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.

Ironic

It's ironic that I finally get highspeed cable and I end up blogging a lot less.