Thoughts for the Day, Ground Hog Day, 2026: A non-response from my congressman, Jack Bergman.

Is it too much to ask for an honest answer to my questions if asked in a professional manner?

My Letter to Congressman Jack Bergman.

Following the killing of Renee Nicole Good and the day before the killing of Alex Pretti, I sent a letter I sent to Congressman Bergman. I shared the full letter in my blog the following Monday. Here are excerpts from my letter to Bergman.

Dear Representative Bergman:

I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment that Congress has not exercised robust oversight of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), particularly in response to the recent fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026….

The lack of an independent, transparent federal investigation into the circumstances of Ms. Good’s death is deeply troubling….

In addition to this specific incident, I am alarmed by reports that ICE agents are entering private homes without warrants signed by a neutral judge, in apparent violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

I am also concerned about reports that ICE agents are improperly detaining U.S. citizens or lawful residents for extended periods without cause because of assumptions based on the person’s appearance, last name, or other attributes unrelated to legal status.

Finally, I am troubled that many Republican members of Congress have allowed the current administration to avoid accountability for policies and actions that threaten civil liberties…

I urge you to take the following actions:

1. Support congressional hearings and investigations into the DOJ’s handling of the Renée Good case and broader ICE use-of-force practices.

2. Demand full transparency from DOJ and ICE regarding their policies, training, oversight, and compliance with constitutional protections, especially the Fourth Amendment.

3. Champion legislation that strengthens accountability mechanisms for federal law enforcement agencies and protects the civil liberties of all individuals in the United States.

Thank you for your attention to these critical issues….

Sincerely,

Thomas D. Biggs

*************************************************************************************************************

Congressman Bergman’s response to my letter.

Today I received the following response from Congress Bergman.

Dear Mr. Biggs:

Thank you for contacting me about recent fatal shootings involving federal law enforcement officers. It is an honor to serve the people of Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, and I appreciate your thoughts on this important matter.

As you may know, recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis have resulted in the tragic loss of life. Any loss of life is heartbreaking, and my thoughts are with the families and loved ones affected by these events.

Our men and women in federal law enforcement risk their lives every day to protect the American people, and situations involving the use of force demand thorough internal review, investigation, and transparency. While our law enforcement officers serve under difficult and often dangerous circumstances, it is essential that all operations are conducted in a manner that prioritizes the safety of both officers and the public and maintains the trust of the communities they serve.

Please know that I take these concerns seriously and will continue to monitor the situation closely as the appropriate investigations proceed.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns. I am here to help in any way possible, so please do not hesitate to call if I may ever be of service. You can also visit my website at

http://bergman.house.gov

to learn more about the services my office provides. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Kind Regard

Jack Bergman

Member of Congress

*********************************************************************************************************

Chat GPT analysis to Bergman’s response letter.

When I received Bergman’s response, I read it twice and decided that I got a nice letter that didn’t commit to any of the action items I requested. I was disappointed but not surprised.

Since I asked Chat GPT to help me craft my letter to Bergman, I decided to ask Chat GPT for a non-political analysis of Bergman’s response. Here is the response from Chat GPT..

What his letter does do

There are a few things that are courteous but largely procedural:

Acknowledges your message

Expresses sympathy for loss of life

Praises law enforcement service

Says situations “demand review, investigation, and transparency”

Says he will “monitor the situation closely”

These are general values statements, not action statements.

What his letter does NOT do (this is the important part)

Your original concerns were specific and constitutional:

• DOJ refusal to investigate

• ICE warrantless home entries (4th Amendment issue)

• Wrongful detention of citizens/legal residents

• Lack of congressional oversight

• Inconsistent standards between administrations

His response:

❌ Does not mention DOJ oversight
❌ Does not mention ICE specifically
❌ Does not address Fourth Amendment concerns
❌ Does not mention civil liberties
❌ Does not commit to hearings or investigations
❌ Does not say he will press DOJ or ICE for answers
❌ Does not state any position on accountability

Instead, he pivots to:

“Our men and women in federal law enforcement risk their lives every day…”

That framing shifts the focus from accountability → officer support.

