Whatever happened to discussing our differences?

What would it take for people to discuss their differences rather than demonizing others? This isn't a rhetorical question, but something we need to look deeply at. Better schools have debate teams, where students learn the art and science of debate, to be able to persuade others with logical arguments. Unfortunately, only a few people get involved in these, and the rest grow up disagreeing with others but having no way to express it rather than in anger. Anger leads to hate, and then we end up where we are at the moment, on very dangerous ground. If you don't know how to express your disagreement, it becomes so much easier to express it with a gun or with threats. The other party responds in kind, and so it escalates. When someone is in your face, calling you names, it can be very difficult not to respond in kind, not to take a deep breath and say, "This is why I disagree with you." Politics used to be the main outlet for this kind of angry discussion, but now it has seeped into the medical field, with the debate about vaccinations. When someone starts to tell me about why vaccinations are bad, I prefer to say, "If you don't like them, don't get one." Of course, it goes beyond personal dislike, more toward some kind of odd conspiracy to do … it's unclear exactly what the conspiracy is supposed to be about. I have friends who would rather have been fired than take a Covid shot, and it involved some combination of disliking government mandates and mistrust of the vaccine. Then there is the issue of all the closures, schools and businesses. How can we assess whether we should have done that? How many lives were saved? We will never know, and how many saved lives would be worth the economic and educational damage done? That, of course, is a value judgment, ranging from one life to a million. In the end, we do whatever seems right at the time and suffer the consequences. Meade Fischer Lincoln Prop. 50: 4 reasons to say no Proposition 50 proposes to temporarily suspend California's independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and let the state legislature draw new congressional maps for the 2026-2030 elections. For voters in Placer County, this raises several concerns. First, legislative control of map-drawing often leads to gerrymandering – maps designated to favor one party over another – which can dilute Placer County voters' influence if the new lines break up established communities or attach them to distant, politically different areas. Second, the switch may undermine transparency and accountability. The independent commission is modeled to be impartial and public; replacing it with legislative control could increase partisan bargaining behind the scenes and reduce public trust. Third, there is a risk of confusion or disruption for residents. Redistricting could change which congressional district people in Placer are in, leading to changes in representation, possibly a new incumbent, or unfamiliar voting patterns. That might weaken the connection between constituents and their federal representatives. Evidence from local commentaries in Placer shows residents uneasy about losing their existing district or "keeping those seats." Finally, even though there may be political motivation behind the measure (countering what is perceived as a partisan map-drawing in other states), for Placer County voters, a key question is fairness: whether it's appropriate to respond to one state's actions by changing what Californians have set up already as a system of independent oversight. It could set a precedent that map-drawing is acceptable as a partisan tool anytime someone else "moves first." (Oh, did I forget to mention that the cost to taxpayers of putting up a special election for Prop 50 will be $230 million-$250 million dollars?) Arnie Knipp Lincoln Actually, other countries allow mail-in ballots On Aug. 19 during public comment, I listened to a woman read a statement at the Board of Supervisors meeting. This statement was written by President Trump in regards to his dislike of mail-in ballots. He stated, among other things, that we are the only country that sanctions this kind of voting. He also inferred that this system leads to fraud. At the time, I took notes and decided to look this up. Well, all I can say is the president is wrong. The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance found that 34 countries allow mail-in ballots. Europe has the most and Australia introduced mail-in ballots more than a century ago! I am one of those people who do research when things don't sound right. I wish the woman who read his original statement went on to tell us that later he admitted he might be wrong in his original statement. Indeed. Rosalie Wohlfromm Auburn Epstein files: What does Kiley think? The recent press conference held by victims of child trafficking and sexual abuse was both powerful and emotionally charged. It was painful for these courageous women to recount their stories, especially considering they were children and young women when they were abused. Many of the victims stepped forward for the first time and repeatedly asked for the release of the Epstein files. In a rare bipartisan show of support, Representatives Massie, Khana and Greene spoke in favor of these victims and the need for transparency with the release of all the Epstein files. Now, let's look at our representative, Kevin Kiley. He said, "I'm looking at it," but he seems to be ignoring the urgent need for action. He claims to be concerned about protecting the victims' privacy, but in reality, he fears Trump's retribution. The Trump administration has acknowledged that aiding Massie would be viewed as a hostile act to the administration. Supporting the release of the Epstein files is a vote to expose a decades-long organization involved in child trafficking and sexual abuse. It could also help bring other individuals involved in this criminal activity to justice and finally acknowledge and provide justice to the victims. The victims have asked that all the files be released. So, Kevin, will you vote for transparency and justice, or will you be complicit in protecting child traffickers and pedophiles? June Paquette Lincoln