Pandemic projection numbers tell unnerving story

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 29 March 

What if we just let the people with the highest risk die from COVID-19, as some appear to be suggesting?

Apparently even a cost-benefit analysis is nearly impossible because those most at risk already have “shorter” life spans and/or have underlying health issues that would just kill them eventually anyway. So, estimating what Grandma’s life is worth is hard. Not like other commodities such as cars, homes, airline seats and so forth. But, is Grandma a “commodity?”

About 16 percent of the United States population is age 65 or older. This is the group at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. And, so far, it appears that this age group is both more likely to get infected (although this is a weak claim since we are not doing enough testing to say this with much confidence) and to die from COVID-19. The CDC, last week, reported that 80 percent of the deaths were among people 65 and older. So, let’s just use that number for now.

As I write this, there are 64,107 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 893 deaths in the US. [The number of confirmed cases had grown to well over 80,000 by week's end. — Ed.) That’s a 1.4 percent death rate. More than 10 times what the death rate from the seasonal flu is. And if the 80 percent of deaths are among those 65 and older, then 714 of those dead are 65 and older.

How many Americans are going to get COVID-19? That is impossible to say, but we can model it for some ideas. Predictions range, depending on the measures being used, that between 40 and 70 percent of Americans will become infected. Let’s use the most optimistic number, 40 percent, and assume that all age groups will get infected at about the same proportion. Forty percent of the U.S. population is 127,399,400 people. If that were a nation, it would be the 11th largest nation on Earth, slotting in between Mexico and Japan.

If the 1.4 percent death rate holds, then 1,783,591 people will die; 80 percent of them will be 65 or older, or 1,426,873, about the population of New Hampshire. Currently there are 51,121,200 Americans age 65 and older. If that many die, that is a death rate of 2.8% or about 28 times that of the seasonal flu. 24,672,708 households in the US have an individual 65 years and older. Among those households 5.7 percent will experience a death.

That’s a lot of families experiencing death in a short period of time. In 2017, 2,067,404 persons 65 and above died in the United States. Of course, some of those 1.4 million projected to die would die in the next few months anyway, but just consider that it’s possible that the death rate for this age group could increase by more than half.

Which states have the highest numbers of persons age 65+? Puerto Rico, West Virginia, Vermont, Maine, and Florida have at least 20 percent age 65+. Alaska, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, and Utah have below 15 percent. Indiana is at 16 percent. For Vigo County, 16.3 percent, or 17,504, are 65 and above. Using the same analysis above, 4,811 age 65 and above will die. That is just under 4.5 percent of the Vigo County population, or just under 1 per 20. That means you will very likely know someone who dies from COVID-19. Do you know anyone who has died of the flu this year?

So, let’s put some money on these numbers. The average Social Security benefit in January 2020 was $1,503 per month, or $18,036 per year. In a very short time period, Vigo County could lose just under $315 million in income. Mean household income in Vigo County is $42,030 or $1.8 billion in income per year. This would be a loss of almost 17.5 percent of income coming into Vigo County.

When you think of the loss of demand for local businesses that would represent, it’s quite a hit. And this is the best scenario. If the infection rate is 70 percent, then it’s a hit of about 30.6 percent on the local economy in just a matter of a few months.

Unlike jobs lost in a recession, of which most eventually do come back, those people are not coming back.

Sondland learned enough to protect himself

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 24 November 2019

So far, Ambassador Gordon Sondland has been my favorite witness. Not because he connects President Trump to the questionable (impeachable?) doings with Ukraine. Because he’s an example of a citizen completely over his head in the role he is playing. In contrast to the measured, “process” oriented Foreign Service Officers, National Security Council Staffers, and other career Ambassadors, who live in a world, pardon this, that is “foreign” to most of us. The language, the “process” (which is highly bureaucratic and we should admire them for being able to make anything work with it), the sifting and careful blending of “U.S. interests,” “U.S. foreign policy,” with domestic policy and politics, and regular upheaval (new administrations at least every eight years), these folks exist in a world that few of us can relate. They are also quick learners because their assignments change and sometimes change significantly.

