Monday, September 18, 2023

Question: How Many U.S. Senators Can You Fit in a VW Bug?


Friends, today's query is more germane than ever, now that Chuck Schumer has announced that the Senate's dress code is a thing of the past.  Of course, norms and rules and laws only mean anything to Democrats when they can obtain some advantage from them...and, darn it all, John Fetterman wants to wear gym shorts to Joe Biden's impeachment trial, so why shouldn't he?  From the Dems' perspective, dressing down, or hurling profane insults at their enemies, is a good way of expressing oneself, "speaking truth to power", and undertaking "social justice action".  In the process, our nation's esteemed legislators will, perforce, look more and more like the patrons at a laundromat, if we're lucky, and like court jesters, if we're not.  But perhaps all this is fitting, given the increasingly farcical nature of our politics.  After all, if you can't get a good laugh out of a U.S. Senator, what can you get?

Here's a reasonably honest, if noncommittal, analysis of where Ukraine stands in its offensive versus Russian occupying forces.  The upshot: Ukraine isn't making much progress, but it can continue to feed young Ukrainians into the meatgrinder indefinitely, as long as Joe Biden remains president and U.S. dollars continue to flow.


  1. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Well in one way, Schumer is right. The Senate ought not to be a profession so why not treat them as less than professional? In the 60s feckless boomer students ( I mean only the ungrateful faction of them) claimed "equality "with accomp!ished academics and demanded that common custom in the university classroom manifest this. Intimidated faculty were known to apologize absurdly, "we will learn together."Its hard to picture Charles Schumer in the 60s but he appears to be willing to arrogate similar counterintuitive symbolism . Is it not common sense that personal appearance strongly effects personal image and that image matters?Can't change that, Charles. Now does this bode uneasy equality, nay, "equity" in the Senate.? Is seniority now then of no moment? Then step off your pedestal Charles, you have no authority to make such a change! Have a bonfire pit installed in the Senate chamber and indulge in sophomoric smoky "discourse" on the true nature of things far beyond the "chimes at midnight". It would be an improvement.

  2. Dr. Waddy from Jack: The article says the Senate Dress Code is termed "oppressive" by some. Oh my! By all means make haste to eradicate "oppression" lest the bleating "oppressed" find this historically considered serious fault in other "oppressive" custom!

  3. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Has this war taken on a new essential meaning which eclipses the origin of the Russian attack: Russia's conviction that utterly unacceptable Ukrainian membership in Nato had become far too real a possibility? Ukrainian interruption of viable Russian control of Crimea appears to be the main contested issue, at least for the time. Would a successful Ukraine then use this as bargaining factor separate from prospective Ukrainian membership in an alliance clearly intended against Russia? It would be in vain; Russia will NEVER give in on that point.

  4. Jack, that's a good point that the demise of the Senate dress code mirrors similar changes in the classroom and in many walks of life. A lot of it is about indulging an overdeveloped leveling instinct. If you ask me, there is such a thing as too much "democracy", and all men are NOT created equal, in most respects. And you're also absolutely right that such gestures are ultimately empty, because the people with power, privilege, and status aren't actually willing to give them up. The Senate would NEVER abandon its tradition of according extra standing to those with seniority, although I suppose it might water those privileges down somewhat and probably already has.

    Jack, as far as I can tell, our purpose in aiding Ukraine is to CONFIRM in Russians' minds their long-held suspicion that we are OBSESSED with containing/undermining them. The question is: can we succeed by the present means?