Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Bye bye, Little Marco. Take your sleaze and go home. Get a real job in the private sector instead of sucking the public teat. Incidentally, why is it "dirty tricks" to quote a CNN story about dissension in the Rubio ranks? I saw the report by CNN's Jamie Gangel. Her sources within the Rubio campaign have told her that some advisers want Rubio to drop out before the Florida primary, so as to avoid a humiliating and career-harming defeat. She and CNN are standing by the story. Blaming Ted Cruz for passing on this information is absurd.

Addendum: Fox News (which is owned by Australian Rupert Murdoch, a proponent of open borders), is in the bag for Rubio, who wants amnesty for illegal aliens, so this is dishonest reportage. The only Fox personality who is standing up to Murdoch is Sean Hannity.

Oh my god. This man is retarded.

Head On (1975).

To the Editor:

The Republican hierarchy and much of the media are unhappy with Donald Trump’s ascendancy. Let’s bring a little common sense to the arguments against Mr. Trump as the Republican nominee.

Republican turnout has increased dramatically, and he has done better in open primaries than closed. This confirms that his appeal is broader than just his Republican base. Most likely, those who voted for a different Republican candidate in the primaries would pull the lever for him in the general election.

The Republican hierarchy should remember Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment—Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican—and shut their mouths and back the Republican candidate, whoever he is. Then, let Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz duke it out while implementing a strong anti-Hillary Clinton ad campaign.

If the Republican hierarchy continues on its current path and is successful, it will alienate Trump supporters. This would be fatal. Unfortunately, the Republican hierarchy again lacks the common touch and common sense understanding of those not already in the boat.

HOWARD G. SEITZ

New York

More people who need to get right with Donald. (Read the comments.)

There are three positions that one might take on split infinitives:

1. They are always prohibited.
2. They are sometimes, but not always, prohibited.
3. They are never prohibited.

Position 1 is the traditional rule. Position 2 is the current rule. Position 3 has never been the rule. There are two exceptions to the rule against split infinitives:

• A split infinitive is permissible in order to prevent ambiguity.
• A split infinitive is permissible in order to prevent awkwardness.

Yesterday, I posted a quotation by Douglas Husak. He wrote:

Estimates of the amount of drunk driving vary widely, partly because of the inability of respondents to accurately report [sic] whether or not they have ever committed the offense.

I inserted "[sic]" because (1) Husak split an infinitive and (2) neither of the exceptions applies. Here is what he should have written:

Estimates of the amount of drunk driving vary widely, partly because of the inability of respondents accurately to report whether or not they have ever committed the offense.

This sentence is neither ambiguous nor awkward.

Here are scenes from today's stage of Paris-Nice, the so-called Race to the Sun. The bike-handling skills of these men are amazing. Look at the final few images. Here is video: 

Bye bye, Little Marco.

Castle Rock, north of St Ignace in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Click to enlarge.