We can relate to Ambassador Sondland, however. Not as a mega donor, fundraiser, rich guy, who almost slipped answering a question as he clarified that he donated $1 million to the President’s inauguration in hopes of … (I thought he was going to say receiving an ambassadorship in return) tickets (to the inauguration). He’s relatable as someone obviously over his head. All of us have felt over our head from time to time; most of us have egos strong enough to admit it. Ambassador Sondland all but did admit it (he is smart enough to realize in that setting, he better not do that).

This guy is an amateur. He should make us appreciate, that much more, the career folks who are measured, take copious notes of conversations, sincerely believe they are serving “higher interests,” have to keep secrets, and can never really be “off duty.”

In response to questions, late in his testimony, Ambassador Sondland was read a Fox News article (apparently the Congresswoman figured that he only would pay attention to Fox News) but Ambassador Sondland didn’t know anything about it. Well, what do you know, he’s like most Americans who don’t pay attention to the skullduggery of politics (on a daily basis). At times during Ambassador Sondland’s testimony I felt I knew more about what was going on than he!

What did Ambassador Sondland think being an ambassador would be like? I’ve met a couple of U.S. ambassadors, doing their ambassador thing. They were gracious, witty, likable, personable, and had some “gravitas.” Gordon Sondland seems like that. I think that he thought being an ambassador would be a couple of years doing meet and greets, setting up conversations between people, brokering “deals” between the U.S. and (in his case) the EU, making innocuous speeches before or after sumptuous lunches, speaking for the President, and representing the United States. National Security? What’s that? U.S. interests? Which ones?

He seemed unable to recall a lot of things. Was that evasiveness? Perhaps, but I don’t t think so. I think he doesn’t remember because so much of what he has been engaged in, he had no frame of reference, no understanding of the “language,” culture, and processes of Foreign Service and National Security. It’s like being among a group of people speaking a language you don’t understand, except from that year of it you took in high school. You could remember perhaps being there but nothing of substance. Oh, you could remember, “por favor,” “caliente,” and “uno dos tres,” but nothing else. This is the world Ambassador Sondland has been living, slowly picking it up, but at the same time, probably not that interested in it.

Before Ambassador Sondland testified and before he amended his original closed door testimony, I thought he was the “patsy,” the “useful dope” who could be blamed for misunderstanding (“Gordon, what the f*** hell were you thinking? That would be wrong, probably illegal.”) Ambassador Sondland is a skilled fundraiser (“we are among friends”) he is not a politician, wary, careful, distrustful of “them” (partisan), but I think he figured enough out to protect himself (can you blame him?) by telling what he does know (and remembers). I agree with Chris Wallace’s take on Ambassador Sondland that he is trying to ”protect himself more than anyone else.”

Yes, he is. No more so than if Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of State Pompeo, Energy Secretary Perry, Vice President Pence or President Trump would if they sat down and “swore to tell the truth” as Ambassador Sondland did. I think he figured things out, just enough, at the right time.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Outing whistleblower: punishment, vilification

(previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 11/17/19)
Hurtling down I-70 I was half listening to the news and thinking about why President Trump and right-wing news and commentary operations are so fixated on outing “the whistleblower.” At this point, given the corroborating evidence, it would not make any difference. Somewhere around mile marker 57 it hit me: it’s about payback, about intimidation, and a warped sense of what it means to “be strong.”

I began to formulate this essay and then this hits my screen: a tweet from Bill Kristol (a New York Times conservative columnist): “I’m struck by Trumpworld’s obsession with the whistleblower. Exposing him wouldn’t help Trump’s case a bit. But it’s clear that outing him would be really satisfying psychologically to Trumpsters. One forgets how central to Trumpism are petty vindictiveness and cowardly bullying.”

We can make our own digs at others, which seems to be how so much of our national dialogue has become, which, by the way, is a win for those who support this kind of response to “the whistleblower.” I see it as part of one of the most misunderstood aspects of President Trumps campaign to “make America great again.”

“Drain the swamp.” Can’t dispute the marketing appeal of that. Both “sides” use it but it means something very different to each “side.” If you understand “drain the swamp,” as I do, to rout out corruption, to end the open bribery of our elected officials through the vast flows of money to campaigns, deliberate creation of conflicts of interest by placing people in charge of oversight who have a personal interest in the industries they are overseeing, stuff like that, then you misunderstand what drain the swamp means for President Trump and his supporters.

