Days of Wonder. This is mostly for the reader who, in response to my posting about the asteroid landing, said something like “So what?”

Mankind’s giant leaps have become so frequent that by the end
of a week which saw two vast achievements most of us had
returned to our smaller concerns, if, indeed, we had taken much
notice of the announcements in the first place. It is an endearing
oddness of our species that while we’re landing on an asteroid
136 million miles away or learning that we have a little more than
double the genes of a fruit fly, we take our keenest satisfaction
from painting the sitting-room or reading about Tom Cruise and
Nicole Kidman. Guardian

And here’s more for the reader (perhaps the same one) who, commenting on my item about the rate of recession of the Antarctic ice cap, said said something amounting to “So What?”: Glacier Loss Seen as Clear Sign
of Human Role in Global
Warming

Studies show that the icecap atop
Mount Kilimanjaro is retreating at
such a pace that it will disappear in
less than 15 years. The vanishing is a
clear sign that a global warming trend
has exceeded typical climate shifts. New York Times

In case you were wondering, there was nothing routine about Friday’s US airstrike against Baghdad, despite Dubya’s repeatedly billing it that way. Washington Post analysts see it as signalling a get-tough approach to Baghdad. But why? Having used the bankruptcy of the Clinton administration’s Iraq policy as a campaign point, some suggest Dubya and his handlers feel they have to follow through. I think we’re going to be seeing many policy decisions being made with a view toward little more than establishing the illegitimate son’s credibility on the front pages. With love to mah pee-pulAs The New York Times puts it, Dubya is “giving
notice that he may be new to this, but he doesn’t plan to
show it.” Of course, he’s also signalling a diffidence about multilateralism. Except for Britain, which supported or, some say, even pushed the airstrike, there appears to have been a swaggering disregard for the reactions of the rest of the world, including our allies.

“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.” — Dwight
Eisenhower

Cockburn vituperative in his inimitable style: “Sneering at Bill, the press
corps has nothing much to be proud of. How come not a single
one of those high-flying, White House-connected newshounds managed
to get hold of the sensational fact, finally disclosed a couple
of weeks ago, that Bill Clinton and Al Gore hadn’t had a significant
conversational encounter in a full year? They finally had a melt-down
gripe session not long before the recent election. As always,
it turns out we know nothing about what really goes on in the
White House. George W. could be tossing back dry martinis, partying
till dawn and four years down the road we’ll still be reading
up him and Laura saying their prayers and tucked up by 10:30.” Counterpunch

Connection Personnel Quit over WBUR Rift. This most literate and au courant of radio talk shows is on my local NPR station, but many of you in other areas are probably familiar with it already, among other reasons because it had an hour on weblogging last May that’s been broadly blinked. The show has recently become nationally syndicated. Erudite host Christopher Lydon and his senior producer were suspended in a contract dispute several days ago, which is essentially about who is going to reap the benefits of the syndication. WBUR was determined not to lose control in the same way they did when Car Talk went national several years ago. The station says The Connection will go on, but without Lydon who’d listen? Key WBUR personnel agree, and have now resigned in support of preserving the show as it is/was. Even if you think he’s abit pompous at times, he rounds up the most fascinating guests and asks the right questions.

In case you were wondering, there was nothing routine about Friday’s US airstrike against Baghdad, despite Dubya’s repeatedly billing it that way. Washington Post analysts see it as signalling a get-tough approach to Baghdad. But why? Having used the bankruptcy of the Clinton administration’s Iraq policy as a campaign point, some suggest Dubya and his handlers feel they have to follow through. I think we’re going to be seeing many policy decisions being made with a view toward little more than establishing the illegitimate son’s credibility on the front pages. With love to mah pee-pulAs The New York Times puts it, Dubya is “giving
notice that he may be new to this, but he doesn’t plan to
show it.” Of course, he’s also signalling a diffidence about multilateralism. Except for Britain, which supported or, some say, even pushed the airstrike, there appears to have been a swaggering disregard for the reactions of the rest of the world, including our allies.

“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.” — Dwight
Eisenhower