Once upon a time there was respect for scientists…

Some families sit together and watch sitcoms, entertainment, or sports. Not my family; we are the classic science geeks. Two parents who both are researchers with a lab to run, one adult child who is a sophomore microbiology/biochemistry student at university, and a high schooler with a love for all things math and physics and an interest, potentially, in medicine. What do we watch? Recently we began a fascinating series called “Charite,” named after the famous Berlin hospital, and dealing with the lives of the doctors, researchers and nurses who worked there toward the end of the 19th century.

charite-robert-koch

Robert Koch is visited in his laboratory by the German Kaiser and his entourage. A scientist in that era was accorded the highest respect.

I read somewhere that this German-made miniseries has been described as a sort of Downton Abbey of the medical sciences, with the professors and doctors likened to the wealthy Crawley family, and the nurses and assistants paralleled to the servants living on the lower level of the Downton Abbey manor. But personal stories and love affairs aside, the series brings to life three of the most significant researchers of this era: 1) The famous bacteriologist and immunologist Robert Koch, who laid the groundwork for the causal relationships between bacteria and diseases. Koch, famous for his Koch’s Postulates, a series of conditions that he deemed necessary to formally prove that a disease was caused by a specific microbe, made groundbreaking discoveries in tuberculosis, anthrax and cholera research. 2) Paul Erlich, who despite contracting tuberculosis, had a long and fruitful career in which he developed anti-sera and drugs against a variety of bacteria and parasites. 3) Emil von Behring, who made tremendous discoveries in the area of diphtheria and tuberculosis.

The apex of all three of these fathers of immunology centered in the miniseries around their common work at the Charite, bringing to life their strengths and weaknesses as people, their tempers and intimacies, their humanity. The story is compelling, and while one will not necessarily come away with a better understanding of the science behind vaccines, bacterial infections and immunology, that is far from the point; it is easy to pull up the information online. The beauty of Charite is in the recreation of the era–a time when electricity was barely available and yet these dogged researchers were carrying out controlled experiments in animals, and even testing their anti-serums on themselves and each other–to test safety before their antidotes became public.

Perhaps the most intriguing part of Charite is the depiction of the scientists in the eye of the public at the time; the visits from the German Kaisers to the hospital, the degree of respect and honor accorded to the scientists for the work. The promises of more money for research, new institutes, new hospitals. The general adulation of researchers by the public-at-large. Indeed, Robert Koch was essentially pursued by an up and coming pretty young singer/actress who–at least in the miniseries–seems to have fallen as much in love with his research as with the man himself.

I do not bemoan the lack of adulation by young actresses for my own research career–but honestly–some respect and more support by the government would benefit the research community and the public at large. More than border walls and military parades. Will someone please take note?

Posted in Education, research, science | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Once upon a time there was respect for scientists…

The best experiment

It has been a long winter, but spring is finally here. It’s a beautiful day, starting from breakfast on the deck, watching the birds over the lake.

IMG_8654

And it’s time for someone who hasn’t done an experiment in a dozen years (at least with his own hands) to pick up–not a pipette–a garden trowel.

For years now I have been the fortunate recipient of delicious summer vegetables from colleagues who have second careers as backyard farmers. Now, finally with a little backyard space of my own, it’s time for this nearly-flunked and unwilling student of botany to throw in his trowel. And so I did!

IMG_8656

I purchased 7 tomato plants: 3 “Park’s Whoppers” (recommended and approved by an experienced colleague), a Nebraskan Cornhusker cherry tomato plant, a grape tomato plant, a “heirloom tomato” plant and one other larger tomato species.

The fun thing about this “experiment” is that I can make it as subjective as I like! I can “quantify” how much I like each type of tomato, balanced by the hardiness and time for each plant to come to fruition, coupled with a factor for the yield from each plant–and come up with a mathematical equation for what to plant next season. Or not. Perhaps I will just decide subjectively whatever tastes the best.

For now, all I can do is wait it out. In the time it takes for a submitted grant to be reviewed, I will (hopefully) be able to indulge in delicious ripe tomatoes.

IMG_8660

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Another school shooting–will anything change?

It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep one’s nose to the grindstone and carry on in America of 2018 as though everything is okay. That’s because it isn’t.

