Home / Articles / Commentary / Letters to the Editor / Letters to the Editor 1/17/19
Print this Article
Thursday, Jan. 17, 2019 12:14 am

Letters to the Editor 1/17/19


A fortuitous juxtaposition

Last week, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives that would require federal background checks for nearly all firearm transactions.

The same night, the President said this, “I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers. So sad. So terrible. I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices and the sadness gripping their souls. How much more American blood must be shed before Congress does its job?. . . Imagine if it were your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so terribly shattered and totally broken. To every member of congress: pass a bill that ends this crisis.”

Well, it looks like we have a job to do. Call your member of Congress, call your senators. Let’s get this bill to the president’s desk before he changes his mind!

Of course, his comments were about the few immigrants who have killed Americans, not about the scores of Americans who have died at the hands of Americans with assault weapons. But surely he cares just as deeply about those children, those husbands and those wives. Right?

Jim Winhold
Pleasant Plains

Identifies with Basis of Sex

I read Chuck Koplinski’s review in the Jan. 10 Illinois Times of On the Basis of Sex before I saw the movie myself. However, that did not prevent me from being appalled when he stated that the depiction of systemic discrimination against Ruth Bader Ginsberg in law school and beyond “becomes too much to bear” and prevents us from “becoming fully immersed” in the story. He even claims Ginsberg, as portrayed by Felicity Jones, has “gleaming eyes looking far into the future to the recognition she knows awaits her.” In short, Ginsberg is too put upon and too perfect for Mr.Koplinski.

Isn’t it funny how our own life experiences color our interpretation of a movie? I did not find Ginsberg’s treatment in the 1950s and 60s irrelevant or tedious. My reaction was more along the lines of déjà vu. I did not jump up and yell “You go, girl!” at the screen, but it was I who took comfort in knowing that Ginsberg would prevail and later become a Supreme Court justice. Perhaps Mr. Koplinski should ask the women of a certain age in his own family what they thought of the movie and what their 50s and 60s experiences were. Bringing a subject closer to home might be enlightening.

I also want to clarify that this movie does not depict Ginsberg arguing before the Supreme Court but rather before a lower appeals court. In addition, the fact that she was defending a man in a sexual discrimination case was not an “irony” that “rings hollow.” It was a calculated means to an end to set a new court precedent. The irony was that her opposing counsel used Pentagon computers to compile a gargantuan list of all the current federal statutes that discriminated on the basis of gender, which in the long run, helped fight such discrimination rather than buttress the case at hand.

Therefore, men and women of all ages, go to see this movie. It is perfectly acceptable to watch with a smug smile on your face.

Claire B. Eberle


  • Thu
  • Fri
  • Sat
  • Sun
  • Mon
  • Tue
  • Wed