December 31, 2004
America the Stingy
Letter to the Editor
The Bush administration looks stingy and selfish by only offering 35 million dollars in aid to the tsunami victims where over 100,000 were killed and millions left homeless. When 9-11 happened we spent 15 billion dollars to support corporate airlines - 500 times as much as we re offering in aid to the affected countries. America already has serious problems in the world with it's image over the Iraq war. And although some Americans don't care what other countries think - when we come asking the world for help - they will remember how little we offered when it was our turn to give.
December 30, 2004
Marc Perkel on Mike Malloy's Show on Air America Radio
Dear Church of Reality Membership,
Last night's interview on the Mike Malloy Show on Air America went very well. It lasted about 16 minutes less commercials and music and my only regret was that it didn't last longer. I don't know how many people it reached but I'm sure it was a lot. For those of you who missed it - you can listen to it on the web at:
Additionally my radio guy, Dave Lewis, created 4 radio spots for the Church of Reality. I thing the first two are particularly good and hope to actually run them somewhere once I refigure a plan for radio. You can listen to them at:
I'm pretty busy today but just wanted to let you share in these new Church of Reality audio treasures and let me know what you think. This is just the beginning. I want everyone on the planet to hear the name Church of Reality. Any thing you can do to make that happen is greatly appreciated.
Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality
December 26, 2004
More Thoughts on Gay Marriage
I keep struggling the the Gay Marriage issue and it's not something that is an easy decision for me. But I am still against it because it's a matter of trying to stretch a definition beyond reality by slowly pussing the limits over the line. But - I do support civil unions - and this has nothing to do with "morality".
Let's say I were to tell you that I believed that a dog and a cat were the same species. That a dog is just a different form of cat. Am I wrong? Yes - but - they both have hair - walk on 4 legs - have claws - in fact are better than 90% genetically identical. So - why isn't a dog a cat? Why don't we just broaden the definition of cat to include dogs? See what I mean?
So - is there a difference between gay and heterosexual relationships? Well - of everyone who is on earth today, their biological parents are a man and a woman - and none of them come from two men or two women. There is a difference and it is a significant difference. It's about our very existence. The word marriage has meaning and it's not the same any more that a dog is a species of cat.
But - what about non-reproducing heterosexuals? Well - there's the fuzzy line thing again. And - as I have said many time - if it were up to me to move the line - it would be the other way. But - I have an even more interesting point to make about where the line should be.
Clearly reproducing heterosexuals are within the definition of marriage and clearly marrying a pet is clearly outside the definition. Gays want the line moved to include them arguing equal protection and pointing out the real fact that many of these relationships have lasted for decades and are in fact real relationships.
But also in the life are poligimous heterosexuals. The Mormons truely believe that poligamy is OK and only denounce poligamy for political purposes and do it underground. In Utah there are some 20,000 to 30,000 poligimous families with children. So - where do they fit into the argument?
To me if there is a "line" that we are talking about regarding the definition of marriage - then poligimous heterosexuals with children are closer to the definitions of marriage than gays are. So - if we are moving the line all the way to gays - then we also have to include poligimous heterosexuals. You can't just skip over parts of the line and include gays and not mormons.
So - I ask the question of my gay friends and family - are you willing to include poligimous mormons in marriage? If you respond that marriage is limited to only 2 people then my response is yes = it is limited to a man and a woman too. You see - you can't point to two as absolute and say heterosexuality and reproduction is optional. I can't take the argument seriously unless you are also including Mormons - and then there's the problem of multiple same sex marriages. And - why should I be prohibited from marrying my sister or brother if we are non-reproducing?
Lines are interesting things. If I have sex with a girl one hour before her 18th birthday then I'm a rapist. If I wait an hour - then I'm not. Suppose I have sex with her one hour before her 18th birthday on the west coast but she was both on the east coast and that's 3 times zones ahead of California making her technically 18 if you take that into account. Would I be guilty of rape then?
So - as I keep saying - having come to this conclusion I am still uncomfirtable with it. But - a dog is not a cat and a same sex relationship is not a marriage. Find a different word - grant similar legal rights to it - I'm fine with it.
At some point when the technology exists for same sex couples to reproduce then I will rethink this because that would cross the line. But until then - I can't support it.
December 25, 2004
Two Years since Laser Eye Vision Correction
A little over two years ago I had my eyes lasered and it really made a difference. I was 5.5 diopters nearsighted - which means that if I didn't know where my glasses were - I had a hard time finding them. So - being nearly blind without glasses I decided to get my eyes fixed.
