Nasty cartoons aren't necessary
To the editor of THE EAGLE:
Let’s hear a big hooray for Mark Hanford ("No place for distasteful Danziger," letter, June 9). He had the moxie to write what many readers assuredly have been thinking but have been reluctant to put in a letter. But I also must give the editors a token of appreciation for printing his remarks that must have given them pause and I can’t help but wonder how that decision came about. So let us just be thankful for this one good deed.
Now I want to be clear here. I appreciate a cleverly conceived cartoon as well as the next guy and most that appear in The Eagle are pretty creative, but at the same time the dominant majority of these political cartoonists seems to think that if one nasty poke in the eye is funny then another half dozen derogatory punches must be better.
And to my last observation. It has to do with The Eagle’s apparent penchant for "hard left’’-leaning political satirists. Certainly the selection process is theirs to make and by now none of us can be very surprised by their choices, but even in this liberally-tilted region should we not occasionally have glimpse of an objective view of today’s events?
CHARLES R. KITTLE