Menu Home

Letting Go, Part II

Some time ago I wrote about “letting go” of my earliest writings (you can read that post here).  Just for the record, I still have most of those early writings, slowly rotting away on decades-old onion-skin typing paper.  I will eventually let go of them, but only after I’ve scanned them and resigned them to an indefinite existence in the Cloud.

Today, letting go involves leafing through my files, a tidy box of folders, hanging and otherwise.


I came across a number of Letters to the Editor that I had written over 20 years ago.  There was a theme among a few of them.  See if you can tell what got my dander up.  I’ll explain at the end.

Look! Little ol’ me is published in The Wall Street Journal:

WSJ_Thomas_07261991 After the excitement of appearing in the WSJ, I had to settle for the local birdcage liner.



In case you either didn’t want to read these rather off-color (as in ocher) newsprint copies or you tried but the resolution strained your eyes, here’s the bottom line:  I was unhappy that Clarence Thomas was nominated for Supreme Court Justice.  On August, 28, 1991, I was even more unhappy that, as I say in the above letter, “I’m still waiting to hear someone discuss Thomas in terms of his eligibility to replace Thurgood Marshall.”  Over twenty years later, I’m still waiting.

Categories: Writing about writing

Tagged as:

Marie A Bailey

Writer, blogger, knitter, cat lover, and introvert.

21 replies

  1. Very cool. I was only 11 when that happened, so I’m only vaguely aware of the Clarence Thomas thing. Hasn’t he been a quiet judge that simply votes and keeps his mouth shut? I keep forgetting he even exists.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. [I feel so old ;)] Yup, Charles, he is the quiet one. I read somewhere that he’s spoken up maybe once or twice in all the years he’s been on the Court. His posture suggests to me that he’s already made up his mind about the cases and doesn’t need to entertain an opposing opinion.


      1. Maybe they should make it that a judge has to talk a little for each case. At least to prove his alive or of sound mind. If he’s sitting there thinking about how his shoes taste in ranch dressing then it might be good to know about that.


  2. I’ll refrain from letting this post inspire a long-winded, self-righteous rant about the current SCOTUS line-up. Instead, I’ll say “You go, Marie.”

    We’d get along famously in person.


    1. Thanks, Eric! You know I would love to hear your rant (Say it, Brother!). By the way, have you ever noticed that if you add a letter and replace another in SCOTUS, you get scrotum? I imagine an eye-roll from Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. And, indeed, we would get on very well in person 😽


  3. Oh man, I was glued to those hearings that year. It was one of the first signs that our country was psychopathic and headed for the loony bin — you know, where we are now!

    Terrific letters, though. You did us proud!


  4. I have to disagree with Kevin…..our country has always been psychopathic.

    But I’ve always been in awe of people who can write letters to the editor and actually get them published. I once got an ode to my girlfriends published in the local paper for Valentine’s Day. (Friend-friends. Not love-friends.) Nothing highbrow like the WSJ.


    1. Thanks, Andra! It’s definitely a matter of debate just when our country started to go off the deep end. Historians, I’m sure, would date it differently. It was quite thrilling to get published in the WSJ even though I was often arguing against their editorial positions 😉


%d bloggers like this: