"Let's Go Brandon!"

Several AMs on my runs this week I came across "Let's Go Brandon" signs and pennants/flags hanging from homes or on flag poles. "Let's Go Brandon" appears to have died down some, but I have some thoughts. I am not a Donald Trump supporter, never was and never will be. I didn't vote for him in '16 and '20 and, if he's nominated, won't in '24. People can disagree with that, but I've made myself clear. Others can accept that or not. And, they can support him if they want. This is America. I hope that doesn't cause anybody to "cancel" me. That seems to be the trend in recent years: Cancel anyone with whom one disagrees. At the same time, I can't imagine voting for Joe Biden. I don't claim the election in '20 was stolen, but I can't get my head around 80 million people voting for him--I just can't. If people and the lame stream media jumped all over Trump for his lies, they seem pretty quiet about the multitude of whoppers told by Biden. Talk about a sociopathic liar! Back to "Let's Go Brandon1" after getting the groundwork framed. First, I think the entire episode tells a lot about the lame stream media. Of course we all know where this originated. Some woman reporter was interviewing a NASCAR race winner, "Brandon" something. (I don't know his last name; I don't follow NASCAR.) In the background a huge chorus of "F**k Joe Biden" erupted from the stands. The reporter smiled and said something like, "Listen! They're cheering 'Let's Go Brandon!'" If I recall correctly, the NASCAR guy grinned and replied, "I don't think that's what they're saying." But that was the story, at least initially, "Let's Go Brandon!" I suppose I could cut the interviewer some slack, but I've heard the You Tube and "Let's Go Brandon!" wasn't what I heard in the least. That for a few days the lame stream media tried to run with this, a cover-up, says a lot. That the lame streams didn't figure out someone somewhere recorded what was actually being chanted and would soon appear all over the Internet tells even more. But there's no media bias, nope. Now, what really has had me thinking is the reaction of many people, from back when to now. I have heard people say, as well as write letters-to-editors, how "disrespectful" and "vulgar" "Let's Go Brandon!" is. One said, "It's obscene." Hmmm. Funny how selective memory as well as selective morals come into play here. I wonder how many of these same folks who cite the vulgarity, the obscenity of "Let's Go Brandon!" have ever thought about it. No curse word, nothing vulgar or obscene was uttered. What do these people think of "We were screwed?" I'm pretty sure "We were screwed" doesn't emanate from threaded fasteners used to attach items to wood, etc. Nope, that's not it. How many of them use that phrase, "We were screwed?" Are they being "vulgar?" If not, why not, especially if they think "Let's Go Brandon!" is obscene? How many of these same people said anything at all when real vulgarity was used to refer to Trump? For four years, was there any major celebrkty awards show that didn't have the obligatory "F**k Trump!" or a flashing of the middle finger? I don't recall any letters-to-the editor about that! (Should I bring up the roundly-applauded, by such people, photo of a decapitated Trump?) I also don't remember anyone telling me, face-to-face, about such obscenities/vulgarities. Nope. I know why, though. "But that's different." So, can I say the same thing as above regarding "disrespect," being "disrespectful?" Oh, the holier-than-thou, self-righteous might claim "He's the President. At least respect the office." Did they respect "the office" when Trump was holding it? I know the answer to that one, too. And some of those same critics of "Let's Go Brandon" fully embraced the Michigan governor's political ads in '18 that ended with "And I'll fix the damn roads!" So, "damn" is no longer "vulgar?" Maybe it isn't if certain people utter it, but is if others do. I will not forget a radio talk show caller during the gubernatorial (Isn't that a great word to say, "gubernatorial?") campaign, shocked that his 5-year old daughter said the word "damn" at the dinner table the night before. Thank you, Governor Whitmer! Those people my age can easily imagine would would have happened to one of us had we said "damn" at the dinner table back when! Out to walk Andy on our street, one that resembles the Burma Road of the Second World War--and our streets are paved!