I have to be optimistic—and despite Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman’s wariness of optimists in his great book, “Thinking Fast and Slow,” I remain optimistic on several accounts. Just as an aside, Kahneman noted in his book that he never met a scientist without an optimistic and over-inflated view of the significance of his/her project. Point taken.

Why and how can I be optimistic when 17 teens were just gunned down by a 19-year old who legally purchased a semi-automatic assault rifle? Yes, it’s hard. But I feel that change is coming. Slowly. Surely. And guess what? Guess what may be catalyzing the rate of change in this country? Still guessing? How about a narcissistic, ignorant and highly unqualified president, with below level intelligence, and the ethics of a 3rd-world country dictator. And did I mention small hands?

Yes. The same man who needs cue cards to try and fool people that he feels empathy for others. Empathy? Narcissists only empathize with themselves. The little cue cards, photographed in his little hands and blown up to show was written, show-cased his mental acuity, introspection and tremendous empathy:  “I hear you” and “What do you want me to know about your experience?” This probably reflects what we’re dealing with in the White House as much as anything else the public has seen in the last crazy year.

This less-than-stable and certainly a far cry below-average-intelligence-president, has proposed, in the wake of another horrible school shooting—as his solution—to arm teachers with guns. And the net result, I predict, will be a rallying cry for change that has not been possible for many years. In other words, in the aftermath of such a terrible president, we will be getting a regression to the mean…

Why is this such a terrible idea, the arming of teachers in schools? After all, in a raving, ranting speech in front of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), National Rifle Association (NRA) president Wayne LaPierre not only supported this idea, but also accused anyone other than himself of being a European socialist (that European jibe—really gets those nationalist juices flowing) and a traitor to (white) American ideals—if the 1950s were a good time for you. It’s worth listening to the speech just to see how out of whack he is with reality. But back to the idea of arming teachers.

First, it seems that the whole notion of arming teachers is an exercise in distraction—from the number one issue and most obvious problem that we have: the availability of assault-style guns for purchase. Let’s leave aside hunting rifles and personal hand-guns and focus on these assault rifles: what rationale is there for them to be sold? Such rifles are made for the military, not self protection or hunting. Their only purpose is to kill as many people as rapidly as possible. Why would any-law abiding citizen think such a weapon should be available outside the military? So why are they even sold in this country? They are illegal in every other western democracy.

I witnessed Senator Marco Rubio argue against banning them. Why? Because he maintains that a ban would not block the sale of 200 other types of very similar types of weapons with similar capabilities. At least Rubio addressed the problem—but what a silly argument! The father of slain high-schooler Jaimie Guttenberg, Fred Guttenberg, possessed immense personal courage and responsibility for the future of children in this country when he replied to Rubio in a town hall meeting after the Florida school massacre: “So ban them too!” Is it really that complicated? And can anyone deny the irrationality of selling such weapons? The so-called 2nd amendment aficionados know that “the right to self defense” does not include the purchase of a bazooka, a grenade launcher, mortars, tanks, or artillery pieces. Or for that matter, nerve gas or weaponized anthrax. Do we even have to spell out “common sense?!”

In addition to major changes in gun control, I agree that other issues should also be addressed. Obviously mental health comes to mind, data bases and background checks for any weapons, and so on. But guns for teachers? Let’s examine that more carefully.

In the little Trump brain, he envisions a heavily armed attacker coming into a school, firing indiscriminately with an assault rifle in every direction, and a teacher materializing out of a classroom to neutralize the gunman. Presto. Really? I think someone needs to wean him off television. Or better yet, lead him out of the Oval Office.

Such a scenario, of an armed teacher being able neutralize a gunman with an assault rifle in the midst of a horrific and chaotic attack is extremely unlikely Even a trained guard outside the Florida school failed to act and prevent or limit the tragedy in real time. Trump called him a “coward–” easy said, coming from Mr. Bone Spurs, who never served in the military. But the truth is that until tested in combat, it is difficult to know how even the very best-trained soldiers will react or perform. Don’t believe me? Just go back and read Kahneman’s book, on the section about the difficulties in predicting successful future army officers.

I served 3 years in the military. Only the most intense basic training, including how to react after significant sleep deprivation and having responses drilled into one’s very being, help prepare one for a combat-like situation. And this is on the battlefield—where one knows and identifies where the enemy is and where they are coming from. The training I received doesn’t even compare to that received by special-forces—which can number several years—and would be needed to reach the level required for successful action in such a complex scenario as a school attack. How could one possibly think that a teacher, even with some basic training (and shooting accuracy is only a small part of what training would need to be), could possibly move into a smoke-filled corridor, packed with screaming students and teachers, horrific noise, and identify and accurately neutralize a shooter? Wishful thinking, I’m sorry to say.