Drain the swamp is about what has also become known as the “deep state.” In short, the swamp is the people who have made civil service (and the military) their life’s work. These are not elected officials, but people with the “technical” skills and experience to carry out the business of the United States government. These are the career foreign service officers, career public health officials, all those lawyers who work for the justice department and federal judges. It also includes the press who cover the doings of our politicians.

If you don’t understand this, then consider after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the de-Ba’athefication of the government and what that lead to. It lead to a dearth of knowledge about how to make the government work. And that is what we are seeing right now with President Trump. Look at Rex Tillerson’s gutting of the State Department. The moving of the research and policy analysis operations of the Agriculture Department out of Washington to remote agricultural areas is how the Administration is getting policy experts to quit. Even career military are suspect, otherwise the torrent of hate toward Lt. Col. Vindman would not have happened. And the preference for ideological conformity over experience, “judicial temperament,” and achievement in selecting federal judges is also part of “draining the swamp.” Labeling press coverage that is viewed by President Trump and his supporters as negative is “fake news” even if it’s true.

The whistleblower is a career person in either the intelligence area, foreign service, and/or national security. In short, s/he makes their living serving the government of the United States. They serve the United States, not narrowly the individuals temporarily in power. This is the swamp that President Trump and his supporters are trying to drain, not the swamp of corruption, conflicts of interest, cronyism, and nepotism.

This is also why the whistleblower’s identity is so important to reveal. The vilification has already occurred and then, if identified, the whistleblower will be punished, not officially, but through anonymous threats, dirty tricks, and so forth. The whistleblower’s service will be twisted in such a way as to further the narrative that the “swamp” needs draining and enough people will not object. This will also serve to undermine “protections” for those in honorable service to the country rather than in service to any temporary tyrant.

Ultimately, “draining the swamp” for President Trump and his supporters, is about draining all sources of opposition to whatever President Trump and his supporters want. As long as there are those who will object, or even tell the truth if the truth shows President Trump and his supporters in a bad light, then the swamp needs draining.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Spin, or real change, from American corporations?

Recently, more than 200 chief corporate executives, leaders among the most pervasive corporations in American life, (Apple, Amazon, Marathon Oil, Pepsi, 3M, Walmart, etc), met and redefined the role of the corporation in society. They apparently hope to “redefine” that role away from one focused on building value for shareholders (making money for shareholders) to a more socially responsible actor (essentially how they will “behave” in the pursuit of profit). See statement here: opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment.

As central actors in a free market economy, they believe “Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity.” Does that mean that Amazon’s work conditions are going to improve?

The statement goes on: “We believe the free-market system is the best means of generating good jobs, a strong and sustainable economy, innovation, a healthy environment and economic opportunity for all.” This seems quite the opposite of what is happening in the U.S. right now, with wages only now beginning to rise, the stock market lurching on every presidential tweet, ominous “signs” of economic downturn, and growing antagonism between the U.S. and virtually every other industrialized country. Is this in response to the pro-business nationalism of President Trump?

So, what is this all about? Is it the leading edge of a soft revolution in corporate behavior, moving away from the relentless pursuit of profit regardless of the collateral effects? Or, is it a public relations effort in face of a growing chorus of younger people who are embracing the socialist label (redefining it really from what it has historically meant)?

I think it is important to note that distrust of corporations was part of the founding of the United States. The federal government, however, gave states the right to recognize corporations. Basically, in a free market based on risk/reward, corporations were created as “legal persons” to reduce the personal economic risk of its living shareholders.

In short, shareholders and executives cannot be held personally liable for corporate failures. Thus, if a corporation makes bad decisions, its shareholders are protected from losing their personal homes and assets, whereas the corporation’s employees are not. They will lose their livelihoods and possibly their assets if they cannot find employment. We can call that class privilege.

Research demonstrates a declining trust by Americans in American institutions and their leaders. This is especially true of the youngest adults in the United States. Trust in business leaders among 18-29 year olds is at just 34 percent, the same as for elected officials. So, is this just spin by the CEOs or it is a real change?

