News Thread

[Shroom Man 777]

Great news! I hope Obama continues to kick ass despite the horrible adversity he's facing from all sorts of virulent vitriolic assholes in the government and elsewhere who's trying to stymie what good he's trying to do. Some victories for the guy is good.

[Invictus]

So, have our Stateside members seen any Black Medivac Helicopters hovering over your neighbourhoods yet? Ready to kick down the door at 2am to give your grandma the prescription she always needed?

[Mobius 1]

Mind, it still has to pass the senate. And get past the inevitable SCOTUS challenges. And the upcoming (and somewhat deserved for being so pathetic) slaughter in the twenty-ten midterms.

[Shroom Man 777]

I hope Ronald von Reagan will run against Obama in 2012. Hussein won't stand a chance.

Seriously though, I sure hope the Republicans and the Tea Gaggers won't fuck this up. They've already fucked up so much for the Democrats, with the added bonus of the Democrats fucking themselves up. I hope Obama, and America itself, won't end up getting fucked by the self-destructive impulses of those loud and noisy crazy people we hear about from Fox News.

[Mobius 1]

It all comes down to what happens if (and most likely when) Obama gets voted out in 2012. The Republicans, with a hell of a lot-more lock-step focus in their group mentality, can continually shove shit down with their new 2010 majority and ameniable president.

I may complain a lot about how SDN's America-Bashing season is currently underway (I laughed at the way arguments on SDN balloon into widespread fact - apparently a couple dudes in the US during the 30s approving of Hitler = Oh noes the entire country is nazi and they basically approved of Hitler), but they do have one thing right: the average American, at least where I live, is as dumb as a rock. They gobble up Palin and Beck hook, line, and sinker.

Beck especially, what with the recent "Let's throw out social justice in Christianity" tirade, which was hilariously spoofed by Stewart on TDS recent. Stewart took "charity = Fascism AND Communism" and took apart Beck's self-professed "Conservative Libertarian" status. "Con" - well, that clearly means convict. And ser, no sir - means he's a racist slave owner.

And let's not even started on, oh wait, what's that? Lie-bertarian. Lie Lie! LIE! It's all right there, so clear. And look at the final nail in the coffin. Arian. Read that again, that's right. Aryan. It only proves Beck can't even spell.

Link.

[Magister Militum]

It all comes down to what happens if (and most likely when) Obama gets voted out in 2012. The Republicans, with a hell of a lot-more lock-step focus in their group mentality, can continually shove shit down with their new 2010 majority and ameniable president.

Your exaggerating. The Dems will probably lose a few seats, but I find it increasingly hard to believe that the Doomsday Prophecy of 2010 is going to be anywhere near as catastrophic as people are predicting. The Republican leadership is so laughably incompetent that they wouldn't even know what to do with a majority and would probably walk right into whatever Obama sets up for them, like the televised public forum on healthcare that the GOP was so terrified of participating in. If anything, I see this as turning out like Clinton's second term, where Clinton outmaneuvered the Republicans and boosted his own credibility at the expense of the Republican majority.

As for Obama losing in 2012, I will make the comment that the economy is improving and the worst of the Great Recession is over. Going by my theory that has held true since the 20's, Obama will win because the economy improved (and might even be fully recovered by 2012) under the incombants watch. Therefore, the challenger will lose. Besides, it's not like this is the first time where a President won the election but lost part or most of his support in Congress.

Mind, it still has to pass the senate. And get past the inevitable SCOTUS challenges. And the upcoming (and somewhat deserved for being so pathetic) slaughter in the twenty-ten midterms.

Again, your grossly exaggerating. I've seen the 'legal challenges' being presented, and its baseless shit. A violation of state sovereignty? Sorry, but we already answered the question of whether the Federal government trumps state sovereignty, and it's not going to be changed again. If anything, SCOTUS will actually cement the bill's legal status, as they'll be squashing the law suits and legal challenges that' will spring up.

And let's not even started on, oh wait, what's that? Lie-bertarian. Lie Lie! LIE! It's all right there, so clear. And look at the final nail in the coffin. Arian. Read that again, that's right. Aryan. It only proves Beck can't even spell.

