A funny dame

THE premise of Tim Rutten’s column (“A satire, a protest, then an apology,” Feb. 8) is that Dame Edna’s column failed as satire because “it was hurtful, bound to be misunderstood and, quite obviously, lacked literary value.” Says who? How is a cross-dressing comedian whose comedy is premised on being offensive “bound to be misunderstood”? Does Rutten think we Latinos are too uncultured to see the difference? And who is Rutten to make the judgment for all of us that the article “quite obviously lacked literary value”? Thanks, but I thought it was funny.

Jeff Meyers

Los Angeles