Letters to the Editor

Federal funding for the arts

In an article reprinted in The Washington Times (“Federal ’art,’” Culture, Thursday), Neil Boortz complains that federal funding of the arts “infuriate” him. He singles out for criticism one of the nearly 2,000 National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) grants awarded last year. Since the NEA takes seriously the responsibility of distributing taxpayers’ money, we believe it is important to address Mr. Boortz’s criticism.

Mr. Boortz specifically objects to our funding of a play in development, “Disposable.” The play in question concerns a fictional character named Danny Ramirez and a culture obsessed with money, power and fame. Mr. Ramirez’s life loosely parallels that of spree killer Andrew Cunanan, but it is not merely, as written by Mr. Boortz, about “Cunanan and his exploits.” Rather, “Disposable” is an artistic interpretation of real crime and its tragic consequences. Other artistic works in this long tradition include Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” and ThomasKeneally’s “Schindler’s List.” The NEA believes — and the literary tradition demonstrates — that meaningful works of art can address crime, evil and violence.

Is the NEA position an extreme or elitist one? No, it represents mainstream American standards of artistic expression. When Academy Award-winning films such as “The Godfather” and Emmy Award-winning TV shows such as “Law and Order” and “CSI” investigate the nature of the criminal mind, are we to deny this same liberty to our serious playwrights?

Mr. Boortz also states that NEA grant was “dumped into the laps of some welfare artists.” For the record, “Disposable” is being written by a widely acclaimed creative team. Jessica Hagedorn is a National Book Award finalist. Michael Greif is an Obie Award winner. Des McAnuff is a two-time Tony Award winner and directed “Who’s Tommy.”

We appreciate this opportunity to set the record straight.

FELICIA K. KNIGHT

Communications director

National Endowment for the Arts

Washington

Economic freedom and the world

I read with great interest the article by Delphine Soulas (“U.S. economy found less free,” Saturday, Nation) about the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom.

In her article, she states that six European countries were in the top 10, and then goes on to list Luxembourg (4), Ireland (5), UnitedKingdom(7)and Switzerland (9), prominently omitting Estonia (6) and Denmark (8). However, I do not understand this omission, especially since Estonia is cited in the introduction to the report as a textbook example of how to transition from a restricted economy to a free one.

Part of the introduction to the index on the Web states:

“A country in South America and another one in the Baltic States have become textbook examples of how to make the transition from economic restrictionsanddeprivationto economic freedom and prosperity.”

Furthermore, the preface to the actual report notes:

“Russia could learn a lot from Estonia and Lithuania. While Estonia’s success has been heralded over the past several years, Lithuania has been improving steadily since it was first graded in 1996.”

Since restoring independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia has made great strides in all aspects of life and has moved rapidly to become a solid member of the EU and NATO. It would seem that such accomplishments should be highlighted in a paper such as The Washington Times because it is a glowing example of freedom overcoming tyranny.

AGU R. ETS

Laurel

In gratitude to Gibbs

The Saturday sports section had an article about a plan by Domino’s Pizza to generate “several thousand dollars” for Joe Gibbs’ foundation, Youth for Tomorrow (“Dealing pizzas in honor of Gibbs”).

Just give the people of the Washington area the address of Youth for Tomorrow and I’ll bet they will generate a million dollars for the foundation to thank Gibbs for coming back to Washington.

He is such an admirable person, and the people here love him, so a million dollars for his great work is certainly doable. There are nearly 80,000 people in the seats at FedEx Field, and most certainly they would each give $10 to thank Gibbs for coming back and upgrading what they watch. That is 80 percent of a million right there.

Perhaps some businesses and corporations would also donate. The Washington Times could manage the “Thanks a Million, Joe” fund collection and show daily progress toward the goal of a million dollars in the paper with a bar chart. Gibbs deserves it for coming back to help us.

JOHN NAUGHTON

Silver Spring

Saddam as POW

The U.S. designation of Saddam Hussein as a POW (“Pentagon deems Saddam a prisoner of war,” World, Saturday) at first blush seems an inappropriate category for a brutal and murderous dictator who invaded Kuwait, used weapons of mass destruction, and enslaved the people of Iraq. Some critics will say that POW status is too easy for a war criminal who has committed crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal which tried Adolf Hitler’s top henchmen. They have a point, but not a compelling case.

The Pentagon’s decision to classify Saddam as a POW has legal, moral and political implications that bear on the legitimacy of the U.S. occupation of Iraq and on the future of an independent Iraq.

As a humane power, the United States has long adhered to the Geneva Conventions on how war prisoners should be treated. First and foremost, POWs must not be tortured or otherwise mistreated. They must be properly housed and fed, and given medical care. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross must have access to them.

As I can testify from firsthand observation, German POWs held by the United States and Britain were so treated during and immediately after World War II.

It will be said that classifying Saddam as a POW will deprive U.S. authorities of coercive means essential to gaining vital intelligence from him. U.S. officials have already induced him to provide some information. But “intelligence” extracted by using torture is usually suspect or worse. Further, vindictive, or what may be construed as vindictive, behavior by the United States would serve no good purpose.

Of course, at some point Saddam should stand trial for his crimes against humanity. This task should fall to the Iraqis who have suffered the most and the longest. In fact, plans for doing this are already under way by the provisional government set up under the aegis of the United States and its coalition partners.

Properly constituted, an Iraqi war crimes tribunal — with the advice and assistance of international legal authorities — would be morally and legally capable of rendering justice to Saddam or any of his top henchmen who may have survived. Such a tribunal is the just, decent, and effective way of dealing with a man who has broken the peace and visited so much suffering upon his own people.

ERNEST W. LEFEVER

Chevy Chase