5 ms·

I see that New York Times is careful not to mention Manning, or Snowden, or Assange, or indeed draw any of the lines to the present day situation - lines that E

I see that New York Times is careful not to mention Manning, or Snowden, or Assange, or indeed draw any of the lines to the present day situation - lines that Ellsberg himself tried so desperately to draw in the last months of his life. In the book of Genesis, there is a part where Abraham haggles with God(!) trying to save the city of Sodom. If there's 50 honest people, will you spare it? How about 45? 40? He gets all the way to 10. Famously, that wasn't low enough. I feel like Sodom lost one of the honest men covering for it today.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rapnie 3y ago
> I see that New York Times is careful not to mention Manning, or Snowden, or Assange, or indeed draw any of the lines to the present day situation - lines that Ellsberg himself tried so desperately to draw in the last months of his life. The Guardian does a better job in that regard. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/16/daniel-ellsberg-pentagon-papers-whistleblower-dies https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/16/daniel-ellsb...
- kfrzcode 3y ago
  As per usual.
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  “By two years in Vietnam, I was reporting very strongly that there was no prospect of progress of any kind so the war should not be continued. And that came to be the majority view of the American people before the Pentagon Papers came out." And yet Nixon handily won in 1968 (even with Wallace kneecapping him in 5 states) and 1972. While not well covered, Ellsberg would mention in person that his early issues weren't that it was a bad or immoral war but that the US wasn't committing the forces/effort required to win it. That's one of the reasons he waffled for so long.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - CalChris 3y ago
    Johnson had escalated the war, created it really, from the Gulf of Tonkin 'crisis'. By 1968, the war had failed and at some level everyone knew that. Johnson was not running for re-election and Nixon had a 'secret plan' to end the war. Nixon ran on that and that's why he won handily. He even conspired with Anna Chennault to sabotage the peace talks and get the South Vietnamese to believe they'd get a better deal from Nixon. After winning, Nixon continued the war even after Congress reversed the Gulf of Tonkin war powers resolution. He even signed that reversal but then cynically claimed the power to defend the troops and remained.
yamazakiwi 3y ago
>Famously, that wasn't low enough. Why would god save Sodom if there were LESS honest people?
- ekam 3y ago
  It wasn't low enough in the sense that Sodom had less than 10. Abraham was negotiating with God for a lower amount for that reason
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- explorigin 3y ago
  We can only speculate but Abraham is pleading with God more for his nephew necessarily than Sodom itself.
- gwd 3y ago
  The question was about the minimum number of "righteous" people required for the city to be saved. Abraham started at 50, then 45, then 40, 30, 20, and finally 10 -- at each point, God said "OK, if there are that many righteous people in the city, I'll spare it." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A20-33&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A20...
  - yamazakiwi 3y ago
    Why didn't god just state that there were none after Abraham thought there were 50?
    - gwd 3y ago
      You could start by asking why God mentioned his intentions to Abraham at all. What the text says about that: > Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” That is, Abraham's idea of justice, and how authorities act, will have a big impact on a fairly big chunk of humanity. Abraham obviously knows that Sodom isn't a great place. But just how bad is it? Obviously part of Abraham thinks even 10 people should be enough to spare the city; but some other part of Abraham may be more "realpolitik". Abraham thinks this Elohim person is more than just some local tyrant god; but is he really? Abraham thinks that even God should be open to having his decisions measured by justice and morality -- but that's not exactly a common attitude for gods of that time. God affirms all of Abraham's intuitions. Yes Abraham, you're right: killing the innocent with the righteous is not OK. Yes Abraham, you're right: even my actions are guided by morality. Yes Abraham, you're right: The "judge of all the earth" won't be offended if you check him. This experience changed Abraham as a person, and affected not only how he ran his own show, but what he passes on to his kids and their kids.
zozbot234 3y ago
Why mention Manning, or Snowden, or Assange and not the former POTUS? Doesn't he also stand accused of violating the Espionage Act, in a way that's regarded by many as politically-slanted persecution?
- LightBug1 3y ago
  Oh my goddd....
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  It’s a ridiculous law, originally used as a cudgel against anti WW1 protesters and socialists. A real horseshoe that it’s looped around to Trump, but let’s look at this critically. Was Trump exposing the classified information he took to the broader populace? No. Was there a public good to be had if he did? Probably not. Taking the nuclear secrets and making those public? Not good. There is no intent in the espionage law, so from a legal standpoint that doesn’t matter, but I don’t think Trump belongs with the whistleblowers. Sounds like he wanted to keep this information secret, for himself. He’s on tape, saying as much.
- ilc 3y ago
  [flagged]
anigbrowl 3y ago
You're misremembering somewhat. God agrees not to destroy the city if Abraham can find 10 honest men. In the end it turns out there's only 1 (named Lot) and this isn't enough, so God has his angels escort Lot and his family out of the city before smiting it. Oddly, this determination of honesty is based on Lot extending hospitality to two angelic visitors sent to test him and defending his guests from the rapacious townspeople; Lot offers to let the crowd ravage his daughters instead but the townspeople decline his offer. No word on how the daughters felt about this.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Back when the Bible was written opinions of women didn't matter.
- 1-more 3y ago
  This theme of reward/sparing for hospitality of disguised divinity is also present in the story of Baucis and Philemon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baucis_and_Philemon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baucis_and_Philemon
- nine_k 3y ago
  I used to think that Lot knew the townspeople well, knew what would happen, and successfully proved the point: "You see? They don't care, they need you." One of my Christian friends offered a different perspective: the city was so vile that even a man of slightly dubious moral character like Lot was a man of virtue, compared to the crowd outside his house. In any case, that was not enough to save the city.
  - jxramos 3y ago
    The thing that always struck me most about that passage is the determination to fulfill the lust even after being struck blind and being undeterred and persisting in groping for doorknobs and looking for a way in to Lot's home. If that's an accurate representation I can't imagine how anything other than getting my eyesight back or figuring out what happened to it would not be one's top priority in that moment. It may be a figurative use of the word blind though, like a mirage, or some other confusion ploy, or a mental fog to obscure the entrance somehow. The throwing the daughters under the bus could have been a declaration of his knowledge of the state of their souls and whatever corruption overtook it by that point. Or it could have been a risky gambit to buy time--when the mob comes I'm sure it's a terrifying experience.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mynameisash 3y ago
> I see that New York Times is careful not to mention Manning, [...] I'm curious how common it is for that kind of connection to be made in an obituary. Not that I have a strong opinion one way or the other here, but in my understanding, obits typically cover the life of the individual and the direct impact of their work -- notably, not the impact of others inspired by their work?
- harry8 3y ago
  Assange, Manning and Snowden was a huge focus of Ellsberg's work for the past 15 years or so. Basically every time he appeared in the paper he was opining on that subject and for many of us it's how we first heard of him. You would expect it to be there if you thought him a hero who had somehow fallen in saying these things. You would expect it to be there if you thought it was his heroism continued. You would expect it to be there if you had no opinion about it just because of how much media coverage it gathered. Leaving such a significant part of his recent life out of the obituary seems utterly bizarre, deeply not normal and it's hard to imagine how it's not deliberate.
iab 3y ago
What is god factorial
timeon 3y ago
If we feel that analogy was necessary here... So it seem that present time seems to reward citizens of Sodom. Maybe God is different than the one from Genesis.
teddyh 3y ago
“Have you ever heard the story of the 36 tzaddikim? They say that the world rests on the backs of 36 living saints—36 unselfish men and women. Because of them the world continues to exist. They are the secret kings and queens of this world.” — Death, The Sandman, issue 31, Three Septembers and a January (1991)
oilchange 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rapnie 3y ago