One Man's Lonely Opinions

When I read newspapers or magazines any more, it seems as if I am living in another world, maybe even a different universe. What I read, either fact or opinion, is so very far removed from what I think or know. There were several examples today. I saw two articles about some NFL team (I don't remember which, but it was just one of many in the queue.) which signed some player who has been accused of sexual assault--not by a single woman, not by two or three, but about two dozen! Apparently a handful (not all) of the criminal charges have been dismissed, but none of the civil proceedings have been. Regardless..... What on earth possessed this team (and the others which bid, but lost out) to want to sign this guy? It's further evidence of how out of touch I am. Character really doesn't count, does it? Winning, making money, etc., that's what it's at. When will I ever learn the ways of modern American life? Now, toss in this. Whatever team signed this guy is paying him $40-some million a year--GUARANTEED! I'd say "Shame on this team, on the other bidding teams, on the NFL," but that's another of my antiquated principles. There is no shame. And, let's not limit this to professional sports. How many of our politicians, people elected to office by US!, have had similar character flaws overlooked because, as was said 25 years ago, "The economy is good?" (No, it's not about "mean tweets.") What about our media? Aren't any journalists embarrrassed by their colleagues, especially in the Lame Stream Media? Are they gullible, lazy, or stupid? Or do they just buy into the latest talking points of certain groups, be they political parties, environmental groups, or whatever? Perhaps they are crusaders, self-righteously believing they are helping to save the world--from, well, from ourselves? The list is longer, but you get the point, maybe. A couple of months ago, I wrote of toppling statues of Confederate "heroes." I have no problem with that, although I'd prefer just quietly removing them from public view. I stick with my opinion that taking up arms against the US was treason and traitors should not be honored with statues, memorials, and the like. I read two related letters-to-the-editor recently in a Civil War magazine. One I just question outright, that the writer's view is nothing I've seen. He wrote, "I grow weary of hearing people calling Robert E. Lee a traitor because he left the US Army." He cites, correctly, that others such as US Grant and George McClellan also left the US Army, but aren't called "traitors." I've never heard anyone call Lee a "traitor" because he resigned his commission in the US Army. He served and served well, but he wasn't married to the US Army. I don't know where this writer is coming from on this. That Lee fought against the United States, though, was treason. The second letter was far more off base. The author wrote, "[I] will never understand calling a man a traitor for fighting alongside his family and for his home." So far, I think I agree. But then the writer goes off course. He claims, "When government fails to represent you, your family, neighbors, and home it is time to throw off that government." So, that the federal government, if not initially, but eventually, fought to rid the country of the scourge of slavery is evidence that "fails to represent?" Make no mistake; the Civil War was about slavery. It might have been one thing, I suppose, to think like this writer 160 years ago, although I again disagree. It's quite another in 2022 to castigate the US government for seeking to abolish slavery. So, the Confederate government was more legitimate, deserving of Lee's loyalty, for fighting to keep slavery? That Confederate government "represent[ed]" Lee by attempting to retain the institution of slavery? Especially now, a century and a half later, it is remarkable to read a statement such as this one, "This country has produced no better man than Robert E. Lee," that same Robert E. Lee who owned and/or managed more than 200 slaves. A different universe? I know Joe Biden's approval numbers are in the tank, deep in the tank. But I still can't imagine 30% or more of the people in these various polls who think he's doing a good job. Who are these people? Where do they live? They certainly can't live by or like me, although I am certain some do. For that matter, I am convinced our governor, who recently filed certificates to run for re-election, will win again in the fall. I can't, not in the world I live in, imagine how she can win, but I think she will, easily. From where I sit, she hasn't "fixed damn roads" and has no intention to do so. With her unilateral, dicatorial executive orders severely damaged or even ruined the lives of many people, including our children. During Covid she ordered patients with the virus to be sent to senior care facilities, where our most vulnerable citizens lived--even after we knew they were most vulnerable. She joined with other governors in asking the federal government to temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax, but is prepared to veto any similar legislation about the state gas tax. The state legislature passed an income tax cut which she vetoed. How could any Michigan voter cast a ballot for her?