Let’s examine the bullets points offered in the statement. This is what they committed to:

• Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Wouldn’t that be a recommitment if it has been their tradition? So, this to me suggests no change in past behavior.

• Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect. Is this an admission that in the past they were not compensating fairly, providing benefits, and supporting them through reinvestment in them?

• Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers. We are dedicated to serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions. Similar to the previous bullet, is this an admission of not dealing fairly and ethically in the past?

• Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses. I await for the first call from the Business Roundtable to reverse the rapid deregulation of the environment.

• Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders. Isn’t that the original reason for corporations, generating value for shareholders? Maybe its “long-term” instead of each quarter?

Maybe I am too hard on these leaders of the free market. But, if this is supposed to build trust and confidence, I don’t think it is going to work. A change in behavior? If these are quiet admissions of past “poor dealings” then we should see some changes very quickly. What time is it?

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Reflections on racism, forgiveness — and redemption

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 March 2019

Now that the dust has settled regarding the blackface scandals among the Virginia Democrat political leadership, what’s come of it? Gov. Northam is still in power, though diminished. Several weeks ago a commentator remarked about how so many white people are no doubt trying to scrub their yearbooks, Facebook, and other sources for any evidence of blackface. Those searches are probably either completed or now forgotten, threat over. The new anger de jure is directed at something that did or did not happen at the Academy Awards.

A couple of weeks ago I listened to a discussion lead by Joshua Johnson of NPR’s 1A radio program about the history of and use of blackface and other black images for the entertainment and product branding by white entertainers and business people. It’s worth your time to listen and can be found here: www.npr.org/2019/02/08/692759371/the-news-roundup-for-february-8-2019.

Near the end of the segment, Mr. Johnson raised the question of “white redemption,” that is, when can someone like Gov. Northam, who is exposed to have engaged in racist behavior, claim to, or be, redeemed? This discussion did not go too far, but I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

Is it possible for a politician, public figure, really anyone, especially if they are white, to survive something like this? Gov. Northam has not resigned. The Virginia Black Legislative Caucus met and decided he should step down, but fell short of demanding it. Would that be the same response if the governor were a Republican? Does party matter or is it something about Gov. Northam’s “total body of work” that mitigates in some way his medical college yearbook photos and the activity memorialized in those photos?

Gov. Northam was to start a “reconciliation tour” but has delayed it. I’m confident that the public relations firm that Gov. Northam hired is behind the idea of a “reconciliation tour” and if they are worth their fee they will not have Gov. Northam trying to moonwalk.

I wonder what Gov. Northam has said in private, if anything. He is reported to be a member and regular attendee at the First Baptist Church of Capeville, a predominately black church. Almost immediately Pastor Kelvin Jones and congregants gave him “another chance.” That is a very different response than national white Democrat leaders who called for Northam’s immediate resignation.

White Democrat leaders are unforgiving while Gov. Northam’s pastor and fellow Baptists are willing to give him another chance. Another chance to do what? To not wear blackface? To not have another picture from 30-plus years ago emerge with compromising content? If Gov. Northam screws up his second chance, will he be shunned at church? Asked to leave the congregation? Asked to resign the governorship?

What does redemption look like for most of us, the “us” not in the public eye? First, who grants the redemption? Our white friends who may worry that being friends with someone who wore blackface or did racist things 30 years ago might reflect on them? Those who think all this is just PC liberal “gotcha” moralizing? Or is it our African American friends, colleagues and neighbors who we look to for redemption? For that “another chance” to not do something? Most of us really don’t have African American friends, colleagues or neighbors, given how race so effectively segregates us both physically and socially. So, this is a challenge. That Gov. Northam worships with African Americans says something, I think.

In January, I had a reunion with my two of my college roommates. It had been 38 years since I had seen SN. I was startled when he told us his first memory of me. It involved matters of race. I didn’t recall it, even after he told the story. I don’t deny it; I suspect that it happened because I know, at 17, an only child, I was apprehensive about living with a person who I didn’t know and afraid that he might be black. Fear is the heart of racism.

