63 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. In September 2017, Pompeo sought authority for the CIA to make covert drone strikes without the Pentagon's involvement, including inside Afghanistan.

      Did he get it? Scary thought; program had very little accountability as it was.

    1. This wasn’t expected, but also shouldn’t be a huge shock. Despite the US hyping Russia as a threat for decades, Russia hasn’t spent deeply on its military in years, and drawing down from Syria, they don’t have much costly overseas engagement.

      To contextualize, you can still spend a hell of a lot on development, but if you don't have costly mobilizations it can make it look like you aren't spending as much as others; in fact, you are arguably making 'smarter' investments?

    1. A home provides stability and financial predictability

      Financial crisis? Only 10 years ago?

    2. one way that localities could qualify for grants under the Warren bill is by implementing rent stabilization or rent control.

      By making sure renters stay where they are and that landlords cannot get market rent for their properties, it will discourage the building of rental units and encourage the selling of existing rental units.

    3. first-time homebuyers

      Why only first time buyers? Why not renters? If they have been actively disadvantaged by predatory policies in the past, aren't they likely to need more assistance? Also, is this what she means by 'reparations'?

    4. this policy would stand in the way of homes being adapted to meet new needs

      In circumstances where it makes more sense to rent, and there is a potential renter, why prevent that transaction from taking place?

    5. sold to new owner-occupants, rather than to landlords who would rent them out

      Isn't it the owner's property? Why shouldn't they get to decide the highest value use of the property? The bank would sell or rent the foreclosed precisely TO profit from it, especially if the previous owner is no longer able to make payments on the bank; they are losing money on the property if nobody is paying...?

  2. Mar 2019
    1. therefore at least to some extent a failure

      this is strange; I suppose you can 'succeed' in carrying out the utterance, but it does not consecrate anything, which... is the entire point? So, strange to say that it fails only in part when in another sense it fails completely. It's like I succeeded in taking a shot but missed the basket?

    2. One thing we might go on to do, of course, is to take it all back

      How can you take back an action? (though you could retract a claim about an action, of course)

    3. So far then we have merely felt the firm ground of prejudice slide away beneath our feet.

      Not absolute; not bedrock (though we thought it was). And merely? This is "merely" the dissolution of what you thought reality was?

    4. That this is SO can perhaps hardly be proved, but it is, I should claim, a fact.

      Haha - claiming "truth" for something that he acknowledges might not be provable - 'take my word for it, it's a fact'. Use of the performative again in "claim," e.g. "I claim" cannot be responded to with "that's not true!"

    5. outward and audible sign

      Proverbial tip of the iceberg; the "seen" part.

    6. Here we should say that in saying-these words we are doing some- thing-namely, marrying, rat her than reporting some- thing, namely that we are marrying

      Important distinction between doing and reporting; the former obviously an action, and the latter a verifiable statement. But can the lines blur? Is "I do" ever reporting the fact that you are getting married, which is verifiable?

    7. Yet to be 'true' or 'false' is traditionally the characteristic mark of a statement.

      All statements are boolean: T/F

    8. all cases considered

      Not sure that all cases considered are worth considering...?

    9. the only merit I should like to claim for it is that of being true, at least in parts

      You would think the goal of an essay would be to find or argue a truth, but here he is marginalizing it; truth is not the goal.

      Arguing that truth and falsehood are not what matters; that the performative exists outside such claims (as we learn later).

      Using the performative in his opening through the use of "I claim"; and here he claims truth. He performs his own argument.

    10. we shall next consider what we actually do say about the utterance concerned when one or another of its normal concomitants is absent

      So the utterance is surrounded by other ceremonial trappings, and without which there is a presumption that the utterance is hollow, that the accompaniments make it "complete"; suggests that the ceremony becomes greater than the sum of its parts by being able to bring about this binding force which the parts cannot do individually; or can they - is just the utterance enough to describe and seal the inward act? The other question is, does the utterance imply (and describe) the other trappings?

    11. our word is our bond

      And yet these are just words; as believable or unbelievable as the uttering of an oath?

    12. Thus 'I promise to . . . 9 obliges me-puts on record my spiritual assumption of a spiritual shackle.

      The consecration of the oath; but when is the uttering just a garnishment? For some, the internal / spiritual bond is the key thing, binding regardless of whether the one to whom the words are uttered believes them or not; the words are just words, but the intent is everything. The intent can exist without the words, and so the words can exist without the intent. It is the words though that offer a public record of commitment, and against which one's character is judged and assessed in accordance with their ability to live up to them.

    13. fictitious

      Interesting choice of words; many swear that they are real and binding, but, yes, they are imaginary (in our culture); we require signed contracts, and verbal oaths are nice, but have a romantic tinge to them and we expect them maybe to not be kept as frequently.

    14. the outward utterance is a description, true or false, of the occurrence of the inward performance

      The process by which we arm feelings of guilt / responsibility / etc to trigger when we have second thoughts about the vow we've made

    15. Surely the words must be spoken 'seriously' and so as to be taken 'seriously' ?

      Requires a certain solemnity, yes, but how many vows or promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them? Or only that they were meant in the moment, but that future circumstances resulted in the changing of one's heart/mind?

