election.

Gov. Gary Herbert did not want to see state law subverted by allowing a handful of party delegates to saddle the state with a congressman picked by such a small fraction of Republican voters. If Amendment C had been on the books a year ago, you can be certain that this grave “emergency in the affairs of state” would have produced a special session to subvert the SB 54 dual-path nomination process.

Legislators already have the constitutional power to call themselves into a veto-override session, and the Republicans, for decades, have garnered veto-proof majorities in both houses. Fair enough. They really do not need to further undermine the delicate balance of checks on one “co-equal” branch of government having altogether too much power over the other two. Out of one side of their mouths, too many legislators posture as fervent constitutionalists, yet out of the other, they don’t care much at all for the checks and balances that keep governmental power diffused and fenced, to best ensure liberty.

In The Federalist No. 48, James Madison wrote, “The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex. ... Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the coordinate departments.”

In No. 51, Madison (or Alexander Hamilton) wrote, “The provision for defence [against gradual concentration on powers in the same department] must… be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Amendment C, in a one-party state, ruled by that party’s veto-proof legislative majorities, many of whose members want to insulate themselves from the will of the people by limiting candidate nomination power to fewer than 1 percent of the voters, will wreak constitutional mischief by significantly diminishing the power of the governor as a check on legislative overreach.

Serving in the state Legislature is a heady experience. It’s easy to begin to assume that voters don’t really understand what’s good for them – that having won an election automatically confers a truer sense of what’s good for the rest of us than we have ourselves. Call it hubris, call it ego, even call it arrogance: the signers of this commentary fully understand and appreciate how the power virus takes control. We all had it – some more or less than others.

But upon leaving the office, and the pumpkin that’s the Capitol (and the mice for carriage horses) we got over it. Make no mistake, Amendment C is not a glass slipper. And it did not spring forth, fully formed, from the head of Humility. We’re voting no, and we urge you to join us.

Submitted by former Utah legislators Sheryl L. Allen (R), Genevieve Atwood (R), Trisha Beck (D), Janice Fisher (D), Peter Grundfossen (D), David R. Irvine (R), Loraine T. Pace (R), Lorin N. Pace (R) (former House Speaker), LaWanna “Lou” Shurtleff (D), Richard M. Siddoway (R), Stanford S. Smith (R) and Karl N. Snow (R)

Our state needs public health champions now more than ever. Utah communities are burdened by the opioid epidemic, affordable housing issues, air pollution and traffic congestion. All of these issues have an impact on health, and the argument has long been made that health should be considered in all policies.

As Utah prepares to elect four representatives and a senator to represent us in Washington D.C., 14 state senators and 75 members of the Utah House of Representatives, it’s time for us to find leaders who can help tackle these problems. We need public health champions who can bring our concerns to Congress, the Statehouse and be hardworking advocates for Utah’s health.

National polls indicate health is the No. 1 issue for most voters in this election. Utah citizens are worried about traffic congestion, a lack of affordable housing and air and water quality. The Utah Department of Health has identified three priorities for improving our health — decreasing obesity and related chronic diseases, reducing prescription drug misuse, abuse and overdose, and, increasing access to mental health and reducing suicide. Nearly 12 percent of Utahn’s lack health insurance. Utah ranks the second lowest nationally for the number of primary care physicians, a measure that indicates a lack of access to preventive and primary care. Utah also ranks in the lowest quartile of nurse-to-population estimates. Compelling research exists to show that more nurses in a community means a healthier community.

No one will argue that these are frivolous concerns. How are we supposed to make sure a candidate will put our health first? Let’s start by asking the right questions before we cast our ballot.

Will your candidate protect and support affordable access to health care? Does this person have a plan to keep our community safe and healthy in the face of a changing climate? Will he/she support funding to fully implement Utah’s health improvement plan? How will your candidate ensure Utah has a well-educated health workforce that’s ready to meet health challenges tomorrow, next year or 10 years from now? What will they do to address any or all of these pressing issues?

If we don’t ask these questions now, we won’t know how our elected officials will vote on issues like stopping the opioid epidemic and improving health insurance when they get to Washington, D.C., or Utah’s capitol. As we say in public health, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Let’s make sure we’re asking the right questions now.

The public’s health runs across party lines. Illness and disease don’t understand political alliances. This isn’t about politics. This election, for Utah, is about protecting our families and communities and planning for a healthier future.

Utah deserves an entire elected delegation of state and federal representatives and senators who will fight for our health. By asking the right questions, we can make health a priority in our state and in Washington, D.C.

Teresa Garrett, a registered nurse with a doctorate in nursing practice from the University of Utah, has been a public health nurse for more 25 years.

Anna Dillingham, who has a master of public health degree from George Washington University, has been striving for high quality public health services for 15 years. Both authors are board members of the Utah Public Health Association.

In early 2016, my then-7-year-old daughter approached me and asked, “Daddy, what sports are girls allowed to play?”

This question shook me to my very core. It was a question that never crossed my mind as a young boy and never could have. But not only had it crossed my daughter’s mind, she appeared to have already accepted that there would be restrictions placed on her participation in society only because of her sex.

Over the next few months, my wife and I watched in horror as a profoundly ignorant man who boasted of being able to sexually assault women with impunity was sewing up the GOP’s nomination for the presidency. The demeaning and marginalizing of women was a feature of the GOP’s primary and general election campaigns that year and the events of recent weeks have shown that as a country and as a state, we show few signs of having learned our lesson.

The controversy surrounding the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has only further exposed the systemic power asymmetries that our society has long fomented and is actively cultivating.

As just one example, attorney and Salt Lake County Council candidate Michelle Quist recently quipped on Facebook that these controversies could be avoided by nominating women, which unleashed a barrage of rhetoric rejecting the very notion that women have unique experiences and perspective, much less that they matter. One woman commented that we don’t need to put women on the Supreme Court because “our Constitution already protects us all equally.”

This, of course, is flatly false. The 15th Amendment is the only section of the Constitution that explicitly guarantees equal protection based on sex. The Constitution’s silence on sex has frequently been exploited precisely to facilitate the marginalization of women and their interests — thus the need for the 15th Amendment and the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

Even today, federal and state courts are inconsistent in their treatment of discrimination based on sex, and this has undermined our ability to respond to the needs and interests of women. As an example, in recent years our country has fallen to last place among wealthy and developed nations for maternal mortality rate, and we are the only wealthy and developed nation with a rate that is rising. Women’s health is simply not a priority for us.

Increased access to high-quality women’s health care is absolutely critical to our nation’s survival, but we have influential segments of our society that are so blinded by identity politics that they are fighting to shut down the only access to women’s health care many women have, and even criminalize legal procedures that are often life-saving. In a time when the needs and interests of women should be a top priority in our nation, we are shouting them down because they challenge the structuring of power that has for so long served only the interests of our population’s privileged and powerful men.

This all demonstrates that the recent demeaning and even vilifying of victims of sexual assault is only one symptom — albeit a particularly heinous and deep-rooted one — of a much broader pathology afflicting our nation. We must take quick, decisive, and corrective action. Girls and women around Utah and the U.S. who need — or who one day will need — loved ones who are believing and supportive, are watching as parents, friends and family members cruelly mock and demean survivors of sexual assault for speaking out.

For the sake of the girls and the women of this generation and of the generations that will come, we must be better men than this.

Dan McClellan is husband to Aleen and father to three precocious girls. He is a doctoral candidate in religion at the University of Exeter and he works as a scripture translation supervisor for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as an adjunct instructor of ancient scripture for Brigham Young University. Dan is also currently running for the Utah State House of Representatives in House District 52.

Like a bad bruise that just doesn’t seem to go away, the debate over funding for public education continues this year in the form of Question 1 on your voting ballot.

Question 1 calls for increasing the gas tax by 10 cents to raise about $100 million for K-12 public education, $55 million for local roads, and $25 million for higher education. Question 1 would increase the gas tax rate by 33%, to about 40 cents per gallon (that’s about 59 cents if you include the federal tax).

For the sake of argument, let’s generously assume a few items. One, that the $100 million will indeed make it into the classroom as the Utah Legislature has promised—and not be spent on roads. Two, that the education system does indeed need more than the nearly $7 billion it currently operates with—and that more money improves student performance. Three, let’s not take into consideration all the recent tax increases Utahns have had on property (twice), gas, local sales, internet sales, phones, alcohol, hotels, etc.

These issues aside, would raising the gas tax to fund K-12 education be good policy?

The proponents of Question 1 would likely tell you that more money for education, no matter where we get it from, is a good step forward—and that we will need to take additional steps. We need to “invest in our children.”

But since Question 1 relies solely on raising the gas tax, we have to pause and ask whether it is a reliable source of future revenue for roads, let alone education.

A quick investigation reveals that the gas tax is woefully inadequate even for roads alone. The gas tax is not even sufficient to fund Utah’s current transportation needs. Over half a billion dollars in sales tax earmarks—money that could go to public education—is given to the state’s transportation fund each year.

And it's only getting worse.

As more people drive cars that use alternative fuels, and as cars in general become more fuel efficient, the amount of money that is available for Utah’s ever increasing transportation needs (including mass transit) is dwindling. The gap between gas tax revenue and the transportation budget will only get wider over time.

It is inevitable that the gas tax must be replaced with a different kind of user fee for transportation. What that is remains to be seen (but to the Legislature’s credit, they have been investigating the issue). Whatever form this funding mechanism takes, it needs to happen soon; simply ratcheting up the gas tax every few years is simply kicking the can down the poorly funded road.

Increasing the gas tax may sound easy (unless you’re among the working poor who will be hit the hardest), but that money will simply disappear back into the transportation fund after a number of years. Then we’d be right back where we started.

You may be realizing now that Utah has some holes in the budget that need to be plugged. Well that’s not even the half of it.