Libertarians are self-righteous morons that pander to a broken ideology, with Beck as the poster boy. Is it any surprise that Glenn 'I taught myself at a local library' Beck can't even spell?

[Mobius 1]

Jesus, it’s impossible to write a medium-sized post in this stupid window. It keeps jumping to the top.

Your exaggerating. The Dems will probably lose a few seats, but I find it increasingly hard to believe that the Doomsday Prophecy of 2010 is going to be anywhere near as catastrophic as people are predicting. The Republican leadership is so laughably incompetent that they wouldn't even know what to do with a majority and would probably walk right into whatever Obama sets up for them, like the televised public forum on healthcare that the GOP was so terrified of participating in. If anything, I see this as turning out like Clinton's second term, where Clinton outmaneuvered the Republicans and boosted his own credibility at the expense of the Republican majority.

I think, in the end, we're both overestimating competency. The Republicans easily managed to shove through dozens of pieces of their agenda during Bushes first term - tax cuts and deregulation - that Obama not only has to fight against to return to some medium, but further push against if he wants to implement any sort of progressive (not that Obama/Emmanuel can afford to listen to the liberal wing, as he easily learned Clinton's lesson about the necessity of swinging to the middle of the spectrum) stratagem. If anything, should the Tea Party industry take further hold on the party the GOP agenda will get worse. Clinton did not have to deal with barely concealed racism (re: the recent shouts of "nigger" and "faggot" at Frank and black representatives on Saturday).

You seem to be confusing the idiocy of the Tea Bagger individual protestor with the group that controls it - such as the Fox News wind manes and the massive business lobbying groups we saw flip a collective lid and a couple billion on fighting health reform.

As for Obama losing in 2012, I will make the comment that the economy is improving and the worst of the Great Recession is over. Going by my theory that has held true since the 20's, Obama will win because the economy improved (and might even be fully recovered by 2012) under the incumbents watch. Therefore, the challenger will lose. Besides, it's not like this is the first time where a President won the election but lost part or most of his support in Congress.

The whims on congress may swing faster than the status of the presidency, but the Obama faces a GOP with a totally organized gameplan: obstruct anything he plans to do. Should they quash any of Obama's legislation or not, they need only either a) blame partisan gridlock (regardless of their own complicity in the situation) ion the "hyper partisan" Democrats or b) attack the unpopular (again, regardless of truth) stimulus and HCR. As proved by 2004 and 2000, voters care little for facts or, so be it, the truth.

The recent controversy over ACORN or the IPCC emails is enough of a hint: the clear-up acquittals afterwards were relegated to page seventeen in a small corner of papers everywhere and promptly forgotten. Hell, USA Today recently ran a piece last week on the IPCC business that didn’t mention the clear-up investigation at all. So all the average joe sees is controversy and takes what he reads at face value.

Again, your grossly exaggerating. I've seen the 'legal challenges' being presented, and its baseless shit. A violation of state sovereignty? Sorry, but we already answered the question of whether the Federal government trumps state sovereignty, and it's not going to be changed again. If anything, SCOTUS will actually cement the bill's legal status, as they'll be squashing the law suits and legal challenges that' will spring up.[/quote[

I’m not doubting that it won’t go anywhere (Hell, the only thing I’ve ever liked Andrew Jackson for was punching the whole ‘nullification’ issue in the face some two hundred years ago). I’m just throwing out issues that get cemented in the Mindless Middle voter’s mind as being more controversy against the ‘wildly irresponsible bill.’ People see “lulz one trillion dollars” and not “will deduce the deficit.” Hell, I’ve had multiple people actually deny the CBO’s report on the cost pattern of the bill as ridiculous lies.

If I read the bill correctly, it leaves some important parts – the options for individual states to build up a public option or single payer – up to the states. Just what I need for golden-tan white-haired Governor Crist to prove he’s a MANLY MAN REPUBLICAN (as he’s struggling to take Bill Nelson’s senate – D-FL – seat when the guy retires and is running against a hardcore tea bagger named Marco Rubio: so Crist effectively has to prove his conservative credentials after making a misstep with his party in supporting the stimulus). Effectively, the elderly voters in the Villages who practically rule Florida politics (that’s another post on Florida’s education fuckup) will support Crist and welcome him back with open arms if he takes the minimum necessary required by the bill.

