Comparing 90s Russia to 2025 Russia is naive at best. Not even Clinton at his Bill-Clintonest would think of normalizing with Putin's Russia in 2025 had his presidency time-travelled to today.
This is before we look at the cost of "normalizing" relations with Russia, if we assume that's what Trump is doing. Turning back to allies, ripping up treaties and trade deals, threatening annexation, knee-capping your own Military-industrial complex, the list goes on. That's nothing like liberals in the 90s.
Yes, I’m referring specifically to the anti-imperialist angle.
There were lots of factions within the anti-imperialist left, but fundamentally there was a distrust of “foreign-policy experts.” And while Trump isn’t a pacifist (and I’m far from one) that’s the part that he really gets.
The anti-imperialist angle is the same as pro-Ukraine, and opposing Russian imperialism.
It's easy to confuse anti-imperialism with pacifism, but you have to remember the anti-imperialist supported anti-colonial warfare even back in the 80s and 90s. Supporting a war to resist imperialism is completely congruent with anti-imperialism, and explains support for Ukraine.
I know you (rayiner) know how colonialism works, and you know the belligerents in Korea and Vietnam and which side of the imperialism coin they fall.
I do not believe equating Vietnam with Ukraine is something you can do in good faith.
Edit: America has remained an empire through a willingness to meddle far from home unde the banner of "protecting American interests". Watching a so-called conservative president dismantle the American empire is startling, seeing the rank-and-file fall in line with narry a dissention is almost unnerving. Anti-imperialist Americans must be having mixed and conflicting feelings right now.
Just to clarify again (saw this in another comment), the belligerents in the Korean War were the North Koreans when they attacked South Korea. This is what led to the US and others joining.
That's an oversimplification of an already complex history of Korea[1], which is why I said equating Vietnam to Ukraine is a disservice, which offers a clearer contrast.
1. The whole Korean peninsula was a colony of Japan, and was divided between the US and Russia after WWII. Both sets of governments claimed to be the the legitimate authority over the entire region. It ended up being a proxy war - so not comparable to Ukraine for a different reason, unless one thinks the war in Ukraine is a proxy war - which completely takes away the agency and sovereignty of the people of Ukraine, and will be provable via a natural experiment over the next days as the US has stopped its involvement, the the war is continuing.
> The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report.
> “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.
Maybe "Automattic announces responsible disclosure of safety issue in WP-Engine-plugin" or something like that? It's pretty clear that they are doing it maliciously but I don't think it should be put in the title as if it's a confirmed fact.
I would have liked to make it "WP-Engine-developed plugin" or something like that because it's not specifically a WP Engine plugin, but the title length limit is 80 chars, right?
This one doesn't have a natural title. Then we let the community judge whether we've been clickbaited in regards to the mismatch between title and this tiny tweet.
This headline would be much less effective if it told you the truth, that the car never existed:
“Unfortunately for us, Oldsmobile never went ahead and produced the Incas. They made a slew of other wild concept cars as well, but none of those saw the light of day either […]”
How does "that you've never seen" not convey that sentiment? Sure it is hyperbole but that hyperbole seems well founded since the only people who have likely seen it are those which followed concept cars of the 80s or stumbled onto an article like this one.
The point of clickbait is that the link will get reposted to all kinds of places online, with a headline that intentionally misrepresents the article to those readers and fools them into clicking.
(Original headline was “The 1986 Oldsmobile Incas Had The Wildest Dashboard You’ve Never Seen.”)
The car absolutely did exist, just not in great numbers. The article even has photographic proof of its existence.
Concept vehicles like this are typically built one-off and showcased at manufacturer auto shows. Some of them later go into mass production, and some of them don't.
That would be an excellent point for a headline that says, “This Never-Sold Concept Car Had The Wildest Dashboard You’ve Never Seen.”
Obviously, such a truthful headline would get much fewer clicks.
The actual headline intentionally wants us to think they’re going to show us the “Wildest” Knight Rider car that people were driving in the 80s. (Maybe they were rare, maybe you were too young to have seen them, but we have pics! Click here!)
Nothing about the headline stated or even implied it was a production vehicle. It literally does say, "You’ve Never Seen" it.
I immediately presumed it was a concept car from the headline. If you presumed otherwise, that just might be your unfamiliarity with the subject matter.
Of course a clickbait headline does not literally lie.
A clickbait headline elides, omits key information strategically, deliberately creating a far juicier story in the minds of readers than is justified by the actual post-click article.
Key information like the fact that no one ever bought and drove this car on the road.
I don’t think a headline gets immunity from being called clickbait if it successfully dupes only those people insufficiently familiar with its particular subject matter.
Clickbait gets under the noses of such people by design.
Purchases of alcohol at the grocery store are not individually logged and tracked by personal ID. I’m certain that is not what happens when I show my birth date to a cashier.
Because it's required by law, or because they want to track you for their own purposes and if you don't like it you can patronize someone who doesn't do that?
"Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree."
Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government while in transit to South America, enabling the smear that he went into the arms of the Russians.
And further from Ellsberg:
"I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a 'fugitive from justice.'"
He doesn't rebut the argument at all; he rebuts a subtly but significantly different argument that wasn't made here. The fact is that Ellsberg stayed and faced the consequences of his actions, and Snowden fled and later because a Russian citizen.
Again: you can believe that doesn't matter. I don't care, fine, people can disagree. But you can't say "Ellsberg thinks Snowden was justified" refutes the original argument. It is perfectly coherent, reasonable even, to assert that Ellsberg has some moral authority about the ethics of whistleblowing, and also that authority isn't transferrable to leakers Ellsberg favors.
I don't bring in Ellsberg for his moral authority or to rebut or refute anything, but because he is himself the subject of the comparison. He addressed this exact comparison in a Washington Post op-ed.
Surely Ellsberg's own comments on Snowden v. Ellsberg and consequences are worth seeing in a thread on that very subject.
Simplifying it for the sake of the thread, Ellsberg says that Snowden was justified in handling his situation differently from Ellsberg himself, because the circumstances were different. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Ellsberg is right, and Ellsberg is no more entitled to make that argument than anybody else is: Ellsberg isn't the judge of Ellsberg-ism (for lack of a better term), history is.
This doesn't simplify Ellsberg's argument but mischaracterizes it. He directly addresses the claim that his own and Snowden's actions were different, and offers specific, concrete examples of how they were in fact alike in important ways that go to the heart of the comparison.
Of course Ellsberg isn't the final word and I'm confident no one here thinks that. I assume it's okay by you if discussion continues rather than wait forever for "history" to tell us what to think.
Your view of Snowden is fairly well-known round these parts. If you're concerned about Ellsberg's name having outsized influence on the subject, it seems more in keeping with the spirit of HN for you to tell us why he's wrong in this op-ed rather than roll eyes at the idea of hearing Ellsberg's own response to Snowden v. Ellsberg.
A wonderful thing about history is that it's never really finished: No presumptuous authority can tie a ribbon on a topic and close it.
> Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government while in transit to South America
Snowden fled to Hong Kong first, then from there to Moscow. He was certainly never "in transit" to anywhere else, nor was any of this under the control (even indirectly) of the US government. He fled to nations which he knew would not extradite him.
It's likely true that he had other destinations in mind. Nonetheless he couldn't get it arranged, and he ended up in Moscow because Putin viewed him as useful and extended an offer of residence that China was apparently not willing to make.
Let's not spin here. Snowden isn't a Russian stooge (though obviously his freedom to speak freely about his host country is extremely limited), but let's not treat with conspiracy theories about this being America's Plan All Along.
He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport.
One may believe that Snowden's location at the time the U.S. revoked his passport was chance, but it's obvious that it was then used over and over to smear him as a Russian stooge. And we can see this smearing continues to this day.
"Obviously his freedom to speak freely about his host country is extremely limited"
Do you think the Russian government would prefer that he not say things like this?
Don't kid yourself, by now, Russia is a full-on fascist dictatorship. They don't let him say stuff like this because they have rules about freedom of speech or something, the let him say stuff like this because it is more useful to them that he retains some kind of credibility. It makes it more effective when he later tweets antisemitic caricatures about American Jews fueling the war in Ukraine.
> He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport.
So the American Plan To Trap Snowden In Russia For Propaganda Purposes comes down to.... revoking a passport for a wanted criminal, something we do hundreds of times ever month or whatever? Not much of a conspiracy.
That's not how that works. If Ecuador was willing to grant asylum, Ecuador could easily have arranged transportation or issued their own passport. They still could, today! They didn't, and won't. Obviously you can spin that part too as part of a nefarious American Plan. But... Ecuador didn't want him either. It's as simple as that.
And he's in Russia, equally simply, because Russia was willing (frankly eager) to antagonize US influence and interests.
(FWIW: your last example of Snowden's seeming independence from Russian interference is a half decade stale. Please. What does he think of the shooting war his host country started?)
Just don't spin this. Snowden broke US laws, fled the country, and ended up being hosted by an enemy. No more complexity need exist.
Fidel Narvaez the Ecuadorian consul in London helped Snowden get out of Hong Kong to the Moscow airport on the way to Ecuador with the purpose of getting him asylum (which had previously been granted to Julian Assange).
Joe Biden (then vice president) told the president of Ecuador by phone that relations between the U.S. and his country would "strongly deteriorate" if Snowden was given sanctuary there.
So sure, at that point "Ecuador didn't want him either."
I really don't care whether or not the U.S. planned for Snowden to be in Russia the moment they revoked the passport. The point is that he was trapped there by the actions of the U.S., and this was then used endlessly to insinuate all kinds of things about his motives and distract attention from the substance of the leaks.