Just in the last fiscal year $815 million was taken from the state’s education fund and given to Higher Education instead of K-12 schools. There are over half a billion dollars in sales tax exemptions, and $171 million in property tax exemptions to redevelopment agencies. Perhaps many of these exemptions are good for Utah’s economy, but these policies should be reviewed and weighed against the prospect of public education funding.

And there’s more—much more. Millions of dollars in property taxes are used to subsidize water rates. Millions are spent on pet projects. School boards bond for new funds all the time, but too often these bonds go to the creation of magnificent structures while not prioritizing the education that takes place within them.

And we haven’t even addressed Utah’s dwindling sales tax base and the likely need to adapt to the 21st century economy by taxing services (accompanied by a major rate decrease, of course). Real tax reform is needed because when revenue sources like the gas tax are inadequate, there isn’t money available to substantially increase something like teacher pay.

It’s time for Utah to say no to more tax increases and instead call for real tax and budget reform to prioritize more funding for public education.

If more money is truly the goal, then let’s stop kicking the K-12 education gas can down the road. Question 1 merely perpetuates a problem—and it certainly isn’t a solution.

Michael Melendez is director of policy at Libertas Institute, a free market think tank in Lehi.

The 1918 century-old newspaper headline ─ “Marry in Haste in War”─ jolted me out of the daze of a late night online genealogy research session. The article was about my great uncle Charles Alphonsus Duffy, a forgotten Irish-American hero from a forgotten American war.

The headline captured the tumultuous last year of his life. Charles was born in 1890 in New York City. His Catholic family was large, with nine siblings, including his sister (my grandmother) Florence Duffy O’Brien. His grandparents were poor immigrant laborers from Ireland, but Charles’ father and uncles significantly improved the family’s prospects with a successful building materials business. Eventually, Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley would invest in it, and several of Charles’ other sisters would marry prominent New York businessmen, one a close friend of Babe Ruth.

Charles was tall with a medium build, gray eyes and dark hair. He graduated from Manhattan College and then worked as a clerk in the family business. Like the other young men of his era, the onset of World War I changed his life trajectory forever.

After America entered the war in the summer of 1917, Charles sought a U.S. Army commission at the Madison Barracks near Lake Ontario, an old base named after James Madison. He failed because of an injury, but afterwards was drafted and entered basic training at Camp Upton on Long Island. He quickly rose in the ranks.

In the spring of 1918, Charles received notice of his deployment to France. It was the eve of the Hundred Days Offensive, the decisive Allied maneuver designed to end the five-year bloody stalemate in Europe. Charles made his own decisive moves on the domestic front before he left.

Charles was dating Guenn McCarthy, the 23-year-old daughter of Thomas and Augusta “Gussie” McCarthy. Thomas was the treasurer of a large wholesale grocery business. Family lore says Gussie named Guenn after her favorite 1884 novel, “Guenn: A Wave on the Breton Coast” by New York writer Blanche Willis Howard.

Word of the pending deployment to Europe accelerated the young couple’s courtship. Charles proposed. Guenn accepted. The old newspaper article I found reported arrangements for the “war-hastened wedding” were made on a Friday and the ceremony held the next day, Saturday, March 16, 1918, at New York City’s Church of the Blessed Sacrament. Thanks to the invention and growing popularity of the telephone, “verbal invitations were extended to the relatives.”Soon after, Charles shipped out to Europe. Although Charles and Guenn were now separated by the Atlantic Ocean, their affection was infectious. Within a few months, Charles’ brother Richard, a Navy carpenters mate stationed in Brooklyn, married Guenn’s sister, Augusta Mona McCarthy. The future seemed bright for the newlyweds. Another newspaper reported Charles’ passion to serve despite having inherited “a fortune” from his recently-deceased father.

Charles was swept up into the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in northeastern France along with more than 1 million other Americans. Meuse-Argonne claimed 28,000 Germans, 26,277 Americans, and an unknown number of French lives. Led by legendary Gen. John Joseph “Black Jack” Pershing, it was one of the largest and deadliest campaigns in American military history. Ultimately, all history is personal. On Oct. 14, 1918, Lt. Charles Duffy was defending the Madeleine Farm near the front at Verdun, France. Just days before, American forces had captured the strategic site, but then endured withering machine gun and artillery fire as German forces tried to take it back. Uncle Charles was wounded in action at the farm and transported to an Army field hospital. He died there on the same day, 28 years old, with his whole life before him.

Just weeks later, the warring nations signed the Nov. 11, 1918, armistice ending the conflict.

Charles was buried, alongside 15,000 soldiers, in the Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery, in Romagne-sous-Montfaucon, France. They rest together beneath a blanket of soft green grass in eight large, carefully tended rectangular plots. Hundreds of sentinel trees stand eternal watch. The day after Christmas 1918, a newspaper article reported the sad news to Charles’ hometown. The grieving Duffy and McCarthy families held a memorial service in the same church that had hosted Charles’ and Guenn’s wedding just nine months earlier.

Because of war, Charles married Guenn in haste and left her behind in haste. In 1911 G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” It must have been quite a love. Guenn lived for another 50 years. She never remarried.

Michael Patrick O’Brien is a writer and lawyer living in Salt Lake City, Utah. He is writing a book about growing up at a rural Utah monastery. He blogs at https://theboymonk.com/.

First, an apology.

The other day a group of serious-minded men came in to see The Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board, of which I am a member and Keeper of the Calendar. They had asked very politely if they could drop by and explain to us their opposition to Proposition 3. That’s the Utah ballot question that, if passed, would finally put Utah into the column of states that have accepted the expansion of the Medicaid program to cover maybe 150,000 people who now lack that minimal feature of life in a civilized nation.

You can see by the content of that last sentence what they would be up against by coming to see us. They knew it, and so did I. But hearing them out was the least we could do. Except, looking back, I’m not sure I gave them even that.

I’m afraid they pushed one of my more sensitive buttons by saying, as supposedly intelligent people have been saying for a long time, that health care for the poor is always available. All they have to do is go to the nearest emergency room and, presto, free health care.

That’s a lie, and I said so. And I fear I may have gotten a little loud and bent out of shape in the process. I trust there were no Brett Kavanaugh faces. Thankfully, there were no cameras present.

I should have just held my tongue and let the presentation go on. We all knew that it was highly unlikely that anyone would leave the room thinking differently than they did when they came in.

But, gee willikers, Batman, what happens in an emergency room isn’t health care. And it is wrong to say it is. It’s trauma care. Gunshot wounds. Car wrecks. Really serious infections or frighteningly high fevers. Falling off of a motorized scooter. M*A*S*H unit meatball surgery

But health care? Chemotherapy? Kidney dialysis? Rehabilitation or occupational therapy? Pre-natal and well child visits? Long-term treatment for AIDS or opioid addiction or diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis? Nowhere to be found.

Apparently, we have an epidemic of lying about health care.

The first sentence in a Washington Post fact-checking article about the president’s recent statement about Medicare: “President Trump wrote an opinion article for USA Today on Oct. 10 regarding proposals to expand Medicare to all Americans — known as Medicare-for-All — in which almost every sentence contained a misleading statement or a falsehood.”

The last paragraph in the Sept. 27 column from New York Times columnist, and Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman: “So let’s be clear about this: If you or anyone you care about suffers from a pre-existing medical condition, Republicans are trying to take away your insurance. If they claim otherwise, they’re lying.”

Sadly, but not shockingly, the Republican effort Krugman describes, a multi-state lawsuit to gut what’s left of the Affordable Care Act, has the support of Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes. Of course it does.

Setting these falsehoods aside, as hard as I found that to do, the arguments against Prop 3 boil down to money. And, damn straight, it’ll cost money. Maybe the $90 million a year that would be raised from the tiny hike in the state sales tax that is part of the initiative. Maybe more.

Maybe it will, as our visitors argued, require taking money from, say, education to balance the Medicaid books. Though our educational system would clearly benefit if everyone’s health care needs were met, if students and their parents were healthy and teachers and janitors and lunch ladies could see a doctor when they needed one.

The argument against Prop 3 is that civilization is a frill that we cannot afford.

And at least our visitors didn’t push another, even more sensitive, button. The one that looks at the thing where more people show up for Medicaid enrollment than were expected and calls it “The woodwork effect.” As in coming out of the woodwork. As in poor people are properly compared to roaches, mice and other vermin. Not to people who, indeed, need more health care than we may have thought.

People smarter than I can figure all this out if they want to. Canada and the whole of the European Union worked it out decades ago. People who aren’t lying, and aren’t bent out of shape about being lied to, can get on it. Imma going to go watch baseball for a couple of weeks.

And then vote for Prop 3.

George Pyle, the Salt Lake Tribune’s editorial page editor, has not, as far as he can remember, been exposed to high doses of gamma radiation. gpyle@sltrib.com

“The Legislative power of the State shall be vested in: (a)a Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and (b)the people of the State of Utah...”

— Article VI, Section 1, Constitution of the State of Utah

There are innumerable examples of how the Utah Legislature goes out of its way to be non-responsive to the will, wishes and needs of the people of Utah. Groups of our neighbors have become so frustrated with the unwillingness and inability of elected lawmakers to do the people’s work that they have been moved to go through the long and expensive process of placing three specific proposals on this year’s general election ballot.

In other words, when clause (a) fails, shift to clause (b).

Each of the three initiatives deserves to be approved on its own individual merits. But the theme running through them is, as Thomas Jefferson might have said, that there comes a time in the course of human events when the people need to assume the legislative power granted them by the state Constitution and to make laws that shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Or at least ease their pain, give them access to the health care system and make it at least a little more difficult for future Legislatures to ignore the popular will.

Voters should reject any suggestion that, should they vote down any or all of the initiatives, the Legislature, governor, any political party or anyone else will soon come back with a different piece of legislation that would do the same thing, something better or even something similar.

