Original MS Write program

This may be a rarified issue, but I've come across the fact that Windows no longer supports the old Write (.wri) file type at all. Wordpad pretends to open the .wri files, but it doesn't understand Write formatting. Unfortunately, I've also come across the need to open old Write files properly. There's a fake WRITE.EXE file included with Windows, but that program open Wordpad, not Write. Luckily, I was able to find a copy of the old Write program file (write.exe). For anyone that wants it, here it is: Write.

Advice: To open Write files embedded as an icon within another Write document, you will need to associate .wri files with MS Word (default setting is Wordpad). Then, open the other Write document with Write. When you double click on the embedded icons, Word will open the embedded document. If you don't associate .wri with Word, Windows will try to use Wordpad even though you have Write open. If you try to associate .wri files with Write, the embedded iconed Write files will not open at all.

Strange review of Wedding Crashers movie

I've come across this strange review for the Wedding Crashers movie. It may appear that the review's author doesn't understand that their political views have nothing to do with their diminutive funny bone. The review is loaded with a presuppositional subtext suggesting that anyone who is a conservative should have the same sense of humor as the author and that there would be something wrong with conservative who finds this movie very funny. It appears to either be another brainwashed neocon lackey, or one of the brainwashining neocon proponents. Given the limited details in the review, it's likely that the reviewer didn't even see the movie. In fact, that reviewer prolly shouldn't have watched the movie, since it was obvious what it was about from the promo's and title of the movie. Political reviews over non-political movies? I just gotta shake my head.

Anyways, I didn’t go into Wedding Crashers with high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie’s humor. It’s not in the league of Meet the Parents or Old School, but it is pretty damn funny. When the movie had to move the plot along, it did so without getting overly wishy-washy or at the expense of the overall humor. In other words, although it has the elements of a romantic comedy, it didn’t become a romantic comedy. It’s nice not to be tricked into watching a chick flick. However, I’m on the fence as to whether this one makes it into my DVD collection or not.

Emotional Cheating

This term "Emotional Cheating" is being plastered all over infotainment shows like the Today Show today. They got experts up talking about it as if it is some sort of disease where one person in a relationship forms a strong, unnatural, emotional connection with someone other than their partner. What complete nonsense. One would have to be an emotional infant to consider this as a genuine category of human behavior.

There is not such thang as Emotional Cheating. It's a term that is created to vilify normal human interaction. Emotional attachment between any two people (male/female, male/male, female/female) is a natural part of being human.

Emotional Cheating is a term that hides the true nature of what it's trying to describe. The cause of the issue is a rift between two people in a relationship. However, the term is used by one person to push off blame for the rift onto some third party interaction that is absorbing their partner's attention. It pushes blame from the cause to the effect. It allows the slighted partner a false excuse for their feelings of betrayal. The real cause is that the two partners are allowing themselves to drift apart. For the emotionally immature, the emotional bond which one person is developing outside that relationship is response to that drift. For the emotionally mature person, any emotional bonds developed outside the relationship are irrelevant to what is going on within the relationship. The forming rift must be addressed directly, either to mend or break completely.

Old rules that led into the evolution of the marriage tradition were based on primitive survival needs of those times. Over time, the marriage rules have become more restrictive, and less in touch with human nature. The Old Testament glorifies behavior that is seen as obscene in our time. By contrast, marriage rules today would be considered absurd to the bible's writers. The rules change, but our species hasn't. So, what's going on?

Since the beginning of the 20th Century, we now have the power to understand ourselves in ways that weren't even imagined in previous times. Yet, as a society, we seem to be gravitating more towards emotional immaturity than ever before. We should be trying to move towards emotional maturity. As a society, we have to learn that we are emotional creatures. Emotion is part of who we are. We are going to experience emotion whether we want to or not. Trying to create new ways to vilify our nature is pushing us in the wrong direction.

Two people should be able to have an emotional connection that doesn't interfere with that relationships of which those people are a part. Guys and girls can be close friends without being involved. Where the issues of emotional cheating comes in, is when that close friendship becomes an excuse. Either person in the relationship can use it as an excuse, but it's still only an excuse for the unrelated cause.