None of these issues take into consideration many of the other problems with this idea: the cost of arming teachers, the emotional and educational impact of having teachers with guns on the students and school atmosphere, the safety issues of having weapons circulating in a school (potential negligence/errors in teacher judgment), and so on. Because in any case, this is just a stupid idea.

So why do I remain optimistic? Because Trump, in his narcissistic stupidity and lack of empathy is generating a slow tidal wave—a tsunami perhaps—among the younger generation, and causing people the younger generation in particular to abandon inert and lethargic lives in favor of new found activism. The tide is turning, and beware to those who inhabit or pretend to dry swamps.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Even scientists have birthdays

Scientist bday

What do you get for a scientist who has everything? Except, perhaps, all the grants and papers he wants….

Posted in humor, Reviews, science | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Even scientists have birthdays

This is NOT the America I know

This is NOT the America I know

I am an American by birth, although until the age of 34, I never lived in the United States except as a baby. Thus, I am here by choice. And I am saddened by what Donald Trump has done to this country—because this is NOT the America I know.

I did not choose Donald Trump. I did not choose his “Shithole version of America.” I did not choose his overt racism and bigotry. I did not choose his favorable attitude to white supremacists. I did not choose his incessant and often ridiculous lies. I did not choose his narcissistic ways and complete lack of empathy for anyone other than himself. I did not choose his cruelty. I did not choose his personal attacks on individuals from the office of the president. I did not choose his inherent bullying nature. I did not choose his crudeness or vulgarity, and his attacks on women and their appearance. I did not choose his attacks on Mexicans or Haitians, and I did not choose his contempt for African American sports stars. I did not choose his failure to understand the constitution. I did not choose his failure to comprehend the meaning of free speech. I did not choose his attacks on the press. I did not choose his ignorance, his lack of morality, his complete inability to grasp complex concepts, and his non-existent attention span. I did not choose his bragging. I did not choose his cronyism. I did not choose his corruptness. I did not choose his nepotism. I did not choose his tendency to make every issue, first and foremost about himself. I did not choose the way he brings out the very worst in the people of this country. And most importantly, the majority of American voters did not choose Donald Trump.

It is necessary for me to reassure myself, and explain what I DID choose, and why I did come back to the United States for my adult life. Trump’s America is NOT the America that I see. I chose a country that rewards hard work and sacrifice. I chose a country where people are respected for their work ethic (regardless of their job) and their kind behavior to others. I chose a country made up of immigrants and sons and daughters of immigrants from around the globe. I chose a country where people are equal before the law, and where all are free to practice their own religions or belief systems (as long as they do not impose them or interfere with the rights of others). I chose a country of tolerance. I chose a country where my children went to a multi-cultural pre-school with children from a variety of nations and religions, who had every conceivable shade of skin color, and diversity was celebrated. I chose a country where science was encouraged and respected. A country that other countries worried would attract their best people and cause a brain-drain. I chose a country filled with people who are the most philanthropic in the world. I chose a country that respects the rule of law, the court system, and judges. A country that has and respects a free press. I chose a country that sends aid to less fortunate countries and people, a country that helps other countries when they have crises, national disasters, and refugees. I chose a country whose people are courteous, kind and helpful.

I never considered any of the reasons for my choosing the United States to be partisan, relating to one party or another. I always considered these reasons as values held by and large by the majority of Americans; I STILL do. It’s time for the people of this country to unite—not regarding political issues such as taxes and healthcare and other legitimately debatable issues—but on one very specific point: the ignorant, malevolent, narcissist in the White House, Donald Trump, is concerned only with his own immediate gratification and self-adulation.  All good people in this country must unite to reject the degradation of the presidency and the ruination of American values and morals, and everything that is good in this nation.

Posted in science | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This is NOT the America I know

Run with Science, Dr. Julia Biggins!

Katie-Howell-Photography-Julia-Biggins-Congress-Headshot_2-1024x683

Dr. Julia Biggins, Democratic candidate for Representative of Virginia’s 10th District

One of the few positive outcomes of the Trump presidency, is that some people have become so fed up with the quality of those in elected office, that they are willing to leave careers that they love behind in order to challenge and replace some of the appalling current politicians in Congress. Indeed, I have read that there is a new trend of scientists who have decided to run for political office.