    16. tircumstantes

      Drilling down to the even-more-particular; not just anyone can marry somebody, at any time, at any place, with a word (and have it mean anything); requires person w/ particular qualifications / authority / occasion / etc.

      Also requires a society/set of institutions that considers such acts normal and reasonable. In this way, the particulars affected by the occasion are part of a much large general sphere in which they are legitimized and sanctioned; and outside of that may exist a larger sphere which is baffled by them.

    17. very commonly necessary that either the speaker himself or other persons should also perform certain other actions

      While the naming or the uttering of "I do" symbolically 'seals' or makes the transaction official, the naming or the uttering is part of a longer ceremony. Not sure about betting though; it would be strange somehow if a complete stranger bet another with no prior interaction (i.e. no mechanism to build trust, etc), but it could happen

    18. dangerous

      Dangerous?

    19. convert the propositions above

      Make them more particular; less general

    20. but in some other way

      Aren't the words more ceremonial? i.e. in marriage, they bind symbolically, but what really matters is the legal stamp of the JOP? But that's not what everybody stands, applauds or weeps for; maybe on some level that's what we're doing with words here?

    21. current

      Good qualifier; reminds us that language is always shifting.

    22. it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action

      Is it true that the function of the utterance is to assign metadata in some way?

    23. perfornative sentence

      Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

    24. I assert this as obvious and do not argue it

      Is this phrase also an exercitive, neither true nor false?

    25. Examples :

      Involve the:

      • creation of relationships
      • creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
      • involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
      • must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
      • also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
      • the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
      • involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.
    26. exercit ives

      "A speech act in which a decision is made regarding action; examples include orders and grants of permission."

    27. the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as saying something

      The action is performed with the uttering of the sentence.

    28. Yet they will succumb to their own timorous fiction, that a statement of 'the law' is a statemknt of fact.

      When in doubt, defer to authority.

    29. disguise'

      Is the disguise applied moreso by the reader's bias than the author's intent?

    30. parti pris

      pre-conceived view or bias

    31. Whatever we may think of any particular one of these views and suggestions, and however much we may deplore the initial confusion into which philosophical doctrine and method have been plunged, it cannot be doubted that they are producing a revolution in philosophy.

      Makes me think of a generation set in its ways butting up against a younger "less respectful" generation that is "doing it all wrong"; i.e. generational divide between viewpoints; some may think a revolution hardly necessary, that it is fine the way it is and that they are simply being disruptive.

    32. Constative'

      "denoting a speech act or sentence that is a statement declaring something to be the case"

    33. It has come to be seen that many specially perplexing words embedded in apparently descriptive statements do not serve to indi- cate some specially odd additional feature in the reality reported, but to indicate (not to report) the circumstances in which the statement is made or reservations to which it is subject or the way in which it is to be taken and the like.

      Qualifying / conditional factors?

    34. We very often also use utterances in ways beyond the scope at least of traditional grammar.

      And how does the reader know exactly, and to what extent, the boundaries of a definition are being pushed by the use of a word which they think they are familiar with?

    35. For how do we decide which is which? What are the limits and definitions of each ?

      There is an unaddressed problem which hinders clear communication; there is no standard criteria for the establishment of intent in communication. (Doubt that's what the ultimate argument is, but seems to be the set-up)

    36. It is, of course, not reaw correct that a sentence ever is a statement: rather, it is used in making a smmt, and the statement itself' is a 'logical construction' out of the dings of satements.

      A sentence remains a sentence; it is just a tool or vehicle for the delivery of something which depends entirely on its configuration.

    37. It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement' can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact', which it must do either truly or falsely.

      The utility of the vehicle used to distinguish truth from falsehood itself rests on an assumption; purports that there is or maybe ought to be a 'purpose' to a statement.

    38. discussed

      Makes it feel inclusive; a conversation.

    1. Mr. Fiske’s Florida Congressional Committee is one of a string of political action committees with anodyne names — NorPac in New Jersey, To Protect Our Heritage PAC outside Chicago, the Maryland Association for Concerned Citizens outside Baltimore, among others — that operate independently of Aipac but whose missions and membership align with it.

      Fund-raising conducted by satellite / affiliates

    1. Two-fold arguments are also put forward concerning the just and the unjust

      Examples here are more oriented toward personal freedom / libertarian values; points out that the same action applied to the same person, can be either potentially just or unjust depending on the circumstances, and also that there will be local conflicts and differences in opinion (e.g. in preventing a friend from committing suicide, they may be angry and disagree that your actions are just, though others may support your decision and think it is indeed just).

      There is no universal sanctity of property rights or freedom from bodily restraint by others; violence is in some cases justified, and in others not.

    2. Since if anyone should ask those who say that the same thing is both disgraceful and seemly whether they have ever done anything seemly, they would admit that they have also done something disgraceful, if disgraceful and seemly are really the same thing.

      In removing the context, the actions become effectively neutral, in that they are simultaneously good and bad; the actions themselves exist without judgment, and the judgment is only the product of the culture in which they take place (or are regarded)

    3. But there is also an argument about the disgraceful and the seemly which says that each is distinct from the other. Since if anyone should ask those who say that the same thing is both disgraceful and seemly whether they have ever done anything seemly, they would admit that they have also done something disgraceful, if disgraceful and seemly are really the same thing.