Random Thoughts

A century or so ago, Thomas Huxley suggested it wouldn't be political corruption, that is, dishonest and self-serving politicians, which brought about the end of American democracy. He cited "an entrenched bureaucracy" as the more likely culprit. Perhaps the past two years of Covid protocols have provided a picture of how that might happen. Mark Twain was a very witty guy! One of my favorite observations of his is, "In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards." I came across this one recently. "Get your facts first. Then you can distort them as you please." I wonder if any of the people who steadfastly supported the Covid mandates, shutdowns, masks, etc. because they were "following the science" have had an epiphany. That is, have they realized that "the science is never settled?" The proclamations of that, "following the science" and "the science is settled," has lent a false legitimacy to the government reactions to Covid. It still befuddles me that in a country of 350 million people, American voters are still plagued with choices for President like W. Bush, Obama, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton, Trump, and Biden. Hundreds of millions of people and these are our choices? Consider this, relative to our candidates today. Seattle, WA and Denver, CO have populations of about 750,000 today. That is what the population of Virginia, the entire state, was in 1790. Yet, what did VA produce then? Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, the Lees, Mason, Randolph, and a guy by the name of Washington. Yep, think about that. I've read that the top ten hedge fund managers in the US (the top ten, not top ten percent) make more money than all of the kindergarten teachers in the country. Hmmm..... I don't begrudge anyone who makes money legally. No doubt these managers provide a desirable service and provide it well. But it seems to me that perahps our priorities need to be reconsidered. While I'm at it, it seems to me that the issue of "income inequality" is a red herring. So what if the top 10% of income earners make 60% of all income in the US? (I'm not sure that is the exact figure since there are so many different data.) There are other statistics perhaps designed to shock people, for instance, that the typical American CEO makes 100 times the typical worker in his/her company. (Again, I don't know if that's the exact figure.) If other, namely, lower income groups are also better off, what's the problem? Today most families, even considered low income, can and do afford luxuries unheard of in other parts of the world and even the US just a few decades ago. Who doesn't have a big screen television, a smart phone (other than me!), video game consoles, NBA-player endorsed sneakers, etc.? Besides, Thomas Sowell has shown that most people who at one time were in the lowest 20% of income earners rise out of that group and, in fact, more end up in the top 20% than stay in the bottom 20%. I suppose it's like the argument involving the most recent federal income tax cut. Some people complain that the "rich guy" received a bigger cut (in actual dollar amount) than they did. They never consider that the same "rich guy" still pays far more in taxes than they do. Perhaps most people should be more concerned that a recent study showed the IRS targets far more lower income groups for audits than upper income groups, up to five times more. I see more and more colleges allowing students to determine their own curricula, courses of study. But as strange as I find that, the move toward an "open curriculum" seems more irresponsible. To assume 18- and 19-year olds know better than their professors and advisers what academic experiences will best serve them in their real world futures outside of their majors is folly. I guess this is where I make my pitch, yet again, for the increasingly unpopular liberal arts education, you know, what many people now call "dead-end degrees." I still maintain that those who refuse to see the advantages of liberal arts graduates as employees are narrow- and even close-minded. I heard another guy say the other day, "I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." I've heard that from people before. I wonder if they hear that on NPR????? I wanted to ask, "All those social programs you want, who will pay for them?" I didn't ask because I know the answer. I have heard it before. "Other people." Yep, those who want the social programs don't want to finance them; other people should. Gee, how many things are wrong with that line of thinking? Let's just start with selfishness. Why in the world is the Biden Administration trying to buy oil from Venezuela and Iran, but handcuffing US producers? Like so many other things I wonder about, why isn't this on the front pages of every newspaper in the US?

The January 6th "Insurrection"

It, January 6th, is still with us. The Congressional hearings are ongoing. The Justice Department is doing, well, who knows what it is doing? Aren't about three-quarters of those arrested, incarcerated, still awaiting trial? With so much talk about the threat to our democracy, what about the threat to these people's Constitutional rights to a speedy trial? But that's a topic for a future blog. We are still hearing it. "It" is this. That January 6th "insurrection" on the the Capitol building was "the greatest assault/threat on our democratic government since the Civil War." If I recall correctly some fools claimed this was a bigger threat than that Civil War. Such stupidity doesn't deserve a response. But even the modifying claim "since the Civil War" has come from unexpected sources, ones I thought were a little sharper than this. To start, from the dictionary, an insurrection is defined as "a rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government." I suppose people can have their own views, but I don't see January 6th as "a rebellion." Certainly it was reprehensible and embarrassing to the majority of us. But, seriously, does anyone really believe several hundred protesters led by Viking Helmet Man were going to overthrow the federal government or its civil authority? Where was its revolutionary army? I favor criminal actions against these perpetrators--with quick due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. I also favor criminal actions agains the BLM and Anti-fa rioters, er, "peaceful protesters," who rioted, looted, burned and otherwise destroyed public and private property, not to mention assaulted people. But, again I digress, a topic for a future blog. My intent here is to address the very ignorant view that January 6th was "the greatest threat on our Democracy." Hmmm. Where to start? Maybe Viking Helmet Man didn't pose as great a threat as liberal icon (and autocratic wannabe) Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR's Executive Order 9066 that interned 120,000 people, about two-thirds of whom were US citizens, during the Second World War because they were of Japanese ancestry. (Please spare me, "But that was different. We were at war." It doesn't fly. The 120,000 were no threat. Check out the history of the 442nd Regimental Combat Unit.) It seems to me that such an abuse of federal government power is a far greater threat to Americans than January 6th. What about the various Alien and Sedition Acts that have been enacted over the course of our history, from the 1790s to the Cold War? Isn't stifling perhaps the most fundamental of our Constitutional rights, freedom of speech not to mention freedom of the press and assembly, quite a threat? And these stemmed not from Viking Helmet Man, but from various Congresses and Presidents. Why wasn't Lyndon Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War a bigger threat? He deliberately lied to the American people. As if that weren't enough, he was aided and abetted in the dishonesty by top military leaders and Congress. January 6th resulted in one death. (That four or five law enforcement officers were killed is a lie that continues to find life more than a year later.) The dishonesty/lies surrounding Vietnam led to the deaths of 58,282 Americans. (Ask Mike Bowen, who ran a mile with a 25-pound POW/MIA flag for each of his fellow soldiers who died. https://www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=20734 ) Is that Trump and many of his followers still push the idea that the election of 2020 was rigged, which sparked January 6th, a threat? More generally, what about the incredible amounts of money in American politics? It is not too hard to see that money counts for much more than the interests of many US citizens. What about the so-called "power elite," the intersection of large corporations (their leaders), the extremely wealthy, and policy makers? Perhaps I am misguided, but I think these elites and their money are far bigger threats to American democracy than Viking Helmet Man. I could go on with more examples, but you I hope get the picture. January 6th was not "the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War." It is a misguided and reprehensible event that has been turned into a political football.