> I see that New York Times is careful not to mention Manning, or Snowden, or Assange, or indeed draw any of the lines to the present day situation - lines that Ellsberg himself tried so desperately to draw in the last months of his life. The Guardian does a better job in that regard. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/16/daniel-ellsberg-pentagon-papers-whistleblower-dies https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/16/daniel-ellsb...

kfrzcode 3y ago
As per usual.
hindsightbias 3y ago
“By two years in Vietnam, I was reporting very strongly that there was no prospect of progress of any kind so the war should not be continued. And that came to be the majority view of the American people before the Pentagon Papers came out." And yet Nixon handily won in 1968 (even with Wallace kneecapping him in 5 states) and 1972. While not well covered, Ellsberg would mention in person that his early issues weren't that it was a bad or immoral war but that the US wasn't committing the forces/effort required to win it. That's one of the reasons he waffled for so long.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- CalChris 3y ago
  Johnson had escalated the war, created it really, from the Gulf of Tonkin 'crisis'. By 1968, the war had failed and at some level everyone knew that. Johnson was not running for re-election and Nixon had a 'secret plan' to end the war. Nixon ran on that and that's why he won handily. He even conspired with Anna Chennault to sabotage the peace talks and get the South Vietnamese to believe they'd get a better deal from Nixon. After winning, Nixon continued the war even after Congress reversed the Gulf of Tonkin war powers resolution. He even signed that reversal but then cynically claimed the power to defend the troops and remained.

yamazakiwi 3y ago

>Famously, that wasn't low enough. Why would god save Sodom if there were LESS honest people?