Back for the Post-modern

One thing I find amusing is that there are people so caught up in their limited old definitions of our world, they continue to use ridiculous terms like post-modern.  So, I’m going to pick on people that don’t realize the absolute absurdity of the term post-modern.  These people use the term to talk about the period of time in which we live in relation to events previously associated with the word modern.

This is ignorant on two levels.  First, we already have a word that describes the time in which we live. That word is modern!  There is no way to be in post-modern times unless you time travel.  Even then, that doesn’t make sense because if you travel to the future, you are still going to be in the modern times of that period. Secondly, use of the term post-modern shows a complete lack of knowledge about the Industrial Age and our transition into the Information Age.

Since the 1980’s, people understood we were at or nearing the end of the Industrial Age.  But without an obvious understanding of the catalyst that was already in place to usher in a new age, few knew what to call this new period.  Some people rightfully used the term Post-Industrial for a while. That makes sense. We are living in times after the Industrial Age.  Other people didn’t understand this dynamic, and quickly adopted strange words like post-modern.

Of course, these terms do not define all aspects of society.  In art, the term is postmodern.  It is a response to modernism, which itself was a fad during a particular period of time.  Why art would be labelled in any way "modern" is funny, since the art of any period of time will be modern to that time.   Beyond art, the term modernism describes a period of time long past, during the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  How can it be "modern" if it was over a century ago?  This is all very silly.

I think it was people who are caught up in a limited world view that coined terms like post-modern and modernism, without taking into account more aspects of the times in which they live.  Basically, they got so used to using the word modern to describe certain series of events, they didn’t know what word to use once those series of events came to a close.

The catalyst for the new modern age was the establishment and popularization of the Internet, bringing a new understanding of ownership of information, and the resulting technological, cultural and economical shifts.  Once people started understanding the driving force behind this new age, we knew what to call it.  We are now in the Information Age.

There are other terms, such as waves of the Industrial Revolution.  However, the problem with this term is that we are already on the 'fourth' such waves.  This metric is really just tracking ups and downs in manufacturing rather than identifying a significant period of time.  A revolution is a point in time, not a long period.  Long periods of time tend to be identified by trends.  By definition, a revolution is not a trend, but rather specific events of upheaval, overturning an old system.  Industrial Revolution lead to the Industrial Age.  However, these subsequent supposed revolutions aren't really the start or stops of any particular ages, and they aren't responsible for any specific upheaval.

These little revolutions have been happening as a backdrop to the bigger trend, being the rise of importance of information.  Aspects of the Information Age allow for improvements to manufacturing, but manufacturing itself has taken a backseat to the real revolution that happened with the advent of the Internet and new levels of data collection and usage.

Shorter Commute

Ok, I really don't understand. I've been taking the same path to work on Lawerance Expressway for 4 years. All this time, my commute ran about 25 to 35 minutes. All of a sudden, over the past few months, my commute as dropped to 15 to 20 minutes. I'm glad. I'm very glad. Its like a gift of 1/2 hr a day. I just don't understand why.

Have we come so far

I give my heartfelt syphathies to England and the victims of today's terrorist attack. This attack is completely senseless. It's not senseless in the terms that any violence is senseless, because that's a given. It is senseless in that it is irrelavant. Causing harm like this no longer serves any purpose. Those with their minds towards commiting terrorist acts are living in a world that no longer exists; a world that they themselves helped destroy. In the past, such acts were seen as grandious. In today's world, such acts come across as feeble.
As a whole, the global threat of terrorist has increase U.S./U.K. power. Before, we projected our power, but with a bit of timidity. Now, our power is projected with bold confidence, whether justified or not.

Online gaming

Well, I've been hella distracted recently with online gaming. I've been filling up a considerable amount of my time playing Battlefront. I'm also starting to get addicted to the new Pirates! game, though it's not an online game. I'm looking at a monitor at work and at home, and I've noticed that my eyes get more tired now because it. Also, I'm sure my g/f has noticed a bit of a crunch on our shared time too.

Mind Control works for fun and profit

From a recent AFP story, "A poll last November by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 63 percent of people who attend services more than once a week vote Republican, while 37 percent of regular attendees vote Democrat."

See, mind control works! When someone gets used to being told what to believe, they tend not to question anything regarding what they are being told from their masters.

