Not another protest

I fully support free speech, peaceful protest and thoughtful immigration policies, but these must operate within the boundaries of the law. After 53 years of membership, I left a political party that once stood for hope and progress. Sadly, it has now become a party marked by negativity and, too often, violence, and today, disrespect. The real focus on the day should have been on the many members of the US Army on their 250th anniversary honoring both the active-duty members, veterans and for those that have died for our country. Instead, they scheduled their protest at the exact time as the parade in Washington that was held in the Army's honor. Across the nation, I saw protestors yelling, screaming, looting, sometimes with other unlawful behavior. Some signs they carried contained profanity visible to children. According to many polls, their favorability ratings are in the 20 percentile (NBC poll 27%). I have a suggestion ... Instead of engaging in these disruptive or destructive protests, why not channel that energy into something positive? Why not declare a National Day of Cleaning, dedicated to beautifying neighborhoods and streets? Instead of shouting down GOP town hall meetings, why not host their own forums focused on ideas and solutions? Instead of burning Tesla cars or looting businesses, imagine the impact of a National Day of Service – washing cars for senior citizens or helping out in local shelters. When I see a movement focused on building up our country rather than tearing it down in protest, I – and many others – might consider coming back. Until then, I'll continue to hope for a return to civility, compassion and constructive action. Just my thoughts. Richard Huntley Auburn Kiley is all for choice – but not In a recent interview about the EV car mandate, which he proudly pushed to overturn, our District 3 Congressman Kevin Kiley is quoted as saying, "I think it's a pretty common sense idea that you should be able to drive the car of your choice rather than one chosen for you by the government." Kiley's stance on choice is contradictory. While he advocates for the freedom to choose one's car, he has consistently opposed women's reproductive freedoms. During his time in the Assembly, he voted against legislation to approve California's Constitutional amendment enshrining reproductive freedom. He also supported measures to violate medical privacy by allowing California tech companies to disclose private healthcare data to out-of-state law enforcement agencies. In Congress, Kiley has voted to criminalize doctors and patients and to strip the medical licenses of doctors who provide abortions. He opposed legislation aimed at protecting women from criminal prosecution in cases of miscarriage or self-induced abortion. His voting record also includes measures that restrict reproductive healthcare access for military women and veterans, such as prohibiting the Department of Defense from reimbursing expenses for women service members seeking reproductive healthcare, including travel costs associated with abortion care, and supporting new abortion restrictions related to the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system. Kiley's decision to make choice the centerpiece of his argument is hypocritical and disingenuous. He states that while he drives an EV, "... I also respect the right of other people to make a different decision as to what works best for their lifestyle." It's nice that he supports the freedom to choose a car, but I'd rather he stop actively working to restrict women's control over their bodies. Don't women's choices about "what works best for their lifestyles" matter as much as what car they choose to drive? Barbara V. Smith Auburn