The first thing was to decided where so I left a message on Craigslist and several people recommended Dr. Ella Faktorovich at Pacific Vision Institute. I went over there for a consultation and she was brilliant. I had a lot of reservations about it and beening a geek - I wanted to know every detail of how it worked. Since this was in San Francisco - I wanted to know what would happen if there was an earthquake during the procedure - and she had an answer for that too - the laser would instantly shut off if there was a tracking error.
Since I was 47 at the time I was already having vision problems focusing a different distances. If not for the fact that I was already nearsighted - I would have needed reading glasses. As you get older you lose the range of vision that you would have if you were younger. And - I learned that if I had both eyes corrected to distance vision that I would lose my superior near vision and would have to put glasses on to read.
She suggested an interesting solution though. What she suggested was to leave one eye slghtly nearsighted so that I would have a "driving eye" and a "reading eye". Some people's brains can handle it - some can't. But - she wanted to try it since I was a tech and my near vision was something that was important to me.
She sent me to another eye doctor that does contact lenses and had me fitted to contacts that simulated the way my eyes would be corrected. The split vision would out very well - so well in fact that instead if a 1.5 diopter split I asked for two diopters.
I had the actual procedure done on my 47th birthday. I was given some valium to get me all doped up to where I didn't care about anything. She also put a numbing agent and antibiotic drops in my eyes. The numbing agent was a little stinggy at first but that passed after a few seconds. 30 minutes later I was taken to the room where the procedure was to take place.
Getting your eyes lasered is an interesting process. Perhaps most people would be more comfortable not knowing exactly what they do - but not me. Basically they slice off the front of your eye - peal it back - and then they laser off the flay surface to reshape the eye the way it needs to be. The front flap is then replaced and grows back together. The entire provedure takes abut 10 minutes for both eyes.
As a patient it was very easy. It's more comfortable than getting your teeth cleaned. But teeth cleaning is something I understand. I laid down on my back on the table under the device. I remember Ella was looking through what appeared to be a microscpoe into my eyes. My eyelids were taped open - but there was drops being applied to keep my eyes moist. I had the sensation that I could blink - but actually couldn't. That was something I had been worried about - not being able to blink - but not a problem.
What I say was a ring of white lights (white LEDs) and a green dot on the middle. My job was to heep focused on the green dot. lla explained every step of the procedure as she was doing it. She said that the green dot was going to disappear and that I might feel a little pressure. This is where the instrument came in contact with my eye and made the cut to separate the front of my eye. She then folded it back exposing the surface. Of course - if you don't know what's happening - all you feel is a little pressure. You never feel anything being cut.
With the eye now having a flat surface the green dot looked like it was as big as a dime. I heard the machine making a pulsing noise as the laser shaved off tiny layers of tissue. You can't see the laser that actually does the cutting - but I did notice a secind red traching laser that it used to guide the cutting laser. The tracking system keeps the laser on target even if you move your eye during the procedure. That only lasted mayv=be 30 seconds. Then the flap was replaced and the green dot was again a green dot.
The procedure was repeated for the other eye. It was all very comfortable - especially with the valium which makes everything ok. Aren't drugs wonderful. After 10 minutes the procedure was over.
I got up and although I was supposed to keep my eyes closed for the most part - I took a peek - and my vision was mostly clear. Sort of like looking through the windshield during rain though. I was taken t a room where I laid down to way for a friend to give me a ride home. I fell asleep while waiting.
30 minutes later my ride came. I was led to the car but I did take some small peeks to see my way in. You're supposed to keep your eyes shut for 4 hours after the procedure. They recommend a nap. And the Valium helps with that. I went home to bed. About 4 hours later - I woke up.
I could already see the difference. I had to put a lot of drops in my eyes. I used antibiotic drops, antiinflamatories - and general drops to keep my eyes moist. So - every hour it was eyedrops. Even worked on the computer and experimented with getting used to having the near eye and the far eye. Then I went to bed early.
The next morning I woke up and I could see all the way across the street without glasses. There was a flag in the window on the other side of the street and I could not only see the stars - but the points on the stars. It was amazing.
As someone who has warn glasses all my life and not had contacts the idea of not having glasses on was very disturbing. Especially getting in my car and driving. I had a pair of sunglasses that came with the procedure and putting those on made my face feel normal again. I'm someone who actually likes to have glasses on and not having them on was almost like being outside naked. But in time I got used to it.
