New Jersey Congressman Votes not to Allow Medical Care for Infants Born Alive

It is very alarming to this writer than any US Representative could vote against a law that would require that a baby who survived an abortion at an Abortion Clinic or elsewhere, and is outside the womb alive, should receive the same level of care as any other infant. To vote against the bill is to legally allow infanticide by neglect. The delivered infant is allowed to lie in a basin, unattended, until it dies. Further, non enforcement of required medical care to live born infants denies their status as babies alive outside the body of the mother. It denies their rights as a living human being. Even worse, it allows that since the living infant outside the womb of the mother is not a person, therefore, it can be treated as a thing. While still breathing and with heart beating, it can be butchered to remove its vital organs.

Yes, there are some who will defend those who voted against passage of this bill. They will say that the vote tally already indicated that the bill would pass and that Representatives merely voted “no” in order to play the Democrat party line or to cater to the whims of their several constituencies. So what.! To vote that a living infant outside the womb of its mother does not require mandatory medical attention by those performing the abortion is a vote in favor of murder.

Failed Abortions — Passage – Vote Passed (248-177, 1 Present, 8 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age. The bill also would require health care practitioners to ensure that these infants are immediately sent to a hospital.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

Planned Parenthood Funding Moratorium — Passage – Vote Passed (241-187, 1 Present, 5 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

What Happened to Ross Perot?

There was a man named Ross Perot. Remember him? He was very much like Mr. Donald Trump. He was a business man. He was a billionaire. Both of them ran for President. What was Perot’s attractiveness? Perot gave expression to the fear and anxiety of the middle class of his time.
In his book titled, They Only Look Dead, E.J. Dionne Jr. (1996) called those attracted to Ross Perot the “Anxious Middle”. In a very fine chapter about the Politics of the Anxious Middle, Mr. Dionne wrote, (p.67)

The Anxious Middle set the terms for the 1992 and 1994 elections. It destroyed a Republican presidential coalition that seemed invulnerable only a few years earlier. It made Ross Perot possible, ended George (H.W) Bush’s political career, sent Bill Clinton to the White House – and rebuked Clinton and helped make Newt Gingrich one of the central figures of American politics. Perot spoke instinctively of the American Middle. Bush never understood it. Clinton saw it coming long before most politicians, shaped his campaign to respond to its concerns – and then confronted its ire after only two years in office. Gingrich sought his own radical language to speak to its anxieties

(p. 72) Almost as important as Clinton’s candidacy, of course, was Ross Perot’s, and his rise proved to be an essential component of Clinton’s victory. In the spring of 1992, as discontent against Bush was growing, Perot’s sudden availability as a candidate shook loose millions of previously Republican voters. Before he dropped out of the contest, Perot had risen to first in the polls and had driven Bush down to about a third of the potential vote. In his withdrawal statement in July – in the midst of the Democratic National Convention – Perot gave Clinton a large boost when he explained that his candidacy might no longer be needed , “now that the Democratic Party has revitalized itself.” Clinton soared in the polls.

Can we call the politics of Mr. Trump an appeal to the feelings of the Angry Middle? His confrontational style, his harsh criticisms, his stand against media and news reporters, his comments to Megan Kelly at the debate, and his repeated statements of anger and frustration place him as their spokesperson. Many of his supporters praise his fearless engagement with and rebuttal of the news reporters. They like when he gives simple answers to, for instance, the immigration problem. They admire that he is willing to say to anyone who disagrees with him, “you’re Fired.”

But as Mr. Dionne highlights, Ross Perot voluntarily left the race and abandoned his supporters. He threw his support to Clinton. He said that his candidacy was no longer needed now that the Democratic party was revived. Was that it? Did Perot play the American voters for fools? Did he care about the voter’s or only about the revitalization of the Democrats? Was he really just a rich old man who hated Bush and would do whatever he could to insure that Clinton won? However you might feel about that analysis, the fact remains that Perot’s candidacy was phony and he never really cared about the “Anxious Middle.” He cared about himself, the Clinton’s and the Democrat Party.

