Maxims, rules of thumb and other observations on human cognition and sociocultural affectations

This will be added to on an irregular basis...
  • What is said to humans directly is received with skepticism and considered with dubiousness while that which is heard in passing, especially that which most conforms to their mentality or prejudices, is readily believed.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive latency between exposure to new information or experiences and the ability to think dispassionately and intellectually about it.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive spectrum starting with the moment of exposure to new information or experiences and ending with some point at which the thing is effectively "in the past" for them.
  • This cognitive spectrum is linked to the emotional process often referred to as shock, anger, denial and acceptance.
  • The more and faster information or experiences are presented to people and the closer the quarters and the lesser the distance between people, the more their early reactions in the passionate emotional stage are reflected back to them in the manner of responses to those reactions from others in light of those responses.
  • The more outrages which are suffered without sufficient time to allow emotional bleed-off, the farther the bar for subsequent reaction and outrage are pushed, and the more further events must progress before reaction and outrage.
  • It is possible for serious detriments to eventually sit below this threshold for long enough for their damaging effects to build and multiply until their entire society undergoes some reactive convulsion.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Burris arrives at Senate, seeks to take seat - Yahoo! News

Insert "hoist petard" line here viś a viś Democratic Party and their long term running feud with the entire idea of a constitution.

Burris arrives at Senate, seeks to take seat - Yahoo! News

Burris dismissed the Senate Democratic leadership's position that he cannot be seated because he was appointed by a governor accused in a criminal complaint of trying to benefit financially from his authority to fill the seat that Obama vacated after winning the presidential election.

Burriss said his belief is that his appointment is constitutional and that "I have no knowledge of where a secretary of state has veto power over a governor carrying out his constitutional duties.

Burris is of course entirely correct. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Illinois Constitution allow for the Secretary of State or anyone else to veto the governor's constitutionally mandated power to appoint a successor to their state's departing senator.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that Burris would not be permitted to take his seat because Burris "has not been certified by the state of Illinois," a reference to incomplete paperwork that only touches on the dispute. Senate Democrats maintain that Burris' appointment is tainted because of the charges against Blagojevich.

While Blagojevich has signed formal appointment papers, Jesse White, the Illinois secretary of state, has not, and Senate rules require that signature. Burris, in turn, has gone to court hoping to win an order for White to sign the necessary paperwork, and he has also threatened to sue to take his seat in the Senate.

And so we see another example of the crux of civilization, democracy, rule of law, and other such things that we say we like: they rely entirely on people following the rules of the structure. There is no legal right for the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois to withhold his or her signature from the appointment paperwork. The signature is only to certify that the Governor of the State of Illinois made the appointment. It is not up the the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois to approve of the appointment or disapprove.

Yes, I am enjoying an inordinate amount of mirth and glee over this entire thing.