The powers that be in Utah have had the opportunity and the power — but not the will — to have faced each and all of these issues for many years. They have refused to do so. And there is not a single reason to believe that, absent the approval of Prop 2, Prop 3 and Prop 4, they will even take up these matters, much less solve them to the satisfaction of the people.

Proposition 2 — Medical marijuana

This initiative would put into state law a system that would allow people suffering from certain diseases and medical problems to obtain first a doctor’s recommendation and then certain substances derived from the cannabis plant from privately run dispensaries.

The promise of medical marijuana to provide relief from serious and chronic conditions that include epilepsy, cancer, MS, ALS, Alzheimer’s and other maladies is not in question. Which is why some form of legal marijuana, either limited to medicinal uses for recreational use by adults, is now the norm in 30 states. Colorado and Nevada have gone fully to allowing marijuana for recreational use, while Arizona and New Mexico have allowed medical marijuana.

While there have been problems in those states, and will doubtless be problems here, the now-irreversible nationwide trend is for the legalization of cannabis in one form or other. And there is no reason why Utahns suffering from many different woes should have to wait any longer than anyone else for relief.

A closed-room deal cooked up recently by the governor and leading lawmakers — in talks with some of the leading bakers of Prop 2 — may well prove to be as good or better in both making medical cannabis available while other uses less likely. But voters should back Prop 2 anyway, lest our leaders find more reasons to drag their feet.

Proposition 3 — Medicaid expansion

The people of Utah have already left more than a billion dollars in federal support on the table over the last five years due to our stubborn, partisan and hurtful refusal to go along with the provisions of the original Affordable Care Act and expand eligibility for Medicaid to thousands of our uninsured relatives and neighbors.

If Prop 3 passes, Utah voters will have commanded their reticent state government to accept the expansion, take the money, and provide coverage to some 150,000 working and low-income Utahns who now, through no fault of their own, lack the kind of access to health care that the residents of 33 other states — and every nation considered civilized — take for granted.

For those who are worried about the cost, Prop 3 includes a tiny sales tax increase — 0.15 percent — to raise the $90 million a year it would take to finally leverage the $800 million in annual federal funding we’ve been foolishly walking away from. That influx of money would do more than save lives, and prevent bankruptcies, for thousands of us. It would also provide an economic multiplier effect as it pays hospitals, doctors, nurses, orderlies, lab techs, clerks — and all the people they do business with — for an economic as well as a humanitarian boon.

Proposition 4 - An independent redistricting commission

After the 2020 federal census, Utah will draw new districts for its state Senate, state House and our four (or maybe more) members of the U.S House of Representatives.

In past years, the process has been less a serious consideration of numbers and communities and fairness and mostly a partisan political, and sometimes just personal, act by which state legislators draw maps to advantage their party generally and some of their colleagues specifically.

That’s not democracy. That’s gerrymandering.

Prop 4, if passed, would set up an independent commission with a charge to draw districts in fair and logical ways, respecting city and county boundaries and communities of interest. That plan would then go to the Legislature to be voted up or down without amendments or other monkeyshines.

All three of these ballot initiatives, individually and collectively, stand to improve both our quality of life and our democratic institutions. The voters should give them their resounding assent.

“Do you know what a defense attorney does?”

This question is often asked by juvenile court judges to determine whether a youth appearing in their courtroom is knowingly and voluntarily waiving their right to counsel. Youth often respond in the affirmative, but when asked to explain the function of a defense attorney, they have nothing to say. We are concerned that, in these cases, youth are giving up an important right they do not fully understand.

Defense attorneys play a crucial role in ensuring their youthful clients’ rights are protected and in helping their clients comprehend the long-term collateral consequences of their legal case. It is a common misconception that juvenile court records are sealed and will have no effect on a person’s life after they turn 18. In reality, juvenile records can negatively impact future employment, educational opportunities, immigration status and interactions with the adult justice system. For example, certain charges, adjudications, and plea agreements may hinder a youth’s opportunity to eventually join the military or obtain a federal job.

Defense attorneys gather facts and evidence, interview witnesses, negotiate with prosecutors, find legal issues, and determine if the youth has any potential legal defenses. Furthermore, defense attorneys clarify the complicated justice process to help young clients make informed decisions about either negotiating with the state or proceeding to trial. By advocating zealously on behalf of their clients, defense attorneys challenge the state to be fair, accurate and just.

Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, competent legal representation is guaranteed to every accused person in all court proceedings. The right to adequate representation for youth in delinquency matters was determined to be imperative by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case known as Gault. Unfortunately, many states, including Utah, do not guarantee that all youth are represented by counsel in delinquency proceedings.

While there has been much discussion about meeting the state’s Constitutional obligation to provide indigent defense counsel to adults, Utah’s similar obligation to children has received little attention. In 2017, the Utah Legislature had the opportunity to remedy this problem by enacting the original version of HB239, sponsored by Rep. Lowry Snow, R-Saint George. However, the section requiring counsel for juveniles in every legal proceeding was removed before the amended bill was passed.

Without the automatic appointment of counsel for every child at every stage of the court process, Utah will continue to fall short of the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of its youth. Utah’s Indigent Defense Commission is proposing legislation to provide appointment of counsel in every matter petitioned to the juvenile court. Additionally, youth would not be allowed to waive their right to an attorney without first consulting with a counsel. Youth would be presumed indigent, and the court would be able to order parents who are not indigent to reimburse the county the cost of representation. Once counsel has been appointed for a juvenile, representation would extend to all stages of the proceeding.

We strongly encourage the legislature to pass changes that meet the standards of the Constitution and protect our youth.

Marina Peña is a juvenile justice fellow at Voices for Utah Children.

Anna Thomas is a senior policy analyst at Voices for Utah Children.

Wyatt Kirk is the public policy fellow working with Adjunct Professor Lincoln Nehring at the S.J. Quinney College of Law.

Views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the University of Utah or the S.J. Quinney College of Law.

Thousands of students from across the state were bused to downtown Salt Lake City on Friday to hear a unified message — opioids kill.

The event, Sen. Mike Lee’s annual Utah Solutions Summit, brought together top law enforcement officials, addiction survivors and celebrities to help steer them away from an epidemic that killed 360 Utahns last year.

Good for the senator for doing it. Undoubtedly those in attendance came away with a new appreciation for the dangers of the drug and hopefully lives will be saved by the message they heard.

Education and prevention are indeed important — but it’s only a small piece of a much larger, comprehensive battle against opioid addiction.

That includes treatment, emergency services, law enforcement intervention aimed at getting opioid users help and shutting down suppliers. And it takes money. Lots of it.

Carbon County is ground zero for the opioid epidemic in Utah and is among the hardest hit regions in the nation. Last month, Price received $150,000 for a detox and sober living facility and $46,000 to help get patients access to treatment services. The county got $80,000 to buy ambulance equipment to respond to the all-too-common drug overdoses. Sevier County got $110,000 for similar equipment.

The money came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Rural Development, which has been investing millions of dollars fighting opioid abuse.

In April, USDA Assistant Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett and Jim Carroll, acting director of the Office of National Drug Control, visited Utah to hear on-the-ground accounts of the crisis facing rural residents.

“In our community, we’re dying — and not only are we dying, but we’re killing ourselves,” said Debbie Marvidikis of the Southeast Utah Health Department.

Yet less than a month ago, Lee was the one and only senator to vote against the Opioid Crisis Response Act. The legislation seeks to make addiction treatment more accessible, to crack down on synthetic opioids crossing the border and to boost pain treatment research.

Lee voted against it, he said, because it included “dozens of new grant programs with little accountability for how the dollars will be spent and minimal measurement or analysis on their effectiveness.”

The unaccountable grant programs Lee is so opposed to are the very same type of grants that are being used to deploy new tools and are benefitting Lee’s constituents.

“Good intentions are not enough,” he said. “In the face of a crisis such as this, we cannot afford to waste precious funds on programs which likely won’t work.”

In fact, the bill only dedicated about $1.7 billion per year to the opioid programs, far less than experts say is needed.

And it’s not the first time the senator has opposed legislation targeting the opioid crisis. In 2016, he was one of two senators to vote against a bill to expand the tools available to doctors and law enforcement to help addicts, to increase access to the life-saving drug Naloxone, and to improve treatment for those behind bars.

In Lee’s world, this is something states should be doing, not the federal government. And it’s hard to argue with that, since the Founding Fathers did not mention the word “opioid” one time in the entire text of the U.S. Constitution.

But we don’t live in Mike Lee’s world. In the real world, his job as senator is to work to solve problems, not make grandiose statements about principles when people are dying. Saying a program won’t work or will waste money before it is launched is a cop out.

By the way, those efforts appear to be working, as the number of opioid-related deaths fell from 449 in 2016 to 360 last year, making it the third year in a row the number of deaths have decreased.

Of course local governments have a role to play. The Utah Legislature, the state and county health departments and local law enforcement are doing their part. And the federal government has a role in helping.

“We are wearing our tires out traveling around the state,” Brian Besser, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency agent in charge for Utah, said after Lee’s summit. “We spend most of our time finding those who are hardest hit, listening, and learning how we can help."

Yes, one of the ways Lee can help is hosting anti-opioid rallies for students. But that is not enough. This is one of the largest national health epidemics of our generation and it requires a coordinated response involving every level of government. If Lee is serious about solving this problem, he should join the team and not be a lone voice of dissent when Congress, for once, tries to do the right thing.

Five brothers raising themselves in a tough Australian neighborhood.

A father who is MIA.

A mother who has died.

A mule named Achilles who takes up residence in the kitchen whenever possible.

An old-fashioned typewriter buried in a backyard next to the bones of a snake and a dog.

An upright piano.

