MINNESOTA ORCHESTRA
Its status renders some suggestions infeasible
The Nov. 28 letters concerning the Minnesota Orchestra displayed a basic misunderstanding of how symphony orchestras operate. They are nonprofit organizations; it is not possible to set ticket prices high enough to cover expenses.
Even one of the most successful combinations, Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic, brought in only a little over half of its budget through ticket sales, if memory serves. And ticket prices are much higher in New York than this market would bear. This makes the suggestion of profit sharing a moot point; there is no profit.
That is why orchestras must rely on contributions to bridge the gap, and this community has done a wonderful job in this respect over the years. It seems the management has done some manipulating of the finances recently -- showing a balanced budget at the height of the recession and a shortfall as we are pulling out of the recession. It seems there is something else going on here -- is this management part of a nationwide effort at union-busting?
MIKE HIPPS, EDEN PRAIRIE
* * *
BENGHAZI
Criticisms are political, lacking in perspective
It infuriates me that the Star Tribune and other publications continue to report stories on the conflict between Susan Rice and three Republican senators without attempting to put their complaints into perspective. Both the Bush and the Obama administrations publicly stated that, while we have made much progress in defending the U.S. against terrorist attacks, there would be more attacks and we would not prevent all of them. The Benghazi incident was one of the few we were unable to prevent.
Unfortunately, four Americans, including an ambassador, were killed. In terms of scope, however, this incident pales in relation to the thousands of Americans, Iraqis, Afghans and many others who have been killed since the original 9/11 attacks. I don't believe there was a clear explanation from the U.S. intelligence services or administrations immediately following many of these incidents.
The fact that Susan Rice did not have complete information and was reporting what she had been told several days after the incident should have nothing to do with her qualifications to be secretary of state, if she were nominated. I don't recall that Condoleezza Rice was considered unfit for that office after ignoring intelligence memos warning of a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 or her public pronouncements of Iraq having devastating (but later proven to be absent) nuclear weapons. How can the Republicans keep suggesting equivalency in these two situations without being called on it in every media story written?