The parallels between Trump and Perot are startling. Trump’s campaign is to feared because like Perot’s, Trump’s billionaire financing, his bitter anger at the press and media, and his threats of reprisal against those with whom he disagrees are enjoying the same kind of support that sent Perot to number one. Plus, there is already talk among people that if Trump is not on the ballot, millions of voters will opt to stay home on Election Day. Such an action of silent protest will throw the election to Mrs. Clinton and the voter’s will have been played twice the fool.

Why Donald Trump?

Why is so much attention being focused on Mr. Donald Trump? The other candidates are barely getting any press coverage. It is not because they do not have something to say. It is not because they do not have programs and solutions to offer. It is not because they do not have excellent campaign organizations. It is because the press and the major media are giving Mr. Trump so much coverage. Why do they do this? Mr. Trump is a flashy candidate who they find entertaining and therefore as someone who will help them sell their news. The other candidates with more political knowledge and experience are forced out of the news by the antics of the often clownish antics of Mr. Trump. That is too bad. It would be an injustice to America to promote one political upstart just because he is entertaining while ignoring the others who may have things of more substance and importance to contribute.

My Ideal Candidate for President

Frankly, it is myself. But that is not reality. So, I decided to think about my ideal candidate. WARNING: My choice for President is Senator Rand Paul. Why? I think of Senator Rand Paul as a principled leader who has a solid principle of government, and will be guided by high morality and the ethical principles of a Judeao/Christian heritage.
But this is about a blending of candidates into the ideal President. For me, it would start with the qualities I admire in Senator Paul. He is a moderate conservative in government philosophy viewing the federal government as too large to be effective and too big to be considerate of the needs of individual citizens. His foreign policy is a philosophy of applying the same freedoms and principles of governance to other nations as we apply to ourselves. Senator Paul, unlike some others, does not consider it a virtue to bomb and drone other nations under the pretext of defending freedom. He understands that bombs kill innocent people and that even targeted drones have been used to kill fifty men, women, and children under the idea that one of them may be a terrorist.
The second candidate whose qualities I admire is Dr. Ben Carson. Like Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Carson lives by the principle ethical imperative of all doctors, namely, do no harm. Dr. Ben Carson is a quintessential American who’s exemplary life highlights him, as it does Dr. Rand Paul, as a person who’s pro life stand is not just anti Planned Parenthood, but forcefully affirmative of all that America and Western civilization has always held dear, namely, the freedom of the individual to chose and the freedom of the person to move forward into the future under the warm light of God’s sun.
Thirdly, I sincerely appreciate the passionate convictions and forthright honesty of Senator Ted. Cruz. He is a pioneer who has been helped by Senator Rand Paul to find his place in the spectrum of political life and who has distinguished himself as a shining beacon of light in a sea of tumult and storm.
Fourthly, I admire the stamina, intellect and language ability of Governor Jeb Bush. He speaks fluent Spanish and I admire his ability at a second language. But Secretary of State Kerry speaks fluent French and I do not admire him. So, I am forced to wonder if a President Jeb Bush will hold his press conferences and deliver his State of the Union addresses in English and in Spanish? The languages spoken in the USA are many and all are good. However, for this citizen, the language of America is English. It is not Arabic. It is not Korean. It is not Hebrew. It is not Spanish. The people who speak two or more languages are to appreciated. But the language of America for Koreans, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs and all others, is English.
Fifthly I admire Governors Walker and Kasich. They are administrators and leaders of sovereign states within our federal union. As governors, they are responsive to the needs of large citizen populations and their elected representative in the state legislatures. This, all by itself, indicates leaders who fully understand and support the principles of freedom for which our founders fought the American Revolution.
Sixth , I have a deep appreciation for Governor Huckabee. He is a gentleman through and through who exemplifies the values, culture and morals of Christian faith and its daily application to life.
Seventh, I like Donald Trump. He is forthright, candid and brutally opinionated. I believe that his brand of angry opinion reflects the frustration, anger and disappointment of Americans who are on the verge of giving up on the American dream and the principles of American freedom. But I do not believe we should select a leader because he reflects our anger. I do not believe we should follow the lead of someone because he represents our frustration. I do not feel comfortable empowering a man who’s demeanor is one that says, “You’re fired”. As ventilating as that demeanor may be, it is not a characteristic under which I want to live four years.
Can we get all of this in one President. I pray that we could. However, short of that, I pray that our next President will call upon the talents, experiences, abilities and insights of all the many candidates, appointing them to positions of power so that America will be served not by one excellent candidate who knows how to win elections but by many candidates who love America and will spend their lives making America better tomorrow than it is today.

