Ever wonder where the name for 1000 Island dressing comes from? One theory is that it originated in this area of New York at the Ontario border. Here is the Wikipedia entry on the area.
Lot more pictures to see here.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
The second and third photos are of Boldt Castle. It is only partially finished because Boldt’s wife died and he didn’t have any further interest in the property.
Great area to visit.
Sweet Sassy Molassy! I now know where I’m going to spend my “fairytale” lotto winnings…on my new residence in pic #1, Alex.
PFFT! LAME!
I bet they can’t get DSL or cable. They are stuck with satellite. HAHA. All that money and they can’t play online games.
I’d rather live in a trailer park with broadband.
>>I’d rather live in a trailer park with broadband.
Well, half your dream has come true. Now you just need to turn in some empty cans and bottles for the deposit so you can get that broadband. Dumpster ho, young man!
Looks like the 30,000 Islands of Georgian Bay – only a lot smaller.
I think we should continue to pave paradise and put up parking lots – and mansions for rich people, of course.
Wow!! These must really have been beautiful before those houses were built. Are there any of the 1,000 left that are still unspoiled?
that is really cool would love to live there
And what happens when the oceans rise, hmmmmmm? Oh well, thats just a myth anyway.
#8 mark
“And what happens when the oceans rise, hmmmmmm? Oh well, thats just a myth anyway.”
So far anyway, the water from the Great Lakes flows towards the ocean.
9. oops.
I was just up there for a wedding at Alexandria Bay, and it is a truly lovely sight, particularly in the early morning as the mist rises from the waters. I only wish I had access to a boat with which to explore the islands.
#1
“It is only partially finished because Boldt’s wife died and he didn’t have any further interest in the property.”
If it were to men, these islands would have been left unspoiled but their trophy wives want to be princesses in their pretty castle…
Oh, please – with this “unspoiled” idiocy.
Oh, that’s right, I forgot, humans not naked and living in caves are evil. Anything constructed for those evil, unnatural beings imported from some other planet “spoils” the place.
This anti-human bigotry (and that’s exactly what it is) is pathetic. If you hate yourself so much, go shoot yourself. The rest of us, some of whom actually understand that humans are 100% completely, utterly as natural and as much an integral part of the biosphere as anything else, will not miss you.
Because SOME humans do stupid or destructive things, therefore ALL humans are bad – but nature, of which humans are in no way a part, is good and virtuous, including brain-eating amoeba, tsunamis, parasitic wasps, and so on.
Talk about anthropomorphising! Talk about prejudice and stereotypes!
I’m willing to bet you idiots watched Bambi one too many times as children. Liberal self-hate taken to it’s absurd extreme, projected on the entire species and proudly promoted as a virtue.
You’re really fucked up. You might as well join that bunch of psychos that wants to eliminate humankind, you’re not that far from them, philosophically.
The things that natural creatures create are beautiful. Intricate webs built by spiders, ingenuous dams built by beavers – and artistic and beautiful habitations in fabulous natural settings, built by humans. All artifacts of beings that evolved on this planet to build those very things.
And if you can’t grasp that, I pity you.
Lauren, we are one with nature, and sometimes I feel we are as an invading virus, sweeping a broad path of destruction during our pitifully brief moment on our Earth, leaving Her stronger, tougher and better able to withstand the depredations of the next so-called dominant species. I would imagine the dinosaurs stunk up their bog holes quite a bit before their big moment under the falling rock.
Just a small observation from the inside of my small, snug, broad band equipped house trailer.
Lauren,
Like a neutered dog, you just don’t get it.
Yes, humans are part of nature. Everything we do is part of nature. We quite literally cannot break the laws of nature.
However, we also depend on the biosphere in order to survive. And yet, the things we do to the biosphere threaten the habitability of the planet, especially for ourselves.
It is true that a beaver dam built by beavers for beavers’ purposes are no more natural than a human dam built by humans for humans’ purposes.
The difference is in magnitude. What we as a species do to the biosphere has huge and far reaching consequences. Perhaps if there were just 6 million humans on the planet rather than 6 billion, we would not cause the problems we do. Perhaps if we left more places untouched by us, the biosphere could continue to provide the services that sustain our own lives.
However, there are 6.6 billion of us here. And, we have covered every inch of habitable space on the planet. And, we are causing huge destruction through our own actions.
And, we should know better.
So, yes, I find the places in the world most beautiful that have the fewest humans and the least human impact. The above scenes do not show such a place.
M Scott, melad – until you have put another couple decades of real-world experience behind you, and go a good bit deeper and farther afield into existential philosophy, you are still parroting American-style PC liberal extremist ideology, not thoughtfully-considered, independently arrived-at positions that you can provide factual support for.