Libertarians are self-righteous morons that pander to a broken ideology, with Beck as the poster boy. Is it any surprise that Glenn 'I taught myself at a local library' Beck can't even spell?

Er, you get that was a joke, right? Watch the video, mang. I try to differentiate between the idiocy of a position and the reality of its support.

[Magister Militum]

Jesus, it’s impossible to write a medium-sized post in this stupid window. It keeps jumping to the top.

Switch to Firefox or Chrome for your internet needs. IE and this board to not cooperate nicely.

I think, in the end, we're both overestimating competency. The Republicans easily managed to shove through dozens of pieces of their agenda during Bushes first term - tax cuts and deregulation - that Obama not only has to fight against to return to some medium, but further push against if he wants to implement any sort of progressive (not that Obama/Emmanuel can afford to listen to the liberal wing, as he easily learned Clinton's lesson about the necessity of swinging to the middle of the spectrum) stratagem. If anything, should the Tea Party industry take further hold on the party the GOP agenda will get worse. Clinton did not have to deal with barely concealed racism (re: the recent shouts of "nigger" and "faggot" at Frank and black representatives on Saturday).

You seem to be confusing the idiocy of the Tea Bagger individual protestor with the group that controls it - such as the Fox News wind manes and the massive business lobbying groups we saw flip a collective lid and a couple billion on fighting health reform.

Actually, I don't thing Obama's/Democratic competency is a serious issue, at least if they actually follow up on the sudden appearance of the spine they showed. I mean, Reid handled the event with Jim 'I hate poor people' Bunning excellently, especially given the fact that he was a total embarrassment to GOP leaders, who DO have to worry about the entire conservative spectrum and not just Joe Redneck in the Bible Belt. Did it undo the power and credibility of the GOP? No, of course not. It did, however, show that the Dems are willing to bite back, especially given the fact that Obama's performance against GOP criticism improved massively during the televised forum. The real question is whether or not the Democrats can continue operating in offensive mode, especially since it will be an uphill battle after the GOP's imminent defeat in stopping health care.

The whims on congress may swing faster than the status of the presidency, but the Obama faces a GOP with a totally organized gameplan: obstruct anything he plans to do. Should they quash any of Obama's legislation or not, they need only either a) blame partisan gridlock (regardless of their own complicity in the situation) ion the "hyper partisan" Democrats or b) attack the unpopular (again, regardless of truth) stimulus and HCR. As proved by 2004 and 2000, voters care little for facts or, so be it, the truth.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: obstruct everything the President wants to do is NOT a strategy. The only reason the GOP can give off the illusion that they're working is because they're the opposition party and can always claim that they are just being ignored. If you take a look at their alternative to health care reform, you'll find that most of it is what the Democrats have proposed, while the rest that is actually their ideas are both A.) stupid and B.) written with, as Stephen Colbert put it "generous margins that are common in eighth grade term papers", i.e., padded out to look like a lot.

Facts are largely irrelevant in my (actually my former econ professors) theory in the case of the 2012 elections. The nature of the economy will always take center stage in elections when its bad, which then leads to the question of whether or not it has improved since then. The fact support it, obviously, but, then again, so do things the average person can relate to. By 2012, things could be back to normal economy wise (baring an October surprise), which can make it even harder for the Republicans to use that point, though they'll obviously try.

The recent controversy over ACORN or the IPCC emails is enough of a hint: the clear-up acquittals afterwards were relegated to page seventeen in a small corner of papers everywhere and promptly forgotten. Hell, USA Today recently ran a piece last week on the IPCC business that didn’t mention the clear-up investigation at all. So all the average joe sees is controversy and takes what he reads at face value.

That's really indicative of the nature of American media. No one cares about the mild resolution of major, headline gripping controversies (with the exception of more respectable media) because its boring. It doesn't help that some ethically bankrupt media outlets with a record of manipulating things to suit their agenda don't even report on it at all.

