Well, it's nice to be back from our little Canadian Rockies roadtrip, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the relative ease of having two young kids stuck in the back of our minivan for hours on end. It's actually been a while since we've ventured on a "real" trip, having been scared off in the past when Kate and I took a 10 month old (and very busy) Hannah to the Alps for 4 weeks (note: if anyone is thinking of doing something similar, please talk to me first - I hate saying this, but there is apparently some value to things like Disney Cruises afterall).
Anyway, the trip was marvelous, and being once somewhat of an outdoorsy man, it was just great to see some serious scenary again. So, here, in no apparent order are some notes and ramblings from the trip which I'll weakly connect to something of a scientific nature:
Boy, did we get to see a lot of pretty scenary. Not the truly exemplary kind you get from investing in a 6 hour hike, but the still worthy kind you're capable of when you have a two and four year old who can spend hours arguing over whose turn it is to look into one of those ergonomic looking binoculars. The kind of binoculars, you'll discover (should you be fool enough to pay), which only last exactly 45 seconds, a timeframe which I think is strategically chosen because it's not quite enough time to let your child settle in and find something to look at. Plus, why don't these things ever have a footstool?
But I digress - back to the mountains. Let me just say that if you ever do find yourself in the Canadian Rockies, please do check out Lake Louise, and Jasper in particular. They really are quite spectacular and I say this as someone who has seen a lot of mountains and doesn't impress easily. It's funny, but because Ben (Cohen) and I had started a post on mountain top removal (here and here), I kept thinking about the prospect of eliticism in mountain culture. I.e. are these mountains (because they happen to be protected by UNESCO) more important than the ones in Virginia? Are the ones in Virginia not pretty enough to protect?
Anyway, I should note that in the 5 or so years, since I was last in the area, the glaciers did look smaller, which of course is a shame because it's one of those things that represent to me the unsettling reality of this thing called global warming, and also a shame because my son, in particular, was quite enamoured by their striking presence ("we go there?" he would often ask, pointing at some massive ice pack).
Whilst driving through Calgary (one of the purposes of the trip was to say hi to Kate's brother, who lives there), I saw the funniest thing. It was a military museum, complete with tanks and the like outside, and a sign that read "UNIQUE CHILDREN'S BIRTHDAY PARTIES!" Unique indeed.
Well, no trip through the rockies would be complete without some good old fashion zoology. Here are a few picks from the many animals we saw (Calgary also has a world class zoo, for those into that sort of thing):
From the left, you can see that we saw a Tyrannosaurus Rex (note Hannah is still unaware of the impending situation, whereas Ben is acutely aware of what's going on), some slightly disfigured gnomes, and a mystery creature, whom the kids couldn't agree on whether it was a rabbit or a squirrel, so in a symbolic gesture of compromise, we decided to name the creature a "Squabbit," after my "Rarrel" suggestion was soundly overruled. I wonder if Carolus Linnaeus had similar episodes of discourse?
On any extended trip, I usually pack with me a few magazines - notably the Economist, the New Yorker, as well as the latest People (yes, I am a well rounded guy). Anyway, the New Yorker had a really interesting piece on the current debate surrounding the status of the planets in our solar system, whereby the definition of a planet is by and large one that is based on cultural nuances.
"'The concept of a planet is also part of the mental geography of the world around us. Pluto doesn't fit as a piece of science, but it does culturally. Initially, I thought, We can't have it this way, we can't have culture determine such questions. Then I thought, There are places where science reigns, and others where culture does. Science doesn't have to win this one.'"
The article (by Alex Wilkinson) is a good read and primarily focuses on a Michael E. Brown (quoted above), a professor of planetary astronomy at the California Institute of Technology, and his methods as well as the interesting plotline revolving planet status and planet discovery (he apparently got sort of scooped by a Spanish group who found info through google enabling them to declare credit in an unethical manner). Anyway, the jist of the article submits that depending on a ruling coming up in Sept 2006, he could be one of the key individuals credited with the discovery of the tenth planet (known technically as 2003 UB313 or non-technically as "Planet X") - he could also be credited with as many as 13 other new planets depending (again) on the accepted definition of a planet.
Anyway, when I was chatting with my daughter about this, we primarily talked about what we would name the new planet if we were so blessed with that option, and of course, if Hannah was to have her way, the tenth planet would be called "Princess." Which is actually nicely ironic, because 2003 UB313, or Planet X's current nickname is "Xena."
and finally
Or really, the situation where the author and his children learn a neat photography trick that is repeated, perhaps, much too often since we happen to have dozens and dozens of similar pictures from this outing. Thank goodness for digital photography.
Anyway, I noticed coming back that the World's Fair got two nods from Boingboing, and one today from The Morning News. Hopefully, all the new visitors enjoyed their time here, and will stick around (like a vacation even).
Alright, back on track...
- Log in to post comments
Hey, I just finished that same 10th planet article. I was struck by this enchanting observation by Brown, the astronomer:
How about that? What a great line.
Plus, that Wilkinson guy, the author, is on a streak, since he has another fascinating article in the July 31 issue, "The Lobsterman," about local knowledge and marine biology. I'm guessing we'll have a post on that soon here. That one's not on-line, though an interview with Wilkinson about writing it is.
Just picked up the New Yorker, you mentioned. Looking forward to reading Mr. Wilkinson's piece. I sometimes wonder, how does a science-writer get into the hallowed halls of the New Yorker? Mr Wilkinson? Mr Groopman? Ms. Kolbert? Mr. Gladwell?
I think it's about the New Yorker always having an eye towards well-rounded relevance. I'm not a reg'lar reader, but have always noticed it covers a lot of bases, even as it maintains a central demeanor.
It's kind of a High Brow cultural melting pot of a magazine, which is what gives it such staying power. IMO anyhow.
Nice post. I don't usually make it through people's vacation takes, but this looked like my kind of fun.