Editor's note:Every Sunday, the Deseret News sports staff takes a look back into ourarchives_._
BYU announced it would drop two of the athletic department's most successful programs in wrestling and men's gymnastics after the 1999-2000 season.
Although BYU was in compliance with Title IX, those sports were often dropped by other schools, making scheduling difficult.
Air Force and Wyoming were the only other schools in the Mountain West Conference to have wrestling and Air Force was the only other to have men's gymnastics.
Financial considerations also played a role, as the school looked for ways to cut costs.
Editor's note:Every Sunday, the Deseret News sports staff takes a look back into ourarchives_._
BYU announced it would drop two of the athletic department's most successful programs in wrestling and men's gymnastics after the 1999-2000 season.
Although BYU was in compliance with Title IX, those sports were often dropped by other schools, making scheduling difficult.
Air Force and Wyoming were the only other schools in the Mountain West Conference to have wrestling and Air Force was the only other to have men's gymnastics.
Financial considerations also played a role, as the school looked for ways to cut costs.
WASHINGTON — I am writing this column from Toronto Pearson International Airport, on a layover en route to London. Behind me is the political storm over the long-awaited report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who appears to have found no evidence that Donald Trump's presidential campaign entered a secret election-rigging compact with Russia. Ahead of me is another sort of storm: British Prime Minister Theresa May's frantic scramble to get Parliament to approve some kind of Brexit deal.
Yet from the vantage of an in-between place, sheltered from the gale-force political winds, these two storms have a certain similarity: the impression of a cosmopolitan class eager to overturn the results of a populist vote, but unable to find an airtight excuse for doing so.
For going on two years, Trump's opponents have been waiting on, counting on, praying on the Mueller report. In many minds, the possibility that Trump had secretly collaborated with Russia shaded over into the probability that he had done so. And that probability, in turn, metamorphosed into treating collusion as practically an established fact.
Those who acted as though Trump were already under indictment now look foolish and somewhat desperate, which is hardly the image you want to project when you're trying to convince the public that you're the sane and sensible alternative to Trump. In looking for the most expeditious way to rectify what they viewed as a catastrophic voter error, the #resistance has made things worse.
There's a lesson in that for their counterparts across the Atlantic, who currently, momentarily, seem to be ascendant. The prime minister has lost control of the House of Commons, which on Monday passed an amendment giving Parliament — rather than May and her cabinet — the power to explore alternatives to the deal she negotiated with the European Union. The move was not only a challenge to May's leadership, but also a striking departure from the normal course of things, in which the government sets policy and the parliament follows.
There's no telling where all this will end up. But some Parliament-watchers say there's probably a cross-party majority for a less radical Brexit alternative known as Norway Plus, which would allow free movement of goods, services, capital and people across borders, but that would limit the push of "ever closer union" into other areas, such as the justice system.
The benefit of Norway Plus is that it would minimize disruption, a feat it achieves by not actually changing much. Britain would still have to contribute most of what it does now to the E.U. budget; it would still have to allow immigration from other E.U. countries; and it would still be subject to many E.U. rules, while losing its voice in the European Parliament that makes those rules. The only obvious benefit of this plan is that it can be called "Brexit" and voted for by people who don't actually want Brexit to happen.
There's a case for this Brexit-in-Name-Only, of course. The people who voted for Brexit in June 2016 were voting for a set of vague ideas about Britain's regaining control of its borders and budget. They weren't voting for the specific deal May has negotiated.
That deal is probably the best she could wrest from the E.U., which wants to make Britain's departure from the E.U. as unpleasant as possible pour encourager les autres. But it will simultaneously impose heavy costs on Britain's economy, at least in the short term, while leaving open many questions — most notably, what happens to the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic — that Britain must settle before safely charting a separate course.
Legislators with more information than Leave voters had, and more time to study the intricacies of policy, may well be right that this is not what voters really wanted and that the responsible thing to do is either call another referendum or simply pretend to leave without really doing so. Just as the American #resistance makes a decent case that Trump's presidency has been disastrous for the country — and for his own causes.
But that assumes voters were mostly voting for Leave, or for Trump, rather than against a political establishment that has for decades responded to voter discontent by saying, "Nanny knows best." If the latter is the case, repeating the phrase louder and more firmly won't make voters any happier. Especially if driving the message home involves contravening the very civic norms and political order that the establishments in Britain and in the United States claim to be trying to preserve.
WASHINGTON — I am writing this column from Toronto Pearson International Airport, on a layover en route to London. Behind me is the political storm over the long-awaited report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who appears to have found no evidence that Donald Trump's presidential campaign entered a secret election-rigging compact with Russia. Ahead of me is another sort of storm: British Prime Minister Theresa May's frantic scramble to get Parliament to approve some kind of Brexit deal.
Yet from the vantage of an in-between place, sheltered from the gale-force political winds, these two storms have a certain similarity: the impression of a cosmopolitan class eager to overturn the results of a populist vote, but unable to find an airtight excuse for doing so.
For going on two years, Trump's opponents have been waiting on, counting on, praying on the Mueller report. In many minds, the possibility that Trump had secretly collaborated with Russia shaded over into the probability that he had done so. And that probability, in turn, metamorphosed into treating collusion as practically an established fact.
Those who acted as though Trump were already under indictment now look foolish and somewhat desperate, which is hardly the image you want to project when you're trying to convince the public that you're the sane and sensible alternative to Trump. In looking for the most expeditious way to rectify what they viewed as a catastrophic voter error, the #resistance has made things worse.
There's a lesson in that for their counterparts across the Atlantic, who currently, momentarily, seem to be ascendant. The prime minister has lost control of the House of Commons, which on Monday passed an amendment giving Parliament — rather than May and her cabinet — the power to explore alternatives to the deal she negotiated with the European Union. The move was not only a challenge to May's leadership, but also a striking departure from the normal course of things, in which the government sets policy and the parliament follows.
There's no telling where all this will end up. But some Parliament-watchers say there's probably a cross-party majority for a less radical Brexit alternative known as Norway Plus, which would allow free movement of goods, services, capital and people across borders, but that would limit the push of "ever closer union" into other areas, such as the justice system.
The benefit of Norway Plus is that it would minimize disruption, a feat it achieves by not actually changing much. Britain would still have to contribute most of what it does now to the E.U. budget; it would still have to allow immigration from other E.U. countries; and it would still be subject to many E.U. rules, while losing its voice in the European Parliament that makes those rules. The only obvious benefit of this plan is that it can be called "Brexit" and voted for by people who don't actually want Brexit to happen.
There's a case for this Brexit-in-Name-Only, of course. The people who voted for Brexit in June 2016 were voting for a set of vague ideas about Britain's regaining control of its borders and budget. They weren't voting for the specific deal May has negotiated.
That deal is probably the best she could wrest from the E.U., which wants to make Britain's departure from the E.U. as unpleasant as possible pour encourager les autres. But it will simultaneously impose heavy costs on Britain's economy, at least in the short term, while leaving open many questions — most notably, what happens to the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic — that Britain must settle before safely charting a separate course.
Legislators with more information than Leave voters had, and more time to study the intricacies of policy, may well be right that this is not what voters really wanted and that the responsible thing to do is either call another referendum or simply pretend to leave without really doing so. Just as the American #resistance makes a decent case that Trump's presidency has been disastrous for the country — and for his own causes.
But that assumes voters were mostly voting for Leave, or for Trump, rather than against a political establishment that has for decades responded to voter discontent by saying, "Nanny knows best." If the latter is the case, repeating the phrase louder and more firmly won't make voters any happier. Especially if driving the message home involves contravening the very civic norms and political order that the establishments in Britain and in the United States claim to be trying to preserve.
In the days since the Mueller report was concluded and found no collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, the attention has turned to the press and its perceived hyperfocus on the two-year-long investigation.
Questions about whether outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC or CNN, where I work, spent too much time speculating about the findings or wanting a certain outcome have abounded, and not just from Trump himself.
The RNC complained about what it believes is an imbalance of coverage in an email blast, citing lopsided reporting on the investigation versus the renegotiation of NAFTA, "the Trump admin's successful implementation of middle class tax cuts," and the war against ISIS.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has gone so far as to say the press owes the president an apology.