According to a recent CNN article, a handful of candidates who are either active scientists or physicians, have decided to place themselves on the ballot to combat the damaging anti-science and anti-truth White House. The “war on science” begins, first and foremost, with a brutal assault on the truth. As the administration tells full-out lies at an amazing rate, and brandishes its communications machinery to support those lies (which include the size Trump’s inauguration, whether Trump won the popular vote, whether the election was a ‘landslide,’ whether Obama wiretapped Trump at his home—just to bring a few early examples of the lies), they use the absurd Orwellian method of claiming that those reporting the truth (journalists and the media) are “fake.” Call others what you yourself are. Just like the “No puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet!” tic-like bellow by Mr. Trump in his debate with Mrs. Clinton, when she argued that he was acting like a Putin puppet. If you call others what you really are, then that absolves you of your sins, and places them on others. Or so a stable genius thinks…

But the war on science goes beyond the broad attack on the truth. Trump’s pick for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) director, Scott Pruitt, has been especially damaging to science and the quality of the environment in this country. A climate-change denier, Pruitt has done everything he can to prevent EPA scientists from publishing data on climate change, attending meetings, etc. There has been an exodus of scientists from the EPA, and Pruitt has pushed to overturn regulations that until now prevented dangerous toxins that can cause childhood cancers from being used.

In addition, the Trump administration called for a 20% cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health, showing not only a lack of concern for the development of new drugs and treatments for diseases that afflict the American people, but also a lack of understanding of how scientific research is an economic engine that has helped the US become (and stay) a global leader. At least until now.

Of course, let us not forget that the Trump administration recently put a ban on the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and forbid this institute from using such tainted and terrible words, as “evidence-based, science-based, fetus, transgender, vulnerable, etc.,” in their upcoming budget. The words ‘science-based’ in a budget for the CDC? How inappropriate! Only an administration bent on destroying science and truth could possibly dream up banning the use of these words!

For these reasons, I was delighted to read that an active scientist, Dr. Julia Biggins, has signed on to run for Representative of Virginia’s 10th district as a Democrat in the 2018 mid-term elections! Dr. Biggins is an infectious disease researcher, and she has noted that not only will she fight for science and against the current administration’s anti-science policies, but she will bring all of her scientific training to Congress to fight for rational and common-sense policies to the complex issues facing this country.

I cannot stress how much respect and credit Dr. Biggins deserves for her willingness to step into the quagmire of federal politics. To leave behind what was undoubtedly years and years of training and dedication to her field to hopefully provide much-needed support for the rest of American scientists shows that she has broad vision and commitment to the scientific enterprise as a whole. I am certain that she will do a spectacular job if elected, and will fulfill an urgent need to bring “science-based,” “evidence-based,” and “truth-based” discussion back into the national discourse. Run, Julia, run! You have earned my support.

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Run with Science, Dr. Julia Biggins!

Reversing Copernicus

copernicusre

The revolutionary advance in our understanding of the universe, as proposed by Copernicus.

Donald Trump heads the single most anti-science administration that has ever set foot in the White House. It is fortunate that this self-centered, narcissistic personality, who born with a golden spoon in his vulgar mouth, has a Congress that still appreciates the value of science.

Long before stepping into the White House, this abominable president has been a disaster for science in the United States; he has transformed the Environmental Protection Agency into a climate-change deniers paradise, turned back the clock on pollution and regulations aimed at keeping our water drinkable and our air breathable, and proposed a ~20% cut to biomedical research. Fortunately Congress ignored his proposal and continued to modestly increase funding for biomedical research. But make no mistake; damage is being done.

So many of the terrible decisions being made are counter to any logic, and so absolutely insane that one wonders how anyone could possibly propose them. For example, the over-turning of a ban on a chemical fertilizer that is known to cause cancer in children and birth defects. Why? I mean really! Does anyone want their children or grandchildren to become ill with cancer? Just so the White House can say that they “deregulated” regulations made during the Obama period? Only a sick-souled person could do such a thing without his conscience affecting him.