Happy Birthday!

Yes, it's "Happy Birthday" time again. Today, it's George Washington's birthday, maybe. First, let me vent about the silly Presidents Day that took the place of Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays. Established in 1971 by Richard Nixon it's a "holiday set aside to honor all Presidents," he said adding, "even myself," it is ridiculous. Why in the world would we want to honor the likes of the two Johnsons, Harrison ("Tippecanoe" who was President for a month), "and Tyler, too," Buchanan, Harding, and others, including our last five Presidents? OK, OK, I guess people have their favorites and I know some folks disagree with me, but back to George Washington. Let me start by saying February 22nd isn't/wasn't really Washington's birthday/date. He was born on February 11th, 1731. But the British still worked under the old Julian Calendar (Julius Caesar, 45 BC) and didn't kick over to the updated Gregorian Calendar (Pope Gregory XIII, 1582). Remember the Protestant Reformation, Henry VIII and his dispute with the Catholic Church and pope? That explains it. When Britain adopted the Gregorian Calendar, to catch up, it added one year and 11 days. That is February 11th, 1731 became February 22nd, 1732. (The year is easy to remember. It is the square root of 3--1.732!) Of course, now officially, thanks to Presidents Day, I guess Washington's birthday is a moving date, the third Monday of each year. Grrr..... Now, for fun, Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree and tell his father, when questioned, "I cannot tell a lie" and admit his guilt. That was made up by Washington's first biographer, Parson Weems, to illustrate George's honesty. And Washington didn't have wooden teeth. Oh, he had false teeth, several dentures' worth. Some of those teeth were his own extracted ones, sheep teeth, and even ivory choppers. Gee, I feel a bit like I just told a bunch of kids there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny! That Washington was one of three or four key factors in the United States winning its independence did not make him a great President. (Without Washington, the colonies lose the Revolutionary War, pure and simple. Just like without the assistance of nations such as France, Spain, and the Netherlands, the colonists would have lost.) The qualities he possessed surely led to a great President, but the fact that he was the winning general did not necessarily--he wasn't President yet. Also, that Washington led the Constitutional Convention, was the presiding officer, was also a very important thing. That someone of the stature and prestige in the eyes of most early Americans supported the Constitution carried a lot of weight. Remember, a lot of leaders, such as Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock (at least early on) held strong doubts about if not opposition to this new document called the Constitution. Washington's backing was significant. Again, he wasn't yet President. But when the Constitution was written, namely Article II dealing with the Executive, it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that Washington would be the first President. (I know, I know. "Washington wasn't the first President!" Yes, he was, under the Constitution. But if we include the old the Second Continental Congress--the defacto government of the now declared independent United States--and the Articles of Confederation, there were up to a dozen previous presidents--note I didn't capitalize the "p." Look up names like Peyton Randolph and John Hanson. And note, like Washington, Randolph and Hanson came from Virginia. That was no accident. Virginia was the most populous and wealthiest state.) Like Winston Churchill in the darkest days of the Second World War holding Britain together, Washington did similarly with the young US. There was no guarantee the experiment with self-rule would succeed. In fact, many, especially in Europe, believed that it would fail and these brash colonists would come crawling back to Britain, like a puppy dog with its tail between its legs. Washington's personality, characteristics like courage, honesty, and foresight, along with the prestige he held among Americans kept the US from what many thought would be quick collapse. The specifics are there to discover. In what I think is the best single-volume biography of Washington, His Excellency, Joseph Ellis wrote this. "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior, the Foundingest Father of them all." That pretty much sums it up. Happy Birthday, George Washington!