But it's not just Republicans. The press coverage of the Mueller investigation is being questioned by some members of the media as well. Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi wrote, "WMD damaged the media's reputation. Russiagate may have just destroyed it." Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept has been vocally and consistently critical of the media's focus on Russia for years. Michael Tracey catalogued similar grievances in the Daily News.
Self-reflection and an open audit of the way we cover this administration and all other things is always a good idea. It's inarguable that some journalists — too many — did what they weren't supposed to do, and openly rooted for an outcome in the Mueller investigation. That is exceedingly damaging to public trust. It also helps cement Trump's dangerous, false narrative, that the press is the enemy of the people.
Among many, many others, however, there was a healthy probing of what might lay behind what to any reasonable observer were a series of puzzling interactions with Russia, a boatload of lies from the president's campaign and administration about those interactions, and consistent displays of affection toward Putin by Trump, who has very few nice things to say about almost anyone else.
But there's another way to view the relationship between Trump and the media. And maybe the question isn't whether the press has been too adversarial to this administration.
Namely: Why wasn't the press just as adversarial to all the others?
The most glaring example is also the most recent. Despite having a slim record of accomplishments upon ascending to the White House, President Obama earned the quick adoration of many in the media. But, with some exceptions, had the press been as systemically suspicious of Obama as it is of Trump, we might not have needed to rely on whistleblowers to expose illegal drone wars, mass data collection or shoddy defense contracts, not to mention an inadequate response to a drug abuse crisis that's now killing tens of thousands of people.
From the Truman administration to the Kennedy administration, a more adversarial press may have uncovered the full level of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War years earlier.
And as openly disapproving of George W. Bush as many in the media were, even that administration received the benefit of the doubt on far too many occasions for far too long, from the passing of the Patriot Act to the justification for the Iraq War.
No modern president, save perhaps Richard Nixon, who waged an outright war on the press, earned the scorn and suspicion that Trump has since the day he took office.
Let's be crystal clear: Trump deserves scorn and suspicion. He is a liar and a huckster. But so too does every person in a position of immense power, because power is inherently corrupting, and because the decisions presidents make impact so many people's lives.
So, yes, let's learn some lessons from this episode — not just to be better at covering this president, but all future presidents. In fact, we can start right now, by bringing the same level of suspicion — the Trump treatment, as it were — to each of the Democratic candidates for president.
In the days since the Mueller report was concluded and found no collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, the attention has turned to the press and its perceived hyperfocus on the two-year-long investigation.
Questions about whether outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC or CNN, where I work, spent too much time speculating about the findings or wanting a certain outcome have abounded, and not just from Trump himself.
The RNC complained about what it believes is an imbalance of coverage in an email blast, citing lopsided reporting on the investigation versus the renegotiation of NAFTA, "the Trump admin's successful implementation of middle class tax cuts," and the war against ISIS.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has gone so far as to say the press owes the president an apology.
But it's not just Republicans. The press coverage of the Mueller investigation is being questioned by some members of the media as well. Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi wrote, "WMD damaged the media's reputation. Russiagate may have just destroyed it." Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept has been vocally and consistently critical of the media's focus on Russia for years. Michael Tracey catalogued similar grievances in the Daily News.
Self-reflection and an open audit of the way we cover this administration and all other things is always a good idea. It's inarguable that some journalists — too many — did what they weren't supposed to do, and openly rooted for an outcome in the Mueller investigation. That is exceedingly damaging to public trust. It also helps cement Trump's dangerous, false narrative, that the press is the enemy of the people.
Among many, many others, however, there was a healthy probing of what might lay behind what to any reasonable observer were a series of puzzling interactions with Russia, a boatload of lies from the president's campaign and administration about those interactions, and consistent displays of affection toward Putin by Trump, who has very few nice things to say about almost anyone else.
But there's another way to view the relationship between Trump and the media. And maybe the question isn't whether the press has been too adversarial to this administration.
Namely: Why wasn't the press just as adversarial to all the others?
The most glaring example is also the most recent. Despite having a slim record of accomplishments upon ascending to the White House, President Obama earned the quick adoration of many in the media. But, with some exceptions, had the press been as systemically suspicious of Obama as it is of Trump, we might not have needed to rely on whistleblowers to expose illegal drone wars, mass data collection or shoddy defense contracts, not to mention an inadequate response to a drug abuse crisis that's now killing tens of thousands of people.
From the Truman administration to the Kennedy administration, a more adversarial press may have uncovered the full level of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War years earlier.
And as openly disapproving of George W. Bush as many in the media were, even that administration received the benefit of the doubt on far too many occasions for far too long, from the passing of the Patriot Act to the justification for the Iraq War.
No modern president, save perhaps Richard Nixon, who waged an outright war on the press, earned the scorn and suspicion that Trump has since the day he took office.
Let's be crystal clear: Trump deserves scorn and suspicion. He is a liar and a huckster. But so too does every person in a position of immense power, because power is inherently corrupting, and because the decisions presidents make impact so many people's lives.
So, yes, let's learn some lessons from this episode — not just to be better at covering this president, but all future presidents. In fact, we can start right now, by bringing the same level of suspicion — the Trump treatment, as it were — to each of the Democratic candidates for president.
During the June 1788 convention at which Virginia ratified the U.S. Constitution, Patrick Henry, a critic of the proposed government, accused James Madison, its foremost defender, of failing to protect against corrupt or lawless politicians. "Is there no virtue among us?" Madison replied. "If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks — no form of government can render us secure."
That exchange is worth recalling as the House of Representatives failed to muster the two-thirds majority required of both legislative chambers to override the presidential veto of a congressional resolution to nullify the national emergency to build a border wall. It seems likely that the Senate, for its part, will not even do its constitutional duty and try. Republicans, especially Republican senators, are being justifiably excoriated for failing to defend congressional authority.
But blaming them alone misdiagnoses the constitutional problem. Congress' impotence indicates an appalling failure of constitutional awareness and education in the United States. The Republican base — like the Democratic base during President Barack Obama's tenure — is demanding, and getting, a constitution of expediency rather than of law.
As many observers have noted, the Republican senators who criticized the emergency declaration and then voted to uphold it — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina foremost among them — all face reelection in 2020. Trump is popular in their states, and their constituents are evidently more concerned with building a border wall than with the constitutional niceties according to which it is funded. These senators' failure to "refine and enlarge the public views," in Madison's phrase, is a dereliction of their duty under Article I of the Constitution. But the root problem is the constitutional views that elected officials are supposed to refine.
One Republican senator who voted against the emergency declaration, Roy Blunt of Missouri, was disinvited from a political event in his state by a local party official who demanded of him, "Why could you not support my president in the emergency declaration?" So long as the public does not care whether Congress protects its institutional turf — or, worse, is hostile to it doing so — the constitutional architecture cannot stand.
Madison understood this. One of the most consistent themes of his writings is that the public always governs eventually in the United States. "In republican Government the majority however composed, ultimately give the law," he wrote before the constitutional convention. Alexander Hamilton, too, explained that liberty in the United States "must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government."
The constitutional imperative is to slow down policymaking so that passion can dissipate and reason can take hold. That requires civic virtues that constitutional education must teach. They involve not merely knowledge but ultimately temperament. The foremost is patience: Constitutional mechanisms work slowly by design. Another essential virtue is public-spiritedness: In a sprawling republic, those with strong views must recognize that they share the political community with fellow citizens whose competing views are equally intense. Both patience and public spirit entail caring not just what happens, but also how it happens.
If, by contrast, civic education focuses solely on outcomes at the expense of process, it will produce a politically entitled people immune to these virtues or to any civic quality other than demanding what you want when you want it. Yet this is substantially how civic education — which occurs in schools but also in the public square, when the news media reports on issues and when public figures discuss them — treats the constitutional order.
In schools, civic education tends to accord outsize importance to the Bill of Rights at the expense of the more complex topics of separation of powers, federalism and other pillars of the constitutional edifice. Hamilton had opposed a Bill of Rights in part because he thought these mechanisms safeguarded rights better than protections inscribed on paper could. Journalists and politicians equally obsess over winners and losers. The public hears whose ox is being gored, but too rarely the importance of the constitutional process by which the goring occurs.