After several weeks of thinking about this I don’t have any answers. I do have one suggestion. Don’t make excuses for past behavior. Own it. If you are embarrassed/ashamed/feeling guilty by it today, why weren’t you then? That should say something about the path you have been on.

You may not have been very conscious of your path, but you can reflect on it now. And maybe achieve some level of redemption.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Problems abound in Chinese gene-editing research

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 16 December 2018

On Nov 26 Dr. He Jankui, a Chinese biomedical researcher, became (in)famous. He shocked the world by announcing that he had used a gene splicing technology to edit the genes of two embryos, who he claims have been born, thus ushering in the age of genetically enhanced human beings.

Why is this so controversial? There are many ways to examine this, but with one, I have 20 years of experience. I’ve served on the “Institutional Review Board” (committee that reviews all human subjects work conducted at ISU) including chairing it for nearly a decade.

Dr. He revealed that he had altered the genes of twin baby girls so they would not contract HIV. It is unclear whether his statement is true, but his university as well as the Chinese government have distanced themselves from Dr. He and suspended his work. The two girls have been born, and if the story is true, they can pass their altered genes to their own children.

Eugenics, a movement to improve the human species by selecting superior traits, arose in the West and then found its greatest expression in Nazi Germany. Indeed, the Nazi human experimentations revealed after the war, led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code, which attempted to guide biomedical research, especially in the West and specifically in the US. Nonetheless, research revealed in the later 1960s and early 1970s that violated the “Code” and most people’s basic sensibilities, resulted in the “Belmont Report” and the formal decentralized regulation of human subjects research in the U.S. that we have today. And those documents and practices have influenced the rest of the world.

Three, at times, competing, ethical principles guide (regulated) human subjects research in the United States. They are “beneficence,” “respect for persons,” and “justice.” They are equal in weight, sometimes conflict, but yield a conservative approach to recruiting and conducting research with human subjects. Understandably, many researchers chafe at human subjects review of their research.

In one of a series of videos Dr. He appears in as part of his announcement, Dr. He outlined the ethical principles that guided his work. However, he justified the therapeutic use of the procedure, not the research. Research ethics are different and arguably more conservative. Indeed, the dual role conflict between clinician offering therapy and researcher is a common challenge in biomedical research.

Dr. He appeared to be motivated to perfect a genetic edit of a gene to make the babies resistant to HIV because HIV has devastated much of the Chinese population. That would be his argument for beneficence and that is certainly defensible, but there are many “howevers.” I could not find a copy of the informed consent document and a detailed description of the process to consent the prospective parents. It does not sound like it was vetted by an ethics board and it is not clear from what I can find if the informed consent document contained all necessary elements of informed consent.

Reports about the informed consent document state that the reason for the research was to create an AIDS vaccine, which the research was clearly not. Deception can be used in research but it must be necessary to the research, not to allay concerns on the part of potential subjects.

Another concern is that paternal transmission of HIV to offspring is rare and the process used for the in vitro fertilization essentially eliminated the possibility of that transmission anyway. Thus there was no medical reason to edit the embryos’ genes. Dr. He justified the research by claiming it would protect the children in the future, but HIV, even in China, is avoidable.

Every human subjects researcher must weigh the risks and benefits of the research. If the benefits do not outweigh the risks, then the research does not go forward. As an experienced reviewer of human subjects research, from what I can piece together, it does not appear that the benefits outweigh the risks. This is, in part, because we don’t fully know the risks.

Even the technique Dr. He used, CRISPR, to edit the genes, has been related to causing cancer because of the imprecision of the editing. Did Dr. He present that as a risk to the parents? The procedure might lead to the daughters being resistant to HIV but at greater risk of developing cancer?

Parents, desperate to have a child, are vulnerable. The father of the twins was depicted by Dr. He as being despondent that he could not have children presumably because he was concerned about passing on HIV to his children. My guess is that the cost of having in vitro fertilization was beyond their means (on average about $4,300 USD; average household income, $10,220 USD) thus agreeing to be part of research in order to get the safer procedure than normal sexual reproduction is ethically problematic as well.

This goes to the ethical principle of respect for persons. Researchers must not use undue influence to gain the consent of their subjects. And if the risks were not fully explained to the parents, then the principle of respect for persons is not upheld. Moreover, Dr. He administered the informed consent himself. Normally, the therapist would not consent his research subjects because of “undue influence” over the subjects.