Most people can't handle a 2 diopter split though. I'm rather unusual. I think the difference is that I understand the technology and I don't try to make both eyes see normal. I understand that things aren't always going to appear perfect under all circumstances. I also think that my right eye is a little "lazy" and that because my left eye is so dominant that everything looks clear at a distace. Looking at things near take a little more effort - but I can read without glasses when others my age can't.
When I drive I have driving glasses. They correct my right eye back to normal and provide some shading in the sun. I also wear the hiking. I also have some 1.25 diopter reading glasses from wallgreens ($15 for 2 pair) and some 3 diopter glasses for close work. I also had some custom glasses made for computer distance. So - I'm not glasses free. But at my age that's is to be expected.
It's been a big improvement. I can go swimming and check out the women. I don't have glasses falling off or getting steamed up and not blind without them. I can see very well without being so nearsighted. There is a downside in that I have lost my super close vision - but I can put glasses on to get that back.
So - if you are in the Bay Area - or if you aren't it'sworth flying here to have it done - Dr. Factorivich is the best. She's considered a leader in her field and a lot of celebrities go to her to get their eyes done. She's not cheap - $3500 - $5000 - but at the time I had the money and decided I wanted the best. And - I'm happy the way it turned out. I got the extra attention I needed to calculated the best diopter split for me.
Besides - Dr. Faktorovich is a babe. I told her the most painful part of the procedure was finding out she was already married. But - she is just the best in every way from doing it right to assuring you that you won't be blind after it's all over.
December 21, 2004
Perkel to be Interviewed on Air America Radio
Good news on the radio interviews front. Mike Malloy of Air America Radio has agreed to interview me on Wednesday December 29th at 11:00pm East coast time (8:00 pacific time) about the Church of Reality. I will be on for 30 minutes (15 minutes less commercials) and will be reaching hundreds of thousands of listeners.
You all can tune in to Air America Radio at http://www.airamericaradio.com and listen to it live on the Internet.
I'm hoping that once I'm on this that others pick me up too. These things sometimes snowball. I'm generally very good in interviews - especially on radio where looks don't matter and I can be home in my PJs ranting to the world. And I will get to talk about reality and get people asking the sacred question.
Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality
December 20, 2004
Muslims stone children to death
Letter to the Editor
The Muslim religion claims to be a peaceful religion and it strives for acceptance in the world community. However today the Muslim dominated government in Iran will execute a 19 year old girl for sex crimes as a result of her being forced into prostitution by her mother. They are going to execute this girl by stoning her to death.
Stoning children to death is an act of a society of barbarians. There is not redeeming virtues at all to a society that stones children to death. This act tarnishes the relationship of all Muslims in the world who stand silent and allow this sort of thing to occur. Muslims can talk about what they supposedly believe but what you believe is what you do and when you kill children by stoning then that's in part what being a Muslim is all about. And it's sick!
-------
It's interesting to note that Muslims are already trying justify this in term of "Christians do it too" or that it discourages other parents from prostituting their children. If Christians did it too they would be just as bad. And - the idea of killing children to teach their parents a lesson is also totally sick. First - wouldn't it be more of a lesson to stone the parents who forced the girl into prostitution in the first place?
Societies who stone people to death are primitive barbaric cultures and their barbarism comes from their religion. That is what is referenced as to why they are stoning people. Stoning is WRONG - period. There is no reason that justifies it - never never never - under any conditions.
Here's the Link to the Story
Church of Reality - about to launch!
San Francisco, CA - Marc Perkel today announces the official launch of the Church of Reality starting with a radio campaign on KFRC Radio in the Bay Area. Perkel is spending $7500 for a three week radio campaign to raise money to spread the word about his new church. Perkel hopes to challenge other religions on what is real and what is moral and raise the status of reality in society.
Contact
Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality
marc@perkel.com
"If it's real - we believe in it!"
Here's the seven sacred missions:
# We believe in Reality - the way it really is! - If it's real - we believe in it. The Church of Reality is a Personal Commitment to the Truth. We Realists explore the universe together with our minds. We think about thinking. We wonder about wondering. We attempt to understand the Understanding of Understanding. We ponder the Great Questions. We are a curious people and we are bound together in our quest to know more.