A Madisonian people, by contrast, will care about constitutional integrity in addition to political outcomes. This is for constitutional reasons but also for selfish ones: The power whose use one celebrates today will be wielded by a leader with whom one disagrees tomorrow, a lesson Democrats who endorsed Obama's unilateral executive orders are now learning. Such citizens will also understand that they occupy the country along with more than 325 million fellow citizens whose views must be accommodated.
Crucially, they will not tolerate members of Congress who surrender legislative authority, even for results to some voters' momentary liking, because they will prioritize enduring constitutionalism over transient policies. They will realize, too, that maintaining legislative authority, which is more immediately responsive to local concerns, serves their own interests as well.
Finally, some group among a Madisonian people will have the foresight to step off the cynical and anti-constitutional carousel according to which President George W. Bush did it so Obama could do it so Trump might as well, too.
None of this excuses members of Congress from their duties, which sometimes include withstanding public opinion. Even the Democratic justification for an override vote sure to fail is, as the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, put it, to create a record so the issue can be resolved by the courts.
To her credit, Pelosi did say that "we are Article I, the first branch of government." But she was less reticent about executive power when Obama acted unilaterally on immigration. In both cases, the House should have defended its constitutional turf. It is no solution — on the contrary, it presents its own constitutional problems — for one party to ask the courts to provide the institutional protection the whole House declined to provide itself.
As for the Senate, one purpose of its members' six-year terms is to enable what Madison called "great firmness" in resisting public whims and defending constitutional principles. So much for that. Every legislator is accountable for how he or she votes on the emergency declaration, but Madison expected those immediately facing re-election to capitulate more easily to public opinion. There are worse political sins. Harsher criticism should be reserved for senators who caved without facing immediate electoral consequences.
But their constituents who demanded this constitutional surrender — especially those who profess fidelity to the Constitution as the bedrock of their politics — deserve the sternest rebuke. It is an axiom of republican politics that everyone incurs criticism sooner or later, except the people. Yet if the people care solely about expediency at the expense of law, we are in a "wretched situation" from which the Constitution will not rescue us.
During the June 1788 convention at which Virginia ratified the U.S. Constitution, Patrick Henry, a critic of the proposed government, accused James Madison, its foremost defender, of failing to protect against corrupt or lawless politicians. "Is there no virtue among us?" Madison replied. "If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks — no form of government can render us secure."
That exchange is worth recalling as the House of Representatives failed to muster the two-thirds majority required of both legislative chambers to override the presidential veto of a congressional resolution to nullify the national emergency to build a border wall. It seems likely that the Senate, for its part, will not even do its constitutional duty and try. Republicans, especially Republican senators, are being justifiably excoriated for failing to defend congressional authority.
But blaming them alone misdiagnoses the constitutional problem. Congress' impotence indicates an appalling failure of constitutional awareness and education in the United States. The Republican base — like the Democratic base during President Barack Obama's tenure — is demanding, and getting, a constitution of expediency rather than of law.
As many observers have noted, the Republican senators who criticized the emergency declaration and then voted to uphold it — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina foremost among them — all face reelection in 2020. Trump is popular in their states, and their constituents are evidently more concerned with building a border wall than with the constitutional niceties according to which it is funded. These senators' failure to "refine and enlarge the public views," in Madison's phrase, is a dereliction of their duty under Article I of the Constitution. But the root problem is the constitutional views that elected officials are supposed to refine.
One Republican senator who voted against the emergency declaration, Roy Blunt of Missouri, was disinvited from a political event in his state by a local party official who demanded of him, "Why could you not support my president in the emergency declaration?" So long as the public does not care whether Congress protects its institutional turf — or, worse, is hostile to it doing so — the constitutional architecture cannot stand.
Madison understood this. One of the most consistent themes of his writings is that the public always governs eventually in the United States. "In republican Government the majority however composed, ultimately give the law," he wrote before the constitutional convention. Alexander Hamilton, too, explained that liberty in the United States "must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government."
The constitutional imperative is to slow down policymaking so that passion can dissipate and reason can take hold. That requires civic virtues that constitutional education must teach. They involve not merely knowledge but ultimately temperament. The foremost is patience: Constitutional mechanisms work slowly by design. Another essential virtue is public-spiritedness: In a sprawling republic, those with strong views must recognize that they share the political community with fellow citizens whose competing views are equally intense. Both patience and public spirit entail caring not just what happens, but also how it happens.
If, by contrast, civic education focuses solely on outcomes at the expense of process, it will produce a politically entitled people immune to these virtues or to any civic quality other than demanding what you want when you want it. Yet this is substantially how civic education — which occurs in schools but also in the public square, when the news media reports on issues and when public figures discuss them — treats the constitutional order.
In schools, civic education tends to accord outsize importance to the Bill of Rights at the expense of the more complex topics of separation of powers, federalism and other pillars of the constitutional edifice. Hamilton had opposed a Bill of Rights in part because he thought these mechanisms safeguarded rights better than protections inscribed on paper could. Journalists and politicians equally obsess over winners and losers. The public hears whose ox is being gored, but too rarely the importance of the constitutional process by which the goring occurs.
A Madisonian people, by contrast, will care about constitutional integrity in addition to political outcomes. This is for constitutional reasons but also for selfish ones: The power whose use one celebrates today will be wielded by a leader with whom one disagrees tomorrow, a lesson Democrats who endorsed Obama's unilateral executive orders are now learning. Such citizens will also understand that they occupy the country along with more than 325 million fellow citizens whose views must be accommodated.
Crucially, they will not tolerate members of Congress who surrender legislative authority, even for results to some voters' momentary liking, because they will prioritize enduring constitutionalism over transient policies. They will realize, too, that maintaining legislative authority, which is more immediately responsive to local concerns, serves their own interests as well.
Finally, some group among a Madisonian people will have the foresight to step off the cynical and anti-constitutional carousel according to which President George W. Bush did it so Obama could do it so Trump might as well, too.
None of this excuses members of Congress from their duties, which sometimes include withstanding public opinion. Even the Democratic justification for an override vote sure to fail is, as the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, put it, to create a record so the issue can be resolved by the courts.
To her credit, Pelosi did say that "we are Article I, the first branch of government." But she was less reticent about executive power when Obama acted unilaterally on immigration. In both cases, the House should have defended its constitutional turf. It is no solution — on the contrary, it presents its own constitutional problems — for one party to ask the courts to provide the institutional protection the whole House declined to provide itself.
As for the Senate, one purpose of its members' six-year terms is to enable what Madison called "great firmness" in resisting public whims and defending constitutional principles. So much for that. Every legislator is accountable for how he or she votes on the emergency declaration, but Madison expected those immediately facing re-election to capitulate more easily to public opinion. There are worse political sins. Harsher criticism should be reserved for senators who caved without facing immediate electoral consequences.
But their constituents who demanded this constitutional surrender — especially those who profess fidelity to the Constitution as the bedrock of their politics — deserve the sternest rebuke. It is an axiom of republican politics that everyone incurs criticism sooner or later, except the people. Yet if the people care solely about expediency at the expense of law, we are in a "wretched situation" from which the Constitution will not rescue us.
SALT LAKE CITY — When a spine specialist advised a teenaged Beckanne Sisk to give up dancing nearly a decade ago, she decided to listen to her heart instead of her head. Now, as the Ballet West principal dancer prepares for her leading role in the Utah premiere of "Onegin," she opened up about her battle with severe, career-threatening scoliosis and the inspiration she's found in her character, Tatiana, a powerful woman who beats the odds despite being dealt a bad hand.
Dancing through the pain
"When I first learned about my diagnosis at 13, it really scared me," said Sisk, whose gift for dance, even at that young age, was already turning heads in her Longview, Texas, hometown. But during rapid growth spurts, her spine had become not only twisted, but had also developed two S-shaped curves.
The spinal malformation was diagnosed as scoliosis, a lateral curvature of the spine problematic for regular folks, but potentially detrimental for a dancer — and likely a dream killer for young Sisk.
"It concerned my mom, too," said Sisk, who acknowledged her mother's persistence as tantamount to her success. "She saw how much I loved to dance — I was dancing all over the house all the time."
Her mother, Laurie Beck, tends to resist any credit, according to a laughing Sisk, for fear of being perceived as a "dance mom."