Lastly is the ethical principle of justice. Had Dr. He undertook this research in order to protect the embryos from infection from their father, Dr. He would have adhered to this principle, because the group most likely to benefit, infected fathers and their partners, are the ones shouldering the risk of the research (although it is the embryos who are actually at risk, but embryos cannot consent to the procedure).

However, Dr. He stated that his motivation was to protect the embryos not from their father but in the future. Therefore, the principle of justice is not upheld. The principle of justice holds that those who benefit from the research should bear the risks of the research. Dr. He however, targeted for recruitment an arguably vulnerable population who were, in their eyes, unable to have children because of the threat of parental transmission. They are not the only group who would benefit; anyone who receives the edited genes would benefit.

Parents without HIV should have also been recruited in order to not solely burden the HIV infected group with the risk of the research that can benefit groups beyond the HIV positive group.

Hence, based on what I can piece together about Dr. He’s research, this research should not have gone forward.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

What if Kavanugh had said something different?

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 4 October 2018

I believe Dr. Ford. I am skeptical of Judge Kavanaugh’s denial. It is clear he refuses to admit to things that are fairly obvious about his youth. He painted himself at that age and later in college in a manner that does not sound “right.” What I am stuck on is why. Why is he reluctant to admit to any tarnish on his past? Perhaps we are seeing what others have called “upper class privilege.”

All of us constantly, whether we are aware of it or not, manage the impressions we give off in part in an effort to manage what others think of us. Some of us are conscious of that and cultivate that impression management very much, we can see this in the concept of personal branding.

We all were young once. To be “young” is to make mistakes, try out stuff, live in a rarefied world where “we” think we have discovered “sex, drugs and music.” I think just about everyone, when they were “young” did things that if they could do it over, would not. Some acts are relatively innocent (Mr. Young, I am truly sorry I ruined your front yard by doing a “burnout’ in it with my car.) and unfortunately, some are not and leave life-long scars, such as what Dr. Ford experienced. Surely one measure of maturity is to learn from “mistakes.”

By now, everyone has made their mind up about both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh My guess is that short of any credible further investigation, no matter what comes out now, won’t change anyone’s mind about these two people that most of us now think we know but really do not.

In that vein, I offer the following thought exercise. Please imagine if Judge Kavanaugh had said this during that Thursday hearing:

"Thank you Chairman Grassley and Senators. This has been a very difficult process. It has angered me to the point of rage as my name, which I have tried to carefully cultivate, has been dragged into the gutter and I have been accused of truly evil things. And, as I sit here now, I know all of you are expecting me to 'categorically deny' that I ever did what Dr. Ford has testified that I did, more than 30 years ago.

"The truth, however, is that I cannot do that. I can say I do not remember, though, even that is too strong.

"The fact is I do like beer and I used to drink too much of it. I did drink until I was in a stupor, more than once, and there are times where I don’t remember things. Listening to Dr. Ford’s testimony today, there are things she said that correspond to what I describe as flashes of memory but I cannot really place them, in fact, I don’t now really understand them or even that they correspond to anything that actually happened. They could just be flashes from alcohol laden dreams.

"The fact is, I don’t want to be Dr. Ford’s attacker, who would want to be such a monster? But, truthfully, I cannot say it wasn’t me. I can only truthfully say I don’t know. I don’t believe it was me, but I don’t have the same level of confidence in saying no that Dr. Ford has in saying yes.

"What I can say is that I have conducted myself as a jurist appropriately and with honor and I think a record worthy of confirmation to the Supreme Court. I have sought to promote women lawyers through my clerkships, because I believe we need more women in the highest reaches of law. If I am confirmed, I will be the best justice I can be and continue to conduct myself with the same integrity as my record reflects.

I know doing what you expected me to do, categorically deny that it was me who attacked Dr. Ford, would make your decision as Senators easier. Things are not always so clear and we judges have to sift through messy facts and arguments. I wish you great wisdom as you consider what you have heard today.”

How would you respond to Judge Kavanaugh if that had been his statement? Would it make any difference?