This childish, make-believe allegory pitting humanity “against” the environment is as absurd as most religious beliefs – because in a way, it IS a religious belief. We do not “spoil” or “pollute” anything – SOME of us produce, concentrate, distribute substances that are in some particular way, nonbeneficial or harmful to ourselves and to other lifeforms we value. This is unwise and should cease. No intelligent and sane person can dispute that. But irrational human motives cause these activities to not be given the attention they should receive. Some incredibly disproportionately rich (and therefore disproportionately influential) individuals and groups shortsightedly deny, honestly or dishonestly, the deleterious effects of their actions, in order to satisfy their emotional desires. Mr. Raymond would have more hundreds of millions of dollars, if the price is lowering the quality of life of every person on Earth by .00001% per annum. He thinks it’s a fair tradeoff, and he’s in a position to act on it. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
But, returning to my rant, you (collectively speaking) are so thoroughly immersed in the Pathetic Fallacy that you’re as a fish, oblivious to water. The Earth doesn’t “want” anything. There is no “good” or “proper” state of things on this planet except relative to an arbitrarily chosen set of conditions. We, species-centrically, falsely assume that the way things are right now is how things “should” be. This is nonsense. At some point in this planet’s history, it will be a barren rock, at another the entire crust was molten; neither one of these periods, any more than the current one, is “right” or “good” – except for what is the primary concern of humankind, which is whether or not conditions are conducive to our lifeform.
What political ideologues such as yourself are too simplistic to grasp is that, should we, say, replace all the O2 in the atmosphere with CO, the planet will adjust. Some lifeforms would go extinct, others would thrive. The planet simply does not care.
Conditions requisite to human survival, however, would no longer prevail – and THAT is what matters. Not to the Earth – to US.
Whatever “we” do to the Earth is merely one more of the virtually-infinite number of things “done” to it by what we, making a fallacious dichotomy, refer to as ‘natural forces’. We too are natural forces, the sole difference being that as conscious, sentient and autonomous beings, we can direct, to a degree, the forces we exert on the other components of the biosphere.
“Polluting” the Earth? More nonsense. There’s no such thing. Radioactive waste from human-built reactors is existentially no different from methane from cow flatulence. It’s merely a product of a particular form of animal life. Cows produce methane. It is a natual substance, as are cyanide, uranium and cobra venom. We, however, should we wish to continue to exist as a species, need to take whatever steps necessary in order that we not be exposed to these substances, among many others. To methane-breathing lifeforms that may conceivably arrive here someday, oxygen and nitrogen might be deadly toxins, but they’re not – to us, so we should work to ensure that they continue to constitute their present proportions in the atmosphere.
One species’ toxin is another’s food. It’s ALL RELATIVE. And we, in our natural duty to the species to which we belong, are collectively supposed to do what we can to keep the environment, firstly, hospitable to US. That would include not spewing CFCs, CO, radioactive gasses, etc, etc, into our shared atmosphere for one instance.
This is to be done, not out of a “duty” to the planet – which doesn’t care – but to our species, which does. Or should.
Your ends are the ones we (should) all share – but the process by which you arrive at them is political, emotional and subjective. You need to replace that with objective scientific determination.
#17 – Lauren,
M Scott, melad – until you have put another couple decades of real-world experience behind you, and go a good bit deeper and farther afield into existential philosophy, you are still parroting American-style PC liberal extremist ideology, not thoughtfully-considered, independently arrived-at positions that you can provide factual support for.
If you want someone to read your post, you don’t start it with this sort of arrogant bullshit. It’s possible I’m older than you. My post is the result of a lot of thought and a lot of travel to the remaining natural places of the world. I’ll let you know if I decide to read the rest of your post later. So far, I can’t get past your extremely patronizing tone.
Oops, I just reread the first sentence of my own last post to you. I’ll read yours when I get a chance.
#17 – Lauren,
The Earth doesn’t “want” anything. There is no “good” or “proper” state of things on this planet except relative to an arbitrarily chosen set of conditions.
The earth is a rock, and hence non-living. When did I say that earth wanted something? I spoke of the biosphere on which we depend. This is truth. We do. And, when we create chemical compounds that did not previously exist, despite the propensity of chemicals to combine in various ways, and these chemicals cause irreparable harm to the ecosystem on which we and much other life depend, this is bad. And, since this is something we do as a species, regardless of the driving forces, it is our species and our species alone that has the responsibility for this.
That it may be a few induhviduals rather than a large number choosing to do so, does not change the fact that it is humans and human greed causing this. Would chimps do the same if they could? Probably, but we actually do.
