A Dress Code for Congress

You may have seen the latest brouhaha from the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has asked the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to relax enforcement of the chamber's informal dress code, which has heretofore required Senators to wear "business attire" on the floor. The move was evidently intended (at least in part) for the convenience of Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, who is noted for his preferred attire of shorts and a hoodie. 

The reaction, mostly although not exclusively from Republicans, was one of swift outrage, viewing the move as a demeaning of the decorum of the Senate chamber ... no mention was made of the House chamber, there being no decorum there to demean any more, anyhow. Maine Senator Susan Collins joked about wearing a bikini to the Senate floor*, while Kansas Senator Roger Marshall described it as "a sad day in the Senate."

From my perspective, anything that would help make Senators comfortable enough to actually engage in  useful work is a good thing, and if relaxing the dress code works, then let's do it. And let's extend it to the House, too, while we're at it.

As you might suspect, I have a few suggestions for an updated dress code for Congress, in particular the House of Representatives ...

1. Hats should be required at all times, and should be appropriate to the home state and political persuasion of each member: Senators and representatives from Texas and the western states should be required to wear ten-gallon hats; those from the more cosmopolitan states such as New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Rhode Island, trilbys or top hats; those from farming states like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and much of the South, straw hats; those from the southwestern states of Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, sombreros; those from New England, sou'westers; and Florida and California, baseball caps worn backwards. Hats worn by GOP members should be red, feature slogans of fealty to Der Furor, and consist of at least 85% tinfoil to enhance receptiveness to bizarre ideas and block useful ones.

2. House Freedom Caucus members are encouraged to wear colorful clown suits and appropriate makeup; however, extra-large shoes are not allowed as they represent a tripping hazard and make it difficult to put one's foot in one's mouth.

3. Ku Klux Klan robes are permitted, if accompanied by loud protestations that the wearer is in no way racist.

4. Self-designated Alpha Male members such as Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz may wear extra-long neckties in the phallic style of Der Furor.

5. Members who are ardent supporters of gun rights may carry weapons openly; however, pistols other than traditional six-shot revolvers must have a minimum 17-round magazine to be taken seriously. Military assault-style weapons, if carried, must be slung stylishly barrel-down across the back and equipped with a 30-round banana clip**, a telescopic sight, a laser rangefinder, or a combination thereof. Bayonets are optional on long guns. Hand grenades and other explosive or pyrotechnic devices are not yet considered "arms" in the Constitutional sense and may not be brought into the Capitol until the next time the GOP controls all three branches of government and fixes the oversight.

6. Prominent wear of Christian symbols is permitted at all times. This does not apply to other religions.

That's my start ... any other ideas? Leave a comment.

Congress may not be able to get anything done, but it can not do it in style.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Now, THERE's an image I don't need to see.

** A second banana clip taped to the one loaded in the weapon to facilitate rapid change of an empty magazine is encouraged, but not mandatory.

Why Americans Dress Casually

One of the things most men dread hearing from their girlfriend/wife/significant other is the time-honored question, "Are you going to wear that?"

The question usually arises after the lady has spent a great deal of time putting on makeup, getting her hair exactly right, and selecting the perfect outfit and matching accessories, only to discover that her partner is unshaven and wearing jeans, old sneakers, and a ratty t-shirt. They have differing opinions of what the word "casual" on the invitation meant.

But differences between the sexes aside, Americans generally tend to dress more casually than people in other countries. Why is that?

Well, according to this article by Dennis Green from Business Insider, the answer is simple: because we can.

There's more to it than that, though. In many countries with well-defined social levels, the way one dresses tends to be a marker of one's place in the society. Working class men and women, for instance, wouldn't dress the same way members of the more aristocratic classes would*. Here in America, where we take pride in individuality and a Constitutionally-mandated lack of an aristocratic class**, people tend to dress down. It wasn't always this way, though. According to the article,

"For much of the 20th century, Americans didn't dress casually all the time. There were dress codes and customs. Men wore suits and hats; women wore dresses. Jeans and T-shirts were for laborers, not professionals."

