Wherein the Senate forces me to rethink everything I've ever learned at all ever

My first impressions of the Senate came when I was a child (somewhere in the 9-12 age range) from overhearing the adults around me. It was the lazy fat cat sort of stereotype that's useful for Air Farce sketches and Toronto Sun headlines. The sort of thing that's clearly A Problem.

Then when I started translating and started looking at bits of the Hansard on a regular basis, I gained a more nuanced perspective. They do actually have a role. They do actually do stuff. The fact that they're appointed does serve a purpose.

This is a normal learning arc for me. I start with a crude idea of the concept in question absorbed from my environment, then as I learn more I gain a more nuanced view that questions many of the assumptions I grew up with. That's what always happens, with everything.

But with yesterday's events, it seems I was wrong about my more nuanced view of the Senate, and the stereotypes I grew up with were more accurate.

So were the nuances I thought I saw not really there? Where did I get these ideas from? And how can I trust other things that I see as more nuanced than I once thought they where? Or was what I saw once true, and the nature of the Senate has changed just recently?

If this isn't a fluke or a very recent change, then this will have been the first time in my life that a dynamic opinion has ever changed direction for me. I've always trusted the direction of my dynamic opinions because they've always served me well, but if this one's wrong then the rest of them might be wrong.

So now I have to learn a whole lot about the Senate. I have to learn whether this vote is typical or whether they're usually more intelligent about these things. I have to track how often votes follow party lines uber alles. Because until I figure this out, I don't know how much I can trust everything I've always known about how my mind works and how I learn.

I don't have time for this!