At some point in this planet’s history, it will be a barren rock, at another the entire crust was molten; neither one of these periods, any more than the current one, is “right” or “good” – except for what is the primary concern of humankind, which is whether or not conditions are conducive to our lifeform.
Why are humans the only lifeform that matters? This seems highly speciesist and human centric to me. I believe the biosphere should be kept in tact because I don’t want to be a catastrophic event. Oops. Too late. We humans are already a catastrophe. We have already caused a mass extinction greater than the one that took out the non-avian dinosaurs. I have a moral problem with this. You appear not to. Or, you seem content to blame other humans without recognizing that you are making use of the products that caused it in your daily life. Take some responsibility!
From your own link, BTW:
The pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy is the description of inanimate natural objects in a manner that endows them with human feelings, thoughts and sensations.
Other species are not inanimate. So, this is a completely unrelated topic. I did not claim that we were harming the rock on which we live. I claim we are harming the biosphere on which humans and many other species depend. Biosphere means life. It specifically and deliberately excludes inanimate objects.
“Polluting” the Earth?
Sure, argue that I’m immature and inexperience due to words I didn’t say. Try reading my post again.
One species’ toxin is another’s food. It’s ALL RELATIVE.
Well, sort of. When a species evolves to eat plastic and PCBs, that may become true. From any time frame relevant to us here today, this is simply and patently false.
This is to be done, not out of a “duty” to the planet – which doesn’t care – but to our species, which does. Or should.
Wrong. We have a self-interest in taking the actions you propose. We have a duty to the many other species on the planet that we are driving to extinction. One does not have a moral obligation to oneself.
Your ends are the ones we (should) all share – but the process by which you arrive at them is political, emotional and subjective. You need to replace that with objective scientific determination.
So, we come to the same conclusion. However, you do so, only if science says it is necessary for us and only for us. I have morals that go beyond our species. Morals are emotional. However, they are real and valid. You might want to buy a few next time the market is low. Oh wait. It’s low now. Nearly everyone is selling.
Great Gobs of Hornie Toads !! You guys sure know how to throw out a philosophical diatribe over a few pictures !
I’m sticking with my own phallacies…all puns intently thought out but, delivered in spite of that.
#13
“If you hate yourself so much, go shoot yourself. The rest of us, some of whom actually understand that humans are 100% completely, utterly as natural and as much an integral part of the biosphere as anything else, will not miss you.”
Apart from the French, where else have you seen men fuck up virgin landscape to build the castle of their dreams?
“fuck up”
Building beautiful, purposeful structures to improve the human experience of life? To refer back to my previous examples – do you eradicate spiderwebs everywhere you see them? Because, by your definition, they “fuck up” the “virgin landscape” they’re built in.
You children are apparently incapable of grasping the concept that we evolved on this planet. It is ours. We are not invaders.
“virgin landscape”
Last time I looked, uncountable millions upon millions of square miles – in a fabulous variety of settings – exist for your enjoyment, free of any sign of the existence of those evil humans.
Uninformed as you obviously are, you apparently never noticed that, in the U.S., f’rinstance, 98% + of the land is unoccupied.
“to build the castle of their dreams”
Living in mud huts – or better, caves – is more “noble”, right? Humans shouldn’t utilize human intelligence to improve their quality of life, is that it?
We have not only every bit as much right to this planet as any species – we also have the right, by virtue of our preëminent intelligence and self-awareness, to responsibly, intelligently modify it to our purposes.
We are the dominant species. Being the dominant species bestows upon us the right to be what we already are – the dominant species.
And please spare all of us the red herrings. Wanton misappropriation, abuse and destruction of resources which belong to humanity as a whole does NOT constitute responsible, intelligent modification of the environment, and is NOT to our species’ long-term collective benefit – so please don’t bother trying to insinuate that anyone here (except iGW) condones it.
#23 – Lauren,
We have not only every bit as much right to this planet as any species – we also have the right, by virtue of our preëminent intelligence and self-awareness, to responsibly, intelligently modify it to our purposes.
This argument is exactly the argument behind Eminent Domain with the religion removed. Your glorification of humanity well beyond what it deserves has almost a religious fervor without the dogma to make it a true religion.
Being the dominant species does not convey rights. It conveys moral responsibility, especially in light of the intelligence you love to cite.
Get over yourself. Humans aren’t special, unless it’s especially bad. We do not have a right to dominate the biosphere. We have a responsibility to protect it. There are other sentiences on this planet as well. Do we, by virtue of our thumbs, have the right to eradicate them? Do we, by virtue of our advanced weaponry, have a right to destroy that upon which we depend for our lives? Do we, by virtue of our thumbs, have the right to decimate everything in our paths? Though you do not advocate such behavior, you do seem to think it is within our right.
I disagree.
That does not make me a child. It makes me moral.