ekam 3y ago
It wasn't low enough in the sense that Sodom had less than 10. Abraham was negotiating with God for a lower amount for that reason
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
explorigin 3y ago
We can only speculate but Abraham is pleading with God more for his nephew necessarily than Sodom itself.
gwd 3y ago
The question was about the minimum number of "righteous" people required for the city to be saved. Abraham started at 50, then 45, then 40, 30, 20, and finally 10 -- at each point, God said "OK, if there are that many righteous people in the city, I'll spare it." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A20-33&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18%3A20...
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  Why didn't god just state that there were none after Abraham thought there were 50?
  - gwd 3y ago
    You could start by asking why God mentioned his intentions to Abraham at all. What the text says about that: > Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” That is, Abraham's idea of justice, and how authorities act, will have a big impact on a fairly big chunk of humanity. Abraham obviously knows that Sodom isn't a great place. But just how bad is it? Obviously part of Abraham thinks even 10 people should be enough to spare the city; but some other part of Abraham may be more "realpolitik". Abraham thinks this Elohim person is more than just some local tyrant god; but is he really? Abraham thinks that even God should be open to having his decisions measured by justice and morality -- but that's not exactly a common attitude for gods of that time. God affirms all of Abraham's intuitions. Yes Abraham, you're right: killing the innocent with the righteous is not OK. Yes Abraham, you're right: even my actions are guided by morality. Yes Abraham, you're right: The "judge of all the earth" won't be offended if you check him. This experience changed Abraham as a person, and affected not only how he ran his own show, but what he passes on to his kids and their kids.

zozbot234 3y ago

Why mention Manning, or Snowden, or Assange and not the former POTUS? Doesn't he also stand accused of violating the Espionage Act, in a way that's regarded by many as politically-slanted persecution?

LightBug1 3y ago
Oh my goddd....
MarkMarine 3y ago
It’s a ridiculous law, originally used as a cudgel against anti WW1 protesters and socialists. A real horseshoe that it’s looped around to Trump, but let’s look at this critically. Was Trump exposing the classified information he took to the broader populace? No. Was there a public good to be had if he did? Probably not. Taking the nuclear secrets and making those public? Not good. There is no intent in the espionage law, so from a legal standpoint that doesn’t matter, but I don’t think Trump belongs with the whistleblowers. Sounds like he wanted to keep this information secret, for himself. He’s on tape, saying as much.
ilc 3y ago
[flagged]

anigbrowl 3y ago

You're misremembering somewhat. God agrees not to destroy the city if Abraham can find 10 honest men. In the end it turns out there's only 1 (named Lot) and this isn't enough, so God has his angels escort Lot and his family out of the city before smiting it. Oddly, this determination of honesty is based on Lot extending hospitality to two angelic visitors sent to test him and defending his guests from the rapacious townspeople; Lot offers to let the crowd ravage his daughters instead but the townspeople decline his offer. No word on how the daughters felt about this.

zirgs 3y ago
Back when the Bible was written opinions of women didn't matter.
1-more 3y ago
This theme of reward/sparing for hospitality of disguised divinity is also present in the story of Baucis and Philemon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baucis_and_Philemon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baucis_and_Philemon
nine_k 3y ago
I used to think that Lot knew the townspeople well, knew what would happen, and successfully proved the point: "You see? They don't care, they need you." One of my Christian friends offered a different perspective: the city was so vile that even a man of slightly dubious moral character like Lot was a man of virtue, compared to the crowd outside his house. In any case, that was not enough to save the city.
- jxramos 3y ago
  The thing that always struck me most about that passage is the determination to fulfill the lust even after being struck blind and being undeterred and persisting in groping for doorknobs and looking for a way in to Lot's home. If that's an accurate representation I can't imagine how anything other than getting my eyesight back or figuring out what happened to it would not be one's top priority in that moment. It may be a figurative use of the word blind though, like a mirage, or some other confusion ploy, or a mental fog to obscure the entrance somehow. The throwing the daughters under the bus could have been a declaration of his knowledge of the state of their souls and whatever corruption overtook it by that point. Or it could have been a risky gambit to buy time--when the mob comes I'm sure it's a terrifying experience.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mynameisash 3y ago

> I see that New York Times is careful not to mention Manning, [...] I'm curious how common it is for that kind of connection to be made in an obituary. Not that I have a strong opinion one way or the other here, but in my understanding, obits typically cover the life of the individual and the direct impact of their work -- notably, not the impact of others inspired by their work?

harry8 3y ago
Assange, Manning and Snowden was a huge focus of Ellsberg's work for the past 15 years or so. Basically every time he appeared in the paper he was opining on that subject and for many of us it's how we first heard of him. You would expect it to be there if you thought him a hero who had somehow fallen in saying these things. You would expect it to be there if you thought it was his heroism continued. You would expect it to be there if you had no opinion about it just because of how much media coverage it gathered. Leaving such a significant part of his recent life out of the obituary seems utterly bizarre, deeply not normal and it's hard to imagine how it's not deliberate.

iab 3y ago

What is god factorial

timeon 3y ago

If we feel that analogy was necessary here... So it seem that present time seems to reward citizens of Sodom. Maybe God is different than the one from Genesis.

teddyh 3y ago

“Have you ever heard the story of the 36 tzaddikim? They say that the world rests on the backs of 36 living saints—36 unselfish men and women. Because of them the world continues to exist. They are the secret kings and queens of this world.” — Death, The Sandman, issue 31, Three Septembers and a January (1991)

oilchange 3y ago

[dead]