Each of these plays a part in Markus Zusak’s stunning and gorgeously written new saga, “Bridge of Clay,” which deals with the universal themes of love and loss and all the things that unite and divide a family. Zusak, the author of the international best-seller “The Book Thief,” will be in Salt Lake City on Oct. 20 to sign and read from his new book, which he also discusses in the following email interview.

Wow! This book! Where did it come from?

Thanks for such a lovely and visceral response. I guess this book came from that unknown place inside that whispers something once every decade (if I’m lucky) — and on this occasion it whispered a boy and a bridge. Which made me think of a boy building a bridge — and then wanting to build a great bridge. I was only 19 or 20 at the time, but somehow I knew it was going to be an idea I would always love and would carry for as long as it took to write — which turned out to be 23 years or so.

You were quoted as saying about “Bridge of Clay that “I’ve got to get it done this year, or else I’ll probably finally have to set it aside.” Can you speak to the challenges of writing this particular book?

I think I said that every year for about eight years. I basically started the first scraps of work towards the end of 2005, but as is often the case when you start a book, you look at it and think, “Well, that’s not what I’m looking for.” For this book, I would have that exact feeling for years on end. I was always searching but never quite happy. I had so much material written by 2015, when I wrote a new beginning, where the narrator of the book — Matthew Dunbar — goes out to an old country town to dig up a typewriter to write the story on, and that’s when I felt truly on the track I wanted. Which isn’t to say things were easy from there — they weren’t. But I felt closer to bringing it all to an end.

Did the stratospheric success of “The Book Thief” get in your way as you worked on “Bridge of Clay”?

I think that’s a very appropriate question, because no matter how true it is that “Bridge of Clay” was always going to be a different book, the success of “The Book Thief” was probably more a factor than I would admit, even now. So many great things come through the door with that kind of unexpected success, but so do a lot more criticisms and doubts. I’m so grateful to that book, and especially its readers, and I guess there were just new challenges to face because of all of that. Suddenly you have an audience. Suddenly you have a few more people waiting. Suddenly you don’t have to write to scrape by as much — and all of these things test you. In truth, I just wanted to write a better book, the same as I’ve always tried, and “The Book Thief” meant so much to me. I wanted to write a book that meant even more, and within myself, I know I have.

As the mother of five (now adult) sons, I feel like you nailed the boys-only family dynamic. How were you able to do this?

I’m the youngest of four children, so I grew up in a fair degree of family chaos, although only one of my siblings was a brother. That said, I grew up being steadily pummeled by him and all his friends. We had boxing matches in the backyard — that was a particular favorite — and so many other modes of mischief and madness. It was laughter and pain, silliness and extreme friendship, too — and I molded all of that into my at least moderately active imagination and ended up with five Dunbar boys. Five just felt right to me. Five boys. Five pets. And two memorable parents. For some reason that all made perfect sense.

Homer’s “Odyssey” looms large in “Bridge of Clay.” Why?

I actually find it funny now, thinking, “What does ancient Greece have to do with modern day Australia?” It started with the nicknames. I love how in “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey” there’s a grandness, even something overwrought to the characterization. Achilles doesn’t just enter the fray. He’s the “nimble-footed Achilles,” and Hector is “Hector of the glittering helmet.” Australians love nicknames, and once I called Penny Dunbar [the mother] “The Mistake Maker,” I knew I was writing a family’s reality through its own myths and legends, as well. Every character is constantly traveling in this book, through past and present. I became more and more aware of that as I was writing it (as well as Homer’s constant repetition of images) — and these were things that excited me about writing the book.

Let’s talk about the book’s structure. You don’t tell the story of the Dunbar family in chronological order. Why?

Maybe it’s because our past lives are inside us, all the time. We carry them everywhere, and they impact what we’re doing in the present so much. I wanted Clay’s bridge to feel like it was made of him —and who he is comes from the journeys his parents made, the decisions Clay has made himself, and all of his failures and triumphs. So I guess I structured it that way because we don’t always think in the same direction. We’re going backwards and forwards all the time. And sometimes looking back is actually the only way we can go forward.

What question would you like someone to ask that no one ever asks?

Maybe the one you just did ask. It would just be why I write in the first place, which is because it’s what makes me feel happiest and most alive.

And, finally, what do you hope to do and see when you visit Salt Lake City?

I’ve been to Salt Lake City twice before and coming in by plane is one of the most beautiful things to see in the world — so honestly, I’m first looking forward to that. And Salt Lake City has some of the very, very best (and dedicated) readers in the world, and I can’t wait to be with them again.

Moroni Jessop and his daughters recently attended Young Women programs for teenage girls at the local branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That would be unexceptional except for this fact: Jessop is a polygamist with so-called “fundamentalist Mormon” beliefs.

“I realized almost every young woman standing up were fundamentalists,” Jessop said. “There were only two or three young women who weren’t.”

The Salt Lake City-based LDS Church officially abandoned polygamy in 1890 and excommunicates any members found practicing it.

But Jessop, of Concho, Ariz., said he, his family and families like his are welcome at the meetinghouse. Jessop said it’s another example of what he perceives as an era of increased cooperation among rank-and-file Latter-day Saints and polygamy-practicing fundamentalists.

This cooperation manifests itself in multiple ways. Sometimes members from the two groups attend Mormon history or study conferences together. Sometimes they cooperate on service projects. Sometimes they find political commonality.

The diaspora and changes in the sect synonymous with Mormon fundamentalism, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, have been factors in the cooperation. An April 2017 history symposium in Hildale, Utah, led to Latter-day Saints and fundamentalist groups delivering food and humanitarian aid to FLDS followers there.

As more FLDS members continue to leave Hildale and adjacent Colorado City, Ariz., members of the LDS Church have increased missionary work and aid there.

Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute, said he first got involved in politics after the 2008 law enforcement raid on the Yearning For Zion ranch in Eldorado, Texas. Boyack, a 36-year-old Latter-day Saint, said the civil rights of FLDS members were violated when Texas authorities separated adults and children even in cases in which parents weren’t accused of abuse.

“It was a grave injustice,” Boyack argued, “and it was only compounded when I saw the indifference there was among people I knew because it was happening to — quote — ‘the other’ or a ‘minority group.’”

Boyack has gone on to work with polygamists in Utah to oppose statutes that make polygamy a crime. He is quick to point out the cooperation is between individuals in the mainstream LDS and fundamentalist faiths, not among the churches’ leaders.

The leaders have preached their differences through the decades.

“We warn you against the so-called polygamy cults, which would lead you astray,” LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball told members at General Conference in October 1974. “… Have nothing to do with those who would lead you astray.”

In 1998, LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said, "There is no such thing as a ‘Mormon fundamentalist.’ It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

“More than a century ago, God clearly revealed unto his prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.”

Polygamist leaders, however, often teach that it is the LDS Church that has gone astray — and not just for abandoning polygamy. After the LDS Church announced in 1978 that black men and boys could obtain the priesthood and black women and girls could enter the faith’s temples, Owen Allred, then leader of the Apostolic United Brethren, criticized the change. He told his followers who still held LDS membership to stop going into LDS temples that have been “defiled by the Canaanite being invited into [them].”

Cristina Rosetti, a doctoral candidate at University of California-Riverside who is studying Mormonism, notes that the younger generations of Latter-day Saints and fundamentalists are working together. The baby boomers and World War II generations, on the other hand, worked to let the public know that Latter-day Saints weren’t polygamists.

“Younger persons are just more interested in what it means to build bridges,” Rosetti said.

Gen Xers and millennials are further removed from their polygamist ancestors, Rosetti said, and have a curiosity about Mormon fundamentalism.

“I’ve had so many LDS people ask: ‘Can you take me to church with the AUB? I want to meet a fundamentalist,’” Rosetti said. “I think there are people that want that dialogue; they just don’t know how.”

Lindsay Hansen Park, who hosts the podcast “Year of Polygamy,” helped bring Canadian polygamist Winston Blackmore to a Sunstone Symposium in 2016. Park said she received some criticism for Blackmore’s attendance, but while he was at the event, there was a discussion about fundamentalist leaders’ negative views of homosexuality.

The next year, Park said, a man with two wives told her he was more comfortable with the LGBTQ community and discovered he had a gay son.

“The fact that he got exposed to [LGBTQ views],” Park said, “would have never happened if I hadn’t let Winston come.”

Fundamentalists are having trouble keeping youths in their folds, Park said, and are looking at what the LDS Church is doing to keep its young people active.

Jessop believes his family, which includes 11 children, is welcome at LDS activities because of a sincere change of attitude by rank-and-file Latter-day Saints. When he moved to the Concho area 20 years ago, an LDS branch president was friendly to him, but subsequent congregational leaders were “cold to indifferent.”

Then, in the past few years, Latter-day Saint missionaries have been coming to his home. Jessop has discussions about Mormon doctrine with them — sometimes even the parts on which the faiths disagree. He likes his children engaging in Latter-day Saint activities and dialogue.

“I’m not threatened by them investigating both sides,” he said.

And younger Latter-day Saints seem more willing to learn about — and interact with — the other side as well.

Zion National Park stunned visitors recently when it stopped issuing permits for one of its bucket-list hikes, the 16-mile slot-canyon journey through the Zion Narrows, after the family that owns land the route crosses posted signs indicating access was subject to “trespassing fees.”

The closure soon was lifted when Washington County reached an agreement with the landowners, but this issue could spring up again and again across Utah where trails cross private property en route to popular destinations, especially along the Wasatch Front.

For the past 20 years, for instance, northern Utah’s ever-popular Bonneville Shoreline Trail has cut through the King family’s land at the mouth of Ogden Canyon, where the Kings’ Rainbow Gardens gift shop and restaurant have served as a trailhead and parking area.