Although we tend to dress more individually, we still don't want to stray too far from everyone else ... we want to be individuals, but we still want to be part of the group, if not of a defined elite. As philosopher Eric Hoffer*** once commented,

"Woe to him inside a nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity."

 We could go on with all that sociological stuff, but I think the real reason Americans dress casually is the same reason I do: it's just a lot easier.

I don't mind getting dressed up occasionally. I own a tuxedo and a set of formal tails that I sometimes don for special occasions, and I enjoy looking good and getting the occasional admiring glance from the ladies when so accoutered ...

But more than that, I enjoy rolling out of bed and sliding into a pair of comfortable old jeans and a t-shirt with a message that expresses my opinion of the moment⁺.

Because I'm an American, and we do that.

Have a good day. Dress how you like, as long as it's appropriate to the situation.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* This is why we describe some jobs as being "blue collar" or "white collar."

** Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8.

*** The "longshoreman philosopher," and one of my favorite authors.

⁺ And I've got lots of those!

Are You Going to Wear THAT?

A few days ago I noted on my Facebook page the following: "It's the birthday of fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, famous for his work both alone and with such other famous designers as Coco Chanel in creating extraordinarily expensive clothes that don't look any better than the ones you buy at JC Penney's."

I was immediately called to task by my old* friend Marilyn, who said in response, "You have GOT to be kidding, Bilbo! You cannot see a difference?"

Well, it all went downhill from there.

The point that I was trying to make, with all the humorous ineptitude for which I am justly renowned, was that people (particularly women) frequently spend obscene amounts of money on designer outfits that look wonderful, but not necessarily to a degree that is commensurate with the price demanded. When you buy something that's been designed by a Lagerfeld, or a Chanel, or a Vera Wang, or a Donna Karan, or whatever, you are paying an enormous surcharge for a name and the social cachet that goes with it. When you buy the right outfit at JC Penney's and clean up well, you can look good for much less.

And it's not just the designer names attached to ladies' dresses and men's suits (can you spell "Armani" or "Hugo Boss" or "Ermenegildo Zegna"?) that are an issue in pricing. Consider also Bilbo's Law of the Proportional Economics of Garments, which states that, "The price of a woman's evening gown or bathing suit is inversely proportional to the amount of material used in the construction thereof." I've seen women's bathing attire that covers virtually nothing, yet costs the equivalent of the GNP of Burkina Faso. "Wieso das?"**, as my father-in-law is fond of asking. This is related to the factor I have previously referred to as the Degree of Gasp, which is a measure of the desirability of a garment for a teenage girl ... my daughter was fond of selecting her prom dresses based on this factor - the louder my gasp at the sight of her in the dress, the more attractive and desirable it became ... and the Law of the Proportional Economics of Garments naturally factored into that reaction as well.

So, ladies, consider your purchases well. Your men love to see you looking good ... but they also like to be able to do other things like make mortgage payments and feed the family.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* By which I mean, "long-time and cherished."

** German, loosely translated as, "What's up with that?"

Are You Going to Wear That?

I do not lay claim to being a paragon of male fashion. Like most men, I'm comfortable in jeans and a t-shirt, hate to wear a tie unless I have to, and - because I'm pretty color-blind - my clothes don't always match. Agnes usually vets my wardrobe for me each evening when I set out my clothes for work, and I've grown accustomed to the arch of an eyebrow and the accompanying question, "Are you going to wear that?"

I generally take her advice, because she has a far better sense of style than I, and because she can tell colors apart that I can't, but there are some things I'm just not willing to compromise on. Like socks.

When I was on active duty in the Air Force and wore a uniform every day, I never had to worry about matching colors ... every day was blue shirt, blue pants, blue tie, black socks, and black shoes. Heaven on earth for a guy with defective color vision. But let me tell you about the socks ...

Agnes's mother enjoyed knitting, and made a lot of great things for us. For me, she made socks. Lots of socks. For the whole time I was in the Air Force, about twice a year she'd send me a big box full of beautiful, hand-knitted, black wool socks, suitable for wear with my uniform, and with anything else that wasn't ... say ... brown. I almost never had to buy socks.

