The area of Siberia where the detonation took place is desolate. Frozen ground in winter, sodden swamp in summer. Expeditions into the region take place almost every year now, yet little of viable scientific evidence pointing to exactly what occurred has surfaced. From an out-of-control alien spacecraft to a geophysical event, the explanations remain rife. Some say asteroid, some claim a comet core. The most frustrating part of the research into the event must surely be the complete lack of evidence of just what did enter and vaporise. No impact crater, no believable remains, no molten extra-terrestrial rock. Only the recorded written memories of those who witnessed the event and felt it's consequences.

Flattened trees radiating out for hundreds of square kilometres from the epicentre are still seen today lying in the morass and hilliny forested terrain, evidence of the power of the occasion. At ground zero, tree trunks bereft of all branches still stand upright, charred and dead, indicative of the air burst immediately overhead. The only real measure human science has for the event is the atomic aftermath at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Apparently these Earth-meets-space events - if indeed Tunguska was a space object meeting - occur around once every 300 years, according to recorded history. Amusingly, recorded history in the grand scheme of our planet's history is so damn short on an astronomical time scale as to be irrelevant.

In the modern age, we'll be well informed of the next event, and there will be a next event, of that we can be certain. Courtesy of the NASA Near Earth Object research program, supposedly our current astronomical science will be able to tell us well in advance of any approaching armageddon. Well ... maybe. All I've ever seen in the news are the near misses. After the fact. Better to live in ignorance and die in a flash, I reckon.

Attacking Peter Garrett long distance, despite the media reporting favourably on Garrett's performance in Santiago, despite former Australian Environment and Heritage Minister, Ian Campbell, handing Garrett a laurel for his efforts when interviewed on Radio National Breakfast, Friday simply highlights that Hunt is out of touch.

According to Annabelle Crabbe, when speaking on Australia Talks, Wednesday, Greg Hunt has more positions than the Kama Sutra. Pity he's no-where near as artistic, interesting or useful.

I'm driven to wonder how many young catholic acolytes will be caught up in some kind of emotive religious fervour, and want to, or even attempt to touch the casket of this long dead Italian rich man's son? Will the dry and dusty remains be on show, or will the faithful be required to exercise that faith by simply accepting that inside whatever container the Vatican decided to send out to Australia, lies the mortal remains of an unfortunate who died of poliomyolitis 83 years ago?

Yes, I'm an aethist. I have never understood this thing called religion, the need for it to be so rigidly structured and demand so much of it's followers. I've also wondered often at the idolatry which christianity practices in holding up it's chosen as being larger in death, than they ever were in life. Apparently they were almost always no-bodies in life. Aren't we all no-bodies in life? Why should some become somebodies because organised religion says so?

Crutch of the weak-minded? Cruel, but I believe so. If you think a box of bones - if there are any bones in the box - holds something special for you, then I'm afraid you're in need of a little more than a trip to Roman Catholicism's version of the Big Day Out.

I have to say I was mildly impressed by Bill Shorten. Only mildly though. His political opposite, Greg Hunt, I found to be the evening's boofhead without any doubt. The man has no presence, no charisma and doesn't portray well on television. Every time he opened his gob, there was a foot hovering so very close. Angela Conway? Quite frankly I fail to understand why the ABC invited her onto the program. She was like vanilla icecream. Cold, soft, no flavour to speak of and easily finished with.

The standout for me was the person I thought would be a real goose. How wrong could I have been. She didn't have a lot to say, but every single time she opened her mouth, pearls dropped out. Well done, Elizabeth Ann Macgregor! You actually made a mediocre showing worth the time. Just goes to prove how wrong one can be in judging people by their professions. Although in Blairs case, I still regard such judgement as entirely accurate.

I googled for a news reference to include in this post. Second link from the top, after the Triple-J RSS link, was this one. I recognise the nom de plume from mentions on Troppo, and y'know what? I think I agree with him. I'm not sure what he's trying to say in his cut 'n' paste post, but I get the impression he'd like to have written the same.

Who said 'lefties' and 'righties' can't agree?