Vegas 2005

It was nice to get away in Las Vegas last weekend with some friends. Even though I was there 3.5 days, it felt like a week. Margaritaville at the Flamingo was fun. I got nicely toasted on their Perfect Margaritas. Quark's Bar resturant was great. Miriam even challenged the female Klingon with a dual over her male Klingon mate. Pretty damn funny. I came close to braking even on my gambling efforts as well. I had a good time.

Las Vegas Vacation 2005

 

June 16-18, 2005, with Alice Leung, Jennifer Lydecker and Miriam Melo visited Las Vegas, NV.  (Original post/backup link)

Conservatives are speaking up over the Neocons for once

The house just voted to limit the Patriot Act. It looks like the Conservatitives still do have some voice in the Neocon run Republican Party. Let's see if they can still get past Bush himself to prevent at least some of the Partriot Act's privacy invasion clauses. Some how I still think the Neocons will get their way though.

Saturday party

Saturday’s party was a lot of fun. We reserved the VIP upstairs area for Miriam’s birthday party at The Buddha Lounge. Over twenty people showed up. Miriam’s goal was to get totally smashed, and she soundly succeeded. Being supplied alcohol by the bottle helped a lot in that regards.
This one big guy tried to crash the party by sneaking into the VIP area. The first time I noticed him, I simply got in his space and sent out unwelcoming vibes. He cleared off, but came back a bit later. As he leaned against the railing that overlooked the dance floor, I came up beside him and asked if he was with the party. He was all, “The owner over there told me to come up,” while gesturing his hand to a random area near the bar. I was like, “Really. Which guy is the owner?” He pointed to the same general area, “That guy over there.” Dumbass didn’t know the owner was a woman. I never told him his mistake. After realizing he wasn’t fooling me, he figured out it was a private party. So he turns to me, using his height and mass to tower over me. He looked me straight in the eyes. I stared right back at him with intensity that threw him off so much he was forced to make verbal threats. “You know I could beat you up and there’s nothing the bouncers could do about it.” I responded with an ever so slight, arrogant “Whatever” facial gesture. “Just leave. It’s no hard feelings.” He was all, “There never is.” I patted him on the arm, gesturing him to go. I backed off a bit, giving him a chance to leave on his own. I could see he was thinking about it before slowly turning and heading out. I could tell he was unfamiliar with the club, such as the number of bouncers at the club, the number of cops within 150 yards of the club (quite a lot actually), and he seemed blind to the fact that there was immediately three guys and my g/f just waiting to pounce on him if he even flinched at me. Not to mention the other 5 or so guys in our party that woulda been up there in a instant.
So, did I mention that Miriam got totally drunk? LOL Over all, we had a lot of fun. Always feels good to have a private area to drink and relax in between dancing and roaming around. On, and the bartender was awesome, keeping mixers and ice available the whole night, so thanks Heather! :) I'm definately considering reserving the VIP again.

Something about evolution just occurred to me...

In popular science, human evolution is often described in terms of when our ancestors headed off into our own branch of the great ape family tree. Something just occurred to me. What if, in our development, all the other great apes diverged from our branch? That is, in the course of our evolution, we left behind the ancestors of the Chimps, Gorillas, etc.

This is certainly a human-centric view of evolution. However, it must be admitted that things happened to our ancestors which didn't happen to the ancestors of any other of the great apes.

• We have much better buoyancy, allowing us to swim. 
• We walk upright. 
• We have more complex brains. 
• We have less prominent body hair. 
• We have a protruding nose. 
• We have much less muscle mass, etc.

Our environment changed, forcing these adaptations. Those groups of our ancestral species which were in far off locations didn't experience the need to adapt. Gorilla line broke off, moving into a panda/sloth-like direction, having never adapted to meat eating. Chimp line broke off much later, having never needed to walk upright. Neanderthal and the other extinct humans species broke off even later.

In a New Age sense, I might ask, what if we are the intended form? What if all the other species on this planet are just off-shoots of our ancestral line? I'm not sure about taking this line of reasoning seriously, but I'm putting it out there for others to think about with me.