Provided by Beckanne Sisk
Images of X-rays show Ballet West Principal Artist Beckanne Sisk's back.
"She's not a 'dance mom' at all, but she agreed that (dance) was what I was meant to do and so she was going to do everything she could to help me get there," Sisk said.
This included finding Sisk an alternative to wearing a brace "with metal bars from my shoulder to my neck for 24 hours a day until I stopped growing," she said. Instead, with her mom's help, she began a disciplined regimen of weight training and strengthening exercises to build the muscles in her back and keep them from sinking into her spine.
"It has made all the difference," Sisk said. "It has kept me dancing even though there will always be some pain."
Her discipline and undaunted determination paid off.
At 14, Sisk moved to Philadelphia at the invitation of the famous Rock School for Dance Education, a ballet training high school that has launched the career of hundreds of professional ballet dancers.
Yet even as she refined her dancing, she continued to battle scoliosis on a daily basis with the demands her training put on her spine — from stretching, extending and contorting to practically buckling in half.
"For me, the pain got worse and the curvature became more noticeable as I grew. I had teachers trying to push back my shoulders or shift my leotard over because I looked crooked to them," she said. "Plus my left side was just always really tight, and sometimes my left arm would go numb in class."
Sisk recalled learning the "Dying Swan" solo from "Swan Lake" during her training as a teenager in Philadelphia. The choreography required more extension from her back and legs than she was used to.
"I thought, 'I can't do it,'" she said. "Scoliosis wasn't supposed to hurt, but it was hurting me."
Kristin Murphy, Deseret News
Chase O'Connell and Beckanne Sisk rehearse for "Onegin" at Ballet West in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, March 19, 2019.
Instead of calling it quits, however, Sisk doubled her efforts outside the studio and in the gym to combat scoliosis' painful effects. She said she also learned how to make small adaptations in the way she extends her limbs on her right side — which she said is her unfavorable side for extension. She's found that a slightly tweaked angle in an arabesque, for example, has allowed her freedom to explore the sky-high angles she's now famous for.
'Limitless potential'
During a competition the same year she learned the "Swan Lake" solo, Sisk caught the attention of Ballet West's artistic director, Adam Sklute.
"I first saw Beckanne dance when she was 15 years old," he told the Deseret News. At the time, Sklute was a judge for a prestigious youth ballet competition in which Sisk was a finalist. "What I saw was a fearless, beautiful, exciting performer with an amazing turning ability, extension and balance. I saw star quality and limitless potential."
Acting as a judge again the following year, Sklute said, "I decided that even if I didn't make an offer to anyone else, I wanted Beckanne Sisk for my company."
She accepted the contract with Ballet West upon graduation at 18 and swiftly rose to the rank of principal dancer within a handful of years — having already danced dozens of principal roles in the company before enjoying the official title. She was also singled out for her talent on a network reality show, "Breaking Pointe" as the up-and-coming prima ballerina of the company.
It should come as no surprise, then, given her abilities and what Sklute calls her "amazing work ethic and determination," that Sisk was one of just a few women (including Arolyn Williams and Katie Critchlow) chosen for the lead role of Tatiana in Ballet West's upcoming premiere of choreographer John Cranko's 1965 ballet "Onegin," based on Alexander Pushkin's famous Russian novel.
Having worked closely with the dancer for nearly eight years, Sklute said he sees remarkable similarities between Sisk and her character, Tatiana.
"Even as a young trainee, Beckanne embodied that kindness and also that impetuousness that reminds me very much of young Tatiana," he said. "But like the more mature version of her character — the Tatiana we come to know towards the end of 'Onegin' — Beckanne has faced some challenges that I believe have made her into the strong, elegant and wise woman she is today."
Sisk, too, feels a kinship with her character.
"This isn't your typical fairy tale — Tatiana's story is so relatable," said Sisk of the spurned young woman whose love letter is torn up and unfeelingly brushed aside by the young Russian dandy Eugene Onegin. "She is rejected by the man she loves and has to look inward and decide who she wants to be. This is real-life stuff and honestly, I think this is her story, not his."
Kristin Murphy, Deseret News
Beckanne Sisk and Chase O'Connell rehearse for "Onegin" at Ballet West in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, March 19, 2019.
Sisk will dance opposite her fiancé, principal dancer Chase O'Connell, as he takes on the snobbish title character, Eugene Onegin (Rex Tilton and Adrian Fry have also been cast). With the couple planning to tie the knot in the summer of 2020, one might say Sisk, unlike Tatiana, has been lucky in love. But that doesn't mean she doesn't understand heartache.
"I know how it feels to have my dreams cast aside," she said. "Tatiana has to overcome being told 'no' to something she wants so desperately. She has to take ownership and grow up and learn who she is."
Sklute described one especially poignant scene that occurs in the ballet's third act. Tatiana, now a married and successful woman at the top of the social chain, confronts Onegin years after he spurred her — but this time, it is her turn to tear up love letters.
"She still feels passion for her first love and still feels the sting of unrequited love," he said. "But now we see a shift. She is a mature woman who holds the power. Ultimately, she sends him packing."
And although this an unrequited love story, Sisk insists "Onegin" is ultimately redemptive.
"This feels like a ballet about female empowerment," said Sisk. "At first, Tatiana is the one pursuing the man she loves. Then, after he rejects and humiliates her, she comes back in a big way and really has the last word."
If you go …
What: Ballet West presents John Cranko's "Onegin"
When: April 5-13
Where: George S. and Dolores Dore Eccles Theater, 131 S. Main
Most beautiful blonde with amazing natural big tits and bubble butt, all tanned nice and kindly open girl for sex! She is a fucking goddess, blonde hair and blue eyes with such amazing body you could ...
TUNIS, Tunisia — Leaders meeting in Tunisia for the annual Arab League summit on Sunday were united in their condemnation of Trump administration policies seen as unfairly biased toward Israel but divided on a host of other issues, including whether to readmit founding member Syria.
This year's summit comes against a backdrop of ongoing wars in Syria and Yemen, rival authorities in Libya and a lingering boycott of Qatar by four fellow League members. Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir skipped the meeting as they contend with mass protests against their long reigns.
Representatives from the 22-member league — minus Syria — aim to jointly condemn President Donald Trump's recognition of Israeli control over the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 war, and Trump's decision last year to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
At the opening of the summit, King Salman said Saudi Arabia "absolutely rejects any measures undermining Syria's sovereignty over the Golan Heights" and supports the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with east Jerusalem as its capital.
He added that Iran's meddling was to blame for instability in the region.
Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul-Gheit said that interferences regional rivals Iran and Turkey have "worsened some crises and created new problems."
One of the few things that have united the Arab League over the last 50 years is the rejection of Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights as well as east Jerusalem and the West Bank, territories seized in the 1967 war that the Palestinians want for their future state.
The international community, including the United States, largely shared that position until Trump upended decades of U.S. policy by moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem last year and recognizing Israel's 1981 annexation of the strategic Golan plateau earlier this month.
The Arab leaders meeting in Tunisia are expected to issue a statement condemning those moves. Mahmoud Khemiri spokesman of the summit, said there will be a "strong resolution" on Golan. But the leaders are unlikely to take any further action.
That's in part because regional powerhouses Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have cultivated close ties with the Trump administration, viewing it as a key ally against their main rival, Iran. Both face Western pressure over their devastating three-year war with Yemen's Houthi rebels, and Riyadh is still grappling with the fallout from the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents last year.
Lebanon's Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil said Saturday that Arab ministers had voiced support in a preparatory meeting for a declaration that Trump's Golan move violates the U.N. Charter, which prohibits acquiring territories by force.
In Syria, small protests against Trump's Golan move were held in different parts of the country and state media criticized the Arab summit. "The Golan is not awaiting support from the Arabs, and not a statement to condemn what Trump has done," the Thawra newspaper said in an editorial that accused Arab leaders of taking their orders from the U.S. and Israel.
The Arab League is expected to consider readmitting Syria, a founding member that was expelled in the early days of the 2011 uprising against President Bashar Assad. But officials speaking ahead of the meeting said it was unlikely Syria would be welcomed back anytime soon.