Structural analysis (how these letters work)

This is classic congressional language meant to: Avoid taking a side. Avoid committing to oversight action. Avoid criticizing a federal agency or the administration. Close politely

The phrase:“monitor the situation closely as the appropriate investigations proceed” is particularly telling. It implies: He assumes current investigations are sufficient.He is not calling for additional oversight. He is deferring responsibility to agencies themselves.

But Congress’s constitutional role is oversight, not passive monitoring. So this is effectively a non-answer to your core request.

My candid assessment (Chat GPT) If I’m being direct: This is politely sympathetic but substantively empty. It reads more like: “Thanks for writing. Law enforcement is hard. We’ll see what happens.” rather than: “I will press DOJ/ICE, request briefings, or support hearings.”

If your goal was to prompt oversight or accountability, the response doesn’t indicate any movement.

I will be sending a follow-up letter to Bergman tomorrow. I will share it in the next writing of my blog.

***************************************************************************************************

Michigan vs Michigan State men’s basketball game on Friday.

As I tuned into the game on Friday night, I got chills with the atmosphere in the Breslin Center. As a basketball official and baseball umpire, I can tell you there is nothing like officiating a rivalry game when two great teams are going at it, and championships are on the line. I never did it at the college level, but I did plenty of rivalry games at the high school level.

The juices start flowing on the day of the game. Butterflies start the minute you start getting ready to travel to the game. Throughout the drive to the game, you are going through all the scenarios that could happen. When you arrive and you start getting dressed, you and your partners go through your pre-game meeting with extra excitement and extra attention to detail. You give each other pep talks, reminding each other that this is why we do this.

When you walk on the court or the field, you can feel the excitement. You can feel the eyes on you from the fans. Coaches and players are usually extra cordial, but nervous. Some fans offer encouragement; others give you the “evil eye” that says you better not screw this one up. I always tried to use the time to interact with the fans and let them know I was there to give them a good game and to have some fun.

As I was standing for the National Anthem, my mouth would get dry. My pulse would quicken. After the National Anthem, the officials offered each other encouragement and I would usually say, let’s make this the best game ever. I told myself to trust my training and to trust the work I had put into becoming a good sports official.

It is through my eyes as an official, I want to comment on the Michigan/MSU men’s basketball game. Here are my observations.

• The game lasted nearly 2 hours and 25 minutes, which is much too long for a college basketball game. Most of this occurred because of the many replay reviews that occurred, which in most cases took way too long for a decision to be made. I do not fault the officials for this, because their job is to get it right, and they are “dinged” by the B1G and NCAA if they are not thorough. The NCAA needs to make changes to replay reviews. I have always been a big advocate of having a timeframe of not more than one minute on replays reviews. If a decision cannot be made to overturn a call on the court in one minute, the call on the court stands.

• Overall, I thought the officials did a great job of officiating the game. They allowed the players to play. There were very few “ticky-tack” or “nickle-dimer” fouls being called. However, there were a few calls that I did not agree with when I watched in real time and when I watched the replays.

• · Michigan’s Tschetter should never have been awarded three shots when he was fouled in the act of shooting. It was clear in real time and clear in slow-motion that Tschetter’s leaning sideways into the State player is what caused the contact. It should have been a “no call” or Tschetter should have been called for an offensive call rather than being awarded three free throws.

• · I did not agree on either of the calls when MSU’s Jeremy Fears, dribbled into the path of U of M’s 7’3” Aday Mara causing Mara to run up into Fears in an open court. Mara was called for a foul on each of the plays. This happens a lot in basketball games with experienced guards. My approach was to always let the play go on without a call if no one went to the floor. If a call was required, I usually called it an offensive foul. Like the Tschetter case, Fears is the one who caused the contact, so he should not be rewarded.