I’m just throwing out issues that get cemented in the Mindless Middle voter’s mind as being more controversy against the ‘wildly irresponsible bill.’ People see “lulz one trillion dollars” and not “will deduce the deficit.” Hell, I’ve had multiple people actually deny the CBO’s report on the cost pattern of the bill as ridiculous lies. Effectively, the elderly voters in the Villages who practically rule Florida politics (that’s another post on Florida’s education fuckup) will support Crist and welcome him back with open arms if he takes the minimum necessary required by the bill.

Laugh at their faces when the deficit goes down and they have the health care they hate so much.

Yeah, well, perhaps its a Florida/Southern thing. After all, I live in California, and, barring a few places in the mainland*, the Tea Bagger movement is virtually unknown here. I've always said that we should just kick the South out of the Union, but, hey, we can't all get what we want (though Rush Limbaugh making good on his threat to leave the country if healthcare is passed is a good enough consolation prize). Of course, the South could say the same thing about us on the West Coast. After all, I'm from California, attending a university there (and you all known about those liberal California colleges), a minority, and lean heavily toward socialism. I would be the fucking Antichrist down there.

Er, you get that was a joke, right? Watch the video, mang. I try to differentiate between the idiocy of a position and the reality of its support.

I pride myself on the fact that people have a hard time determining when I'm deadly serious or when I'm in satire mode. I've already seen the segment some time ago on TV, and it proves how satire is both still the domain of liberals and how it is the most potent tool of a commentator.

EDIT: Healtcare has officially passed; Obama will be signing it into law tomorrow. I WIIIIINNNNN!!!!!!!

[Shroom Man 777]

I may complain a lot about how SDN's America-Bashing season is currently underway (I laughed at the way arguments on SDN balloon into widespread fact - apparently a couple dudes in the US during the 30s approving of Hitler = Oh noes the entire country is nazi and they basically approved of Hitler), but they do have one thing right: the average American, at least where I live, is as dumb as a rock. They gobble up Palin and Beck hook, line, and sinker.

Fact is, Hitler WAS inspired by how the Americans had clinics that secretly gave vasectomies and ligations to black people who came for treatment - because back then, eugenics and racism was widespread in America.

Do we need Americans in SS uniforms goose-stepping and gassing Jews to make an allegory of "30s America = full of racist shits", or will a bunch of redneck hicks lynching black people and taking pictures and posing around the hanging black guy's corpse suffice?

I mean, sure, America didn't put stars on the clothes of black people - but that's because they're skin's dark enough that you don't need to mark their clothes for segregation purposes so you know who can or can't eat/study in your restaurants/schools for whitey.

[Mobius 1]

Congradulations on that completely disgusting case of moral equivocation. Considering how few and far between eugenics clinics were, they were about as representative of Americans as al-Qaeda is of, say, the average Iranian.

Moreover, some proof Hitler went "yo, Americans, thanks for the ideas" would be great.

[Siege]

Let's face it, in the 1930s the entire goddamn world was full of racist assholes. It's a bit silly to single out the USA for having a whole bunch of people supporting the NSDAP when huge numbers of people in Europe thought that Hitler was on the right track -- right up until the moment he conquered the shit out of them, of course. And it's not like the rest of the world was doing particularly well either in that respect.

[Shroom Man 777]

Congradulations on that completely disgusting case of moral equivocation. Considering how few and far between eugenics clinics were, they were about as representative of Americans as al-Qaeda is of, say, the average Iranian.

Then thank goodness I also mentioned the pervasive racist treatment of African-Americans in the past, which was a broad societal problems in large regions of the USA and saw the mistreatment of a whole shitload of black people and was way more representative of Americans of that era than al-Quaeda is of, say, the average Iranian.

Moreover, some proof Hitler went "yo, Americans, thanks for the ideas" would be great.

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[67] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.

When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.[56] The Nazis had claimed American eugenicists inspired and supported Hitler's racial purification laws, and failed to understand the connection between those policies and the eventual genocide of the Holocaust.

It's not Hitler. But would a lot of Nazis hanged for warcrimes be good enough?

However, methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such "anti-miscegenation" legislation was Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this law in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe.[73] This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit"[citation needed] individuals entering the country. While eugenicists did support the act, the most important backers were union leaders like Samuel Gompers[74] The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race-mixing.[75] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.