The United Arab Emirates reopened its embassy in Damascus last year, and other Arab states have expressed support for restoring relations. But Saudi Arabia and Qatar have actively supported the rebels trying to overthrow Assad, and many other states view his government as an Iranian proxy that should continue to be shunned.
Some countries were represented by their heads of state on Sunday, while others sent lower-level delegations. The UAE sent the lesser-known Fujairah ruler Hamad bin Mohammed al-Sharqi rather than the powerful Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed or Dubai's ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid.
In a rare sign of easing tensions, King Salman and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani sat at the same sprawling table at Sunday's opening session. It was the first time the two leaders have appeared in the same room since Saudi Arabia led the boycott of Qatar nearly two years ago over Doha's ties to Iran and its support for regional Islamist groups.
But Qatar's emir left the summit after the opening session and did not attend the closed-door meeting later in the day, according to Qatar's state-run news agency. It did not give a reason for his early departure.
___
Magdy reported from Cairo. Associated Press writer Sarah El Deeb In Beirut contributed to this report.
We can affirm that most Utahns are sane, commonsense people who are exhausted by the Mueller investigation. They're also tired of the never-ending fight over SB54 and Count My Vote. We contribute to the fatigue by exploring, one more time, the impact of these issues on our state.
Last week, Gov. Gary Herbert vetoed SB123, which gave party delegates control over naming candidates to run in a special election to fill a congressional vacancy. This is a continuation of the fight over SB54 and whether all voters, or just delegates, choose candidates. Will the governor's veto be upheld, or will the Legislature override the governor, putting power in the hands of party delegates?
Pignanelli: "My friends, no matter how rough the road, we can and we will, never surrender to what is right." — Dan Quayle
The idiom "bad penny" describes an unpleasant or unwanted thing which repeatedly appears at inopportune times. The convention/delegate process and the furor surrounding SB54 is a "bad penny" despised by thousands. Herbert understands this and it explains the veto.
Legislators balance between the minority of loud protestors opposed to the election changes and the majority of residents who want the signature option for the primary. Lawmakers left SB54 untouched since passage in 2014, but threw small change (another penny metaphor) this year at the activists with SB123. Deep fatigue suffered by Capitol Hill politicos combined with the Supreme Court decision creates an incentive to sustain the veto.
Veto survival benefits lawmakers and the rest the population by eliminating those annoying pennies.
Webb: Herbert's veto was courageous and correct. It should be upheld. Utah voters overwhelmingly want a say in choosing party nominees, even in special elections. The dual-track nomination system empowers all voters, not just party activists. The process has worked very well and the governor is right to insist the SB54 statutory process be followed in special elections. I predict the governor prevails.
A key factor in the future of the Republican Party will be the election of a new state chair at the party organizing convention in early May. Current chair Rob Anderson declined to seek re-election after long and bitter fights with the right wing of the party. What is the current state of the GOP and potential impact on the 2020 elections?
Pignanelli: The Utah GOP Convention will be of crucial importance to the party, and the state. Should delegates choose a new chairman that continues the battle on SB54, the party will sink into irrelevancy, jeopardizing organizational and fundraising activities. Further, future growth is questioned as Millennial and Generation Z voters are unwilling to embrace a process that is alien to their technological prowess.
However, if delegates select a mainstream leader willing to heal wounds, then Utahns will believe that the majority party is serious about rational public policy on matters that really concern them.
Webb: Utah Republicans should feel lucky they are so dominant in the state. Otherwise, party dysfunction and chaos would hurt GOP candidates. Party activists spend most of their time bickering over arcane party rules and what constitutes a purist Republican, rather than raising money for candidates and organizing at the neighborhood level. Some county Republican parties even snub candidates who don't go through the caucus/convention system. So much for RonaldReagan's "big tent."
GOP candidates know they get very little help from the party, so they do everything themselves. Many prominent Republicans have given up on the party and have formed a totally independent group, the Reagan Roundtable, to raise money and support sensible candidates.
Of the candidates running for GOP chair, Derek Brown, an attorney and former legislator who has worked for senators Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, has the best chance of restoring some semblance of order and respect to the party. But it will be very difficult.
What impact does the results of the Mueller investigation report have on local politics and the 2020 elections?
Pignanelli: Mueller's analysis is Twitter fodder for the president. He will tweet frequently about the report exonerating him, while strident detractors obnoxiously nitpick various details. Thus, it becomes background noise for most voters — unless another investigation reveals something truly noteworthy. Democrats will gain more traction by highlighting the weaknesses on tariffs and healthcare.
Webb: It's very good news for Republicans to have the collusion illusion behind them. If Trump will focus on mainstream issues and the economy, and not digress in weird directions (good luck with that!) Republicans have the potential to have a good 2020 election year.
Trump was, no doubt, a drag on Mia Love in 2018, helping deliver a win to Democrat Ben McAdams in the 4th Congressional District. But if the economy is rolling, Trump stays under control, national Democrats chase leftist policies, Republicans nominate a solid, mainstream candidate, and if they can get the vote out in Utah County (a lot to ask!), then 2020 could be a tough election for McAdams.
TOKYO — North Korea said Sunday it wants an investigation into a raid on its embassy in Spain last month, calling it a "grave terrorist attack" and an act of extortion that violates international law.
The incident occurred ahead of President Donald Trump's second summit with leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi on Feb. 27-28. A mysterious group calling for the overthrow of the North Korean regime has claimed responsibility.
The North's official media quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying that an illegal intrusion into and occupation of a diplomatic mission and an act of extortion are a grave breach of the state sovereignty and a flagrant violation of international law, "and this kind of act should never be tolerated."
He claimed an armed group tortured the staff and suggested they stole communications gear.
The 10 people who allegedly raided the embassy in Madrid belong to a mysterious dissident organization that styles itself as a government-in-exile dedicated to toppling the ruling Kim family dynasty. The leader of the alleged intruders appears to be a Yale-educated human rights activist who was once jailed in China while trying to rescue North Korean defectors living in hiding, according to activists and defectors.
Details have begun trickling out about the raid after a Spanish judge lifted a secrecy order last week and said an investigation of what happened on Feb. 22 uncovered evidence that "a criminal organization" shackled and gagged embassy staff before escaping with computers, hard drives and documents. A U.S. official said the group is named Cheollima Civil Defense, a little-known organization that recently called for international solidarity in the fight against North Korea's government.
Spain has issued at least two international arrest warrants for members of the group.
___
Talmadge has been the AP's Pyongyang bureau chief since 2013. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter: @EricTalmadge
KIEV, Ukraine — Voters in Ukraine are casting ballots in a presidential election Sunday after a campaign that produced a comedian with no political experience as the front-runner and allegations of voter bribery.
Opinion polls have shown Volodymyr Zelenskiy who stars in a TV sitcom about a teacher who becomes president after a video of him denouncing corruption goes viral, leading a field of 39 candidates. The polls also had Zelenskiy outpacing incumbent President Petro Poroshenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the other top candidates, by a broad margin.
"Zelenskiy has shown us on the screen what a real president should be like," voter Tatiana Zinchenko, 30, who cast her ballot for the comedian, said. "He showed what the state leader should aspire for — fight corruption by deeds, not words, help the poor, control the oligarchs."
If no candidate secures an absolute majority of Sunday's vote, a runoff between the two top finishers would be held April 21.
Concern about the election's legitimacy spiked in recent days after the interior minister said his department was "showered" with hundreds of claims that supporters of Poroshenko and Tymoshenko offered money in exchange for votes.
Campaign issues included endemic corruption in Ukraine, the struggling economy and a seemingly intractable conflict with Russia-backed separatists in the east of the country of 42 million people.
Like the popular character he plays, Zelenskiy, 41, made corruption a focus of his candidacy. He proposed a lifetime ban on holding public office for anyone convicted of graft. He also called for direct negotiations with Russia on ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
"A new life, a normal life is starting," Zelenskiy said after casting his ballot in Kiev. "A life without corruption, without bribes."
His lack of political experience helped his popularity with voters amid broad disillusionment with the current generation of politicians.
"There is no trust in old politicians. They were at the helm, and the situation in the country has only got worse — corruption runs amok and the war is continuing," businessman Valery Ostrozhsky, 66, another Zelenskiy voter, said.
