SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From this article on vice.com:
The self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) has severely restricted use of the internet in its de-facto capital of Raqqa, requiring that all residents — including those in the militant group's ranks — access the web from observed internet cafes, according to international monitoring organizations.
An IS leaflet photographed and circulated by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the activist group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently (RBSS), advises that "all owners of shops with satellite internet must comply with the following: Removing Wi-Fi boosters in internet cafés as well as private wireless adaptors, even for soldiers of the Islamic State."
...
Activists worry that internet restriction is intended to clamp down on citizen journalists, human rights workers, and potential IS defectors.
Even under IS rule, activists have managed to sneak out videos, images, and accounts of daily life. In September, a woman with a camera hidden in her niqab walked through the city narrating her experience. The smuggled footage was aired on French TV.
(Score: 3, Informative) by K_benzoate on Tuesday July 21 2015, @05:47PM
It started as a small government movement
It started off as a retrograde, functionally illiterate, paranoid group of tax protesters; the sort of people who keep a well stocked gun safe and seed vault and buy fluoride filters from Alex Jones. Don't misunderstand me. There are compelling arguments to be made for a small Federal government, states' rights, and low taxes, but the Tea Party has not articulated them [wordpress.com], even before they were co-opted by the Religious-Right and the Koch Brothers.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday July 21 2015, @06:11PM
There was a very brief time before Fox News latched onto the group with that name, inflating its numbers with their viewers, and inflating its stupidity with their viewers.
To call it non-partisan, or small government, or even possessing of a genuinely plausible platform like the OP is suggesting is more than a bit far, but it was a purposefully co-opted movement.
To be honest, it's hard to take the bumper-sticker-argument of "small government" seriously in any context. Everyone except some anarchists believe in some role for a government, and rather than have an honest debate about exactly what that is, the phrase invents a false ideal to attack functions they happen to not personally like.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Tuesday July 21 2015, @06:26PM
I'd believe the sincerity of the "small government" types (the mainstream ones, not libertarians) if they didn't spend so much time trying to expand the role of government in pushing a specific platform of conservative-Christian morality issues. They want low taxes because "got mine, fuck you" combined with an inflated sense of individual achievement. [youtube.com]
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @06:40PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday July 21 2015, @06:58PM
I understand your wish to appreciate that some people could have a sincere interest in it. But the sentiment's framing is fundamentally dishonest, not just made dishonest by hypocrites. "Small government" is an answer to a useless question, namely: "devoid of specific concerns what size should the government be?" Which isn't being asked by much of anyone, because specific concerns exist all over the place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @09:13PM
Indeed. I haven't really heard any tea partier honestly answer the question of what part(s) of the federal government should get cut back. Hint: if you claim that you would start off by weilding the budget axe at "foreign aid" (or any other discretionary spending, for that matter), you are either dishonest or you haven't really taken a serious look at the federal budget.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:11AM
Apparently because you've never bothered to listen.
You may not read this either but I'll try to keep it short and to the point:
Government debt is about $20 trillion (much higher if unfunded liabilities are accounted for). If the government keeps spending like it is, it will default, likely by printing money (inflation) rather than refusing to pay. That will cause consumer prices on imported goods to skyrocket, which will destroy the economy.
Increasing taxes will make it more expensive to employ/work.
The best solution (even if not the most politically palatable one) is to reduce spending.
The amount of reduction required isn't in the order of a few billion here of there; it's hundreds of billions that needs to be cut. This means every government agency and employee is going to have to justify their budget. Otherwise they should be axed.
Defense needs cutting, benefits need cutting, and entire agencies (as many as possible) need to be abolished.
Everyone would scream about this, but that only goes to show how dependent the economy has become on government, which is entirely ass about from how the USA got wealthy in the first place.
If nothing changes, eventually everyone will be paid in worthless dollars that can't buy anything, so even if the budget becomes $50 trillion it won't matter because nothing will get done and everyone will be much much worse off than if the right thing had been done earlier.
If interest rates on the national debt goes up, it's all over; the federal budget will be consumed by interest.
If you've been brainwashed by Keynesian dogma, you will not understand this and I pity you. Otherwise it should be blatantly obvious.
PS. The tea party movement began with Ron Paul. It has nothing to do with neocon religious bullshit, but given the amount of negative press it gets it must really be pissing the establishment types off so that's good.