[Magister Militum]

Don't be an ass, Shroomy. To single out the US as the epitome of Nazi support and racism during the fucking '30's, as Siege pointed out, is moronic, since, in case you didn't know, it was everywhere. Did the US participate in a lot of horrible shit? Of course it did, but, then again, so did much of the Western world at the time. It's completely stupid, however, to make the leap from 'America had an issue with pervasive racism' (though I would argue that there was much more to the disenfranchisement of minorities than just racism) to 'America was the greatest admirer of the Nazis'.

[Shroom Man 777]

Then it's good that I never ever said any of that in my post then, Militums. If the subject of discussion was, say, Great Britain or Apartheid Australia, I could've dredged up all sorts of heinous examples too.

[Somes J]

Since this has been in the news lately:

Ancient DNA from Siberia Hints at Previously Unknown Human Relative:

For much of the past five million to seven million years over which humans have been evolving, multiple species of our forebears co-existed. But eventually the other lineages went extinct, leaving only our own, Homo sapiens, to rule Earth. Scientists long thought that by 40,000 years ago H. sapiens shared the planet with only one other human species, or hominin: the Neandertals. In recent years, however, evidence of a more happening hominin scene at that time has emerged. Indications that H. erectus might have persisted on the Indonesian island of Java until 25,000 years ago have surfaced. And then there's H. floresiensis—the mini human species commonly referred to as the hobbits—which lived on Flores, another island in the Indonesian archipelago, as recently as 17,000 years ago.

Now researchers writing in the journal Nature report that they have found a fifth kind of hominin that may have overlapped with these species. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) But unlike all the other known members of the human family, which investigators have described on the basis of the morphological characteristics of their bones, the new hominin has been identified solely on the basis of its DNA.

Johannes Krause and Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and their colleagues obtained the DNA from a fossilized pinky finger bone found at Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains of southern Siberia. The species was impossible to determine from the shape and size of the bone—it simply did not contain any diagnostic morphological traits. But there were good reasons to believe it came from a Neandertal or an early modern human. For one, the bone was recovered from a stratigraphic layer of the cave dated to between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago that contained artifacts belonging to the so-called Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic industries associated with these two groups. For another, Neandertals and modern humans were the only hominins known to have lived in this region during that time period. But the DNA the team extracted from the Denisova pinky bone turned out to be markedly different from DNA sequences previously obtained from early modern humans and Neandertals.

The researchers focused on a type of DNA known as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Mitochondria are the power plants of the cell, and they have their own DNA that is separate from that housed in the cell nucleus and is passed down from mother to offspring. Because each cell has thousands of mitochondria, but only a single nucleus, mitochondrial DNA is much more abundant than nuclear DNA and is therefore more likely than the latter to be preserved in fossilized bone. To date, scientists have sequenced the mitochondrial genomes of both Neandertal and early modern human individuals, and the sequences for the two groups are quite distinctive.

Comparing the order of the genetic "letters"—or base-pairs, as they are termed—making up the Denisova mtDNA with the sequences of modern day humans and an early modern human, Krause and his collaborators found that the Denisova mtDNA differed from humans today in nearly twice as many letter positions as Neandertal mtDNAs do. Further analysis indicated that the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of the Denisova individual, Neandertals and modern humans dates to around a million years ago (making it twice as old as the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of Neandertals and moderns). This divergence date, the team says, indicates that the Denisova mtDNA is distinct from that of the H. erectus population that left Africa 1.9 million years ago, and also from that of the Neandertal ancestor H. heidelbergensis, which branched off from the lineage leading to modern humans around 466,000 years ago. As such, the researchers contend the Denisova mtDNA reveals a previously unrecognized migration out of Africa by a hitherto unknown group of hominins. (The team is holding off on giving the creature a formal name for now, but informally they refer to it as X-woman.)

"The data that they provide is certainly of the nature to arrive at the conclusions that they do," comments Stephan Schuster of The Pennsylvania State University, who worked on the recent sequencing of Archbishop Desmond Tutu's nuclear genome as well as the nuclear genome sequencing of a woolly mammoth. "All the detected sequence differences clearly indicate that this is a novel variant of a [hominin]."

Paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City noted that the finding should not necessarily come as a surprise. "We know the fossil record is far from complete, but what we have already shows that the [hominin] evolutionary bush is quite luxuriantly branching," he remarks. "One more branch is not something that ought to give us indigestion."

The association of the mystery hominin with those Middle and Upper Paleolithic artifacts is peculiar though, because elsewhere in Eurasia they have only turned up with Neandertal and modern human remains. Krause notes that it is possible that the pinky bone originated in an older, deeper layer of the cave sediments and over time got mixed in with the overlying artifacts. Thus far, however, there is no evidence for extensive perturbation. Another possibility, he says, is that the finger bone is that of an early modern human who carried an ancient mtDNA as a result of interbreeding between his or her ancestors and this previously unknown hominin group.

But other experts are not so sure about the team's interpretation of their data. "I don't know—and nobody else does—how many base-pair changes make a new species," says Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in Saint Louis, an authority on Neandertals and early modern humans. "I would like to have more than the number of mtDNA base pair differences to go on."

"The result doesn't mean that they've found a new species, and I don't believe it requires a separate pre-Neandertal migration out of Africa," argues John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, whose research focuses on human genetic evolution. "Those explanations are both compatible with the result, but I don’t think the data require them yet." Hawks notes that the history of an mtDNA sequence—which is just a tiny fraction of a person's total DNA—does not necessarily reflect the history of a species.

A comparably distinctive nuclear genome sequence would significantly strengthen the claim that the Denisova mtDNA represents a previously unknown type of hominin. To that end, Krause and Pääbo are launching a Denisova genome project to obtain a full nuclear genome sequence from the bone that yielded the novel mtDNA. Comparisons of this genome with the full genome sequence they have obtained for the Neandertal as well as with the genomes of people living today could yield insights into the genetic changes that defined H. sapiens. "At the end we get more information about the big question [of] what makes humans humans," Krause reflects.

Meanwhile, paleoanthropologists are eager for more fossils to confirm the DNA-based claim. With luck, continued excavation at Denisova cave this summer will turn up additional remains—and put a face on this long-lost relative.

Really reminds you just how incomplete our knowledge of the world's and our own deep past is. Potentially an entire species/variety of humans that was completely lost to time until now. It really makes you wonder what else might have existed that we have no clue of, and barring some friendly aliens who kept Earth under regular observation during prehistory may never know about.

Heck, I bet there's a bunch of stuff which hasn't even been touched because it's lying in areas that were dry land during the ice ages but are now underwater.

[Shroom Man 777]

SAN FERNANDO, Philippines – Filipino devotees had themselves nailed to crosses Friday to remember Jesus Christ's suffering and death _ an annual rite rejected by church leaders in the predominantly Roman Catholic country.

At least 23 people were nailed to crosses in three villages in northern Pampanga province's San Fernando city to mark Good Friday, with foreigners banned from taking part this year except as spectators, said Ching Pangilinan, a city tourism officer and one of the organizers.

She said the ban was imposed after some foreigners took part in previous years just to make a film or make fun of the rites.

"We don't want them to just make a mockery out of the tradition of the people here," Pangilinan said.

The event Friday drew more than 10,000 Philippine and foreign spectators, she said.

Many gathered at San Pedro Cutud, a farming village where devotees dressed in robes and tin crowns walked to a dusty mound carrying wooden crosses on their backs. At the mound, men nailed their hands and feet to the crosses.

Among the devotees was Ruben Enaje, a 49-year-old sign painter who was nailed to a cross for the 24th time as his way of thanking God for his survival after falling from a building.

Mary Jane Mamangon, a 34-year-old rice cake vendor, was the lone female devotee to be nailed to a cross this year in San Juan village. It was her 14th time.

She said she started when she was 18 and has taken part in the annual rites on and off to seek God's help in saving her ill grandmother and now her younger sister, who is suffering from cancer.

"I do it because I have seen that it works," she told The Associated Press. "I saw how my grandmother recovered from her illness."

Mamangon said she has faith that God will take care of her and her family.

Similar rites took place in nearby Bulacan province, while in other parts of the country, half-dressed, barefooted flagellants walked the streets, whipping their bloody backs with pieces of wood dangling from ropes as a way to atone for sins.