Poroshenko, 53, who was a confectionary tycoon when he was elected five years ago, pushed successfully for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to be recognized as self-standing rather than a branch of the Russian church.
However, he saw citizen approval of his governing sink amid Ukraine's economic woes and a sharp plunge in living standards. Poroshenko campaigned on promises to defeat the rebels in the east and to wrest back control of Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014 in a move that Ukraine and almost all the world views as illegal.
Speaking at a polling station Sunday, the president echoed his campaign promises of taking Ukraine into the European Union and NATO. He said holding a fair and free election was "a necessary condition for our movement forward, to Ukraine's return to the European family of nations," and was confident about the balloting despite the bribery allegations.
"I'm sure that the election was well-organized," Poroshenko said. "The expression of the will of the citizens will be protected."
The president's priorities persuaded schoolteacher Andriy Hristenko, 46, to vote for his re-election.
"Poroshenko has done a lot. He created our own church, bravely fought with Moscow and is trying to open the way to the EU and NATO," Hristenko said.
The former prime minister, Tymoshenko, shaped her message around the economic distress of millions of Ukrainians.
"Ukraine has sunk into poverty and corruption during the last five years, but every Ukrainian can put an end to it now," she said after voting.
During the campaign, Tymoshenko denounced price hikes introduced by Poroshenko as "economic genocide" and promised to reduce prices for household gas by 50 percent within a month of taking office.
"I don't need a bright future in 50 years," Olha Suhiy, a 58-year old cook. "I want hot water and heating to cost less tomorrow."
A military embezzlement scheme that allegedly involved top Poroshenko's associates and a factory controlled by the president dogged Poroshenko ahead of the election. Ultra-right activists shadowed him throughout the campaign, demanding the jailing of the president's associates accused of involvement in the scheme.
Zelenskiy and Tymoshenko both used the alleged embezzlement to take hits at Poroshenko, who shot back at his rivals. He described them as puppets of a self-exiled billionaire businessman Igor Kolomoyskyi, which Zelenskiy and Tymoshenko denied.
However, many political observers described the presidential election as a battle between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskyi, who was on Forbes Magazine's list of billionaires with a net worth of $1.3 billion in 2014 before dropping off the following year.
Both the president and Kolomoyskyi relied on an arsenal of media outlets under their control to exchange blows. Just days before the election, the TV channel Kolomoyskyi owns aired a new season of the "Servant of the People" TV series in which Zelenskiy stars as Ukraine's leader.
"Kolomoyskyi has succeeded in creating a wide front against Poroshenko," said Vadim Karasyov, head of the Institute of Global Strategies, an independent Kiev-based think tank. "Ukraine has gone through two revolutions, but ended up with the same thing — the fight between the oligarchs for the power and resources."
___
Mstyslav Chernov in Kiev, Ukraine and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report.
We can affirm that most Utahns are sane, commonsense people who are exhausted by the Mueller investigation. They're also tired of the never-ending fight over SB54 and Count My Vote. We contribute to the fatigue by exploring, one more time, the impact of these issues on our state.
Last week, Gov. Gary Herbert vetoed SB123, which gave party delegates control over naming candidates to run in a special election to fill a congressional vacancy. This is a continuation of the fight over SB54 and whether all voters, or just delegates, choose candidates. Will the governor's veto be upheld, or will the Legislature override the governor, putting power in the hands of party delegates?
Pignanelli: "My friends, no matter how rough the road, we can and we will, never surrender to what is right." — Dan Quayle
The idiom "bad penny" describes an unpleasant or unwanted thing which repeatedly appears at inopportune times. The convention/delegate process and the furor surrounding SB54 is a "bad penny" despised by thousands. Herbert understands this and it explains the veto.
Legislators balance between the minority of loud protestors opposed to the election changes and the majority of residents who want the signature option for the primary. Lawmakers left SB54 untouched since passage in 2014, but threw small change (another penny metaphor) this year at the activists with SB123. Deep fatigue suffered by Capitol Hill politicos combined with the Supreme Court decision creates an incentive to sustain the veto.
Veto survival benefits lawmakers and the rest the population by eliminating those annoying pennies.
Webb: Herbert's veto was courageous and correct. It should be upheld. Utah voters overwhelmingly want a say in choosing party nominees, even in special elections. The dual-track nomination system empowers all voters, not just party activists. The process has worked very well and the governor is right to insist the SB54 statutory process be followed in special elections. I predict the governor prevails.
A key factor in the future of the Republican Party will be the election of a new state chair at the party organizing convention in early May. Current chair Rob Anderson declined to seek re-election after long and bitter fights with the right wing of the party. What is the current state of the GOP and potential impact on the 2020 elections?
Pignanelli: The Utah GOP Convention will be of crucial importance to the party, and the state. Should delegates choose a new chairman that continues the battle on SB54, the party will sink into irrelevancy, jeopardizing organizational and fundraising activities. Further, future growth is questioned as Millennial and Generation Z voters are unwilling to embrace a process that is alien to their technological prowess.
However, if delegates select a mainstream leader willing to heal wounds, then Utahns will believe that the majority party is serious about rational public policy on matters that really concern them.
Webb: Utah Republicans should feel lucky they are so dominant in the state. Otherwise, party dysfunction and chaos would hurt GOP candidates. Party activists spend most of their time bickering over arcane party rules and what constitutes a purist Republican, rather than raising money for candidates and organizing at the neighborhood level. Some county Republican parties even snub candidates who don't go through the caucus/convention system. So much for RonaldReagan's "big tent."
GOP candidates know they get very little help from the party, so they do everything themselves. Many prominent Republicans have given up on the party and have formed a totally independent group, the Reagan Roundtable, to raise money and support sensible candidates.
Of the candidates running for GOP chair, Derek Brown, an attorney and former legislator who has worked for senators Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, has the best chance of restoring some semblance of order and respect to the party. But it will be very difficult.
What impact does the results of the Mueller investigation report have on local politics and the 2020 elections?
Pignanelli: Mueller's analysis is Twitter fodder for the president. He will tweet frequently about the report exonerating him, while strident detractors obnoxiously nitpick various details. Thus, it becomes background noise for most voters — unless another investigation reveals something truly noteworthy. Democrats will gain more traction by highlighting the weaknesses on tariffs and healthcare.
Webb: It's very good news for Republicans to have the collusion illusion behind them. If Trump will focus on mainstream issues and the economy, and not digress in weird directions (good luck with that!) Republicans have the potential to have a good 2020 election year.
Trump was, no doubt, a drag on Mia Love in 2018, helping deliver a win to Democrat Ben McAdams in the 4th Congressional District. But if the economy is rolling, Trump stays under control, national Democrats chase leftist policies, Republicans nominate a solid, mainstream candidate, and if they can get the vote out in Utah County (a lot to ask!), then 2020 could be a tough election for McAdams.
WASHINGTON — After losing in Congress, President Donald Trump is counting on the courts to kill off "Obamacare." But some cases are going against him, and time is not on his side as he tries to score a big win for his re-election campaign.
Two federal judges in Washington, D.C., this past week blocked parts of Trump's health care agenda: work requirements for some low-income people on Medicaid, and new small business health plans that don't have to provide full benefits required by the Affordable Care Act.
But in the biggest case, a federal judge in Texas ruled last December that the ACA is unconstitutional and should be struck down in its entirety. That ruling is now on appeal. At the urging of the White House, the Justice Department said this past week it will support the Texas judge's position and argue that all of "Obamacare" must go.
A problem for Trump is that the litigation could take months to resolve — or longer — and there's no guarantee he'll get the outcomes he wants before the 2020 election.
"Was this a good week for the Trump administration? No," said economist Gail Wilensky, who headed up Medicare under former Republican President George H.W. Bush. "But this is the beginning of a series of judicial challenges."
It's early innings in the court cases, and "the clock is going to run out," said Timothy Jost, a retired law professor who has followed the Obama health law since its inception.
"By the time these cases get through the courts there simply isn't going to be time for the administration to straighten out any messes that get created, much less get a comprehensive plan through Congress," added Jost, who supports the ACA.
In the Texas case, Trump could lose by winning.
If former President Barack Obama's health law is struck down entirely, Congress would face an impossible task: pass a comprehensive health overhaul to replace it that both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Trump can agree to. The failed attempt to repeal "Obamacare" in 2017 proved to be toxic for congressional Republicans in last year's midterm elections and they are in no mood to repeat it.