When I retired from the Air Force and began working in the civilian economy, Mom suddenly realized that there were now new horizons of sartorial possibility. I could wear things other than blue, which meant that I could wear socks other than black. And so it was that the boxes began arriving with some very ... interesting ... socks.

I believe that she scoured the stores of her town in search of the wildest, most garish yarns she could find. I started getting socks that were blue with yellow flashes, red shot with blue and green, green with red and purple highlights, and just about anything else you can imagine. None of them came close to matching anything in my wardrobe. So I figured, what the heck?, and decided that I'd just wear whatever socks came out of the drawer first, regardless of whatever else I was wearing.

I quickly became known as "the guy with the socks." People I met at conferences might not remember my name, but they remembered I was "the guy with the socks," and I got used to people walking up to me and asking to see my socks. It was fame of a sort.

One time I had to make a formal presentation of a project I'd been working on to a murder board of retired senior generals. For the occasion, I wore my best double-vested sober gray suit with power tie, black shoes, and the loudest socks I had ... which was saying something. They were bright red, shot with bolts of yellow and orange, and were hard to look at without squinting.

I spent all morning presenting my project and answering questions from the assembled demigods, and eventually we broke for lunch. As we were walking through the halls of the Pentagon to the dining room, the chairman of the panel - a retired four-star general - fell back to walk next to me. He threw an arm around my shoulders, leaned in close, and whispered, "Bilbo, I've just got to ask you ... where did you get those damn socks?"

In the end, they endorsed my project, but I never knew whether it was because of the excellence of my analysis (which, of course, it was), or because they had to get away from my shrieking socks.

I'll take success where I can get it.

Have a good day. Wear what you want. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo, aka "The Guy with the Socks"

At the Intersection of Art and Tailoring

From the Department of I Couldn't Make This Stuff Up comes this interesting article from The Explainer on Slate.com: Is It Legal to Wear Nothing but Body Paint in Public?

This is not a trivial issue, as the idea of appearing in public wearing only body paint arises from time to time to challenge traditional laws governing public nudity and morals. You may recall this famous magazine cover featuring Demi Moore ...

Ms Moore is, of course, naked in this photo, clothed (as it were) only in body paint and strategically-positioned shadow. This picture is relatively artistic, and most courts (outside of the Bible Belt, anyhow) would probably agree that it has "artistic value" and not sentence Ms Moore to 500 hours of community service painting curbs yellow instead of painting her own ample curbs.

In contrast, consider this example of clever-if-not-quite-so-artistic body painting ...

Somehow, I don't think these ladies would meet with general public approval beyond the male 18-50 demographic, although I doubt they'd care very much.

The Slate.com article notes that state and local anti-nudity laws tend to be deliberately vague, allowing police to make judgment calls. It also points out that many states prosecute public nudity only if it's accompanied by lewd or lascivious behavior, which would probably result in an arrest whether or not the individual was wearing traditional clothing or body paint. Body paint would be far more likely to be considered acceptable in, say, New Orleans (especially during Mardi Gras) than in Boston (at pretty much any time). San Francisco is, of course, in a class by itself. Many laws use the word expose to define what parts of the body must be visible to constitute nudity, and those parts tend to include the genitals more frequently than the (male or female) breasts. As to whether or not body paint is considered a covering sufficient to prevent nudity (however it's defined) most places (other than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, which take a dim view of exposing more than a few square millimeters of epidermis) seem anecdotally to be willing to give the offending epidermal canvas a warning, if not a pass.

So ...

If you're thinking of going a step further than the infamous spray tan, you might want to check your local ordinances first. And you might want to think about Bilbo's First Principle of Public Exposure, based on the personal experience of European topless beaches: Most people who appear topless in public ... shouldn't.

Just a word to the wise.

Have a good day. More thoughts - appropriately clothed - coming.

Bilbo

P.S. - This comment by actress and scientist Hedy Lamarr may apply: "A good painting to me has always been like a friend. It keeps me company, comforts, and inspires."

B.