I'm becoming accustomed to being offended by The Pilot's choice of political cartoons. The one in the Aug. 24 edition, regarding Sen. McCain's position on offshore drilling, was repugnant to me for several reasons.

First, the claim that McCain's top fundraisers work for Chevron and Exxon is patently false. Many other organizations have contributed more to both the McCain and Obama campaigns than either Chevron or ExxonMobil. Does The Pilot feel no obligation to tell the truth?

Second, this distorts and trivializes one of the most important debates affecting our country at this time -- excessive dependence on foreign oil. McCain has taken a principled position that he knows will be unpopular with some Americans because he's putting his country first.

The cynical suggestion that his position is motivated by campaign contributions makes a mockery of a very important issue.

I spent my entire working career as an employee of Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil. I can tell you with no hesitation that they consistently conducted their business in a sound, ethical, principled manner. For 35 years, I was proud to work for such a fine company, and I still am.

I don't know why some people want to demonize well-run, successful companies that do a superb job in a core industry that is critically important to our way of life. Would they prefer that the oil companies were bleeding red ink like the airlines and auto manufacturers? Would that make our country's energy future more secure?

There's nothing wrong with a newspaper printing controversial cartoons. That's a good thing. However, The Pilot's choice always seems to offend the same 50 percent of their clientele. I suggest you use more discretion and balance.

John Rowerdink

Pinehurst