Rohrabacher Just Doing Duty in Battle Over Funding for Arts

Your editorial “Dabbling in Artistic Censorship” (April 26) accuses Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Lomita) of taking “ . . . artistic license . . . “ in a letter to his colleagues regarding the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). You then proceed to further accuse him of utilizing “ . . . trick photography to make his point.”

For The Times to accuse Rep. Rohrabacher of “artistic censorship” is like a pot calling the kettle black. As the conduit for the political left in the county, The Times utilizes “journalistic license” and “trick journalism” every day to promote its agenda. Time and time again, no pun intended, The Times has been out of step with the people of Orange County, which would explain all of the new formats. A perfect example would be the November, 1989, election. You editorialized (in your articles and on the editorial page) for a YES on Measure M and NO on Measure N. Yet the result was the exact opposite.

The issue at hand is not whether the artist has the right to produce the controversial “art” but who should pay for it. Why don’t we let the people decide whether or not they wish to fund pornographic exhibits masquerading as art? Isn’t that the purpose of elected officials--to represent We the People (the taxpayers) in Washington, D.C.? If an individual wishes to contribute to a particular artist, he has that right. But don’t I have a right not to support that same artist?

BRETT BARBRE

Yorba Linda