"The ACA now is nine years old and it would be incredibly disruptive to uproot the whole thing," said Thomas Barker, an attorney with the law firm Foley Hoag, who served as a top lawyer at the federal Health and Human Services department under former Republican President George W. Bush. "It seems to me that you can resolve this issue more narrowly than by striking down the ACA."
Trump seems unfazed by the potential risks.
"Right now, it's losing in court," he asserted Friday, referring to the Texas case against "Obamacare."
The case "probably ends up in the Supreme Court," Trump continued. "But we're doing something that is going to be much less expensive than Obamacare for the people ... and we're going to have (protections for) pre-existing conditions and will have a much lower deductible. So, and I've been saying that, the Republicans are going to end up being the party of health care."
There's no sign that his administration has a comprehensive health care plan, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus among Republicans in Congress.
A common thread in the various health care cases is that they involve lower-court rulings for now, and there's no telling how they may ultimately be decided. Here's a status check on major lawsuits:
— "Obamacare" Repeal
U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, ruled that when Congress repealed the ACA's fines for being uninsured, it knocked the constitutional foundation out from under the entire law. His ruling is being appealed by attorneys general from Democratic-led states to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The challenge to the ACA was filed by officials from Texas and other GOP-led states. It's now fully supported by the Trump administration, which earlier had argued that only the law's protections for people with pre-existing conditions and its limits on how much insurers could charge older, sicker customers were constitutionally tainted. All sides expect the case to go to the Supreme Court, which has twice before upheld the ACA.
— Medicaid Work Requirements
U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg in Washington, D.C., last week blocked Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky and Arkansas approved by the Trump administration. The judge questioned whether the requirements were compatible with Medicaid's central purpose of providing "medical assistance" to low-income people. He found that administration officials failed to account for coverage losses and other potential harm, and sent the Health and Human Services Department back to the drawing board.
The Trump administration says it will continue to approve state requests for work requirements, but has not indicated if it will appeal.
— Small Business Health Plans
U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates last week struck down the administration's health plans for small business and sole proprietors, which allowed less generous benefits than required by the ACA. Bates found that administration regulations creating the plans were "clearly an end-run" around the Obama health law and also ran afoul of other federal laws governing employee benefits.
The administration said it disagrees but hasn't formally announced an appeal.
Also facing challenges in courts around the country are an administration regulation that bars federally funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions and a rule that allows employers with religious and moral objections to opt out of offering free birth control to women workers as a preventive care service.
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday he doesn't believe he ever acted inappropriately toward women but will "listen respectfully" to suggestions he did.
Biden, who is deciding whether to join the 2020 presidential race, released a new statement in response to allegations from a Nevada politician that he kissed her on the back of the head in 2014 and made her uncomfortable.
"In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort. And not once — never — did I believe I acted inappropriately," he said. "If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention."
The allegation was made in a New York Magazine article written by Lucy Flores, a former Nevada state representative and the 2014 Democratic nominee for Nevada lieutenant governor.
Going on the attack against the prospective 2020 contender, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Flores was "quite bold" to "go up against the highest levels of her political party" with the allegations and suggested that Biden should consider apologizing to Flores.
"If anybody just types in 'Creepy Uncle Joe Videos' you come up with a treasure trove," Conway told "Fox News Sunday."
"I think Joe Biden has a big problem here because he calls it affection and handshakes. His party calls it completely inappropriate," she said.
Some of the Democratic presidential candidates have expressed support for Flores, but they haven't said it disqualifies Biden from joining the race.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., a candidate for president, said she had "no reason not to believe" Flores' allegations.
"And I think we know from campaigns and from politics that people raise issues and they have to address them and that's what he will have to do with the voters if he gets into the race," Klobuchar told ABC's "This Week."
Speaking to reporters in Iowa over the weekend, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro said they believed Flores and indicated it's up to Biden to decide whether he should join the race.
In the New York Magazine article published Friday, Flores wrote that she and Biden were waiting to take the stage during a rally in Las Vegas before the 2014 election.
"I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. 'Why is the vice president of the United States touching me?'" Flores wrote. "He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head."
The rally's organizer, Henry R. Munoz III, said in a statement Saturday that he spoke to several key people and staff who attended the rally and that they "do not believe that circumstances support allegations that such an event took place."
Quite a lot if you're a Japanese citizen awaiting the official announcement Monday of what the soon-to-be-installed new emperor's next era will be called.
It's a proclamation that has happened only twice in nearly a century, and the new name will follow Emperor Naruhito, after his May 1 investiture, for the duration of his rule — and beyond, becoming his official name after death.
An era name is an inextricable part of public life and shared memory in Japan. A lot of what happens in the years to come — births, deaths, natural disasters, cultural and social phenomena, election glory and political scandal — will be connected to the era name.
As such, the closing days of the current Heisei era, which is what retiring Emperor Akihito's 30-year reign has been called, have inspired a collective bout of nostalgia, soul-searching and occasional goofiness, as many Japanese reflect on both Heisei and this new, yet-to-be-named block of years that will loom over a huge part of their lives.
Buzz-cut teens have fielded questions at the hallowed spring high school baseball tournament about their feelings as the last group of Heisei sluggers. TV quiz shows have tested contestants' Heisei knowledge. Special dolls have been made to mimic the moment when Chief Cabinet Minister Yoshihide Suga appears before cameras on Monday to reveal a card with the name that will replace Heisei. A high-end Tokyo restaurant has even reportedly unveiled a $900 wagyu burger to commemorate the era change.
All the while, a top-secret committee has been poring over ancient documents to find the perfect — and perfectly uncontroversial — two Chinese characters to describe the next several decades. The process, like the imperial system itself, is opaque, vaguely mysterious and steeped in ritual and bureaucracy.
What they settle on, however, will affect everything from calendars to train tickets to computer software to government documents, creating a windfall for printers and programmers, even as they give a name to Japan's foreseeable future.
"The era names carry this weight with them; they have this sense of defining a period," said Daniel Sneider, a Japan expert and lecturer at Stanford University.
As Heisei ends, "everything is imbued with this extra meaning. It's the last cherry blossom season of the Heisei era. And I'm sure it will be true when the next era begins: It will be the first of everything during this next imperial era," said Sneider, who has been visiting and living in Japan off and on since 1954. "Japanese life is filled with these combinations of tradition and modernity that some people used to find irritating ... but this insistence on sticking to tradition is what distinguishes Japan from other societies."
In much of the West the decades are often used to capture the spirit of a period — the Swinging '60s, the Roaring '20s. Japan's era system is a bit more like a formalized version of the way British monarchs once lent their names to an entire sweep of years — the Victorian Age, for instance.
The era name once showcased an emperor's power, but with the disappearance of real imperial strength after the war, it has lost much of its authority, said Hirohito Suzuki, an associate professor of sociology at Toyo University.
"It's become something people can casually talk about, and even a topic on television quiz shows," he said. Many younger Japanese are more used to the western calendar and so tend to see the era name as cumbersome, though some see the tradition as part of "cool Japan," he said.
The current wave of excitement for the new name and nostalgia for the disappearing era is in large part because these changes of the guard are so rare.
The last one was in 1989, after the death of Hirohito, who took power in 1926. His Showa era was followed by his son Akihito's Heisei era, which will come to an end with an unusual abdication — most emperors rule until death — that ushers in Naruhito on May 1.
Each era carries its own memories and flavor.
The Taisho era — 1912 to 1926 — for instance, was marked by an opening of society called Taisho Democracy that flourished before the rise of fascism in the 1930s.
Japanese often remember the Showa era as a period of extraordinary tumult: The nation moved from limited democracy to militarism and colonial expansion, pursuing a war of aggression that killed millions and left behind a bitterness that is still felt in much of Asia. After the destruction of the war, the nation then emerged from U.S. occupation as a democratic success story and, by the 1980s, a world economic titan.
Heisei, meanwhile, saw a decades-long economic slump, a crumbling of lifetime employment, and an easing of constitutional military constraints. Women and foreigners have joined the workforce in far greater numbers, though often not in decision-making positions, and, as the country rapidly ages and birthrates plunge, more and more young people have fled the farms for crammed cities.
