Public services are under threat from right-wing extremist groups

Don’t let Republicans pass morality laws

The National Defense Authorization Act funds the annual budget of the Department of Defense. It is usually carried out on a bipartisan basis.

Recently, House Republicans broke with that tradition and peppered the bill with amendments that would eliminate all diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the Defense Department. It prevented the Pentagon from implementing President Biden’s executive orders on climate change. ends reimbursement for military personnel who travel for abortion services, bars health care for gender reassignment surgery, prevents Department of Defense-affiliated schools from teaching that the United States is racist, and prevents military schools from having certain books in their libraries. House Speaker McCarthy proudly tweeted, “The bill ends wokism in the military and gives our troops the largest pay raise.”

Think about it. House Republicans are hijacking our national security for moral issues that have been a part of the planet since the dawn of humanity. You may not agree with gender reassignment, abortion, or the color of a person’s skin, but are you willing to sacrifice our national security to keep people in power who make health care laws despite having no health care training? Would you go to your state representative to get bladder surgery or deliver a baby?

Instead of providing solutions to climate change (just talk to insurance companies – yes, this is real), economic inequality, or cyber and racial hate crimes that will destroy us all, extremists are legislating whether someone can read a book.

President Trump has pulverized the NATO alliance. Since then, Putin has wiped out Ukraine. Diplomacy thankfully expanded the alliance with a grateful Sweden. Unfortunately, we are approaching a confrontation with Russia or China. It will not be reading a book, receiving transitional treatment, or having an abortion that determines the defense’s response.

Act. Vote out the crazy people.

Kate Lopez

Twin Falls

Cockfighting is not animal husbandry

I grew up on a small ranch and was involved in animal husbandry long before I graduated from veterinary school.

Animal husbandry is a noble endeavor that provides livelihoods for billions of people and the livelihoods of millions of people.

Cockfighting, on the other hand, is a disgrace and a crime and benefits no one except the people who enjoy bloodletting animals.

The Fighting Inhumane Gambling and High-Risk Trafficking (FIGHT) Act, S. 1529, closes loopholes in the enforcement of animal control laws that allow criminals to sell fighting animals and make large sums of money through illegal gambling.

As the lead veterinarian for Animal Wellness Action, I have recently become more concerned about the future of agriculture in our country. There are powerful individuals, foundations and organizations that aim to denigrate animal agriculture and fail to distinguish between legitimate use of animals and unwarranted abuse of animals.

Cockfighting has nothing to do with animal husbandry. If we do not distinguish between this type of evil and the proper, acceptable use of animals in animal agriculture, we will see people turn away from animal agriculture.

Now is the time to work to strengthen federal law so the nation can better distinguish between proper animal use and the worst forms of malicious cruelty. It is long overdue for cockfighters to hang up their spurs and put an end to their criminal animal abuse. Support the FIGHT Act, S. 1529 and H.R. 2742 to combat cruelty and support the integrity of agriculture.

Thomas Pool

Norman, Okla

Brainwashing? Think about it again

Solomon Asch conducted some extraordinary psychological experiments in the 1950s. His experiments showed the power of conformity when people sometimes agree with a group’s opinion even when there is evidence that the group is wrong. But in the 1950s, Asch could not determine whether his subjects were consciously changing their views or whether social cues were unconsciously distorting their perceptions.

In 2005, Gregory Berns answered this question by repeating Asch’s experiment with brain scans. Berns found that the brain’s visual center changed its perception to agree with the group opinion before passing that information to the logical part of the brain: This is how people “see” evidence that doesn’t exist and don’t know that their perception is wrong. And because this process is commonplace, it has crucial practical implications for all of us.

For example, when self-deception occurs unconsciously, we must choose our company carefully. We protect our thinking by working with skeptical people who make evidence-based decisions and only use reputable sources. We must avoid the company of the deceived. Constant nonsense on the radio or television could be enough to poison a mind. It also means we need to show compassion when speaking to climate, vaccine or election deniers because their brains may subconsciously “show” them evidence that doesn’t exist.

Let’s not assume that people are brainwashed when for most of us only a light rinse is enough.

Simon Smith

Pullman, Washington

Truth or fiction?

In the July 15 Times-News, under the headline “Democrats Build on a Stronger, More Resilient Recovery,” Rep. Lauren Necochea claims that “real wages for the average American worker are higher now than they were before the pandemic.” This is clearly false , as inflation (caused in large part by President Joe Biden’s outsized giveaways) has far outpaced wage gains.

Additionally, in the same July 15 issue, with the headline “Kari Lake’s Idaho visit will only fuel grassroots enthusiasm,” Dorothy Moon claims that “Lake has cemented her stature as a leading figure in the fight for election integrity…” As she actually refused to recognize the election and sued to overturn the results, that lawsuit was dismissed by the courts and she was fined $33,000.

It would be nice if these opinions were a little more true.

Ken Downs

Kimberly

It’s not the government’s job

What role does the government play? Is it about telling people what morals they should have or what religion they should follow?

During Idaho’s territorial period, the Republican Party passed the Idaho Test Othh in 1884. The purpose of this law was to prevent members of the LDS faith community from voting or holding public office. Democratic Attorney General Richard Z. Johnson opposed the law in 1888 to the Idaho Territorial Supreme Court, which upheld the law. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost again.

At the time this law was passed, it disenfranchised 25% of Idaho voters.

This law moved the Statehouse from Democratic Party control to Republican Party control. In this case, a law was passed on the moral basis that plural marriage was bad and therefore members of the LDS faith could not vote or hold office.

It is not the government’s job to punish people for their beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not cause harm.

Edward Easterling

Kimberly

Ukraine in NATO is not good for the USA

If Ukraine were to be admitted to NATO now, the USA would automatically have to go to war against Russia. NATO-like defense treaties contain a “common defense pledge” that requires each member state to repel an attack against another state party. (“What is Article 5?” magicvalley.com, July 13).

George Washington warned against entering into “permanent alliances with any part of the foreign world.” In democracies like Athens and Rome, group defense treaties were made by two or more kings to protect their dynasties from another, more aggressive king. Democracies have always believed that it is best to remain on the sidelines of such petty personal squabbles and avoid forcing future generations into wars with which they may not agree.

Washington also learned from the Bible, where prophets like Isaiah warned Israel against “union” with other nations. After several hundred years of democratic independence, northern Israel made a common defense treaty out of fear of aggressive Assyria, and southern Judea made a common defense promise out of fear of autocratic Babylon. Both treaties led to complacency, a decline in the steadfastness of the people, an intensification of the aggressor nation’s militancy, and Israel’s grim journey into Assyrian and Babylonian captivity.

Our current treaty obligations require us to intervene in almost every war in Europe and Asia. Is this the future we want for our grandchildren?

Kimball Shinkoskey

Woods Cross, Utah