Happy Birthday!

Today is the 213th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. It is worth commemorating. Most surveys/rankings of US Presidents place Lincoln at the top, the best. I've seen a few, very few, that don't. But I would say that most thoughtful/knowledgeable people who know about the American past rate Lincoln as our greatest President. Although he did much more as President, the two things that obviously stand out are freeing the slaves and winning the Civil War. Through the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment (passed after his death) slavery was abolished. Despite the mistaken notion that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves, it did free slaves, many of them, perhaps as many as 100,000 or so. Of course, as some historians, textbooks, and history teachers claim, the Emancipation was a military measure designed to help win/end the Civil War. That it was mere bluster, only freeing slaves where they couldn't be practically freed, is wrong. There was a reason the newly emancipated blacks referred to Lincoln in Biblical terms, "Father Abraham." And that reason was he had freed many of them. In addition, the Emancipation got the ball rolling, no mean feat. Constitutionally and, I suppose, legally slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment. Eric Foner's brilliant book, The Fiery Trial, and the hit movie Lincoln detail the story behind Lincoln's efforts to enact the 13th Amendment. (By the way, the wording of the Amendment, "neither slavery or involuntary servitude...shall ever exist in the United States....." comes from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, enacted before the Constitution was written. The author of the 13th Amendment was Jacob Howard, a US Senator from Michigan.) It was finally ratified by the requisite number of states in December 1865. Slavery was abolished. Of course, neither the Emancipation nor the 13th Amendment would have mattered much had the South won the Civil War. And it came far closer to winning it than, I think, most people realize. But it was Lincoln who won it. I've studied the period pretty closely over the years and have found nobody, at least not to my understanding, else who could have done what Lincoln did, that is, win! Lincoln possessed a unique combination of admirable character traits: courage, honesty, humility, intelligence, knowledge, patience, and more. He understood human nature and politics, recognizing that people would not hear messages for which they weren't ready to hear. (Who had the greatest message in the history of the world? "Love thy neighbor as thyself." It was Jesus. And what did they do to him for trying to spread it? They killed him.) Lincoln was thoughtful, rarely acting impetuously or rashly. Recognizing, too, that others might have better ideas than his, listening was important to him. And he wasn't above changing his mind and using those better ideas. I've noted these two anecdotes before, but they are worth repeating on this day. They are not only revealing, but still excite me afer reading and relating them hundreds of times. Frederick Douglass was the leading black abolitionist. He and Lincoln, after a tenuous beginning, developed a friendship. After Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address, he returned to the White House to accept well-wishers. The receiving line was quite long. Douglass was in the crowd at the Capitol Building listening to the Address. He was so moved he decided he had to tell Lincoln what he thought of it. So he went to the White House and stood in the lengthy line. But when he finally arrived inside, he was unceremoniously ushered out, despite his claims of friendship with the President. After all, he was a black man. But Douglass was determined, eventually forcing his way into the reception room. His brusque entrance attracted more than a little notice, including that of Lincoln. Before Douglass could be ushered out, Lincoln saw him and cried out, "Here comes my friend Douglass." Just imagine that, in 1865 a white President of the US calling a black man "my friend!" But there's more. Calling Douglass to him, he said, loud enough for others to hear, "I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my address. How did you like it?" Whoa! Again consider this, in 1865, a white President asking a black man for his opinion! Douglass was embarrassed by the attention and the looks from the impatient crowd and begged off, "Mr. Lincoln, I must not detain you with my poor opinion....." Lincoln replied, "No, no. There is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it." "Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort!" (Note the Biblical reference again.) The President smiled. "I'm glad you liked it. I value your opinion." Again, imagine that exchange..... W. E. B. DuBois, some decades later, was one of the founders of the NAACP. In a 1922 essay, he responded to critics who thought he had criticized or disparaged "Father Abraham." As Lincoln had told Douglass 57 years before, DuBois might have said, "No, no." Among other things he wrote this. "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters, Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." Read that again, especially, "...and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." I still get chills every time I read it. Happy Birthday, Abraham. (He didn't like being called "Abe.")

