Thursday, May 31, 2012

The simple things.

I was just watching episode 4 of the latest season of Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations. He is in Lisbon, Portugal this episode and it starts off with him having a feast of sea food. It reminded me of the time Stig and I were in Jeju. Actually our last night in Jeju City. We found a seafood restaurant on a wharf and had a similar feast. God damn I am drooling just thinking of it!

I went back to WTK and tried to find a post about it ... and found none. Hmmm. May have to rectify that. But I digress.

I have said it before, and odds are I will say it again, often the simple foods are the best. The feast we had in Jeju was simple but great. The feast Bourdain had in Lisbon was simple but great.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Self Deception 2

It seems like a little thing to believe in but for some strange reason I always thought that as long as I could touch my toes and do up my sneakers I wasn't "that" fat. Strangely enough, even at my most morbidly obese, I could do both. It was easier to sit down and tie my sneakers but I COULD tie them standing/kneeling. So I would use this to convince myself that I wasn't THAT fat after all.

I remember visiting Jimmy once. We (him, his, wife and myself) were heading out. I put my sneakers on at the door way with little (seemingly) effort. In retrospect it did take a little out of me but I was too stibborn to acknowledge or show it.Jimmy's wife commented  "Wow Jimmy. Flint can bend down and tie his shoes and he is bigger than you. Why can't you?" Ouch. That had to hurt. But I felt chuffed and used it to continue to deceive myself.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

What the ... religious intolerance 2?!?!?!?

As more comes out about the shenanigans of William Swinimer the idea of him being the victim of religious intolerance becomes more laughable.

I remember listening to a talk radio show the week the story first broke. Callers went on and on about how horrible it was that Christianity was under attack. All the while the underlying story of what led up to it was not being told. It wouldn't start coming out until the day of tolerance discussions at the school. When the media actually started doing their job and looking into the substance and not just reporting the flash.

William Swinimer is an intolerant religious bully. He is supported in this by his father and his pastor. The t-shirt was just the latest in problems with him. He would proselytize in the hallway of the school. Anyone who didn't agree with HIS view of Christianity was a target. Yet some people whine about HIS freedom of religion or expression?!?!? They claim HE is the target of intolerance just because he is Christian?!?!?!?

I think the Principal made a HUGE mistake doing something because of the t-shirt. Why she picked that as the issue worth suspending Willy over I don't know. It doesn't matter that she said it was because he ignored what the Principal said. All it looks like is because he wore that shirt. She should have taken a stand before that over his behaviour. In fact, I would go as far to say that the next time Willy acts out, and he will Westboroesque Christians like him always do, the Principal should take a page out of his father James' book.

James Swinimer decided that his son and daughter would not attend school the day they held the discussions on tolerance. His reasoning was this;

“He will not attend this school unless they are having readin’, writin’ and ’rithmetic, good old-fashioned academics. When they’re having forums, when they’re having other extracurricular activities, he will not attend that school.

“The taxpayer is paying for him to learn his academics as well as the other students, and I am not standing for any of this stuff.”

Well said Mr. Swinimer! The next time your son starts proselytizing the Principal should quote you and suspend him. After all his stuff doesn't fall into the category of readin', writin', and 'rithmetic or any other kind of academic subject that belongs in a school.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

What the ... religious intolerance?

I read an article in The Chronicle Herald on the weekend called "T-shirt tempest distracting". It irked me a bit. Enough that I decided to write about it.

Why did it irk me? The author, Monica Graham, came off as disingenuous. She ignored reality and tried to make it all about Christians being persecuted.

"Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Chester Grant, was punished for repeatedly wearing the shirt to school after he was told to stop. It was a courageous act of defiance on the part of an apparently shy young man who felt his faith was under attack."

Swinimer is shy? What a crock of shit. He has been a source of aggravation for other students at his school for proselytizing. He would preach at them and tell them they would burn in hell if they didn't believe what he believes.

Monica is being VERY disingenuous here. Either that or she is a moron. Her article was written weeks after the incident started. Weeks after more information about the "censorship" came out. 

As one student told reporters;

“It’s ridiculous. It should be a normal school day, but no one can be able to focus today,” he said. 

This thing never was about a shirt. He’s telling kids they’ll burn in hell if they don’t confess themselves to Jesus. He’s said that.”

So, who was under attack? Swinimer or anyone who didn't agree with him? It sounds like Swinimer was the one doing the attacking.

Graham wrote;

"It’s unclear if anyone was truly offended, or if there was simply a concern that someone might be offended. Who knows?"

Really? Unclear? Yet it was reported that at least one student HAD complained about the t-shirt. No to mention the complaints about Swinimer's proselytizing. Seems clear to me that someone felt offended. Whether you or I think it was offensive, it did bother someone. And it came out, before Graham wrote her piece, that Swinimer has harassed other students with HIS intolerance. It looks pretty clear to me.

At the time Graham wrote this there was something else she ignored. The school was having a tolerance discussion. A day was devoted to it. There were speakers and students were encouraged to participate. The father, John Swinimer, REFUSED to allow his children to attend any discussion about TOLERANCE.

It seems to me that Graham missed the boat on this one. The father, the way his son proselytizes, and how they are actively intolerant of others is more of the issue than censorship by the school.

It is kind of funny that Graham started off the article with the statement ...