Bill King likes providing public access to the Wasatch foothills, but he wishes trail users would pick up their garbage, leave the parking spots in front of the restaurant to diners, and do more to care for the trails, which he fears are becoming magnets for crime and illegal camping.

“Some seem to think that all my property belongs to the public," King said. “We are happy to welcome the people who follow the rules.”

In an agreement with Ogden, the Kings provide 10 parking places on the southwest corner of their lot near the trail. But they have the right to revoke access across the property it has held since the 1930s, severing a key segment of Bonneville Shoreline Trail through Weber County.

As outdoor recreation continues to boom in Utah, whose scenic public lands draw tourists and businesses in droves, the state is saddled with an intensifying problem: Hikes to popular spots — from Ogden’s Waterfall Canyon to Zion National Park’s Orderville Canyon and Hop Valley, often traverse private land that is only growing more and more valuable.

And many owners want either to be compensated for the public’s use of their property or pursue lucrative development opportunities.

The public cannot take favorite destinations for granted. Property owners could cut off access at their discretion, so resolving these conflicts is vital to the future of Utah’s economy and quality of life.

“The demand for outdoor recreation and national park visitation is going up by leaps and bounds. People want to come to have the experience of a lifetime. When they can’t access places like the Zion Narrows, then Utah and surrounding communities are losing opportunities to generate revenue for local business,” said Jim Petterson, Southwest director of The Trust for Public Land. “Money we invest today to protect nationally significant places is money well spent. The cost of doing it tomorrow is going to be more later.”

Periodic limits on access crop up on at least two of Utah’s most-renowned hikes, Waterfall Canyon and the Zion Narrows. In both cases, trails cross land where owners hope to sell conservation easements that would guarantee public access in perpetuity. But they complain the federal government is lowballing the market value of their property’s development potential, so they are balking at accepting a deal.

Here are five popular destinations — though scores more could be listed — whose access is complicated by private property:

Waterfall Canyon and Malan’s Basin

Both hikes start at Ogden’s 29th Street trailhead and climb into a 1,500-acre tract owned by Chris Peterson, who acquired the land in the early 2000s and has developed the lower portions for adventure recreation, such as the Via Ferrata fixed climbing routes. The trail bifurcates at the trailhead with the right fork leading 1.2 miles to Waterfall Canyon and the left leading through Taylor Canyon to the basin above the waterfall, named for the Malan family that once ran a hotel there.

From time to time, the owner has put up fences on the Waterfall Canyon trail and posted security personnel asking to see hikers’ ID. Peterson recently rejected an appraisal the U.S. Forest Service commissioned for the land.

Zion Narrows

This 16-mile hike starts outside Zion National Park’s eastern boundary on Chamberlain Ranch, where access has already been protected though a conservation easement brokered by The Trust for Public Land, and winds through a slot canyon cut by the Virgin River’s North Fork. It ends at the Temple of Sinawava.

The park imposes a 90-person daily limit on the one-way, top-down hike, considered among the finest in the world. A few miles below Chamberlain Ranch, the route passes through property long owned by the Bulloch family, which seeks to sell a conservation easement that would ensure public access into the future. But the federal government’s rejection what the Bullochs thought was a fair appraisal has thrown current access in doubt.

Washington County officials secured a deal that will allow hikers to pass through — but only through year’s end. A permanent solution will require the feds and the Bullochs to agree on a “fair market value” for an 880-acre parcel that contains one mile of the Zion Narrows.

Orderville and Birch Hollow canyons

Zion’s periphery is fraught with access issues because much of the area was private ranchland when the area was designated a national monument in 1909 and twice expanded in 1918 and 1937. The park’s famed Trans-Zion trek, connecting the Kolob Canyon area with the rest of the park via Hop Valley, crosses a private ranch whose owner is OK with the hikers coming through — for now.

Also on private land is the trailhead to Orderville Canyon, another popular hike starting outside Zion’s eastern boundary and ending at the Temple of Sinawava. The park issues 80 permits a day for this 12-mile slot-canyon hike.

This property also captures a technical canyoneering route through Birch Hollow Canyon, a minor tributary to Orderville Canyon.

“Backcountry use has increased dramatically as well. People are looking for other opportunities and other routes through slot canyons,” park Superintendent Jeff Bradybaugh said. “Our neighbors have been cooperative in allowing access. We want to make sure our visitors are respecting those private lands. These access issues will become a bigger and bigger thing.”

Some 3,400 acres, or 2 percent of the land within the park’s boundaries, remain private.

Adams Canyon

Like Waterfall Canyon, this hike starts from a residential area at the foot of the Wasatch Mountains. The canyon emerges from the mountains in Layton, where an informal trailhead is located just off U.S. Highway 89. The first quarter-mile of the trail crosses private land before entering national forest.

The 1.8-mile dog-friendly trail along Holmes Creek ends at a waterfall, but more adventuresome hikers can continue past the waterfall to the canyon’s north ridge. They can return to the trailhead on a trail following the ridgeline for a total distance of about 5 miles.

The lower portion of the route ties into the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, which also crosses private land there. This route tracks above foothill subdivisions at the approximate level of ancient Lake Bonneville, which drained away 14,000 years ago, leaving remnants like Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake along with a series of benches carved into the Wasatch foothills indicating old shorelines.

About 20 years in the making, the trail remains fragmentary with significant portions developed along its proposed reach from Nephi into Idaho.

Bonneville Shoreline Trail

Much of this trail exists only in people’s imagination and may never actually get fully developed because so much of the proposed alignment crosses foothill real estate primed for development. Some owners aren’t keen on a public thoroughfare running through their yards, while deals and agreements have been reached to ensure public access in places such as the Kings' land at the mouth of Ogden Canyon.

Mostly recently, The Trust for Public Land arranged the purchase of 848 acres owned by the Boy Scouts of America on the north side of Mill Creek Canyon in Salt Lake County. This secured about of mile of the existing Pipeline and Rattlesnake Gulch trails, which are hoped to be incorporated into a continuous stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.

With no compensation coming their way, the Kings have tolerated a busy mile of the trail passing through their Rainbow Gardens property. The land is located at the middle of the trail’s longest unbroken stretch, extending 22 miles through Weber County from Beus Canyon, near Weber State University, to North Ogden Canyon.

The Mill Creek Canyon deal, which put $3.2 million in the Boy Scouts’ coffers, tapped the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is on life support after a half-century of land acquisitions supporting outdoor recreation. The fund expired last month while Congress struggles to pass legislation that would reauthorize it.

Without the fund, the private sector and local governments will have to open their wallets wider to purchase the easements needed to guarantee access. Either way, hikers will need to respect the rights of landowners if they expect to continue enjoying places like Waterfall Canyon and the Bonneville Shoreline. Not littering and clogging Bill King’s parking lot would help, too.

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER

LeBron James, Lakers

Some define “most valuable” as the best player on the best team. Sometimes, it’s an athlete who puts up statistically superior numbers for a pretty good team. Others look for a player, without whom, his team would theoretically achieve far less than it actually did.

James has, at various points throughout his career, checked all those boxes.

However, after a career spent dominating the Eastern Conference landscape, he now finds himself with the far greater challenge of navigating a team through the minefield-laden West — a conference where 46-win Denver missed the playoffs last year.

Beyond the mere change of scenery, he also finds himself surrounded by a roster split pretty evenly between young-but-unproven talent (Brandon Ingram, Lonzo Ball, Kyle Kuzma, Josh Hart) and an island-of-misfit-toys supporting cast of veterans (Rajon Rondo, JaVale McGee, Lance Stephenson, Michael Beasley).

In the East, he’s carried and/or dragged lesser teams to the playoffs. That may not be possible in the West.

James has long been the NBA’s best player; if his unparalleled combination of scoring, rebounding and passing prowess can get one of the league’s marquee franchises back to the postseason following a five-year drought, he’ll again be its Most Valuable Player, too.

COACH OF THE YEAR

Brad Stevens, Celtics

Voters tend to like two archetypes in this category — the coach who takes a team not expected to do much of anything and elevates it into better-than-expected territory; and the coach who takes an already good team and elevates it into elite, NBA title contender territory. Stevens, whose X’s and O’s acumen and pushing-the-right-buttons demeanor have already made him regarded as one of the league’s top benchmen, is in prime position to accomplish the latter, with the return to health of Kyrie Irving and Gordon Hayward, and the continued development of Jaylen Brown and Jason Tatum.

COACH ON THE HOT SEAT

Tom Thibodeau, Timberwolves

How quickly the shine wore off Minnesota’s once-in-a-generation playoff appearance of a year ago. Despite the postseason appearance, there were already blaring klaxons going off around Thibs following the team’s easy postseason ouster, which have only grown in volume since. His reputation for being too dependent on veterans, his unwillingness to develop and subsequently trust young players, and a propensity for running key players into the ground via excessive minutes have all been borne out. Further, his status as a defensive guru has taken a hit with the indifference of Karl-Anthony Towns and Andrew Wiggins. The public messiness of the current Jimmy Butler saga is sure to be the final nail in his coffin.

TEAM TO BEAT

Golden State Warriors

This isn’t really up for debate, is it? They have won two straight championships, and three of the last four. The lone blip in there was a season in which they went 73-9 in the regular season and, but for a rare Kevin Love stop and a timely Kyrie Irving 3, likely would have ended in yet another title. OK, so the bench is not as deep as it once was. And there were stretches of apparent disinterest last season. No matter. With a core of Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green back (and now DeMarcus Cousins added in), the Warriors are the favorites until either they get bored of winning all the time and break up, or someone proves otherwise.

DON’T SLEEP ON

Toronto Raptors

Everyone gets it — year after year, the Raptors post one of the best regular-season records in the league, then flame out spectacularly in the playoffs. It became enough of a pattern that Dwane Casey got fired in his Coach of the Year season. No one takes the playoff Raptors seriously anymore. So why should it be different now? How about swapping out DeMar DeRozan for Kawhi Leonard? He actually has a history of performing well in the playoffs, boosting his playoff ppg every postseason appearance, up to 27.7 in 2016-17. He also earned Finals MVP honors in 2014. If Leonard’s invested, Toronto is dangerous.