We may not be able to apply this reasoning to all of Earth's history, but maybe it can be applied to the primate line. Even further, this doesn't justify viewing one species as inferior to us. Nor does it justify viewing different races of our own species as inferior. In this line of reasoning, I would hold that all humans represent the intended form. In fact, given our lack of genetic diversity, maybe we are missing a few races which we sorely need to keep our species genetically healthy into our long future. I would also say, this line of reasoning demands that all species on this planet are our cousins, brothers and sisters, whether Great Ape, monkey, lizard, fish, fungus, plant, or sponge.

Anyways, to finish a thought about the 12 tribes of Israel

In Genesis, the twelve tribes of Israel are listed as descendents of the twelve sons of Jacob. More over, these sons are the offspring of Jacob's four wives.
Leah bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun.
Bilhah bore Dan and Naphtali.
Zilpah bore Gad and Asher.
Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin.
Additionally, Joseph had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who's descendants are treated as their own tribes.

Now do the math
Leah bore 6 sons. Bilah bore 2 sons. Zilpah bore 2 sons. Rachel bore 2 sons. Joseph (son of Rachel) bore two sons, and he himself doesn't count. 6+2+2+2-2-1=13, not 12. Yet, even throughout the bible, Israel is often said to be the made up of 12 tribes.

Even more contradictions come from different texts in the bible from different periods.
At Deuteronomy 33, leaders of all the tribes of Israel are said to be present at a gathering to receive their tribe's blessing. The odd thing is that the tribe of Simeon isn't listed. Were they snubbed? Unlikely. Such a snubbing would be listed with reasons for condemnation. In fact, even more strange, Joseph is listed right along with his two sons as though a separate tribe from them.

There's also missing reference to a tribe in 1 Kings 11 in the prophecy regarding the brake up of the nation of Israel.

Song of Deborah

However, the biggest glaring contradiction comes from the Song of Deborah in Judges 5. "This may be the oldest textual fragment preserved in the Bible, dating to about the twelfth or eleventh century B.C....," says Gary Greenberg in his book 101 Myths of the Bible (of which most, but not all, of this blog entry is derived). The Song of Deborah records Deborah's efforts to rally the tribes of Israel against the Canaanites. It lists the tribes that heeded the call and the tribes that didn't. The names of the Israelite tribes listed in the Song of Deborah are substantially different from the traditional 12 (or 13) tribes of Israel. Gilead, Machir, Meroz are included, but Simeon, Levi, Judah, Manasseh, and Gad are not mentioned. Take a quick glance above to see who are the mothers of these missing tribes. That is an interesting nuance.

Mr. Greenberg states,"Because this is one of the oldest textual passages in the Bible, the inclusion and omission of names provides solid clues about the emergence of Israel and any connections to the sons of Jacob." Additionally, "The absence of these five tribes from Deborah's list strongly suggests that they had not yet come into existence as political entities until later and that their namesakes had no earlier existence as sons of Jacob."

Excuses, excuses
Growing up in a Christian Fundamentalist home, one thing always excused away was the inconsistencies in the number and names of the tribes of Israel. Is it 12 or 13? I count 13, but we always would say it's 12. Then, when it came time to read the Song of Deborah, the contradiction of names and number was waved off with something like "the extra tribes mentioned were actually other peoples in the area that decided to help Israel." Of course, there's no support for that statement anywhere in the bible. It was pulled out of the air by someone hundreds of years ago and has been passed along as a quick way to prevent people from questioning the contradiction; which could lead to questioning the idea of taking the Bible literally. (Oh, the horror of it all!) Also, the ridiculous excuse doesn't explain why so many of the traditional Israelite tribes are missing from the list.

Traditions
The stories surrounding each of the tribes of Israel were written long after the events listed. These stories were written as metaphors for each tribe's place in Israel. As tribes disappeared, their stories where lost, or changed to suit the newer tribes. Each tribe needed its own story in order to have a place in the Israelite nation. This political story telling was a tradition that has its origins in Egypt. The Israelite priests and leadership carried on the traditional after they were expelled from Egypt as a way to legitimately establish new political/religious structures in the new land. It is likely many of these first priests and leaders had similar positions in Egypt before their expulsion. In fact, the name of Moses himself is a clue as to the real origin of many of the stories in the Bible. More on that some other time. Hint: Hyksos.

There's always a tomorrow...

There's always a tomorrow today.