To the Editor:
Re “Public Offering,” by Melissa Kirsch (The Morning newsletter, nytimes.com, May 2):
Ms. Kirsch’s article about the value of becoming a bit more extroverted and conversing with strangers addresses an important topic at a time when many complain of social isolation, which can have negative effects on emotional and physical well-being.
Waiting in a long line, sitting at a doctor’s office or eating dinner alone at a bar are propitious times to strike up a conversation with those nearby.
We agree with Ms. Kirsch that speaking to a stranger can be uncomfortable, but we’ve learned, especially after our recent moves to new cities, that practice can make it easier.
We suggest trying an icebreaker question: “How’s your day going?,” “What are you currently reading?” or now, “Are you going to see the movie ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’?” Or try a compliment: “I love your sweater; it matches your eyes.”
The key is to focus on the stranger and listen to his or her response rather than talk about yourself. You may be surprised by how hungry others are for conversation.
Barbara Ballinger
Margaret Crane
The writers are the authors of “Not Dead Yet: Rebooting Your Life After 50.”
To the Editor:
Melissa Kirsch’s essay captures how easy it has become to avoid one another. Headphones, phones and self-checkout lines let us move through public spaces without engaging at all.
I am someone who talks to strangers — not intentionally, but as a way of moving through the world. These brief exchanges are not interruptions. They are small acts of participation in what the writer David Sax calls our “social contract.”
Yet we are taught early not to engage. “Don’t talk to strangers” keeps children safe, but we rarely revisit that lesson. Over time, caution can become habit, and habit becomes distance.
Ms. Kirsch’s story is a reminder that connection often begins with one person willing to take a small social risk. These moments may be fleeting, but they help make shared spaces feel human again.
Perhaps the question is not whether strangers are worth talking to, but whether we’ve forgotten how to begin.
Helaine Fiedler
Westhampton, N.Y.
Ballroom Math
To the Editor:
Re “Republicans Seek $1 Billion to Use for a Ballroom” (front page, May 6):
How does this add up? One billion dollars for a ballroom, but cuts to food programs, health care, climate research and civil rights. The answer is it doesn’t.
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Grapple With Trump’s Plan to Revoke Protections” (news article, April 30):
Having sponsored a couple from Haiti here in the Texas Panhandle with help from my church, I was shocked by how at odds the rhetoric on display during the recent Supreme Court arguments is with what’s happening on the ground.
The couple we sponsored arrived in Texas in July 2023 after a comprehensive (and lengthy) screening process. Our church helped them get back on their feet, but once they were up, they were off — working full-time jobs, paying taxes and volunteering. They’ve rebuilt their lives with remarkable grace, gratitude and resilience.
There are absolutely policy questions about immigration that reasonable people should debate, but I’d urge officials to pause before ousting the more than 350,000 Haitians who entered through this legal program and have been quietly contributing to communities across the country — individuals like the couple I see worshiping beside us on Sundays.
We gave these people protection; they invested in our communities. Rolling back the welcome we extended would be a betrayal of the values we stand for and a foolish denial of the contributions these families make every day.
Kimberly Snelgrooes
Panhandle, Texas
Pro-Republican Avatars
To the Editor:
Re “Hundreds of Fake Pro-Trump Avatars Emerging on Social Media” (Business, April 18):
Kudos to The Times for investigating and exposing the use of A.I. to flood major social media platforms with avatars to fool viewers into believing that various pro-Republican avatar comments represent the thoughts of real human beings.
When the public square becomes the marketplace of bots, democracy and free speech suffer a major blow, as bad actors can and do use A.I. avatars to drown out or dilute the speech of the human beings — we the people — who are intended by the Constitution to form and be the agents of speech. This boils down to being a modern form of election campaign fraud.
The use of fake identities and false pretenses has been restricted and punished in the marketing of securities, commercial advertising, testimony before Congress and the courts and in countless other contexts.
As the masquerading of avatars as real people gravely undermines the authenticity and efficacy of our marketplace of ideas, the time has come for Congress and the states to hold hearings on and adopt common-sense laws to curb such extensive and fraudulent A.I. campaign practices.
William August
Cambridge, Mass.
The writer is a lawyer.
The Potomac Challenge
To the Editor:
Re “Hundreds of Fake Pro-Trump Avatars Emerging on Social Media” (Business, April 18):
Kudos to The Times for investigating and exposing the use of A.I. to flood major social media platforms with avatars to fool viewers into believing that various pro-Republican avatar comments represent the thoughts of real human beings.
When the public square becomes the marketplace of bots, democracy and free speech suffer a major blow, as bad actors can and do use A.I. avatars to drown out or dilute the speech of the human beings — we the people — who are intended by the Constitution to form and be the agents of speech. This boils down to being a modern form of election campaign fraud.
The use of fake identities and false pretenses has been restricted and punished in the marketing of securities, commercial advertising, testimony before Congress and the courts and in countless other contexts.
As the masquerading of avatars as real people gravely undermines the authenticity and efficacy of our marketplace of ideas, the time has come for Congress and the states to hold hearings on and adopt common-sense laws to curb such extensive and fraudulent A.I. campaign practices.
William August
Cambridge, Mass.
The writer is a lawyer.
1976 and 2026
To the Editor:
Re “How a Historian Saved the Schlock of ’76” (Arts, May 5):
As one who lived through the Bicentennial — with all its attendant (and often amusingly lovable) kitsch — I wonder if the reason we’re not seeing a similar celebration of the Semiquincentennial isn’t that we’re any less kitschy now. Perhaps it’s because people just don’t feel like celebrating an America ruled by Donald Trump?
Thomas O’Brien
Chicago
