Reeling in the years. . . .

I've saved this old copy of the Baton Rouge State-Times -- carefully wrapped by my 8-year-old self in a garbage bag labeled "20th century" -- for 40 years now.

THE NEWS of July 22, 1969 reflects an undertaking of historic, transcendent wonder amid a world in chaos. At least people then had enough perspective to recognize wonder when they encountered it.

This probably was because the Internet -- and right-wing talk radio -- did not yet exist. If it did, the moon landing probably would have been roundly condemned as a budget-buster conceived by a member of the evil Kennedy clan, the youngest of which had just driven Mary Jo Kopechne off a bridge and into a watery grave near Martha's Vineyard, Mass.

THE LOUDEST dissenting voices probably would have been the parents of these yahoos in Delaware.

Of course, it's important to remember that the stupidity we find ourselves awash in these days is not the exclusive domain of the red-meat right. The left has its nuts, cranks and flakes, too, and they likewise have access to the Internet and other forms of mass media.

Like the ABC Television Network.

Verily, Whoopi Goldberg is proof positive that one can fall out of the stupid tree, hit every branch on the way down and still manage to cobble together a successful career in "entertainment."

I HOPE Walter Cronkite -- somehow, somewhere in the Great Beyond -- has some idea of how much he will be missed.

Greatness: Much cheaper than avarice

When I was two months and one day old -- May 25, 1961 -- President Kennedy declared that the United States would shoot for the moon. Literally.

The goal was unimaginably complex for all its stated simplicity. Kennedy declared the country should "commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

What American, in the midst of an existential struggle with the Soviet Union, could be against beating the Russkies to the moon? To achieving mankind's greatest feat?

A STORY TODAY by The Associated Press answers that question:

"I thought he was crazy," said Chris Kraft, when he heard Kennedy's speech about landing on the moon.

Kraft was head of Mission Control. He was the man responsible for guiding astronauts to orbit (which hadn't been done yet) and eventually to the moon. Kraft first heard about a mission to the moon when Kennedy made the speech.

"We saw that as Buck Rogers stuff, rather than reality that would be carried out in any time period that we were dealing with," Kraft recently told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Houston.

Less than three months later, Kraft was in the White House explaining to the president just how landing on the moon would be done. Kraft still didn't believe it would work.

"Too many unknowns," he said.

It was the Cold War and Russian Yuri Gagarin had just become the first man in space. Kennedy chose landing a man on the moon because experts told him it was the one space goal that was so distant and complicated at the time that the United States could catch up and pass the Soviet Union, Kennedy adviser Ted Sorensen said.

The idea in a world where American capitalism was pitted against Soviet communism on a daily basis was "to prove to the world which system was best, which one was the future," Sorensen said.

"It's not just the fact that the president wanted it done," Sorensen recalled. "It was the fact that we had a specific goal and a specific timetable."

In another speech, Kennedy famously said America would go to the moon and try other tasks "not because they were easy, but because they were hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills."

They weren't just skills with rockets and slide rules. Bringing together countless aerospace companies, engineers, scientists, technicians, politicians and several NASA centers around the nation was a management challenge even more impressive than building the right type of rockets, said Smithsonian Institution space scholar Roger Launius.

And it cost money. The United States spent $25.4 billion on the Apollo program, which translates to nearly $150 billion in current dollars — less than the U.S. spent in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007.

IN TODAY'S MONEY, it cost us $150 billion to figure out how to get to the moon and back, then actually get to the moon and back. Several times. That first moon landing, during the mission of Apollo 11, came 40 years ago today.

The greatest feat humanity has ever pulled off, to put it another way, cost 3.19 percent -- again, in today's dollars -- of what it has cost us so far to bail out this country's financial sector. The financial sector. it must be noted, that precipitated the worst economic crisis the world has endured since the Great Depression.

The Apollo program . . . $150,000,000,000.

Bailing out a bunch of Wall Street swells who, of late, have taken taxpayers' money and gone back to business as usual: $4,700,000,000,000.

I think that says about all there is to say about the kind of country we were 40 years ago -- and the kind of country we are now.

Man on the moon

If you don't hear this week's episode of 3 Chords & the Truth, there's a good reason for that. There isn't one . . . but just for this week.

Instead of doing the Big Show, I'm on the moon. It's July 1969, and once again I am 8 1/2 years old. Walter Cronkite is delivering the big news on CBS -- if you have to ask what the big news is, something's wrong with you -- and I'm sitting in front of the big Magnavox console TV watching history.

Some say 1969 was a time of turmoil. It was.

BUT THANKS to men like Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin and Michael Collins -- the crew of Apollo 11 -- it is easier for us children of the Space Age to remember the '60s as a time of wonder. Greatness is strapping an entire planet onto your Saturn V rocket and carrying it with you to another world, allowing us to transcend our baser instincts, overcome our petty squabbles and fears -- even if only for a week or so.

