finally closed on the house this afternoon after a sudden week's delay due to an issue with probate, and during the process of preparing and signing the documents at closing i was presented with the option to claim the dwelling as my primary residence which would essentially half the total property tax due; however, the house is across the montreal river in michigan and doing so would forfeit my residency in wisconsin. i just barely missed the deadline for the current year to file for this tax credit so i've got about a year to decide if i'm going to file for this credit the following year and needless to say i'm quite conflicted about it. i abhor the thought of being a resident of michigan because i do very much hate the state's government and would not like to be subject to it, not to mention i've been a wisconsin resident my entire life. if i were to file for this credit i would have to reregister all of my vehicles and obtain a new license, and i would no longer be able to participate in wisconsin politics nor the local politics which affect my land directly. needless to say that's all a pain in the ass and i have a much higher stake in preserving the status quo of things for the land than i am for the house in michigan. that damned state could go to hell for all i care and i certainly hope it does so the upper peninsula has a reason to separate itself from the leeches and sots in the lower peninsula calling all the shots, but to be able to save such a sizeable amount on the taxes for this dwelling would be excellent especially if the tax assessed value is adjusted the following year because of the purchase, which i am wholly expecting

very seriously doubt that i would do such a thing but having the option floating out there is very aggravating to me because the taxes are significantly higher for the house than for the land despite the fact that i care about it less and it is significantly less useful to me. living next to a border sucks i really do not recommend it

this morning while doing some reading i was pleased to discover this incredible fresco from an ancient egyptian burial complex along the upper nile, depicting a group of levantine traders offering gifts to the nomarch khnumhotep ii. the entourage is labeled as the aamu, but more specifically they are associated with the hyksos, that same enigmatic semitic group who usurped the egyptian monarchy for a time in the middle kingdom that later pharaohs fiercely tried to erase from the historical record. these hyksos traders depicted may very well be the forerunners to that same lot, though unfortunately not much research has been done nor is there much available information about the relief. either way, it is incredible to see such a depiction from nearly forty centuries ago depicting the relations between these two distant (at the time) nations, and it makes me wonder about the lineage of khnumhotep ii and its implications dynastically

attached below are two articles discussing the fresco in broader detail:

https://i.fii.moe/RKb6VmS7SjBaXjn56rSwyEAYJPmiULjO
https://i.fii.moe/N9IXusdijUiDgMRZ1uRfQ0W2Znt5HvwD

I think it's quite possible that the Hyksos were the Biblical Amalekites which would place the Exodus somewhere between the reigns of Dedumose II and Ahmose I and this would be very interesting given the normal defence of the historicity of the Exodus is based on the events taking place during the reign of Ramesses II. However I don't know enough about Egyptian history to evaluate these theories though I think it would be very interesting to learn, it's a project I've bracketed for a LONG time but I really want to get back to, probably when I either get accepted or rejected from grad school in a couple days

what leads you to believe that the hyksos were of amalek? that's an interesting interpretation i've never considered before

i want to go into a TGI fridays on a monday and yell THANK GOD IT'S FRIDAY until they kick me out

Oh I just realized I forgot to respond to your previous question! I knew I was missing something. Well, to tell the truth I'm throwing stuff around to see what sticks because again I'm not very informed about Egyptian history. However, I think that the identification of Ramses II with the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be a serious mistake. I talked to one of my friends who pushed the theory of the Merneptah Stele (under the hypothesis that he was co-ruling with Ramses II before his death and that's when the events described took place) referring to Israel as a nomadic or seminomadic people and supposed that because they were referred to as a people they might have been under Egyptian rule and not considered an independent country. And so maaaybe an exodus of a few hundred people occurred during that time, where Israelites left Egypt to meet up with this nomadic people. I have a serious problem with that. The Bible doesn't describe Egypt under the golden age of a pharaoh like Ramses. It describes an egypt that is "utterly destroyed" as one of the advisors says in ch. 10. It describes the Pharaoh and his whole host being drawn into the Red Sea and drowned. This, coupled with the economic waste of the plagues would be a complete and utter political disaster. Deuteronomy says "the LORD hath destroyed them unto this day" which implies a continual wasting. Note of course this doesn't imply that the whole of what could be an Egyptian military was destroyed, just whatever the Biblical Pharaoh had raised to try and stop the Exodus from happening. So Ramses is probably not the Pharaoh described in the Scriptures. Of course my intent is not to defend the historicity of the Biblical text, just to say what follows if we grant its historicity. However, I myself do believe that the Scriptures are inerrant with respect to historical matters