We know D.C. Get our free newsletter to stay in the know.
I once again find myself coming to the defense of the Washington City Paper.
I refer to the letter to the editor by Chris Cusack of Silver Spring (The Mail, 11/19). Cusack complains of the expression of hatred, and more, in a cartoon by Ted Rall, in the Nov. 19 edition.
I looked at the cartoon, and it was obnoxious, upsetting, appealing to the emotions, biased, and expressing a strong point of view. In other words, just what a political cartoon ought to be—a success. If the reader is looking for subtle analysis and balance, seek elsewhere, as I believe I said in a previously published letter of mine.
Maybe the cartoonist was careless with some images—I wouldn’t relate the KKK to the Republicans, but can Cusack assure us no Republican voter has sympathized with and played around with robes and conical hats? Cusack says “stereotypes”? What if we can find 1,000 dudes who’ve burned a cross or two and pulled a non-Democrat lever?
But Cusack is lacking in restraint, perhaps. He cites “hate” three times in his letter, but mentions only one specific instance, the one above. It seems to me he’s obligated to make a separate case for each usage. Otherwise he slides into a stylistic no-no. I hope he doesn’t go “nuc-u-lar” if he reads this.