TEAM YOU DON’T WANT TO PLAY

Indiana Pacers

Maybe it’s because nobody knows anything about Indiana other than “Hoosiers,” Bob Knight, Reggie Miller, the Indy 500, Indiana Jones, and that verse from that Tom Petty song. Maybe it’s because, even though he was an All-Star last year and memorably rocked a “Black Panther” mask in the dunk contest, the average NBA fan couldn’t pick out Victor Oladipo if they were alone together in the same elevator. Whatever the reason, the Pacers feel like they’re going a bit unnoticed. Not for much longer. After taking the Cavs to the brink in the playoffs last year, they’re primed to ensure a new, young generation of Pacers fan grow up right, with them Indiana boys on them Indiana nights.

MOST OVERRATED TEAM

Washington Wizards

What’s the statute of limitations on an NBA team living up to its potential? Chris Paul finally figured out it wasn’t happening with the Clippers, and razed Lob City to the ground. The Wiz similarly need to find a way to return to Year Zero (though those onerous contracts are a big stumbling block). The perpetual dissension is bad enough. That management consistently handed out big money to players who just don’t fit that well together makes it worse. On paper, John Wall, Bradley Beal, Otto Porter and sure, even Dwight Howard, is a solid core. In reality, this team, as constructed, isn’t going to be anything but a disappointment.

MOST OVERRATED PLAYER

Draymond Green, Warriors

It’s not that he’s not good, it’s just that his reputation far exceeds his actual contributions. Is he a quality, versatile defender? Yes. But he also gets away with a lot of contact that players without the associated hype don’t. Does he help the offense? There’s no denying the seven-plus assists per game he’s averaged the past three seasons are exceptional for a non-point guard. But his shooting (.438 career) is subpar for a big man, and he takes far too many 3s for being so bad at them (.327). He’s also a below-average rebounder (6.9 rpg). The league-average player efficiency rating is 15.0. Draymond’s PER last year was 16.1, and his career average is 15.7. If he wasn’t surrounded by Steph, KD and Klay, he wouldn’t be a three-time All-Star.

MOST UNDERRATED PLAYER

Khris Middleton, Bucks

Giannis-Mania is in full effect in Milwaukee, and rightly so. But he’s hardly a one-man operation. Middleton is near the top of the list among the league’s premier beta players. The multifaceted second option averaged career highs last year in points (20.1) and rebounds (5.2), while also contributing 4.0 assists and 1.5 steals per game. And even though he has the outside shooting (.391 career 3-pointers) and defensive aggressiveness to be a 3-and-D master, he also has the midrange game to be much more. Perhaps new coach and offensive wizard Mike Budenholzer can scheme Middleton right out of relative obscurity.

FUTURE HOUSEHOLD NAME

Jamal Murray, Nuggets

While center Nikola Jokic remains Denver’s best all-around player, if the Nuggets are to finally break through after several seasons on the verge, it will be because Murray takes another huge leap. From Year 1 to 2, the Canadian point guard and Kentucky product bumped his scoring from 9.9 ppg to 16.7, his field goal percentage from .404 to .451, and his 3-point shooting from .334 to .378 (on 5.4 attempts per game). League GMs recently voted him the most likely player to have a breakout season. Given that he may be the NBA’s next great sharpshooter, it’s not hard to see why.

TOP ROOKIE

Luka Doncic, Mavericks

You know what teams do that’s absolutely infuriating? Talk themselves out of simple decisions. Anyone who pays attention to the international stage has seen Doncic elevating his star power for years. His passing is otherworldly, his ability to make his teammates better sublime. He’s also shown a reliable deep shot, and the willingness to take it in big moments. But suddenly, come draft time, he’s not athletic enough? Or DeAndre Ayton is next Embiid? Or Marvin Bagley is the next Chris Bosh? Trae Young’s the next Steph? All those teams will soon regret passing on the first Luka Doncic. They should have known.

EASTERN CONFERENCE PREDICTIONS

Atlantic Division

The Atlantic provides a more clear delineation of its haves and have-nots than most divisions. The Celtics, with Kyrie Irving, Gordon Hayward, Al Horford, Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum, are the favorites to emerge from the entire East. The Raptors, meanwhile, made a bold gamble in trading for Kawhi Leonard, and should not fall too far thanks to the “Bench Mob.” Joel Embiid and perpetual rookie Ben Simmons are a tantalizing one-two combination for the Sixers, but Philly may lack the depth yet to be a true contender. As for the New York teams, they may not be as awful as in years past, but remain the clear red-headed stepchildren.

1. Boston Celtics

2. Toronto Raptors

3. Philadelphia 76ers

4. Brooklyn Nets

5. New York Knicks

Central Division

LeBron’s return to “The Land” four years ago made the top of this division a fait accompli. Things are different now, of course. Victor Oladipo, Myles Turner, Tyreke Evans, Domantas Sabonis, Thaddeus Young and Bojan Bogdanovic give the Pacers the best collection of talent. Giannis Antetokounmpo will again be spectacular, but the Bucks did not do a ton to address their clear deficiencies in outside shooting and rim protection. The Bulls’ talented young core, with Lauri Markkanen as the centerpiece, is a work in progress. Detroit simply lacks pieces around Blake Griffin and Andre Drummond. And Tristan Thompson’s bold claim that the Cavs still run the East is either laughable hubris or a stunning absence of self-awareness.

1. Indiana Pacers

2. Milwaukee Bucks

3. Chicago Bulls

4. Detroit Pistons

5. Cleveland Cavaliers

Southeast Division

Arguably the worst division in basketball, none of these five teams can credibly be considered a legitimate title contender. The Heat feature a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts roster, but would have been upgraded had they pulled off the Jimmy Butler trade. The Wizards theoretically have the greatest collection of talent, but always seems overly dysfunctional and prone to underachieving, which the addition of Dwight Howard may only exacerbate. The Hornets have a lot of awful contracts for such a middling team. And Orlando and Atlanta are both in full-on rebuilding mode, and unlikely to be competitive any time soon.

1. Miami Heat

2. Washington Wizards

3. Charlotte Hornets

4. Orlando Magic

5. Atlanta Hawks

WESTERN CONFERENCE PREDICTIONS

Northwest Division

Arguably the best division in basketball, top to bottom, pending the resolution of Minnesota’s catastrophic Jimmy Butler meltdown. The Thunder and the Jazz seem destined to battle it out for top honors, with OKC’s more reliable offense the potential difference-maker. The Nuggets’ impressive collection of offensive talent finally ought to take a step forward — provided Denver can improve its defense to something north of “abysmal.” Though the Blazers were third in the West last year, and Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum remain a formidable pairing, Portland seems likely to regress on account of its thin supporting cast. As for the Wolves, there’s too much drama not to take a step back.

1. Oklahoma City Thunder

2. Utah Jazz

3. Denver Nuggets

4. Portland Trail Blazers

5. Minnesota Timberwolves

Southwest Division

Despite all the hand-wringing over the losses of Trevor Ariza and — REALLY?! — Luc Mbah a Moute, and all the equally hysterical shrieking about the addition of Carmelo Anthony, the Rockets remain the Southwest’s definitive best. Anthony Davis will be an MVP candidate for the Pelicans, though it remains to be seen how much the supporting cast aside from Jrue Holiday can provide. DeMar DeRozan and LaMarcus Aldridge should still be enough to help the Spurs limp into the playoffs. As for the Grizz and Mavs, while fans are understandably hyped about their respective rookies, nether team is good enough to play beyond mid-April.

1. Houston Rockets

2. New Orleans Pelicans

3. San Antonio Spurs

4. Memphis Grizzlies

5. Dallas Mavericks

Pacific Division

Unless two out of three of Steph Curry, Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson suffer a long-term injury, it’s inconceivable the Warriors aren’t again the class of the Pacific. LeBron’s arrival, meanwhile, should give the previously steadily-improving-but-still-bad Lakers a pretty sizable jolt. Sorry — not buying the hot take du jour that L.A. misses the playoffs. As for the Clippers, they have a fun collection of spare parts that don’t add up to enough. The Kings at least have an intriguing big-man duo in Marvin Bagley and Harry Giles. As for the Suns … Devin Booker’s injury and a roster completely devoid of NBA-quality point guards are both serious impediments (as is the dumpster-fire ownership).

1. Golden State Warriors

2. Los Angeles Lakers

3. Los Angeles Clippers

4. Sacramento Kings

5. Phoenix Suns

As a gay man raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, playwright Matthew Greene thought coming out would resolve some of his internal struggles.

“That ended up not being the case,” Greene said. "A lot of things got much, much better, but life got a lot more complicated.”

Those complications — of reconciling a gay identity with an upbringing as a Latter-day Saint, of finding love in a way a church says is wrong — are the basis of Greene’s new one-man play, “Good Standing,” which will have its world premiere Thursday, Oct. 18, with Salt Lake City’s Plan-B Theatre Company.

Greene describes the play as “the most autobiographical thing I’ve ever written; it’s very much based in my experiences being a gay Mormon,” though the event it depicts is fictional.

The play follows a man named Curtis as he is called before a “court of love” with local church leaders, where he faces excommunication for the sin of marrying the man he loves.

“Usually I write about things that trouble me, or piss me off, or confuse me, as a way of working through all of that,” Greene said.

In this case, the impetus was the church’s policy statement in November 2015 that declared same-sex marriage an offense worthy of possible excommunication and that children of gay couples could not be baptized until they turn 18.