"Much ink has been spent (dare I say, wasted?) on the case of William Swinimer and his bright yellow T-shirt."

... and she just went on to waste more.

Thursday, May 10, 2012


I had an interesting talk with my mother today. It was about ... marriage. What brought it on? Obama in the news saying he supports gay marriage.

My mother is old school. She feels that only a man and woman should marry. Basically, after talking about it a bit, it came down to procreation. She feels that only a man and woman should be allowed to marry because a marriage should result in children.

I find that outlook beyond antiquated. In fact I find it kind of silly. Using that logic only men and women who WILL and CAN have kids should be allowed to marry. I didn't get too in depth with mom about it. After all, she is my mother. Her line of thinking led to more questions than I wanted to ask her.

If a couple doesn't have kids in 10 years should they be forced to divorce? 5 years? How long?

Should men with a low sperm count that would preclude conception not be allowed to marry?

What about people who are sterile? No marriage for them?

Then there is the answer I gave adult students who went on about getting married to have kids. You don't HAVE to be married to have kids.

If procreation is the purpose of marriage if you don't or can't do it should you be forced to divorce? Or not allowed to marry at all?

All in all, it seems a silly way to think to me. Who cares if two consenting adults of any gender want to share their lives with each other? Throwing things like procreation into it makes it seem stupider.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Going green?

Our lawnmower was on its last legs in 2011. It finally died the LAST day I mowed for the year. It just wouldn't start. The decision was made then to get a new mower. I mulled the idea of getting a push mower. Not the kind with an engine the kind powered by me.

While out walking I saw someone on our street using one. After talking with him I decided not to get an electric or gas mower. I would get a Flint powered mower.

Home Hardware had a nice one, a Fiskars StaySharp Plus, on sale 2 weeks ago. It included a $30 rebate if you bring in an old electric or gas mower or weed whacker. The weather sucked after buying it. When it wasn't raining it was damn cold and windy. One day hit -8 in the morning.

The weather started changing this week and yesterday was the perfect day to assemble and use the new mower. It was pretty easy to assemble. The main body with the blades was already together. all I had to do was assemble the handle and attach it along with the smaller set of wheels.

Then came the test. How would it cut? After all the rain we had the grass was green and pretty thick in some parts of the yard.

It was not what I expected at all. It cut through the grass like a hot knife through butter. It took me maybe 5 minutes longer to cut the front yard than when I used the old gas mower. However, there wasn't the vibration, noise, and smell of the gas mower.

All in all, it did a fantastic job. I highly recommend using one of these instead of a gas or electric mower. As a bonus I can store it in the basement. Something I couldn't do with the gas mower.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Royal Bank of Canada ... suck it!

As I was leaving work Monday night I stopped at the ATM to get some cash. My card didn't work. Initially I laughed it off as me screwing up my PIN. Didn't work again. And again. I didn't want to take the chance of the machine eating my card so I didn't try a 4th time. My plan was to call the bank, or drop in, Tuesday afternoon and see what was going on with my card. My plan changed when my mail arrived Tuesday morning.

There was a letter for my from Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), my bank. In it was a new RBC bank card. One of those pieces of shit with chip technology that I was happy NOT to have. They were pleased to inform enclose my new client card and to inform me that I had to start using it immediately as my existing card was no longer valid. The fucktards CANCELLED my old card while this one was STILL in the fucking mail! It arrived activated.

Needless to say I was more than a little pissed off. It was just luck that I wasn't using my old card in a store. Or that I wasn't in need of the cash at the time. While I have already given them a piece of my mind I am considering closing up my account and going elsewhere. Probably Bank of Montreal (BMO).

This isn't the 1st time RBC has changed shit around on me. They once changed my bank account/plan I had with them for 14 years without asking my permission. They "phased" out the account I had, because it gave unlimited use of debit cards. In it's place they GAVE me an account that had 3 uses free a month. They never bothered to see WHAT kind of account I wanted. I only kept this account because it was more convenient than opening a new one when I went to Korea. Now that I am home, and their service is as shitty as ever, it is time to look elsewhere.

I was happy not to have one of these cards and am not happy to have one foisted on me.

Oh and another note to you fucktards at RBC the "speed and convenience" of the card which you crow about in the pamphlet you mailed me is a crock of shit. It was faster and more convenient to simply swipe a card and not have to insert it and wait.

Added May 4th 2012

I was talking with one of my nieces today and the same thing happened to her boyfriend this week. Unfortunately for him, he was paying for gas after filling up and doesn't have a credit card. Luckily, someone else was with him who could pay for it.

This cinches my decision. I am closing out my RBC account after my next pay and moving everything to BMO.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012


When I was at my heaviest I never saw myself that way. It isn't that I saw myself as being thin or even normal sized. I just never saw myself as being morbidly obese. Instead, I just saw myself as fat. Even when the evidence otherwise was looking at me in the mirror. It is funny how you can find reasons to deceive yourself. I could still touch my toes and tie my shoes. Ergo, there was no severe weight problem.

Now that I have dumped a LOT of weight it is the opposite. Ok, dumped diminishes what I have done. I did the work to shed it. Now I still see myself as extremely morbidly obese. I am not. Mind you I still have a ways to go. But when I think of myself I see me as morbidly obese.

It is strange how we deceive ourselves. When I should have seen the worst I didn't. When I should see the work I have done I don't.