It is no coincidence that science is “on the run” during the Trump administration. So is journalism and any honest inquiry aimed at divulging the truth. It seems that this is a type of ill-thought-out strategy, with the Orwellian type of idea that if everything is challenged, attacked, separated to left and right along partisan terms–then nothing has any absolute truth any more. Thus allowing the president to counter, for example, allegations of sexual misconduct as merely “fake news” propagated by his political enemies.

The most recent and horrific example of this Orwellian attack on truth is the Trump administration’s attempt to ban the Center for Disease Control (CDC) from using a variety of terms in their 2018 budget request. Which terms, you ask? Here they are:

SCIENCE-BASED

EVIDENCE-BASED

VULNERABLE

ENTITLEMENT

DIVERSITY

TRANSGENDER

FETUS

Tough words, aren’t they? You wouldn’t want your children to voice them, would you?

A scientific center that is the number one agency to deal with diseases, like Zika virus, that can affect the fetus, wouldn’t want to do science-based and evidence-based research to protect vulnerable people?

In reading through my Twitter-feed, one fed-up tweeter wrote that we should remember this ridiculous ban when the Trump administration demands that we allow Neo-Nazis the right of free speech.

I’m sorry, but this has to be one of the scariest consequences of electing a thoroughly incompetent (and corrupt) president. If the US were not such a strong and overall good country, able to run on “autopilot” despite interference from the White House, we’d be in worse trouble.

Are we trying to reverse Copernicus?

What’s next, gravity?

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Reversing Copernicus

A Sad Sign of the Times

This past week, my graduate student, my post-doctoral fellow, and I flew out to Philadelphia for the annual American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) meeting. This 2017 meeting was my 20th year as an ASCB member, and marks 20 years since I first attended the ASCB meeting in Washington DC, 1997, when I came to present my research and simultaneously interview for post-doctoral positions.

ShuweiTrey

Shuwei and Trey at their posters.

The ASCB meetings, while continuing to be a highlight for me, have evolved greatly along with my career. In the earlier days, the poster presentation and speeding through the enormous poster hall to visit other posters was always the most exciting part. Feedback at one’s poster–positive or negative–was extremely helpful, and there was a certain thrill to having strangers scrutinize my work.

Today, meetings are very different for me. First, being a cell biologist on a campus with a primary focus in cancer and other disease-related or translational research, this is my opportunity to show my younger co-workers that our field is not obsolete, and that we belong to a wider community of researchers who DO have a keen interest in our fundamental research. It’s an eye-opening experience for my younger students when they attend their first meeting, and realize that there is an entire community “out there” that doesn’t merely say “nice work, but what impact does that have on cancer,” and truly shows appreciation for our studies.

In addition, I find myself suddenly, a “mere” 20 years later, among the older attendees at the meeting. Clearly, ASCB is a young person’s meeting, and I guess that the mean age would be at least 15 years below mine. I suppose that if I want to feel younger, I can always attend the symphony, where the average age is still safely 15 years northward of mine…

Another intriguing thing about ASCB is that over the years, I have picked up responsibilities. As a member of the ASCB Public Policy Committee (PPC), we had a 3-hour annual meeting–and while incredibly important, it unfortunately fell during the time that 3 extraordinarily great researchers were giving talks.

Even the fabled poster sessions are no longer what they used to be. Once, as an anonymous young student who knew almost no one in the field, I could wander happily from poster to poster with no interruptions. Today, (and no complaints) I find myself being stopped dozens of times by friends, acquaintances and long-lost colleagues, often making it impossible to actually get to the next poster. But then, that becomes the purpose of these meetings, meeting old friends and chatting about science. Sometimes terrific collaborations ensue, even if I never actually make it to the next poster.

Sadly, I noticed another not-so-positive change. All ASCB meetings have traditionally been packed with exhibitors and vendors from all companies that sell scientific reagents: antibodies, inhibitors, equipment, microscopes, books, etc. Journals and the National Institutes of Health typically have booths with opportunities to meet editors and scientific liaisons. However, this time, I noticed a booth that I had never seen before: one for immigration lawyers. I am not belittling these lawyers (although lawyers do deserve belittling in general), but I have never before noticed immigration lawyers peddling their services to international scientists at this meeting. I know that perhaps this is helpful to foreign-born scientists working in the US, but to me, this was a sad sign of the times that the current administration is driving talented and good people away from the US.

Posted in research, science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Sad Sign of the Times

Prayer works–or does it? Shall we ask the murdered?