Are Old Line, Hard Line, Republicans and Their Minions Trying to Trash Rand Paul?

I follow Senator Rand Paul’s run for the nomination of the Republican Party. I find the lack of coverage for Senator Paul to be not merely amazing but alarming. It seems to this writer that the powerful and the entrenched interests of the Republican party are working very hard to trash Senator Paul’s campaign.
Senator Paul is a powerful political figure in his own right. He is the person who is setting the agenda for the campaigns of all candidates. This is because he is the most original, freedom minded, logically consistent candidate among an overcrowded field. His political positions on the issues that most matter, namely: race and prison, drugs and mandatory sentencing, legalized marijuana, ISIS and the Middle East, Planned Parenthood, and refashioning our income tax system …
Well, his proposals are original, and based upon a freedom loving, individual rights, anti politically correct stance which is forcing the other candidates to take positions contra-Rand Paul. The fact that so many hard line, old line, entrenched members of the political class are attacking him indicates the power of his innovative proposals.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O Reilly and to a lesser extent, Megan Kelly, have set up a kill zone of ambush and attack against Senator Paul. All of these people are directly responsible as contributors to Barrack Hussein Obama’s victory in 2012. In that election cycle they all set absurd “conservative” standards for Governor Romney which when unmet insured his rejection by the conservatives. Mitt wasn’t conservative enough, so said Hannity. Mitt is not a Limbaugh conservative, so said Rush. O Reilly was a little more fair but constantly intoned that Romney couldn’t win, and well, Megan Kelly wasn’t really influential back then.

So, yes, these so called pundits and commentators allow Senator Paul to be interviewed but each time they try, as Miss Megan did, to undermine his integrity and political acumen. Miss Kelly even had the female Bush press secretary, what’s her name again?, come on and say that Senator Paul didn’t have the courage and fortitude to be President. (Shame, Shame.) As a fact, I remember Miss Megan wagging her finger in scold as she accused Senator Paul of scolding. (She kept the wagging finger below the camera angle but it still could be seen)
Am I angry? Well, I try not to be angry. But I am getting resentful of TV personalities telling me what to think, how to think, or even worse, not to think!
It is as though these good folk, as O’Reilly calls us, well, referring to them, it seems to these good TV folk that us folks at home are uninformed and ignorant. Not so, Bill. We know what we are about, and we are beginning to wonder what you folks are about? Are you censoring Senator Paul because in “you’s all folks opinion” he is not the “man”?
Friends, just for information, as I write this I am listening to, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Led Zepp, the Righteous Brothers, Pink, Nate Ruess, Michael Jackson, Cher, Mahalia Jackson, and the like. Just a hour ago I was listening to Brahms violin concerto and last night I viewed Princess Micheal of Kent on YouTube. She has a very interesting new book. Why do I include this? I just thought to let you know a little about me. It seems that a survey site called You Gov. is always asking me about my preferences in music and movies.
Anyway, if you have read this far, I thank you. Your time is precious and I appreciate that you found this interesting enough to wade through it all. You are a friend. I do not intend to insult or disparage others. I only intend to put out my thought into the public square, or as my friend Rev. Father John Neuhaus called it in his book, “the Naked Public Square”. By the way it is a book worthy to be read. (Yes, the title is The Naked Public Square.” )
So friends, peace to you and God bless. Let’s keep up our vigilance and not let others decide who will be in the White House. We have the vote, and although I am beginning to wonder as to the integrity of the vote tally, I still will stand fast for our rights as Americans.