In the play, one actor — in this production, Austin Archer — portrays not only Curtis but also 15 other characters: the three members of the presidency of his stake (lay Latter-day Saint leaders who supervise several congregations) and the 12 members of a high council who will decide his fate.

“It was an effort to understand and get in the heads of church leaders, these mysterious men in suits who are making these decisions that I find really abhorrent and immoral, to foster some kind of empathy and understanding in myself,” Greene said.

In rehearsal recently, Archer worked with Greene to differentiate the voices of the many characters. In production, Archer plays Curtis for the most part standing and talking to the audience. When he grabs one of the several chairs and sits down, he assumes the persona of one of the other characters.

In the play’s first few minutes, Archer shifts into several characters in rapid succession: Brother Stone, Curtis’ Sunday school teacher, who kindly describes his former student’s inquisitiveness; Stake President Skillman, an older man harrumphing about “sins against nature”; Brother Perez, a thoughtful man recounting his own history of getting his girlfriend pregnant as a teen; and so on.

“I’m still in the process of getting specific on who’s who,” Archer said early in rehearsals. Sometimes, when he’s working on one character’s voice, he said, “Matt’s had to catch me on a few people, and go, ‘That guy’s meaner than that.’”

All the characters, Curtis and those judging him, are drawn from people in Greene’s life, he said. It’s something they have in common with the characters in Greene’s last play at Plan-B, the 2013 drama “Adam and Steve and the Empty Sea.”

That play told of two longtime friends who grow apart when one acknowledges he’s gay, which goes against the other’s strong faith as a Latter-day Saint. The story played out against the backdrop of the 2008 political battle over California’s Proposition 8, a ballot measure against same-sex marriage that was supported heavily by the church.

“It really was sort of an outward manifestation of the inner turmoil I was having,” Greene said. “Both of those characters were based on me and the internal debate that was happening in my head. I got it out of my head and onto the page.”

Greene wrote “Adam and Steve” while he was still in the closet. “People sort of made this assumption that the Mormon character was based on me and the gay character was based on some friend of mine,” he said. “Really, they were both me. That was the thing I wouldn’t even really admit to myself at the time, and certainly not to anybody else.”

“Good Standing” reflects an evolution for Greene, and the fact that he came out three years ago. “I really couldn’t have written this play if I was a closeted, card-carrying church member,” Greene said.

Growing up in Northern California, Greene was raised in the church, and his family is still active. “I always call myself a former Mormon,” Greene said, though he’s never taken his name off church membership rolls or been taken off involuntarily. “You’re never completely out of the church. It’s so baked into my DNA. It’s so much a part of who I am.”

Being a church member has had its good effects, Greene said. “I’m grateful that I am a believer; I am a person who wants to believe in things,” he said, adding that the church also provided “my commitment to the idea of family, even though my conception of what a family is has evolved.” (Greene, 32, lives in New York with a 21-year-old foster son, Mohammed.)

Archer, 30, grew up in the church in Salt Lake City but said he has been inactive for a dozen years. He is straight.

“I recognized a lot of the characters,” Archer said. “It was bringing up all this stuff I hadn’t thought about in years.”

Archer was one of two actors who looked at the script as Greene was developing it with Plan-B artistic director Jerry Rapier, who’s directing the production. “It sort of needs a person from this community to understand it,” Archer said.

Greene hopes the community, whether members of the church or not, will see the play as an attempt to work through divisions.

“This play was a way for me to move through a lot of negativity. This play was a way to work through a lot of anger, a lot of hostility, a lot of resentment,” he said. “I would just be so happy if this play helped anyone on their path toward healing.”

———

‘Good Standing’

Plan-B Theatre’s production of the one-man play “Good Standing,” written by Matthew Greene and performed by Austin Archer.

• Where • Studio Theatre, Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center, 138 W. 300 South, Salt Lake City
• When • Oct. 18-28
• Performance schedule • Thursdays and Fridays at 8 p.m.; Saturdays at 4 and 8 p.m.; Sundays at 2 p.m.
• Tickets • $22, <a href="http://planbtheatre.org/goodstanding" target=_blank>planbtheatre.org/goodstanding</a>

Provo • Freshman quarterback Zach Wilson rightfully received the bulk of the attention and praise after leading BYU to a 49-23 win over Hawaii late Saturday night at LaVell Edwards Stadium.

But he got a lot of help, including some much-needed support from the senior he replaced in the starting lineup, Tanner Mangum, who also happens to be his roommate.

“Luckily, I had a lot of help from my teammates. Everyone knows a quarterback can’t be successful without a good line or good receivers, or shoot, even a good scheme,” Wilson, 19, said after becoming the youngest quarterback to start a game for BYU. “Everything was in place tonight.”

Wilson connected on 16 of 24 passes for 194 yards and three touchdowns, with just one interception. As he came off the field after each possession or touchdown drive, Mangum was usually the first teammate to meet him and congratulate him.

“We have nothing but love for each other,” Wilson said. “We help each other out with anything we can. It is always tough to be in that situation. … We kind of separate life from football. We realize there is no reason to be mad or hate or whatever. … We have a good friendship and we help each other out.”

BYU’s Zach Wilson talks about his first start and Dylan Collie talks about playing against his former team pic.twitter.com/9DkF75ZeI2

— Jay Drew (@drewjay) October 14, 2018

Wilson’s biggest contribution wasn’t as tangible as his quarterback rating of 167.5, the highest ever for a BYU true freshman making his first start. Mangum posted a 162.7 in his first start, against Boise State in 2015.

Somehow, the Cougars played better with Wilson at the helm, for reasons they weren’t quite able to put a finger on.

“I just think the whole offense played a lot better,” coach Kalani Sitake said. “We were more sound up front, and we knocked them back on the line of scrimmage on both sides. We weren’t playing physical enough as a team, and that was the goal, to be a more physical team. … There are a lot of reasons why we performed better, and the main one was we tried to get back to what our identity was. We had an identity and we got away from it. We needed to stay with what we are, and that’s a physical football team.”

Indeed, the Cougars ran the ball 47 times for 280 yards, with Matt Hadley gaining 91, Lopini Katoa picking up 83 and Riley Burt 59 in the place of starter Squally Canada, who was out with a concussion.

Three takeaways

• Hawaii was not as good as advertised. The Rainbow Warriors came in with a glossy 6-1 record, but that came against one of the worst schedules in the country. Hawaii was especially lacking at the line of scrimmage, and BYU was able to dominate on both sides of the ball after getting pushed around the previous weeks against Washington and Utah State.

• Coaches picked a perfect time to give Wilson his first start. Sitake said the freshman earned the starting spot with his play in practices and his preparation, and made sure to point out that Mangum didn’t lose it. Whatever the case, Wilson flourished against a soft defense. He will be a real hero if he can move the ball against the likes of Boise State and Utah down the road.

“We felt like the competition [in practice] showed, especially in the last couple of weeks, that Zach was doing good enough for us to give him the starting spot because he deserved it,” Sitake said.

BYU coach Kalani Sitake on why he switched quarterbacks pic.twitter.com/uXLMcOJb7y

— Jay Drew (@drewjay) October 14, 2018

Asked who is Wilson’s backup now, Sitake said, “It is still a competition. Jaren Hall is right there, too. We will see when the depth chart comes out.”

• BYU’s offense will only get better, if key players stay healthy. The Cougars started six freshmen on the offensive side of the ball, and during one series eight of the 11 offensive players were freshmen. Their play was punctuated when Wilson threw a 26-yard touchdown pass to fellow freshman Gunner Romney.

Player of the game

• BYU defensive end Corbin Kaufusi. Wilson got most of the post-game accolades, but Kaufusi played three or four different positions, including middle linebacker during one stretch, and played all of them well. Kaufusi led the team with eight tackles, including two sacks.

Play of the game

• BYU safety Dayan Ghanwoloku’s fumble recovery. Having returned to the lineup for the first time since the Wisconsin game, the junior pounced on a fumbled punt after BYU’s second-straight three-and-out in the second half. Hawaii had trimmed the big BYU lead to 28-10 and had all the momentum until Ghanwoloku’s third recovery of the season.

Looking ahead

The Cougars and their Oct. 27 opponent, Northern Illinois, have byes this week. The Huskies improved to 4-3 on Saturday with a 24-21 win over Ohio. Northern Illinois has a stout defense but has struggled as much as BYU to put points on the board.

Just as the Utah Jazz were getting used to having Thabo Sefolosha back in the rotation again, they’ll be forced to play without him.

That’s because in April, while he was recovering from knee surgery, Sefolosha was suspended five games for violating the NBA’s anti-drug program. A five-game suspension is the penalty in the league’s collective bargaining agreement for the third positive test for marijuana. But because Sefolosha was hurt, he couldn’t serve the suspension until he was physically able to play, and preseason games don’t count.

So Sefolosha will miss the team’s first five regular-season games, returning Sunday, Oct. 28 against the Dallas Mavericks. He was apologetic in the statement he released in April:

pic.twitter.com/s8Fs4h9mgk

— Thabo Sefolosha (@ThaboSefolosha) April 3, 2018

But with Sefolosha out, the Jazz will need to find a replacement for the minutes he’ll play. And it’s interesting to note which players coach Quin Snyder named: "Right now, Georges [Niang] has done a good job, along with Jae [Crowder] and [Derrick] Favors. So expect those to be the guys that play.”

In other words, Snyder sees Sefolosha as a four this year, after starting his career as a shooting guard. It’s reminiscent of former Jazzman Joe Johnson’s career progression down the positional spectrum.

The man Snyder named first, Niang, now looks like he’ll get at least a chance to play in the rotation during Sefolosha’s suspension. Niang, 25, has had a stellar preseason, averaging 8.4 points on 64 percent overall shooting (50 percent from 3-point range) in only 12.7 minutes per contest.