"A lot of things have changed in the last 30 years, things that would have been hard to imagine" at the beginning of the Heisei era, said Jeff Kingston, director of Asian studies at Temple University Japan. It's only natural, he said, that the country tries to put the closing of the era in context.
"In all nations there are certain rituals of identity and belonging and nationalism that are important to people, and the emperor is a symbol of who (the Japanese) are as a people," he said. "Particularly when you're facing troubled times, that becomes even more important."
___
Associated Press writer Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.
The fiercest battle for campaign cash is playing out between the presidential candidates who might not be on your radar.
Ahead of Sunday's fundraising deadline for the first quarter, the underdogs of the Democratic primary were in a mad dash to coax as little as $2 from grassroots donors. It's all part of their bid to clear a new threshold from the Democratic National Committee to earn one of 20 highly coveted spots in presidential debates that begin in June.
"I'll be blunt," former Obama Cabinet member Julian Castro told prospective donors in one social media ad that was running as late as Thursday. "The Democratic Party's new debate rules mean I might not make it onto the debate stage."
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand sent multiple fundraising emails pleading her case, telling recipients in one that they could chip in $5 "to become a founding member" and "help get Kirsten on the debate stage."
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee urges donors in a Facebook ad to "chip in ... at any amount to make sure" his call to combat climate change "is on the stage in June."
John Delaney, a little-known former Maryland congressman, is going a step further. He promised to donate $2 to charity for every new donor who donated on his website as Sunday's fundraising deadline approached.
At issue are the rules that DNC Chairman Tom Perez announced in February for the first two debates in June and July: The debates will take place over two back-to-back midweek evenings with 10 slots each night. Candidates have two paths to the stage: They can either achieve 1 percent support in three reputable national or early nominating state polls or they can collect contributions from at least 65,000 donors, with a minimum of 200 in at least 20 states. The amount raised doesn't matter. It's all about how many voters are contributing.
It's not immediately clear how many candidates are short of the fundraising threshold and how many might be using the rules as a way to expand their fundraising base. That won't be known until mid-April, when campaign finance disclosures are next due with the Federal Elections Commission.
Perez says he's not concerned either way, arguing that he wanted to make the debate qualifications fairer by not relying only on polling. He also wanted to force candidates to "engage with the grassroots," those people who have provided Democrats with energy and votes since President Donald Trump's election in 2016.
"It's important to empower the grassroots," Perez said recently on C-SPAN, explaining that the DNC worked with ActBlue, the online fundraising juggernaut for Democrats, to come up with the threshold.
He characterized the requirements as "not a layup for any candidate but also not a full-court shot."
It actually might be a layup for a few candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign says he has more than 760,000 donors, another eye-popping mark after hauling in more than $10 million in the first week after his official campaign launch. Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke's campaign said he raised more than $6.2 million in his first day, more than surpassing the individual donor requirements. California Sen. Kamala Harris raised more than $4 million in her first day.
But Perez says his point stands, with rules that help candidates by relieving them of polling pressure while still requiring them to show progress among voters.
Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said the rules forced him to tailor his fundraising efforts to the grassroots. He said he already has surpassed the requirements.
"All of us, I think, are going to be responding to the incentives that the DNC creates," Buttigieg said in an interview, "and whether it's intentional or whether it's just a happy side effect, it just amplified the kind of on-the-ground quality that hopefully will be a spirit that stays in this cycle throughout."
Delaney was less enthusiastic as he sought support in Epping, New Hampshire.
"I think it's a weird standard because it's a money standard and I don't think the Democratic Party should qualify candidates based on money," he told The Associated Press.
That's in partial contrast to what Delaney said in December, when he praised Perez for pursuing "a debate structure that is fair and on-the-level" after the chairman first confirmed publicly that grassroots donors might figure into debate qualifications.
Despite any frustration, Delaney is among those benefiting from another side effect of the rules, with some donors spreading their money around to ensure the field doesn't winnow before the debates. That goes for donors big and small.
Major donor Susie Buell is committed to Harris but held a fundraiser for Buttigieg anyway, telling NBC News that "Mayor Pete has a voice that must be heard."
That was the same impetus that spurred Joe Denoncour to give Delaney's campaign $20 before he left a recent campaign event. Looking ahead to the debates, he said, "I think everybody should get on there that wants to do it."
---
Barrow reported from Atlanta. Woodall reported from Manchester, New Hampshire. Burnett reported from Columbia, South Carolina.
SALT LAKE CITY — Apple introduced a new credit card, called Apple Card, to the world during its event last week, and it could change the way that modern cards are built.
Apple announced at its event last week that it has teamed up with Goldman Sachs and MasterCard for the launch of the card, according to The Associated Press.
The card offers 3 percent cash back on products you buy from Apple.
The Apple Card, which is a new physical credit card from Apple, comes with a few perks that traditional credit cards don't have. For example, the card doesn't have late fees or over-the-limit fees, which traditional credit cards are known to have.
Security: But the card lacks one other thing that might change the way all credit cards operate — a credit card number.
Craig Vosburg, president of North America for MasterCard, told Bloomberg Television recently that Apple Card's lack of credit card numbers could lead other banks to do the same. Credit card numbers, after all, wind up in the hands of thieves on multiple occasions.
"We want security to be at the highest level possible across the ecosystem, and we want to do that in ways that don't introduce friction and make payments inconvenient for consumers," he said.
Similar: As BGR notes, the lack of credit card numbers could influence all credit cards in the same way that getting rid of signatures led to the increase in chips and chip readers.
"Getting rid of card numbers follows in the same vein as payment networks slowly moving away from the signature requirement, which they started to do when things like the implementation of chips in credit cards made signatures less necessary to ask for. And it's not just Apple. U.S. banks like Capital One are also already starting to experiment with limited-use card numbers, assigned to retailers as needed."
Bigger picture: Apple's move into the credit card space didn't impress all experts, The Associated Press reported.
"I'm underwhelmed," said Ted Rossman, industry analyst at Creditcards.com. "People will sign up for it, but that will be mostly because they love Apple, not because this card is better than anything that already exists."
WalletHub CEO Odysseas Papadimitriou told the AP there are better cards out there that do the same thing as the Apple Card.
"There are other cards that have better rewards and no annual fee," he said. "There is a healthy market there, so from that perspective there is nothing unique."
SALT LAKE CITY — Apple introduced a new credit card, called Apple Card, to the world during its event last week, and it could change the way that modern cards are built.
Apple announced at its event last week that it has teamed up with Goldman Sachs and MasterCard for the launch of the card, according to The Associated Press.
The card offers 3 percent cash back on products you buy from Apple.
The Apple Card, which is a new physical credit card from Apple, comes with a few perks that traditional credit cards don't have. For example, the card doesn't have late fees or over-the-limit fees, which traditional credit cards are known to have.
Security: But the card lacks one other thing that might change the way all credit cards operate — a credit card number.
Craig Vosburg, president of North America for MasterCard, told Bloomberg Television recently that Apple Card's lack of credit card numbers could lead other banks to do the same. Credit card numbers, after all, wind up in the hands of thieves on multiple occasions.
"We want security to be at the highest level possible across the ecosystem, and we want to do that in ways that don't introduce friction and make payments inconvenient for consumers," he said.
Similar: As BGR notes, the lack of credit card numbers could influence all credit cards in the same way that getting rid of signatures led to the increase in chips and chip readers.
"Getting rid of card numbers follows in the same vein as payment networks slowly moving away from the signature requirement, which they started to do when things like the implementation of chips in credit cards made signatures less necessary to ask for. And it's not just Apple. U.S. banks like Capital One are also already starting to experiment with limited-use card numbers, assigned to retailers as needed."
Bigger picture: Apple's move into the credit card space didn't impress all experts, The Associated Press reported.
"I'm underwhelmed," said Ted Rossman, industry analyst at Creditcards.com. "People will sign up for it, but that will be mostly because they love Apple, not because this card is better than anything that already exists."
WalletHub CEO Odysseas Papadimitriou told the AP there are better cards out there that do the same thing as the Apple Card.
"There are other cards that have better rewards and no annual fee," he said. "There is a healthy market there, so from that perspective there is nothing unique."
