Jesse Collins, and then some.

A blog dedicated to those who would rather be at the cottage.

Archive for November, 2007

The true North.

Friday, November 23rd, 2007

As if there was ever any doubt, Canada is the most beautiful country in the world.

And in a move that all of us—from every political stripe—should applaud, Stephen Harper’s government has put a plan in place to help keep it that way. From The Washington Post’s coverage of the story:

Canada’s government yesterday set aside 25 million acres of wilderness — 11 times the size of Yellowstone National Park — for conservation, a move that environmentalists called one of North America’s most important acts of nature preservation.

The RampartsA 3.7 million-acre wildlife area will be created in the Northwest Territories called the Ramparts. (Ducks Unlimited Of Canada)

Also from the Post:

“The whole scale of the boreal landscape is staggering for an American,” Joshua Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment Group, which helped shepherd the projects, said by telephone from Philadelphia. “We have a lot of what we consider vast landscapes in the West, but nothing like the boreal. You really have to fly over it — it just goes on and on.”

Yellowstone National Park, which includes land in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, is about 2.2 million acres.

The land designated yesterday “isn’t just Canada. This is a global resource and a worldwide treasure,” said Steven Kallick, the Seattle-based manager of the International Boreal Conservation Campaign for the Pew Environment Group. “It’s the largest largely intact forest left in the planet. It rivals the Amazon and Siberia in size. It’s one of the few places left in the world like it.”

Distant relatives.

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007

Occasionally, one of the masses that read the missives on this page leave comments in unrelated articles about something they see in the list of links I provide. The links that appear there are little bits and pieces that I pick up from trolling the feedreaders for things that interest me.

I rationalize that I’m looking primarily for business, productivity and design articles, but invariably I trip over things that either provoke or augment conversations that I have offline among my flesh-and-blood confreres.

And so it goes that today I’m going to feature a couple of links that I’ve recently seen. I found them both this morning, and for some reason they seem related, although distantly.

One is Jeffery Zeldman’s amazing essay Understanding Web Design—in part about how web design is for the most part misunderstood. He provides a thesis that it bears as much or more in common with architecture and typography than graphic design and illustration. And Kevin Cornell’s illustration at the top say it better than my words ever could.

And the other is New York photographer Joseph O. Holmes inspired images of silhouettes of people viewing displays at the Museum of Natural History. The body language tells us so much about how they understand what they are seeing. The images themselves are references to the act of using the architecture of the Museum to view it’s content. They are defining it, and through the photographer’s work, in turn becoming a part of it. It’s what Zeldman posits that web sites are and can be and should be. And it is absolutely beautiful.

The thread is tenuous but the connective, somehow, is there, at least for me. That thread is why I am attracted to web design. That thread contains the work I want to do.

Apologies to all those looking for more uncredited photos of bears crapping in the woods. I’ll post more like that in the very near future. Promise.

The answer to the age old question is … yes.

Saturday, November 17th, 2007

Does a bear... ?

If I was an American, a Republican and had conviction and courage, this is who I would be supporting.

Thursday, November 1st, 2007

Update: I’m out. I’m totally reversing the position I expressed in the headline of this post, which is, I suppose, why they have campaigns – so that we can learn more about candidates that we initially might admire. Turns out that, at least according to a few sources, Ron Paul might be a racist that doesn’t “accept” evolution (because it’s only a “theory”.) Ouch. I take it all back.

When I haven't been fishing, I've been looking at these on the dial-up: