Send comments to themail@rochester-citynews.com or post them with articles on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com. We edit selections for publication, and we don’t publish comments sent to other media.
Countering a year of Trump
Our political process is in turmoil. The man in the Oval Office furthers the gridlock through exclusion, poisonous rhetoric, and falsification of fact with promises to return our country to a historical “greatness. This “Me First” mentality makes one wonder who is the “me,” who gets to be “first,” and if this is the message we want to send to our neighbors, whether they live around the corner or around the globe.
Fortunately, this Saturday, February 17 at 1 p.m., we have an opportunity to challenge that message. Initiated by the Reverend Franklin Florence Sr. and called “A United Community Response to Donald Trump’s Ongoing Hatred and Racism,” the event will take place at Central Church of Christ, 101 South Plymouth Avenue. It is interfaith, intergenerational, and inclusive of the range of diversity across the political spectrum.
Furthering long-standing wounds of racism, sexism, and xenophobia are the opposite of what is necessary to heal and remember that we are one human family.
STEVEN JAROSE
RPO’s season
American symphony orchestras have a representation problem. For decades, most of the country’s well-known orchestras have programmed seasons comprising works almost exclusively by white male composers. As a life-long supporter of the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, I was disappointed to see that its Philharmonics Series will feature just one composition by a woman and zero by a composer of color in the upcoming season.
This means that an astonishing 97 percent of works in this series will have been composed by white men. To an observer looking at the average symphony orchestra season, it’s as though people of color and women never composed music at all.
And therein lies the problem: When orchestras program almost exclusively white men, they contribute to the erasure of people of color and women composers from music history. These composers faced widespread misogyny and racism in their time, and yet there is certainly no dearth of their extant works. Orchestras, however, seldom reach outside of the standard canon to perform these compositions. As such, it’s no surprise that so many aficionados of classical music rave about the “genius” of Beethoven, Brahms, and Mozart but have never heard of Florence Price, William Grant Still, or Ethel Smyth.
The constructed nature of “genius” here is crucial. The RPO’s excellent community outreach and popular series are essential, but representation should not cease to be a concern at the threshold of Kodak Hall. As long as works by white men are the only ones deemed “genius” or “masterful” enough to be performed on the symphonic stage, other participants in music history will continue to be overlooked in favor of canonic figures. By embracing the latter over the former, orchestra programming perpetuates institutional misogyny and racism.
Some may argue that the canon sells, and at a time when many orchestras are struggling, the priority should be filling seats first, and diversifying programming second. Successful programming of women and people of color by orchestras such as the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, the Albany Symphony, and the Los Angeles Philharmonic, however, casts doubt on this line of argument. More dangerous, though, are the ways in which such bargaining upholds systemic white supremacy and sexism in classical music.
The canon is by no means an inevitability. It is something that is constructed by participants in the musical ecosystem: musicians, critics, scholars, administrators, and patrons. As such, it is important for each of us to consider our own role(s) in perpetuating myths of whiteness and maleness in classical music. Ultimately, a richer, more diverse and expansive canon benefits everyone. Programming is a political choice, and I hope that the RPO and other orchestras strive to better preserve all music histories – not just those of white men – in future seasons.
GABRIELLE CORNISH
Judges and immigrants
On a reader’s comments about a hearing for an undocumented immigrant farmworker: If the facts stated by Doug Noble regarding the Reyes-Herrera case are true, and I have found no evidence to the contrary, then shame on Judge Charles Siragusa (“Immigration and the Courts,” Feedback).
His words and actions are out of sync. Where, Judge Siragusa, are your courage and principles? I expect more from a man in your position.
W. BRUCE GORMAN
I must take exception to the disparaging remarks by a recent letter writer regarding one of our fine District Court justices, Charles Siragusa.
The writer referred to Siragusa as dismayed, clueless, and bewildered in his handling of an illegal immigrant’s case. Apparently the judge should have disregarded the tenets of the law and interjected his own personal judgment and interpretations regarding his findings. After all, that is what many adjudicators have been doing lately, thereby shredding, rewriting and disregarding our laws as written in order to facilitate their own political and personal ideologies.
The letter writer’s remarks should have been directed more toward the fools in our government who have failed in their duty to properly enforce our immigration laws for the past 40 years.
The well-meaning words on the Statue of Liberty are inspiring and may bring tears to our eyes, but they are not the law of the land nor should they be. We must welcome those who follow the proscribed procedures as dictated by our laws. If the majority of our citizens want the present laws changed, then they should work to do so as prescribed by our Constitution.
In order to insure that our present immigration fiasco is not repeated in future years, the government must take steps to properly secure our borders while keeping track of our visitors until they become citizens.
Common sense and moderation in political dealings bring desired results.
BOB TACITO
This article appears in Feb 14-20, 2018.







Why do I have to keep saying this, the same thing every time? Month after month, year after year, it’s the same thing. How long until someone finally listens? We did not invent the term “gun nut” yesterday. Or last month, or the year before.
A friend of Cruz said: “I did know he really did like guns a lot, but I didnt think he would cause such tragedy.”
“A student who told ABC News that he participated in Junior ROTC with Cruz described him as a psycho. Cruz was a well-known weapons enthusiast, the student said.”
The NRA and it’s thousand stooges will say “it’s too soon to talk about anything, let the grief pass so we can be rational.” Next, it’s “people kill people, not guns,” and finally it’ll be “this is merely a mental health issue, nothing to do with guns, golly geez, if there was only a way to tell who’s a nut.”
And here we are again, for some fucked up reason I have to say this yet again: a strong interest in guns is, IN AND OF ITSELF, a mental illness.
Whatever, you know how this one will play out, you’ve seen it a few dozen times, so I’ll just see you back here in a week or two.
Our militia is poorly regulated.
“people kill people, not guns,” – And they’d be correct. A gun is an inanimate object. When a drunk driver kills people, do you say “Here we go again with these damn cars!”, or do you blame the drunk? When a house is built/remodeled, do we go “Those hammers really did a great job!”?
We’re by far number 1 in gun ownership per capita, but 83rd in homicide rate. Don’t you think if guns were the problem, we’d be, oh I don’t know, FIRST in homicide rate?
https://www.indexmundi.com/blog/index.php/…
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicator…
Eric…does this concept also apply to nuclear weapons?
Tom – Considering the amount of nuclear weapons that have existed in history, yet only 2 bombs were ever used, I’d say yes. I mean, nukes aren’t killing people without humans making them do so. The nuke conversation actually brings me around to people that say “we need guns in schools to defend them”. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and threat of nuclear annihilation is probably the reason no county has used one since WWII.
Now am I pro nuclear weapons? No, of course not. They’re a waste of money for any country that produces them.
http://tinypic.com/r/29ktk7o/9
Eric…you were very careful not to mention who dropped those nuclear weapons. That also explains why I am not of other countries who have or are about to have nukes.
Nuclear arms race and gun race….of the similarities.
Left out the word AFRAID in my previous statement.