Rand Paul is a Brave Senator who Defends Persecuted Christians

http://visiontoamerica.com/16061/sen-paul-worldwide-war-on-christians-is-being-waged-by-a-fanatical-element-of-islam/

Senator Rand Paul is courageous to stand up and stand out attempting to stop persecution of Christians. Senator Paul is a man of conviction and a man of courage who is bold in his defense of people, like the Christian minories in Moslem countries, who are being murdered, displaced and forced to flee for their lives. -Sadly, the ELCA, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod are silent. Maybe America based Lutherans don’t care about the welfare or fate of other Christians. The silence of the Churches further weakens their moral authority in an age where it is almost non existent anyway. However, Senator Rand Paul, who is only tolerated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Marc Levin, is a brave, honest and outstanding political leader who is not beholding to the talk show pundits. Seems, Rush, Sean and Marc prefer Ted Cruz to anyone else. Yet, it has been Rand Paul who had led the fight for fairness in government. Senator Rand Paul should be recognized by the major conservative radio hosts as the best candidate for President there is. Senator Paul however is viewed by them with suspicion because he refuses to mouth the same words they do. I guess, Senator Rand Paul does not EXACTLY fit their definition of Republican or Conservative. And that is to their discredit because they define too narrowly the people with whom they are willing to work.

Rand Paul and Paul Ryan

I still think the team of Romney and Ryan was a wonderful opportunity for America. As of now I think it could be Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. I know a lot of people are angry at Congressman Ryan for budget matters. But the key is that he wanted to pass a budget in order to get control of spending back to the Congress. The Democrats have succeeded in using the Continuing Resolutions process to NOT pass a budget and thereby hand over complete control of spending to President Obama. That is why Obama was able to spend so much money. Now that we have a budget, imperfect though it be, the congress and budget committees can control and reign in the spending and President Obama no longer has a blank check to write. They have already corrected the mistake about military retirement pensions. They will do more. As for Rand Paul’s libertarian leanings, so what?! He doesn’t want war? Great. He believes in the rule of reason and law? Good. He thinks that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted? Fantastic. He thinks that government must be reduced in size and more actual power returned to State and Local governments. Bravo. He loves America and does not seek to fundamentally transform it into a socialist welfare state? Awesome. Let’s get behind the Republican candidate and not do the Gingrich, Santorum, even Ron Paul (Father to Rand) and fight till the convention and then go home to Va. Pa. and Tx. without giving wholehearted support to the candidate (Romney and Ryan.) I believe that we lost because those three groups fought too long, refused to donate to the candidate, refused to work for him, and stayed home on election day. I also blame Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin for seeking a so called PURE Conservative instead of supporting the best team we could field. Let’s not do it to ourselves again. By the way I like the sound of the two names, Rand Paul ( a R and a P ) and Paul Ryan (a P and a R ).

Why the Republicans Lost in 2012

Rick Santorum and the conservative right are the reason the GOP lost the last election. They refused to back the agreed upon front-runner. They did not work for him after he was chosen and they refused to vote for him on election day. The conservative right complains that the left will not cooperate but it is equally true of them. Santorum attacked Romney so viciously that Rick couldn’t honestly overcome the visceral nature of his attacks. So, he and his followers and moneyed backers simply licked their wounds and went home sulking to come out and fight again this time. The same is true of Gingrich, Ron Paul, (not Rand) and of most other conservatives. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never really backed the agreed upon candidate. Limbaugh eventually agreed that although Romney was not really a Limbaugh conservative (and therefore, not really conservative enough) nonetheless, Limbaugh agreed that Romney was the best Republicans had. It was a veiled rejection of Romney, I believe. Hannity, never really backed Romney until the very end, and then only with the same caveats as Limbaugh. Levin, the same. I guess, you need to believe, like Obama does, that you are the only person who is right and pure and righteous. I guess you need to believe that the 595 members elected to the Congress by the people are the enemy. And, like Obama, you can rule the nation with your selected ideas, subjecting the people to your imperial will. So, here we go again with various factions of the electorate rallying to their narrowly defined “preferred” candidates…all good, that is the American way….but if the Republicans agree to one of them at the convention and then the factions refuse to work for the candidate, refuse to donate and just go home, sulk and refuse to vote, then the Republicans will lose again.