# We Spread the Sacred Message - Reality - Our mission is to promote reality in society. Every time we mention Reality we spread the Sacred Message. We are here to ask the Sacred Question - "What is Real?" in order to raise the status of Reality in society. We want people to consider reality when making important decisions. By spreading the Sacred Message we cause people to be Real in the Sacred Moment (which is Now). Our mission is to say "Reality" as many times as we can and to get other people to think about reality as often as we can. We introduce the Terminology of Reality into the Tree of Knowledge so that we have a common vocabulary to talk about reality in religious terms.
# We Choose the Sacred Direction - Forward - The Sacred Direction is forward - onward and upward. Our Principle of Positive Evolution commits us to envision a future that is better than today. We are one planet and we are all in this together on our little ball in the universe. In order to answer the Sacred Question and explore our reality society must move forward. We take responsibility for our future and we commit to making tomorrow better than today.
# We Honor the Tree of Knowledge - The Tree of Knowledge represents the sum total of all human understanding. It is what separates us from the animals. The Tree of Knowledge represents the soul of humanity. We are better than we were hundreds of years ago because our Tree of Knowledge has grown and if we continue to evolve in the Sacred Direction our Tree of Knowledge will continue to grow. It is through the tree that we explore reality as it really is and attempt to answer the Sacred Question - What is Real?
# We Ask the Sacred Moral Question - What is Good? - The Sacred Moral Question is, "Is this a Good Thing?" What does "good" mean? That too is part of the Sacred Moral Question. We believe in the principle of positive evolution and the sacred direction as well as the other Sacred Principles as a foundation for determining right and wrong. We believe that right and wrong are important concepts that deserve to be carefully considered in realistic terms. Often reality is ignored and no one asks if the decisions that are being made are a good thing.
We believe that when reality is ignored and no one asks if the decision is good that we end up with bad results. We as Realists are dedicated to Asking the Sacred Moral Question so that we make better choices so we can move in the sacred Direction. The commitment to Reality is a commitment to truth, honesty, wisdom, and responsibility. The Church of Reality is committed to getting the moral questions right.
# We Issue the Sacred Challenge - The Sacred Challenge is a challenge to other faiths and religions to ask themselves - "How do we know that what we believe is real?" The Sacred Challenge applies first and foremost to this church itself. Our Principle of Self Scrutiny demands that we constantly audit ourselves to make sure we are not deluding ourselves. We consider Reality to be a sacred thing and there are many other who claim their beliefs to be real when it just isn't. Many people want to be good moral people and are trying to "do what is right" but what they think is right has never been put to the reality test. Our message to people of other faiths is - question everything - challenging your beliefs is a good thing. We ask you to fully understand what exactly you do believe. We therefore ask other faiths to adopt the Principle of Self Scrutiny, to ask the Sacred Question, and to encourage your members to challenge your beliefs on the basis of if it is actually real. We require our members to scrutinize us. We challenge you to match us.
# We make it Happen - We are a religion that is an activist religion. We don't just find problems - we solve problems. We are committed to coming up with solutions and to take responsibility to bring the concept into reality. We make sure that the job is done right. We are a community and we do the work to make community work. We go out and learn and we try to understand and we spend a lot of time thinking and we give of ourselves for the common good of all people. In the Spirit of the Tree - our shared knowledge - we support sharing. It is our duty to look around and figure out how to make it all work.
December 17, 2004
Redhat Fedora Core 3 - Definitely worth skipping - Review
Fedora Core 3 is not a pretty release for Redhat. The original distribution is very buggy and if you install everything - you are looking at hundreds of megs of new downloads to fix it.
Once you get it working and download all the fixes it seems to work fine. If you are already running FC2 - I'd skip this version unless there's something in it you really want - and I can't find anything that justifies the pain.
The most painfull part of the process is the broken UDEV which is now part of the bootup process. UDEV somehow dynamically creates and deletes devices as they are hotplugged in - a good idea in theory - but only when it actually works. So your /dev directory is no longer under your control. Once they get the bugs out of UDEV I'm sure it will be nice. But FC3 is definitely out there on the bleeding edge as compared to FC2 which I considered to be a stable install.
UDEV is inserted into yor initrd by mkinitrd and if the system fails to work you end up with premission denied errors on devices like /dev/null causing services to fail to load. The UDEV shipping on the CD is a very buggy version and it needs to be upgraded immediately if not sooner.