The 6-foot-8 Niang isn’t the Jazz’s quickest or most athletic player, but his high skill level allows him to be a solid fit in most lineups. Niang knows that he isn’t going to be the featured scorer when he does play but knows what he needs to do to fill his role.

“[It’s about] being able to stay down on stretch 4s, being able to guard,” Niang said. On offense, it’s “being able to stretch the floor with my shooting ability, and then when guys close out, be able to play make for others without turning the ball over.”

He’s also a trendsetter of sorts for the Jazz: the first two-way contract player to sign a full contract with the team for the following season. Because of that, the organization feels more comfortable in his ability to step in and play the Jazz’s offense than they might be a typical signing, who only has a couple of weeks of training camp under his belt. Niang, on the other hand, knows the offense well from the point of view of multiple positions.

Niang’s impact on the SLC Stars last season was “humongous," according to Stars head coach Martin Schiller. The Stars had an 11-4 record when Niang played with the team, and a 5-30 record without him.

“He’s a good mix between the honey bee and the worker bee,” Schiller said. "He’s got a lot of creativity and feel, but he also works a lot.”

Final cuts

Over the weekend, the Jazz waived four players, Stephaun Branch, Isaiah Cousins, Jairus Lyles and Isaac Haas. That allowed them to reach the NBA-mandated roster limit of 17: 15 NBA spots and two two-way players. All four players figure to be headed for the Salt Lake City Stars roster through the league’s “affiliate players” stipulation.

Were the Salt Lake City Stars a success last year?

On the down side, there’s this: They tied for the worst record in the NBA G-League again, at 16-34.

On the up side, though, there’s this: They discovered and cultivated Georges Niang. Niang earned himself a guaranteed contract for the Jazz this season thanks to his sensational play with the Stars.

Niang’s impact by the numbers is staggering: In the 15 games he played with the Stars last year, they had an 11-4 record. In the 35 games he didn’t (before he signed or when he was called up), they went 5-30.

Niang won’t play for the Stars this year, obviously, putting a damper on expectations for next season in the G-League. But despite losing him, this might just be the most talented Stars roster ever.

Two-way player Tyler Cavanaugh leads the team in NBA experience, having played 39 games for the Atlanta Hawks last year, even starting one. He’ll take over Niang’s spot in the Stars’ starting lineup and adds many of the same skills: shooting and an understanding of when to make the right pass.

The other two-way player, Naz Mitrou-Long, leads the guard unit. Mitrou-Long also has developed significantly in the Stars’ system, going from a standard G-League contract to a more lucrative role for the team this year. But adding Isaiah Cousins, Jairus Lyles and Trey Lewis figures to make the Stars’ guard rotation much improved over last year.

“We have a lot of talented guards, between Isaiah, Naz, Jairus, Trey, guys who can do different things, and that’s very important in the G-League,” Cavanaugh said. “It’s kind of a guard-driven league.”

Tony Bradley will play again with the Stars for stretches of this season, and when he doesn’t, 7-foot-2 Purdue center Isaac Haas will fill that role.

The biggest question: Who will play small forward? The Stars do have the No. 1 pick in the G-League draft on Oct. 20 to figure that out, though in an era where most of the G-League’s best players are training camp releases, that means less than it used to. Bart Taylor, Stars VP of basketball operations, will also scour the international free agent market between now and the first game on Nov. 2.

Second-year coach Martin Schiller returns with more understanding, he says, about what is possible to implement in a shortened, frantic season with players constantly moving in and out of your roster.

And while Schiller is proud of what he accomplished with Niang, Mitrou-Long, and others last season, he knows that while player development is goal No. 1, winning is important, too.

“I understand there are different goals in the G-League, and winning is not the only part, but it’s a big part,” Schiller says. “If we say we’re doing a decent job of doing things, or a good job, then we should be winning too.”

While the Utah Utes rested Saturday, the rest of their schedule became more demanding.

That's especially true in the case of their next opponent. USC statistically dominated Colorado in a 31-20 victory, leading into the Trojans' visit to Rice-Eccles Stadium for Utah's homecoming game Saturday.

Of the remaining teams on Utah’s schedule, only Colorado lost this past weekend. USC, UCLA, Oregon and BYU won, and Arizona State was idle.

The Utes (4-2, 2-2 Pac-12) enjoyed an extra day’s break after Friday’s 42-10 win over Arizona, bringing them to the halfway point of their season. The second half starts with a potential championship game in the Pac-12 South. That phrase also may apply to Utah’s contest at Colorado in November, or so the Utes hope.

USC is 3-1 in conference play. A victory Saturday would give the Trojans a two-game lead over Utah. If the Utes win, they’ll be tied with USC and own the tiebreaker.

Updated after Saturday’s results, ESPN’s Football Power Index slightly downgraded Utah’s season forecast from 8.6 wins to 8.5 wins.

The Utes have reoriented themselves to the running game offensively and pride themselves on stopping the run. Yet the outcome vs. USC could be determined through the air. USC freshman JT Daniels overcame a slow start against Colorado by passing for 272 yards and three touchdowns. He’ll face a Ute secondary that has allowed significant yardage in the past three games and hurt itself with penalties.

USC’s defense held previously unbeaten Colorado to 265 total yards. Utah quarterback Tyler Huntley, meanwhile, has produced “back-to-back outstanding performances,” coach Kyle Whittingham said. In wins over Stanford and Arizona, Huntley went 31 of 40 for 400 yards and three touchdowns, with one interception.

“He's just a fierce competitor,” Whittingham said. “He's a true student of the game; he's always in the film room, preparing.”

Huntley is 10-6 in two seasons as a starting quarterback, including 4-6 in Pac-12 play. He gets credit for a 2017 win at Arizona, although he was injured early in that game. Huntley then missed losses to Stanford and USC last October.

His signature win is a recent 40-21 victory at then-No. 14 Stanford, clinched by his 57-yard touchdown pass to Samson Nacua after he escaped the rush. Beating the Trojans would top that achievement, just because of the game's value in the South race.

Zack Moss' rushing success with a total of 228 yards on 35 carries in the past two games has opened up Utah’s passing game, and Huntley and his receivers have done their best work of the season. More of that efficiency will be needed against USC.

"We took another big step forward."#goutes #AZvsUTAH pic.twitter.com/3C4Kj7qicJ

— Utah Athletics (@utahathletics) October 13, 2018

Dubai, United Arab Emirates • Saudi Arabia on Sunday threatened to retaliate for any sanctions imposed against it after President Donald Trump said the oil-rich kingdom deserves “severe punishment” if it is responsible for the disappearance and suspected murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.

The warning from the world's top oil exporter came after a turbulent day on the Saudi stock exchange, which plunged as much as 7 percent at one point.

The statement was issued as international concern grew over the writer who vanished on a visit to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul over a week ago. American lawmakers threatened tough punitive action against the Saudis, and Germany, France and Britain jointly called for a "credible investigation" into Khashoggi's disappearance.

Turkish officials have said they fear a Saudi hit team killed and dismembered Khashoggi, who wrote critically of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The kingdom has called such allegations "baseless" but has not offered any evidence Khashoggi ever left the consulate.

Already, international business leaders are pulling out of the kingdom's upcoming investment forum, a high-profile event known as "Davos in the Desert," and the sell-off on Riyadh's Tadawul stock exchange showed that investors are uneasy.

The exchange dropped by more than 500 points, then clawed back some of the losses, ending the day down 264 points, or more than 4 percent. Of 188 stocks traded on the exchange, 179 ended the day with a loss.

"Something this big would definitely spook investors, and Saudi just opened up for foreign direct investment, so that was big," said Issam Kassabieh, a financial analyst at Dubai-based firm Menacorp Finance. "Investors do not feel solid in Saudi yet, so it's easy for them to take back their funds."

In an interview scheduled to air Sunday, Trump told CBS' "60 Minutes" that Saudi Arabia would face strong consequences if involved in Khashoggi's disappearance.

"There's something really terrible and disgusting about that, if that was the case, so we're going to have to see," Trump said. "We're going to get to the bottom of it, and there will be severe punishment."

But the president has also said "we would be punishing ourselves" by canceling arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The sales are a "tremendous order for our companies," and if the Saudis don't buy their weaponry from the U.S., they will get it from others, he said.

In a statement published by the state-run Saudi Press Agency, the kingdom warned that if it "receives any action, it will respond with greater action, and that the kingdom's economy has an influential and vital role in the global economy."

"The kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it, whether by threatening to impose economic sanctions, using political pressures or repeating false accusations," the statement said.

The statement did not elaborate. However, a column published in English a short time later by the general manager of the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya satellite news network suggested Saudi Arabia could use its oil production as a weapon. Benchmark Brent crude is trading at around $80 a barrel, and Trump has criticized OPEC and Saudi Arabia over rising prices.

"If the price of oil reaching $80 angered President Trump, no one should rule out the price jumping to $100, or $200, or even double that figure," Turki Aldakhil wrote.

It's unclear, however, whether Saudi Arabia would be willing to unilaterally cut production.

Aldakhil added that Saudi arms purchases from the U.S. and other trade could be at risk as well. "The truth is that if Washington imposes sanctions on Riyadh, it will stab its own economy to death, even though it thinks that it is stabbing only Riyadh!" he wrote.

Prince Mohammed has aggressively pitched the kingdom as a destination for foreign investment. But Khashoggi's disappearance has led several business leaders and media outlets to back out of the upcoming investment conference in Riyadh called the Future Investment Initiative. That includes the CEO of Uber, a company in which Saudi Arabia has invested billions of dollars, as well as billionaire Richard Branson.

Khashoggi has written extensively for the Post about Saudi Arabia, criticizing its war in Yemen, its recent diplomatic spat with Canada and its arrest of women’s rights activists after the lifting of a ban on women driving. Those policies are all seen as initiatives of the crown prince.