Regina Brett’s outrageous column in the Aug. 10 Plain Dealer, which comes out against Lakewood’s dog park and slanders the entire canine species, might merely be consigned to the annals of journalistic atrocities were it not for the fact that it provides ammunition for Rocky River’s legal aggression.

Suffice it to say that Brett’s column is ignorant, irresponsible, stupid (particularly but not exclusively in her attempts at humor) and slanderous. The expected result was that the Plain Dealer would have received a torrent of letters condemning the column and would have printed a few of the representative ones.

However, the only letter in the P.D. about the dog park called for its demise. It was written by one Carl M. McKenna of (surprise!) Rocky River.

McKenna’s letter does not mention Brett’s column, but there are surprising similarities. I will quote the entire letter except for the initial paragraph which mentions the lawsuit and the final paragraph which urges the dog park’s closing, and I will show corresponding passages from Brett’s column.

McKenna: “I’ve driven by this dog park on numerous occasions, and it is my impression that the park is not about dogs. It’s about people. The park seems to be a meeting place for people to interact while their dogs roam freely.”

Brett: “I went to a dog park once. The owners were having all the fun, sipping lattes and tossing Frisbees to panting dogs. . . . A dog park is really a people park.”

McKenna: “Dogs do not know or care about romping in a park. Give a dog food, shelter and love, and that’s all that is required.”

Brett: “No, the dogs at the park either wanted to mate, fight or dig. They didn’t seem all that interested in each other.”

As to the why of this similarity, I can only surmise. Perhaps McKenna wanted to reinforce Brett’s attack, or perhaps it was a coincidence of prejudice.

For prejudice it is; neither McKenna nor Brett offer any evidence for their judgments, and they totally contradict the experience of dog owners. Both set themselves up as instant experts on the subject of canine satisfaction. McKenna claims to derive his categorical judgments merely from drive-by observations, apparently ignorant of the fact that the dog park is the only opportunity that Lakewood dogs, at least, have to run freely off-leash. Brett derives her opinions from a past visit to one dog park that was clearly different from Lakewood’s.

More important are two questions: First, why did the P.D. print McKenna’s letter at all? It adds nothing to the debate, but only parrots Brett’s absurdities. Second, why did the P.D. print no letters in support of the park? I can testify that at least one supportive letter was submitted, and there must have been others. And letters to the editor are intended largely as a means of presenting opposing viewpoints.

In short, if the P.D. printed only one letter about the dog park, why was it McKenna’s trivial effort? The only answer I can see is that the Plain Dealer was glad to be Rocky River’s toady.