Closed primaries protect 'franchise' and other letters to the editors

Closed primaries protect 'franchise'

In his letter of Feb. 13, 2015, one letter writer expresses anger over the proposal to amend the open primary practice. While his Army service is certainly appreciated, the purpose of a primary is not to elect a person to an office but to nominate a person to run for an office (the nominating being the action of adherents of an established political party). Since the writer does not claim affiliation with such a party, he should forego participation in primaries but cast his votes in the general elections where it is indeed his privilege to vote for anyone whom he chooses. As one who has voted in every opportunity since becoming eligible, about 70 years, I would welcome the change from the open primary, believing it would help solidify the integrity of the franchise.

Mark S. Womack

Diversity efforts aid small businesses

Recently I read about the city's efforts to reach out to minority, women and service disabled veteran businesses. As a minority business owner, I am pleased to share a little about my experiences with the city's supplier diversity efforts. I started my business, Adamson Developers, in 1993 to leave a legacy for my family. Before the city increased its supplier diversity outreach initiatives, we did very little, if any, work for the city. But this initiative has changed things. Through the workshops, connections and business opportunities, I learned how to navigate the process and find more opportunities to expand my business. We now do a great deal of business with the city, and this exposure has helped. Because of the mayor (Andy Berke) and the Office of Multicultural Affairs, I know the city values what our business contributes to Chattanooga's economy and wants me to be a part of making Chattanooga stronger and more successful.

Bobby Joe Adamson, Ooltewah

When life begins is main question

From past letters to the Times Free Press, we can surmise the abortion issue is far from resolution. But why do we avoid addressing the overriding question here: When does human life actually begin? If life, or more accurately personhood, begins at fertilization as many fundamentalist Christians believe, abortion is the taking of human life, pure and simple. But what actually takes place then is at best controversial. To believe that at the very moment the one-celled sperm contacts the one-celled ovum a little person is created with a mind and a soul is a bit of a stretch. Science tells us that whatever is created at that time, and for some time, has neither the cellular differentiation nor the neural sophistication to be considered a viable being of any kind. But many conscientious conservatives reject this view. Until we convene our best scientific, legal and theological minds to address this perplexing issue objectively, compassionately and with integrity, this controversy will remain in the name-calling stage where it mostly resides today. It appears, though, that for political reasons more than anything else many people had rather feud over the abortion issue than settle it.

George B. Reed Jr., Rossville

Upcoming Events