In your paper on Nov. 23, 2013, you reported a story on the back page of Section A titled, "News media protest limits on press access."
I quote, "Dozens of leading news organizations are protesting to the White House against restrictions that sometimes keep journalists from taking pictures and video of President Barack Obama performing official duties." The story goes on to say the president pledged a more transparent government.
My question is why it has taken the press five years to wake up to the fact this president has not been transparent all along? I've seen administrations since John F. Kennedy and I have never witnessed one that has been coddled and given the soft touch as is true with this president. I wonder why?
KEN FRACARO, Hixson
Ever wonder why new nations tasting freedom for the first time no longer choose our winner-take-all political system as a model for their new government?
Our constitution was originally created by and for a coastal agrarian society dominated by a slave-holding aristocracy. Only a small minority had the right to vote then. Still mired in its antiquated 18th-century origins, our government today is unrepresentative and disenfranchising. It is essentially inadequate for a populous, ethnically diverse, industrialized nation.
Of 535 seats in Congress, third parties hold none; independents, who reportedly outnumber either major party, hold two. Of over 7,000 seats in state legislatures, independents hold 14 seats. Essentially a third of our electorate goes unrepresented.
With no gerrymandered one-party districts and free, equal-time political debates, it's no wonder that European democracies almost double our voter turnout. Many U. S. voters seem to have simply given up.
With widespread congressional district gerrymandering and the antidemocratic Senate filibuster, a tiny minority can block legislative reform indefinitely. Change can only come from concerted grass-roots movements pushing for constitutional amendments. Left to their own devices, legislatures will never reform themselves. There's no incentive to do so.
GEORGE B. REED JR., Rossville
I can't believe that fast-food workers think they should get $15 an hour. We go to nice places to eat and know some of the waiters and waitresses that get anywhere from $3 to $4 an hour. They must depend on tips. They have to serve us at least four to five times until we leave. They are kept running to other tables to keep diners happy so they get good tips. No fast-food workers need that much for what they do. Lots of times the orders aren't right.
SHIRLEY NEWHARD, Harrison