Travel book review: Let's Take the Kids to London (4th ed)

Disclosure:  I received a free copy of this book with the expectation that I would provide an honest review.
Having traveled to Europe several times (including to London) with our own children (aged 8 and 10 at the time), we have a pretty good idea of how to see London with kids.  We can enthusiastically recommend this book as not just a great guide for taking kids to London as well as a valuable resource for planning any trip with children.  It will certainly help the travelling family get the best experience for their money.
The book is laid out in typical guidebook fashion, with sites grouped by theme (parks, museums, history, etc.) with each site briefly described with good comments on its value (some are described as tacky, which is certainly true) as well as a summary of hours, cost, transport, and other details.  This book has few pictures and is printed in black, white and pink.  It reminds us of the format used by Fodor’s.
The author suggests a couple walking tours which are well-designed.
A couple things that the author left out which we think are helpful:  At Westminster Abbey, they have a kid’s scavenger hunt that really keeps the kids occupied while helping the adults (who are helping the kids) really see the detail of this magnificent building.
Our criticism would be that in an effort to avoid publishing actual prices (which admittedly can change quickly) for various attractions, he has only provided a qualitative statement (e.g. Moderate, Expensive) without providing a range of what these costs might be.  However, these comments are enough to give you a general idea of cost, especially in relation to others.  Since he has provided web addresses for most locations, the prudent traveler can check prices ahead of time at home.
It’s certainly worth spending some time to get the kids of the couch for a few weeks before your trip to exercise so they can keep up with the walking. It would be useful to discuss culture and history before you go in order to appreciate and put things in context.

The more general travel tips at the back of the book provides great suggestions and well-learned tips on how to plan for execute a trip.  Chapters on Money, Internet and phones, British terminology and transport are useful for anyone making their first trip to the UK—with or without kids.

You used to have to do something to get a ship named after yourself

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10374860-new-navy-ship-named-after-gabrielle-giffords

 

This reeks of many things—none of them good.

Origins, Part Deux.

After my previous post about the origin of the Universe, my friend posited:
"I'm not sure that the "beginning" of our universe is necessarily the beginning of "creation" as many cosmologists believe that there may be many equivalents to our "universe" (despite its "uni-" name) and that some of these exist concurrent to our own and some predated it.
This, then, does not necessarily mandate a creator for this particular time-space existence."
 
I have heard similar lines of argumentation before--supposing that there are many universes and so even if there was a divine creator of this universe, that it doesn't explain the origin of other universes.  While this sounds sophisticated, it merely kicks the philosophical question down the road.  Namely:  even if we were to agree that this universe is one of may that exists in a Uber-verse (if I may coin or borrow a term), then it still begs the question, 'where did the uber-verse come from?'  This is not unlike Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA) speculating on the alien origins of DNA on earth.  The obvious question is "where did the aliens come from?"
 
I grow weary of the intellectual position that dismissis a supernatural (i.e. divine) origin of the universe a priori, and then pretend that we're having an honest conversation.  The intellectual tosses down the gauntlet:  "I challenge you to describe the origin of the universe, but you can't attribute it to a diety."  This is the intellectual equivalent of challening a man to a race, but demanding that he must remain seated during the entire race--it is simply not fair, nor is the 'victory' at the end honest.

Origins

My thought-provoking friend sent me this recent seed for thought:

"My latest tweet is a little "highbrow" but deserves a spot in the consciousness of people who wish to think of themselves as intellectuals:

'Universe from Nothing': Big Bang was a bargain

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-02-04/lawrence-krauss-universe/52951768/1"

Here is my response:

Let's be really honest: Which is a more plausible explanation for the origin of the universe (points for concept, not eloquence of words):

Option A: ""Given a big enough emptiness, enough virtual particles can pop into existence, for free, to trigger a Big Bang and start a universe. "Nothing is doing something, and not only that. It has to do something," Krauss says. " Gordon's version: if you put enough 'nothing' in one place, suddenly, it becomes 'everything'.

Option B: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gordon's version: some being beyond the laws of physics caused somethign out of nothing.

Can't we at least be honest enough to admit that Krauss's explanation really is no more 'rational' that Option B? On the one hand, you must pre-suppose a omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature---on the other hand you pre-suppose an omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature.

It's interesting that not that long ago, some philosophers liked to start with the supposition that the universe had always existed.  If there wasn't a beginning, then they didn't need to explain a beginning.  Now, virtually everyone acknowledges that the universe had a beginning, which put us back in the same intellectual boat we were in before, namely, 'if there is a beginning, how did the beginning happen?'

Interestingly, the best they can come up with is this idea that enough of 'nothing' is eventually 'everything.'  And these same people are the ones who would accuse people believing in an omnipotent Diety to be credulous.  Seriously?  It's as if the intellectual elite are sitting high in their ivory tower sneering at the unwashed masses as they declare, "Those silly prebians, still believing that the moon is made of green cheese.  Every intelligent person knows that the moon is clearly made of marshmallow fluff."  They sneer at people who believe in a diety, yet the best counter argument they can offer is some theoretical mumbo-jumbo about nothing becomming something.  (I still do not know how if all this nothingness suddenly produced everything, it doesn't just as quickly jump back to nothingness.......)

Something to think about this election year

A friend of mine sent me this great article on the sad state of political discourse in our country in election years.  It is sad that our political conversations have been whittled down to sound bites and caricatures with no room for subtlety or truly creative tension.
I can't do any justice by the article by trying to summarize or pull out highlights--since really either would be the exact sin the author (rightly) decries.

This should be required reading for the US electorate before the 18-month election season begins.