Church leaders reject such practices. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines said the real expression of Christian faith during Lent is through repentance and self-renewal, not flagellation or crucifixion.

Bishop Rolando Tirona of the Prelature of Infanta said flagellation and cross nailings are expressions of superstitious beliefs, and are usually done out of need for money or to encourage tourism, which make them wrong.

About 80 percent of the Philippine population of more than 90 million are Roman Catholic.

PHILIPPINES, FUCK YEAH!

[Shady]

That is...I have no words.

[Shroom Man 777]

Gun cam footage of Apache gunships killing some Iraqi civilians and journalists and children.

[Magister Militum]

What I'm more interested in is the fact that the video was given to WikiLeaks (the only member of the wikipedia family I approve of) by someone in the U.S. Military. Kinda makes you wonder if this will have the same effect as Walter Cronkite declaring the Vietnam War as unwinnable.

[Kingmaker]

What I'm more interested in is the fact that the video was given to WikiLeaks (the only member of the wikipedia family I approve of) by someone in the U.S. Military. Kinda makes you wonder if this will have the same effect as Walter Cronkite declaring the Vietnam War as unwinnable.

I doubt it. Maybe if it had come out a few years ago, but by now I think people just don't care enough. I also doubt this video will see wide circulation off the internet. Or are you referring to a loss of confidence within the military itself?

the only member of the wikipedia family I approve of

Hey, wikipedia has some good articles on mathematics. After all, the only people who are going to write a wiki article on Wallpaper groups are math nerds and extremely confused interior decorators.

[Magister Militum]

I doubt it. Maybe if it had come out a few years ago, but by now I think people just don't care enough. I also doubt this video will see wide circulation off the internet.

Oh, its starting to get widespread circulation; it's one of the most popular stories on CNN.com right now, and many major news sources are starting to cover it in some capacity. Besides, the internet has effectively eclipsed all other forms of news media, anyways, and the nature of Web 2.0 is going to result in this spreading fast if the becomes significant enough.

Hey, wikipedia has some good articles on mathematics. After all, the only people who are going to write a wiki article on Wallpaper groups are math nerds and extremely confused interior decorators.

Wikipedia has some nice scientific articles, but I can't support a site that is supposedly devoted to the pursuit of knowledge yet views verifiability as more important than the truth in regarding to its articles.

[Shroom Man 777]

What I'm more interested in is the fact that the video was given to WikiLeaks (the only member of the wikipedia family I approve of) by someone in the U.S. Military.

Yeah. I mean, sure, scrounging up some files from some archives or some whistleblowers in some company or government is pretty common. But actual gun-cam footage from a gunship? Man, that's quite an achievement. Who could've done it, and how can those who leaked this hope to stay anonymous when the inevitable investigations come?

Kinda makes you wonder if this will have the same effect as Walter Cronkite declaring the Vietnam War as unwinnable.

I certainly hope so. While we won't get pictures of a Vietnamese girl burned half to death with napalm, bystanders coming to help the wounded and getting torn to pieces by American gunship fire - along with little children - will certainly be just as good.

I hope wikileaks finds more footage of American atrocities.

[Somes J]

Wikipedia has some nice scientific articles, but I can't support a site that is supposedly devoted to the pursuit of knowledge yet views verifiability as more important than the truth in regarding to its articles.

What's so bad about that?

Just curious.

[Magister Militum]

Somes: Technically, there is nothing that bad about it from a certain standpoint; accuracy and a neutral point of view are important, of course. However, I personally find it somewhat discomforting that trying to uncover the truth takes a back seat to other qualities. It's a question of integrity for my case, though, and you could probably come up with good counter arguments. Of course, my beef with Wikipedia covers other areas as well, but those are the ones that everyone covers.

[Somes J]

Isn't verifiability how science attempts to determine truth though? A scientific theory is accepted as true when it's verified by evidence and experiment. If you can't present any hard evidence that it's true it's just speculation. Given how easy it is to lie on the internet making the criteria for inclusion that you can point to something that backs up your statement doesn't seem like a terrible idea (although I can see some problems, like how statements by professionals made on their own authority get treated). Or do they mean something else by verifiability?