Senator Philip A. Hart

No doubt most folks are unaware of Phil Hart whether they are Michigan natives or not. Philip A. Hart served Michigan in the US Senate for almost three full terms, dying in office in 1976. There have been, since 1789, almost 12,000 members of the US Senate and House. There are seven Congressional office buildings, each named after a member of Congress. One of the seven is The Senator Philip A. Hart Senate Office Building. There is a reason for this. I have written before about "character," more specifically to be clear, how good character matters. I recognize my view is likely a minority one, that most people don't agree with me. I stand by my belief. And when I think of good character, the best character, I am often reminded of the late Senator Phil Hart. Hart was a Democrat. I am sure I didn't (and wouldn't today) agree with all of his stances. Others didn't also. But that is the point. Others could disagree with Hart, yet at the time greatly respect him. He was that kind of guy. I believe it was columnist Colman McCarthy who wrote of Hart, "It was not an accident that he was the most trusted man in American politics." In the Second World War, Hart stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. He was wounded, a piece of shrapel severing the major artery in his right arm, severely enough that he was to be sent back to the States. Nope. He refused to leave his comrades behind, sneaked away in the middle of a night, and rejoined his unit. Six months later he fought in the key Battle of the Bulge. After the war, he returned to Michigan, holding a variety of political offices on the state level. He was elected to the US Senate in 1958, being sworn in on Janurary 3rd of the next year. He was an unabashed liberal, one of the most liberal members of the Senate at the time. He was a major factor in the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '68 as well as the Voting Rights Act of '65 (serving as Senate floor manager of the bill). In Congress, he didn't belittle or even criticize his opponents or their beliefs. In fact, it was generally accepted that, in debating the merits of a bill, Hart would present his opponents' arguments more clearly than they did! He believed in open, transparent governance. Here's their view and here's mine. Now choose. Somewhat incongruously I think, Hart was a good friend of James Eastland, a segregationist Senator from Mississippi. Despite Eastland's racism and anti-Semitism, neither of which he hid, Hart maintained a social friendship. Yet, when Eastland, due to his seniority, was in line to become President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Hart rose to oppose that--he rose alone! Hart believed Eastland's racism snf anti-Semitism disqualified him from being so close to the White House in the line of succession to the Presidency (VP, Speaker, Pres Pro Tem). And he stated that--friend or not. Conscience and good character mattered. Toward the end of his third term, Hart announced he would not seek re-election although he would have been a sure-fire winner. This was in line with his belief that younger men and women (!) with greater energy and idealism should hold Senate seats. And this was before he was diagnosed with melanoma that would claim his life a few short weeks before his term ended. At his funeral at St. Matthew's Cathedral in DC, well over 1,000 people attended. It wasn't just the number, but who they were. According to a reporter there, "The rich and the powerful were there, dressed in tailored suits and fine furs. So were the poor and the powerless, dressed in jeans and parkas" Hart was known as "The Conscience of the Senate." That other Senators undeservedly were given the same title besmirches the legacy of Phil Hart. At the time, he was the most trusted man in US politics, a man of conviction and integrity even if they potentially clashed with his own political interests. He was still a sitting US Senator when the office building was named after him, the first time a still-serving Senator was so honored. BTW, his wife Jane Briggs Hart was quite a woman, too. She was the daughter of Walter Briggs, one-time owner of the Detroit Tigers (Briggs Stadium before Tiger Stadium). She was a licensed pilot and became the first woman to hold a helicopter pilot license in Michigan. An avid sailor, she crewed on more than a dozen of the famed Port Huron to Mackinac Races. Later, she skippered the first all-female crew and sailed across the Atlantic from Europe to the Caribbean with her sister. At the age of 40, she passed the NASA physical exam, the same one the male astronauts took. She was one of the co-founders of NOW, the National Organization of Women and an opponent of the Vietnam War, even being arrested in one of her protests. Although some of her views and actions might have embarrassed her husband, Senator Hart always supported his wife's right to her beliefs. I hope the next time there is mention of "The Senator Philip A. Hart Senate Office Building" people remember why it bears that name.