Nightline have just changed their planned broadcast for tonight. They're shelving a piece on North Korea for an interview with Tom Ridge on why the domestic security alert level was raised to "orange" today.

Here's the Nightline advisory:

Nightline's focus for tonight's broadcast has changed, due to breaking news.

The White House raised the national terror alert this afternoon from yellow to orange, the second-highest level in the color-coded system. Attorney General John Ashcroft cited an "increased likelihood" that al-Qaeda would attack Americans, either at home or abroad. The change in the terror alert status has already triggered some increased security precautions at the federal and local levels.

The Attorney General warned that apartment buildings, hotels or other "lightly secured targets" in the United States could be vulnerable. He added that terrorists might seek "economic targets, including the transportation and energy sectors, as well as symbolic targets and symbols of American power."

A broad description, to say the least. So, how should you or I change how we conduct our lives? And what is different about the conversations U.S. intelligence officials are eavesdropping on these days? What triggered this?

Ted Koppel will talk with the Secretary of the newly created Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, tonight.

According to the Washington Post today, the GAO said it wouldn't appeal against the ruling preventing it from holding Dick Cheney's energy taskforce accountable over who had attended policy meetings - information that should certainly be made public probably under FEC disclosure rules, so citizens can match the list of attendees up with Republican donors and draw their own conclusions.

As the GAO chairman says, and I paraphrase, the ruling will severely weaken the GAO's oversight role and effectively redraws the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

Ah well.... so much for a massive public outcry. Everyone's still talking about the Michael Jackson documentary the other night. What a circus. Just freakin' creepy... we couldn't take our eyes off it. What does that say about us as an audience? And his record sales are soaring as a result. What's wrong with THIS picture?

Oh - did anyone notice during CNN's live coverage of Colin Powell's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations committee the other day, that as Powell was talking they cut away to a two-shot of John Kerry and Chris Dodd talking, apparently ignoring Powell?
Not sure if it was intended to portray them as disrespectful, but it gave me that feeling briefly.

Bold move by Tony Blair to submit himself to a public grilling on BBC's Newsnight , and on the whole he came out of it ok. Not too clear how randomly selected the members of the studio audience were, but they did a pretty good job in putting him off guard and articulating the fears of the wider population over terror and war against Iraq.

Too bad for Blair it came at the same time as the govenment had to admit it had plagiarised a PhD thesis written about a decade ago when it put together its dossier of why Iraq poses a direct threat to the UK.

Comment

My good friend, political cartoonist Joe Sharpnack writes about yesterday's post:

"When the Challenger exploded in 1986, we realised that we had been taking technology for granted, and it hit home - maybe for the first time - that what appears routine is actually a highly perilous endeavour..."

Steve, do you really think this is true? I don't think there's one tech at NASA who doesn't spit shine his toothbrush. Those people know they're dealing with fire and sometimes accidents can happen. They're well aware of how dangerous it is. But if you want to go to the moon there are risks involved. Accident. That's all I see here.

-Joe

To which I replied:

I think we're on the same page. When I said "we" were taking technology for granted, I meant the great, non-techie populace, who had become so blase about the space program to the point where the networks weren't even carrying shuttle launches live anymore, let alone landings.

That's partly why the loss of Christa McAuliffe in 1986 was so devastating, since in part that mission was designed to reconnect Nasa and the idea of space exploration with a public that had become jaded, and had even been questioning the expenditure.

I agree that this weekend's terrible loss was a complete accident; but given that Nasa were aware of the potential damage from that debris during the launch, at some point a decision had to have been taken whether or not to abort the mission, presumably before the shuttle left earth atmosphere.

The outcome was obviously that the damage didn't pose enough of a threat to the craft to warrant calling off the trip. Perhaps it's that part of the decision-making process at Nasa that will now be particularly closely reviewed.

Comment?

Terribly sad day, following the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its crew.

When the Challenger exploded in 1986, we realised that we had been taking technology for granted, and it hit home - maybe for the first time - that what appears routine is actually a highly perilous endeavour, with - at its heart - a deep human cost.

As we rush seemingly headlong towards war, maybe this is the moment to stop and reflect on a comment made by Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli astronaut, who was lost yesterday; when he said that from space the world is so small it's hard to tell where one country ends and another begins.

Comment