No sooner had I penned my piece exposing the hypocrisy and weak-kneed leadership of Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, when he has made new headlines with another smug, holier-than-thou, awful and divisive statement–that is also wrong.

Following the horrific church shooting in a small Texan town, in which at least 26 people were murdered by rapid gun fire, Mr. Ryan was criticized for his now- standard response that “our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.” Many Americans, however, are unimpressed with the hollow words–that tend to follow every gun-related massacre–and have criticized Mr. Ryan saying that thoughts and prayers are not enough.

Mr. Ryan replied in the following manner:

“It’s disappointing, it’s sad, and this is what you’ll get from the far secular left. People who do not have faith don’t understand faith, I guess I’d have to say. And it is the right thing to do is to pray in moments like this, because you know what? Prayer works. And I know you believe that, and I believe that and when you hear the secular left doing this thing, it’s no wonder you have so much polarization and disunity in this country when people think like that.”

Really? The secular left is the problem? The ones who are “polarizing” everything?

Mr. Ryan, please take note: for thousands of years people have been praying to one entity or another. Idols, the sun, the moon, polytheism, monotheism–take your pick. For thousands of years people have continued to die from hunger, disease, accidents and murder. People have died during civil wars, in the Holocaust in gas chambers, in Rwanda and in Syria. People continue to pray. And die of cancer and heart disease. Children and refugees continue to suffer around the world. And you say prayer works? For whom? For those who have lost their lives? Or just for you–making you feel better?

For many of the issues still causing suffering across the globe there are no easy answers. For mass gun murders, there are also no easy answers. There are, however, rational steps that can be taken to decrease the likelihood or deadliness of these events. Even if these measures, related to common sense gun control, ‘only’ prevent one such massacre (rather than all of them), evidence still shows that this will be more helpful–to the potential victims–than prayers.

Speaker Ryan, it’s time to get off your pew–and your smug high-horse–and use your position to push for common sense measures to protect the children of this country. Pray all you want, if it makes you feel better–but DO SOMETHING to ensure that others feel better.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Prayer works–or does it? Shall we ask the murdered?

Paul Ryan, it’s time to go home

It has now been a full year since the elections that brought a morally reprehensible person into the White House. By now, any remaining negligible hope that the man who was elected president might “pivot” and show even a semblance of the type of moral leadership expected from the holder of this position has drowned in the swamp that he so hypocritically vows to drain.

In the course of the elections, we were met with an occasional and largely insincere smattering of spineless criticism from the Republican leadership, every now and then. After release of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tapes, in which Trump prided himself in forcing himself on women and being able to grab them by the genitals, there was a short period of silence from Republican leaders. Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz even went as far as to rescind his support, noting that with a 15 year old daughter, he couldn’t bring himself to support Trump. Interestingly, in the aftermath, he managed to forget about his daughter fairly quickly. It’s remarkable how sparingly that principles, integrity, honor and courage are related to politics these day.

Arguably the most morally bankrupt Republican politician today is Paul Ryan.  This man, who once stood as a vice presidential candidate for an honorable man, Mitt Romney, has lost any shred of respect that I once had for him. Following the very most revolting comments and behaviors of Trump, Ryan occasionally–when pressed and appearing as though in a hostage video–surfaces to make a weak statement. The man who noted that Trump made a “textbook racist comment” continues to support him to this day. Why? Tax reform, of course. Isn’t it obvious?

What Ryan fails to understood, as is fitting for a man lacking any moral courage, is that however one feels about tax reform–he is selling out the country by supporting a president who does not respect our democracy.

How many times will Trump attack American judges before Ryan speaks out against him? How many times will Ryan and the weak Republican leadership fail to reprimand a president who continuously complains about the FBI and the Department of Justice, and sees fit to interfere with ongoing investigations? Does Ryan–and his fellow leaders on the hill–not understand that taxes are meaningless in comparison to the threat to our unique democracy? I will accept ANY kind of tax system that congress and leaders agree on–as long as we prevent our democracy from sliding toward the type of autocratic system that the president is pushing for. But our system of justice and equality must be protected. And Ryan is asleep at the wheel.

It is time for Ryan to step down and allow Republican leaders who value moral clarity to take his place. There comes a time when not speaking out can only be viewed as endorsement–and by supporting morally reprehensible behavior, by default, one becomes morally reprehensible.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment