Month: May 2006

New Orleans, Louisiana, 9.40 am.

A reader writes:

I am a (very) infrequent reader of any blogs, but yours is one of the few I have bookmarked.  I came across the "The View From Your Window" series today and found it capivating. The sense of immediacy and even intimacy – made possible by the instantaneous transmission of digital photographs over high-speed fiber optic cable networks – is the best thing about it. The photos would have nowhere near the same effect if they had been taken, say, a few months ago; it’s the sense of "here’s how things look where I am, halfway around the world or maybe only ninety miles south, a few hours ago" that demands the viewer’s attention and ensures success.
I understand you have other claims on your time than sorting through and posting photos – but still, this is brilliant.

I’m delighted by the response – I’ve now had several hundred entries. I’ve tried to select for variety and for specificity. Purely subjective criteria, of course – so please don’t feel bad if you didn’t make the cut. I find the digital glimpse into the worlds of the readers of this blog oddly moving. All those pageviews are actually human beings, with lives and homes and windows. Every time I get exhausted by the blogosphere, something like this happens, and I’m in love with it all over again.

Route 27, New Brunswick, NJ – from the rear-view mirror of a reader’s truck, 8 pm.

Bay View neighborhood of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, noon.

Not at all like the Islamists:

Nicolas Almeida, a Catholic and former Mumbai municipal councillor, offered a reward of 1.1 million rupees ($25,000) for the head of author Brown, leading a Catholic journalist to compare Almeida to the Taliban.

This is the first modern Christianist fatwa I’ve heard of. Are there others?

A reader writes:

The Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, says, "A fifty foot wall will create a market for fifty-five foot ladders." Coyotes who have been interviewed look forward to the challenge presented by a wall, stating that, when it becomes more difficult for individuals to cross by themselves, their business will not only increase, they will be able to raise their charges.
The solution is not walls; it’s the absence of jobs in the U.S. that invite them here, an ID card that cannot be counterfeited, plus a policy that permits those with jobs here to go back and forth.
Mexico is Arizona’s biggest trading partner. We don’t need walls with all of their unintended international consequences, we need cooperation with our neighbor to the South to help resolve our immigration problem while maintaining our strong business relationships.
Regardless of our intentions, a wall will be viewed internationally like our secret torture policy: one more piece of evidence that America has lost its humanity. I suppose the next question we will debate is whether we should shoot those we find entering over, under, or breeching the wall with explosives. Like the Berlin Wall, where there is a will, there is a way, that is, until the shooting starts.

I’m not impressed with these arguments. If Mexico wants to cooperate with the U.S., why does it not share the costs of constructing a wall? And if market forces attract immigrants, great. But let them immigrate legally, and let’s expand legal immigration to accommodate them. And, yes, I guess at some level, armed force might be necessary. But it’s already used; and a wall might actually decrease its necessity and frequency. As for the symbolic case, it’s a good one. But a completely anarchic border is also a symbol – of an impotent federal government. I’m open to arguments about the practicality of building such a wall, and to possible unintended consequences. But so far, I can’t say I’m impressed by the case against. Expense? Of course. So let’s abolish agricultural subsidies, import more food-stuffs – and ethanol! – from Latin and South America, and use the money we save to help build the wall. Deal?

Brooklyn, New York, 8 pm.

What was she thinking? Or do I really want to know?

A reader writes:

The reason why we know what we know about the Clintons is due to irresponsible journalism, and not their life style. How would you like to have someone else describe your marital life in text without your blessing or input? The Clintons are by far much better people than those giving them labels. It’s the damn writers and their spins that are shaping the world, not reality. The lack of responsibility in most of today’s writers and the lack of discipline, fact finding, scruples, etc. is making this world hell to live in.

Another reason is a history of sexual harassment lawsuits. But I have some sympathy with the reader’s frustration. I’m just afraid that privacy is now over – for all of us. And there’s nothing we can do about it.