The good news is that the Republican party is a society of thinkers, poets, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others. It is not a party of single minded thinking and locked in step obedience to the leader. The Republican party is a true reflection of the American people who are themselves a people with varying opinions, religions and political philosophies. The Republican party are fighters for their beliefs. This also is good news because we need people of conviction willing to wrestle for their positions in the public square of ideas. Sadly, this writer believes, that the Democrat party is of one mind. It is the mind that is defined by the leadership and to which all Democrats bow. The Democrat party is not reflective of the variety of positions within the populace. Oh yes, individual Democrats may personally believe this or that idea, or think that this or that method is better than the one officially endorsed by the party. But the Democrat will always support the official position of the party no matter their own personal beliefs. This locked in step obedience to the party is why Democrat Senators and Congress persons were willing to pass Obama- care without reading it. They were told by “you cannot know what is in the bill until you pass it…” Nancy Pelosi and “Dead on Arrival if it does not agree with me” Harry Reid…that they must vote yes. And all Democrats did as they were told to do. Obama and the Democrat party leadership said to jump and they responded, “how high and how fast?”. It didn’t matter if the Democrat person thought that Obama-care was good or bad. The only thing that mattered was the decision of the Democrat party leadership. That decision was to be obeyed without question.

Too bad for America that our people seem to think that absolute obedience to the Democrat party leaders is better than public debate, public wrestling and public disagreement. We are a people growing too willing to live in the cartoon world of Barney and Dora and the Disneyland of fairy tales without any difficult characters. Is that the result of the Disney iszation (I know it is not a word) of our society? Some say, we are becoming too soft minded, all messy inside our heads. Some say, that males are being tamed and “feminized” and that the wilderness character of people like Davey Crochett, Kit Carson, Abraham Lincoln, Lewis and Clarke is lost. In response, the tea party movement has tried to revive interest in our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison- seeing in them the successful nation that arose from their religious, philosophical and political struggles.

America today is facing an election for the House and Senate. Hopefully, there will be lively and vibrant debate. However, it must be a debate about ideas. The presentations must be cogent, coherent and convincing. The facts must be true and not created by “talking point” mentors who tell our politicians what to say to which group today, only to slightly modify it for the next group tomorrow. And there absolutely must be an end to name calling, stereotyping, and feigned co-opting which has been so readily apparent with Obama, who says that Republicans must cooperate with him because he wants to cooperate with them, but, the same day, he tells the crowds that the Republicans are recalcitrant, red necked, backward and obstructionist who are to be blamed for everything from the state of the economy to the state of the weather. (Did you notice how adroitly the Democrat party crafted the narrative that hurricane Katrina was the fault of the Republicans. Katrina was President Bush’s hurricane and by careful inference, they said that all of results of Katrina were his fault. And have you noticed that Mayor Nagin, the Democrat hero of Katrina, fled to Texas during the storm and is now under Louisiana and federal indictment for criminal activity before, during and after Katrina? Amazing, to this writer, that Nagin’s indictment is getting meager coverage by the major news media!!)

The run up to the 2014 election must reject the prevalent immorality of our Obama administration which evidently knew that Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack against our embassy with the intention of murdering our ambassador, yet went to the United Nations and blamed it on an amateur You Tube video. The 2014 election debates must refuse to accept the concept that our UN Ambassador must be promoted to the National Security Council because she obediently went on the Sunday Talk Shows and repeated the lie that the Obama Administration wanted all of us to believe. We must reject political advertising that portrays people like Congressman Ryan as pushing our wheel-chaired grandmothers over the cliff. And most certainly, we must reject the guilt be association that blames Hilary for President Clinton’s having oral sex with a young female White House intern. And we must also reject life style morality debates, especially over gay and lesbian and transgender issues. However, as least for this writer, I do think that the place of these issues in the public school curriculum and the methods and age appropriateness of what is taught about these issues,- I believe, these to be legitimate issues for research and high level discussion and debate. Yes, even political debate, although it is all too often not high level.