      Depends perhaps upon in whose eyes we are judged; to consider the judgment of all would result in paralysis, and goes back again to "the right thing" being dependent upon its context and actors.

      One is maybe always simultaneously appeasing certain gods and transgressing against others.

    4. but the right occasion

      The right occasion = the opportune moment; context-specific.

    5. And if you investigate in this way, you will see another law for mortals: nothing is always seemly or always disgraceful, but the right occasion takes the same things and makes them disgraceful and then alters them and makes them seemly.

      No universal truths, however this wisdom is not universally regarded as true, and many would argue that universal truths or laws do exist.<br> Paradox of claiming that there are no universal laws is that in doing so, you are making a claim of a universal law.

    6. against the law

      As examples rise in degree of 'extremity', they brush up against norms and laws, an act that may be celebrated in one culture is punishable by death or ostracism in another, simply based on the geography or time in which it takes place. By keeping location and temporality intact, the author is able to refrain from making absolute claims about any of the actual behaviors and just cite them as things that are, irrespective of judgment. The degree to which the reader judges them may be dependent upon the reader's interpreting the behaviors not as context-specific acts, but as archetypes(?) or fixed representations of those acts which stand outside of time and place.

    7. the most beautiful grave imaginable

      Shifts to more 'extreme' examples, but points out that this perverse (to the greeks) act is BEAUTIFUL and an act of love to others; perhaps their reverence is inversely proportional to the Greeks' horror.<br> Also, in using such 'extreme' examples, the author shows that in fact nothing is truly extreme, because it is all a matter of context, and concepts of extremity introduce limits or constrain these things to a spectrum which is not necessarily accurate; it all depends on the context, and something cannot "depend" strongly or weakly based on the actual act, but only on the context.

    8. I go on to the things which cities and peoples regard as disgraceful

      Switches to point out arbitrary differences in culture; be born in one area and you believe x, be born in another and you believe y, but largely it is a matter of the random happenstance of one's birth. These beliefs are human creations, and vary depending on where the humans live.

    9. (although for men to do so in the palaistra aid gymnasium is seemly.)

      The "good" and the "bad" can be seemingly arbitrarily different between identity groups. Why is it seemly for person of type x and unseemly for person of type y?

    10. And I am not saying what the good is, but I am trying to explain that the bad and the good are not the same but that each is distinct from the other

      Not trying to identify a moral absolute, just point out that it is relative and therefore that there is no absolute.

    11. I think it would not be clear what was good and what was bad if they were just the same and one did not differ from the other; in fact such a situation would be extraordinary

      Is this sarcasm? Is he saying that such a duality would be extraordinary in that it would violate the philosophers' attempts to categorize and assign general rules? Not sure...

    12. But there is another argument which says that the good is one thing and the bad another, and that as the name differs, so does the thing named.

      This serves as a sort of refrain in the verse/chorus structure of the text. It is constructed like a song in some respects.

    13. And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and gravediggers.

      Use of the progressive method of providing examples; in this case, linear from health to death. Further on in the text from mundane to extreme.<br> Examples here shift from the personal (the sick individual) to a class (professions); there is a hierarchy and blending here of sorts in that any member of any of the professions listed could find themselves as the individual afflicted by the example condition/problem, and as such we find that the same person could potentially hold these conflicting opinions at different stages in their life, and that neither is necessarily wrong nor contradictory.

    14. And, further, incontinence in these matters is bad for the incontinent but good for those who sell these things and make a profit. And again, illness is bad for the sick but good for the doctors. And death is bad for those who die but good for the undertakers and gravediggers.

      i.e. it depends on who you're asking; all are likely to express sympathy, but also their livelihoods depend on the decline of the other.

    15. or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person

      Not fixed

    16. Two-fold arguments concerning the good and the bad are put forward in Greece by those who philosophize. Some say that the good is one thing and the bad another, but others say that they are the same, and a thing might be good for some persons but bad for others, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person.

      Good & bad, or things with which we agree and disagree. They are sometimes put forth as absolutes or dividing lines, but in reality, there may be disagreement about whether things are in fact, good or bad. Instead of arguing back and forth over who is right, the interesting discourse may be in where the differences lie.

    17. Suppose someone should question the man who says this as follows: Why don't you assign your household slaves their tasks by lot, so that if the teamster drew the office of cook, he would do the cooking and the cook would drive the team, and so with the rest ?

      How do these "fish out of water" statements compare back to previous examples? Seems to imply that, if you took an Athenian and placed them in Sparta, that they would consider the Spartan culture still foreign and would be at a disadvantage trying to operate within the context (which is likely)? They would see things through the lens of an Athenian, which, on the other hand, may provide certain perspective that the Spartans take for granted. Perhaps it is a reminder that opportunity is not democratically distributed, and that the moments and circumstances conducive to certain results cannot be manufactured by moving the pieces around, because they depend so much not only on the context in which they happen, but the experience and history of those who find themselves within the situation?