• · Izzo should not have been given a technical foul with 30 seconds to go, unless he said a “magic” word. At this point in time, it was clear he was frustrated, but the game was no longer in doubt and there was no need to give him a technical foul. Izzo has earned the right to be able to express himself without being teed up. Nothing was gained by giving him a technical foul.

• · I know they got the hook and hold call that went in the favor of Michigan’s Yaxel Lendeborg right. I thought it was a hook and hold in real time based on the unnatural body movement of Lendeborg as he was trying to get the rebound. I was surprised the initial call went against him, so I was not surprised it was reversed. This call came at a crucial part in the first half, and it led to Michigan scoring 5 points in a matter of seconds, which extended Michigan’s lead to double digits. The MSU fans were upset, but the refs got this one right, however, it took way too long to make this decision. Even the TV announcers were getting frustrated.

• · Early in the first half Michigan’s 7’3” center appeared to be called for his second foul. The TV announcers said it was on Mara, but it turns the foul was called on Michigan’s Namari Burnett. There was no explanation other than the foul was changed to Burnett. This was a crucial change as a second foul would have put Mara on the bench for the remainder of the half. I do not know why the foul was changed to Burnett. I thought the foul was clearly on Mara based on what I saw on TV.

• · I agree the MSU’s Fears should have been called with an intentional foul when he pushed Lendeborg as Lendeborg was going in for a layup on a break away. The referee called it right away as he crossed his forearms to signal the intentional foul. I am not sure it warranted a flagrant foul on Fears, but it really didn’t matter because the outcome is the same. Two shots and the ball.

Overall, I thought the refs did a good job of managing the game and making sure the players decided who won or lost. No stars had to sit on the bench because of cheap fouls. The players were allowed to be physical if no one gained an unfair advantage because of their physicality. The refs kept the trash talking under control. You could see the refs talking to the players throughout the game to make sure everyone stayed under control. The refs appeared to remain calm throughout the game.

Most of all the players did a good job of controlling their own emotions and playing with intensity and heart.

I said it before the game, and I said it after the game. Both teams are legitimate NCAA Championship teams.

*************************************************************************************************

Contact your Congressperson

Contact your congressman by following these easy steps

This can be done in a few easy steps.

Step 1: find your congressman by clicking on this link, Find Your Representative | house.gov

Step 2: Put your zip code in the proper space.

Step 3: Click the button “find your representative”

Step 4: In the new page that comes up you will see a picture of your congressman. Click on your congressman’s name under the picture.

Step 5: In the new page that comes up, Click on Contact Me at the top of the page and then click on Email me.

Step 6: Fill out the information as required.

Quote of the Day: “When courts say no and enforcement barrels ahead regardless, the message is about intimidation. Watch ICE and you may be tracked. Protest ICE and you may be surveilled. Report on ICE and you may be arrested, even after a judge says the case doesn’t hold. The state is not policing itself, it is policing the people who are watching.” Mary Geddry, following the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and finding out ICE is keeping a data base on all protestors they encounter. J. Edgar Hoover lives.

Orchid of the Day: The U of M women’s basketball team for their overtime win over MSU on Sunday. Like the men, this was the highest combined ranking of the two teams ever. Like the men, both teams are legitimate national championship title contenders.

Onion of the Day: Congress Jack Bergman for his non-answers to my specific questions.

Question of the Day: Is it too much to ask of your congressman to answer the questions you asked if they are reasonable and done in a professional manner?

Lyrics of the Day: Yes, and how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, and how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, and how many deaths will it take ‘til he knows
That too many people have died?

If you know the answer, please feel free to use the comment section of the blog to respond.

Lyrics of the Day for January 29, 2026. Minnesota by Bruce Springsteen

Video of the Day: Six more weeks.

Groundhog Day 2026 Prediction!

I write reflective, opinionated essays on leadership, politics, sports, and life—grounded in experience rather than ideology. If this perspective resonates with you, you can subscribe here for free.