Compared to such magic, all the ugliness that is our earthly stock and trade couldn't stand a chance.

People say America's best days are behind her. That might be so; it probably is so. I was blessed, however, to live when they weren't. When Americans reached for the stars, and men made it to the moon.

We as a nation once did these things, and my generation always will hold the memory of them close to our hearts.

Dammit, the doctor told me to cuss!

F***ing-A! You damn well know this MSNBC report hits the son-of-a-b****ing nail on the f***ing head!

Peggy Loper doesn’t know why, but she’s sure that the rapid hissed repetition of her favorite expletive somehow dulls the pain when she’s hammered her thumb rather than the nail she’d aimed for.

“Generally I start swearing even before the pain actually registers,” says the 48-year-old student from Salem, N.J. “And usually, the ouch-ouch dance, where I’m hopping from foot to foot, goes along with it. People have told me that I should try deep breathing, but I personally prefer to swear.” The F-bomb is her curse word of choice; that hard consonant at the end is particularly satisfying, she explains.

As it turns out, Loper may be right. British scientists have shown that swear words can have a powerful pain-killing effect, according to a new study published in the journal NeuroReport.

The researchers originally thought that swearing would make pain worse by focusing a person’s attention on the injury and its implications. To prove their hypothesis, they set up an experiment with 67 college students.

The students were asked to plunge their hands into frigid 41-degree Fahrenheit water for as long as they could stand the pain. Half were told to repeat their favorite curse word while their hands were submerged. The other half were asked to repeat a neutral word describing a table, such as solid or brown, while keeping their hands under water. Then the whole experiment was repeated with the two groups switching types of word. (Favorite swear words were, as you might guess, the ones starting with "F" and "S." But since the subjects were British, the researchers also got an earful of "bollocks.")

SO, THERE. Honey, I'm not a white-trashy, vulgar, low-class person. I am just withstanding pain -- of both the physical and mental varieties -- in a rational, systematic and medically appropriate manner.

If you don't like what you hear when I've stubbed my toe (or have just gotten off the phone with my mother), remember that I'm just doing what needs to be done. So back the @#!$ off!

H1N1? Or could it be. . . ?

Whom does the Centers for Disease Control think it's fooling with these newly released "pictures" of the H1N1 "swine flu" virus?

If the gummint scientists want to post pictures of the virus . . . then post some actual photos of the H1N1 virus. But to post baby pictures of Ben Grimm -- a.k.a., The Thing -- and try to pass them off as swine-flu candid shots is just insulting to Americans' intelligence.

Yeah, they told their significant others they were working late at the laboratory. But I think they just went and gorged on hot wings and got plastered on cheap domestic beer.

Anyway, here's a snapshot of the all-grown-up Thing -- ready for "clobberin' time." Just like the flu.

With Science on Our Side

The trouble with reporters comes when they don't know what they don't know.

COME TO THINK of it, that's the same trouble Pope Benedict XVI is trying to warn people about when it comes to putting undue faith in "science." Basically, the pope is trying to say that science is a grand thing when it's limited to its areas of competence.

The human heart and soul are not among these.

And it's when the pope starts to speak of such things -- and of the limitations of scientific competence -- that it really becomes obvious that, also, there are limits to the competence of journalists. Well, obvious to lots of people but, sadly, not to one Reuters reporter, who just doesn't get it at all:

Pope Benedict warned on Monday of the "seductive" powers of science that relegate man's spirituality, reviving the science-versus-religion debate which recently forced him to cancel a speech after student protests.

"In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it's more important than ever to educate our contemporaries' consciences so that science does not become the criteria for goodness," he told scientists.

Scientific investigation should be accompanied by "research into anthropology, philosophy and theology" to give insight into "man's own mystery, because no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going," the Pope said.

(snip)

The Pope reiterated a plea, made in many speeches since he was elected in 2005, for mankind to be "respected as the centre of creation" and not relegated by more short-term interests.

But the conservative German-born Pope's public stand on issues such as abortion and embryonic stem-cell research lead critics to accuse him of holding antiquated views on science.

WHAT SCIENCE vs. religion debate? Saying that science is not well suited to diagnose the longings of the human heart and the troubles of the human soul isn't exactly a reprise of the Scopes "monkey trial." It's just stating the obvious -- some things belong to the realms of philosophy and theology.

And anyone who has a problem with that just doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Of course, the Reuters guy isn't the first member of the Fourth Estate to epitomize the Peter Principle. Last night, I was watching the last half of "No Direction Home," Martin Scorsese's public-TV biopic of Bob Dylan. Trust me, there's not much funnier than the press putting its utter cluelessness on display (above) before the world -- and Mr. Dylan -- in 1965.

Google "Dylan" "press conference" and "1965" and watch the whole thing. You won't be sorry you did.