Suspension of Doonesbury Strips

I was genuinely miffed a few months back when The Times yanked the Doonesbury strip dealing with some of “Big Frank’s” acquaintances in Atlantic City because of what was described as “potential legal problems with the subject matter.” I even wrote a nasty note on my Times billing statement. I didn’t buy the “legal problem” excuse one bit. You guys were scared. Let’s face it, the Mob has a terrible retirement plan. Your crack staff of legal experts put their deft hands to work covering The Times’ collective bottom instead of allowing something that might cause loss of same. Fair enough.

But what is your excuse for omitting the recent strips? Something about your “responsibility to guard against publishing damaging material we know to be overdrawn and unfair.” This is truly horse pucky of the highest odor. If you are so concerned about the “content” of the strip why don’t you locate it in the editorial section?

Any paper that can publish the works of great modern thinkers such as Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), George Will, James Kilpatrick and his pureness, Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) can surely find a few square inches for the Doonesbury strip.

DAVID H. SIEGEL

Los Angeles