You're invoking an ethos argument (appeal to authority). Basically, it's only valid if you accept US law as supreme, which in the very act of leaking documents showing how legislators and executive agencies abused their positions actually invalidates the very rule of law you apparently are so willing to kowtow to.
In a more uncouth context, it's the kind of argument that would lead to one being deemed a "bootlicker", but we can stick with an apophasis to such for now.
Ellsberg is a more gracious person than I am. No one forced Snowden to fly to Russia, he made the decision himself in full awareness of the risk that he might get stranded there.
Please don't cross into personal attack on HN. If another comment is wrong or you feel it is, it's enough to respectfully explain why. Either that or just chalk it up to the internet being wrong and move on.
> Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government
Snowden was trapped in Russia by the Russian government. If you think the Russian government cares about Snowden's travel documents, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
"Edward Snowden is 'under the care of the Russian authorities' and can’t leave Moscow’s international airport without their consent, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa told The Associated Press Sunday...."
> Analysts familiar with the workings of the Ecuadorean government said Correa’s claims that the decision was entirely Russia’s appeared to be at least partly disingenuous. They said they believed Correa’s administration at first intended to host Snowden, then started back-tracking this week when the possible consequences became clearer.
Nonetheless, thank you for the reminder. It's a fair point.
Though Ellsberg was a smart guy, he wasn't a technologist; so he was probably less familiar with what Snowden leaked than Snowden was, which is saying a lot.
> It sounds like you believe Mr. Snowden didn't understand what was leaked by Mr. Snowden?
He very clearly did not. He thought PRISM was the most important program in his leaks, and he demanded that WaPo publish the slides immediately. Instead, as anybody who works on Internet technology could tell you after reading the slides, PRISM was a nothingburger — a simple ingestion pipeline integration with the FBI's Data Intercept Technology Unit, which handles electronic wiretap integration with Internet companies. The ingested data came from targeted Section 702 data requests for the accounts of specific foreigners living outside the US, which is completely legal.
Snowden, being the high school dropout SharePoint admin he is, thought the PRISM slides showed the NSA could read anything on these Internet companies' servers, which is hilariously wrong.
Ellsberg was by all accounts a genius, and he had the credentials to show it, including membership in the ultra-exclusive Harvard Society of Fellows.
Funny you would use the word genius for Ellsberg, as you attempt to demean Snowden. Snowden was remembered by his colleagues as "a genius among geniuses."
"Sharepoint administrator" was a tiny part of his role. But please, do explain how the data from "specific foreigners living outside the US" was segregated during ingestion by the "nothingburger" pipeline.
> But please, do explain how the data from "specific foreigners living outside the US" was segregated during ingestion by
It didn't have to be. That was the only data that existed in the Section 702 wiretaps. The government cannot use Section 702 requests to ask a company for a wiretap of an American's account.
> "a genius among geniuses."
LOL. Probably a quote from the Lotus Notes server admin. Remember, this is the guy who repeatedly failed an analyst test before finally passing it by looking up the answers on the SharePoint server. This is a guy who failed an open-book test on Section 702, so no wonder he misinterpreted the documents he leaked so badly. https://www.thedailybeast.com/either-edward-snowden-is-lying... has some choice quotes from an analyst.
Ellsberg was a strategic specialist who worked at RAND and various other high level postings. He had a wide view and understood what he was leaking and why. Ultimately his secrets were only secrets to regular people - the Soviets knew what was going on.
Snowden was by all accounts a SharePoint administrator. He released a wide array of stuff, probably got a few agents of the US killed, and in all probability traded more information for his current accommodation.
That doesn't make it right, it just means he can empathize. MLK, in his Letter form a Birmingham Jail addressed this very clearly:
"I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Disobeying a law and accepting a penalty is to protest the unjust character of a law. Disobeying and fleeing means disregarding the law altogether. Not only is that wrong, it's also going to greatly diminish whatever goal you had in mind with your protest in the eyes of others.
"Willingness to accept the penalty" means you accept the possible consequences of your actions and choose to carry on anyway. It doesn't mean you're supposed to literally martyr yourself for the cause by literally walking yourself into jail so they can torture you.
He was arrested for organizing black workers into a union. That was illegal and resulted in his trial and conviction. The consequence was part of the activism.
Lots of other examples. Freedom riders were killed for defying Jim Crow. While they didn’t wake up with a desire to be murdered, that was a consideration and their martyrdom was part of the movement.
"He was arrested" is not the same as him literally giving himself up and walking himself into jail to be punished for his actions. I have no doubt he knew it was a risk but they still had to actively oppress him for the consequences to materialize. If he became some kind of martyr, it's because they oppressed him for doing what everyone else knew was just.
I don't think Snowden leaked those things because he wanted to protest the Espionage Act of 1917. I think he wanted Americans to see the content of what he leaked.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43311416
"normalizing relations with Russia and disengaging with the rest of the world military was the goal for us liberals back then"
... and not some expansive idea that Trump is just like 90s Democrats.
reply