If you install KDE without GNOME it will still set the desktop to GNOME and you end up in some bizzare default graphics shell hell. If this happens you need to edit the /etc/sysconfig/desktop file and change GNOME to KDE.
Fedora Core 3 still barely supports the reiser file system and treats it like a bastard stepchild. It also deletes my linuxconf install and changes my xinetd setting to disable it. I like linuxconf and for some reason RedHat is actively supressing it. It's almost as bad as if Microsoft upgrades were to remove Netscape.
On the up side - yum is improved - and xosview is now fixed. There's a bunch of new SELinux stuff but I'm still too chicken to even go there. Linux will probably never have the security of what Novell Netware had 15 years ago - Netware was done right. The new lean graphics shell is interesting but I have a big computer so KDE is just fine for me.
My suggestion to the Fedora Core team is to release a Fedora Core 3a version that has the fixes in it. That would save people from installing a broken version of Fedora and then having to fix it. If you want to upgrade anyway - expect some pain and suffering.
Fahrenheit 9-/11 distribution - so what happened?
Below is an article about an interview I did for The Independent as I was distributing Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election. People were wondering about copyrights and if I was going to get sued. But like I said - it would never happen - and it didn't.
As it turn out it was like I said. Michael Moore said I could distribute it for free on the Internet and he meant it. At no time have I been contacted in any way about my distribution. Not even a polite request to take it down.
It just goes to show you the Michael Moore is a man of his word and he was being generous and I thank him for his generocity.
--------------
Marc Perkel is spending US$2000 in the hope of ensuring the result of next week’s presidential election.
Not by buying expensive TV adverts (something that would cost much more than US$2000) but by offering Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 for free download from his site, in the hope that watching it will encourage people to vote against George W. Bush.
And at least half of his hope has been fulfilled: thousands of people have downloaded the film from his site, in a format that can be watched on a computer.
Yet despite offering a box-office hit backed by heavyweight producers such as Harvey Weinstein, available for free over the Net, Mr Perkel, of San Bruno in California, does not fear being sued, as one would normally expect.
Instead, he insists that “Michael Moore wants me to distribute this” - although he also admits Mr Moore has not spoken to him specifically.
The US$2000 is the cost of one month’s high-speed internet access to his web site where the digital versions of the film are stored - and if download numbers are any guide, he has found a receptive audience.
Since he put the films online, more than 300,000 people have downloaded them, in full or in part.
The film has become famous for its criticism of President Bush’s handling of the threat from terrorists before September 2001, and for his policies afterwards.
That inspired Mr Perkel to make a digital copy of the film, and offer it for free so others would see it: “This election is extremely important to the future of the planet,” he told The Independent.
“If I can make a difference, it’s worth US$2000 to make that happen.
According to my [site] logs - which I don’t trust because I don’t think it can distinguish failed attempts - it has been downloaded 337,756 times.
But I don’t count downloads - I count votes.
How many voters are converted [by seeing the film] or how many people are motivated to actually vote? That’s the score that counts to me.
I am trying to prevent World War 3 and possibly the fall of civilisation."What’s more, Mr Perkel says he has the tacit backing of Mr Moore for his venture.
“Michael Moore has made public statements encouraging people to download it and to distribute it over the internet for free.
At no time have I seen any public statements from a copyright holder to the contrary,” Mr Perkel told the Independent.
Indeed, Mr Moore said in July: “I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour.
I would oppose that."The distributors of the film in the US, Lion’s Gate, had no comment yesterday on Mr Perkel’s actions.
Mr Perkel commented: “Even if I were sued, which I really don’t think will happen, I am extremely legal savvy and I am not [rich].
And I would [demand the appearance of] Michael Moore as a defendant for misleading me into believing I had permission to distribute it.
So - under these conditions - a copyright suit won’t happen."
December 15, 2004
Islam executes children for being forced to have sex
The force children to have sex and then they execute them for thier crime. To Islamics sex is a higher crime than murder. This is what happens when religion controls the government. This could be what America's future looks like if we don't get back to reality.
December 14, 2004
I'm tired of Red State vs. Blue States
I'm tired of people talking about red states and blue states as if everyone in red states voted for Bush and everyone in Blue states voted for Kerry. States didn't vote - people do. So those who feel like boycotting red states are a silly as those who like all black people are all alike. It's almost racist. A Kerry voter in Georga is no different that a Kerry voter in California. It's individuals - not states - who made the choice.