Finally, I’d like to make a simple statement about the race issue. It should be a non issue. As long as we keep it in the forefront as an issue, then racism continues. Do we see a yellow man or a man who’s ancestry is Asian? Do we see a black woman, or a woman who’s ancestry is black skinned. What is an African anyway? Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccan’s, Tunisians are Africans but they are not black. Is African a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? Is Africa a continent or a country? Is a Nigerian the same ethnicity as a Congolese? What is black, anyway? Is it a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? New Guinea aboriginals are black but they are not African. Many peoples in India are dark brown or even black skinned but they too are not Africans. I know Italian friends who get really dark skinned in the Summer. The race debate is meaningless and President Obama, who thinks that many American citizens reject him because he is black skinned, is not helping. I remember when the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested a university professor. President Obama said openly that the white policeman acted wrongly. Obviously, our President saw it as a racial issue because he cast it as a white policeman acting wrongly against a black university professor. That was the start of racial division politics from then till now.

Ok, I think I have wandered a little in this blog. But at least it is out there for you to read, ponder and respond, if you care to engage.

There is a lot a stake in our nation. We are under going a national wrestling match which may result in a “pin” or a technical win. But to use another metaphor, it will not result in a knock out punch. Nor should it. Because a pin in wrestling is a win of strength that does not unduly hurt nor seek to destroy the opponent. A knock out is a knock out. ( Yes, I know this is not the best analogy. If you care for another share it.! I just hope you get the idea.) I think we need to wrestle with each other but we do not need a fist fight and definitely not a brawl.

Christie’s Political Enemies Continue Attacks

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201401/carl-lewis-chris-christie-new-jersey-politics

The writer states at the beginning that “…New Jersey politics is a full contact sport…” Yes, it is. No different from Obama politics with the buying of Senators to vote for Obama care. No different from Hilary Clinton and the Benghazi scandal. With Obama the nation is paying a huge price and forced to give up freedom of choice in healthcare. With Hilary four great Americans are abandoned in a firefight and die. And although this writer believes that it was not Christie personally who set up the traffic cones on a small access lane to a bridge, nonetheless, nobody died and its didn’t cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Come clean news writers, reporting is a blood sport and you think you can take Christie down so to clear the field for Hilary. Just another example of news media facilitating their favorites (Hilary)by destroying their rivals (Christie). PS..Hiliary will be 70 years old by 2016. I am 66 and I have had enough of the old politicos. Let’s move down to the forty and fifty years olds for our Presidents. Enough with the geriatric Harry Reids and the old Senate crew. Some of the elderly in the Senate are into their eighties!!! Pack it in boys, give somebody else a chance.

Rand Paul is Correct about the Today’s Rules for Speaking

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-seeks-dismiss-criticism-plagiarism-120740932.html

Senator Rand Paul is correct in asserting that speeches do not carry the same rules of attribution as written material. If speeches followed the same rules then the speaker would never get past the first sentences. Much of what is thought has also been thought by someone else. When written material such as books, journals and the like were the main sources of information, we were trained to cite the source title, date, place of publication and author or editors etc. However, in the age of cinema and Wikipedia, and Internet, the possibility is very high that someone somewhere has written the same thoughts as you have, (like I am doing now). If the item to be spoken is exactly literal, it may be a good idea to mention the person. But just because The Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King said, “I have a Dream” does not mean that no one can ever use those four words again. Although if the reference is to Rev. Dr. King and to the civil rights movement it may be a good idea to mention him and his speech. Yet, even here a case can be made for the use of allusion in speech whereby we evoke the image of the other person and their words while intentionally not mentioning them by name. This is a valid technique to tease the mind of the listener to make the needed connection. Rachel Maddox knows this. She is a college grad. She is a published writer. She is a public speaker. Her comments about Senator Paul should be taken in the context of her need for publicity and her need to attract audiences for her shows and her book. This is not to dismiss her questions or demean her objections but it is to place her comments in a wider and interesting context concerning the rules for writing and public speaking today.