Yesterday was the thirty-fifth anniversary of the first manned landing on the moon. Yesterday I remembered the day, and toyed with writing something about it, but didn’t have time to do it justice. I still don’t, but I will write a little anyway.

That day is the first memory I can put a date on. I was six years old. It is hard now to know what is an actual memory from that day, and what is something that I learned from reading about the event afterwards. How much did I really understand at the time? How much have I learned later and projected back into my memory of the day? I don’t know.

I remember it as a Sunday. The actual landing was in the late afternoon, and the first walk was in the evening, around 9 or 10 PM. I got to stay up late to watch them step out of the lunar module. It was a very special day, watching TV on a Sunday, and staying up late.

I remember the tension as Armstrong and Aldrin were descending to land the lunar module. No one knew if they were going to make it or not. There might be a terrible accident. Perhaps where they landed would not be stable. Maybe they would hit too hard, disabling the lunar module. There were so many things that could go wrong, and there were so many unknowns that the landing was extremely stressful.

What prompted me to write tonight was reading a National Review article that contained something I had not heard before. President Nixon was ready to deliver a speech eulogizing the astronauts if the worst should happen and they would die in the landing attempt.

Exactly 35 years ago, on July 20, 1969, the “Eagle” landed and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon. It was a risky mission, like any great adventure into the unknown — so risky that William Safire, then a White House speechwriter, drafted a never-delivered just-in-case speech for President Richard Nixon, to tell the nation that “Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.”

It makes perfect sense to be prepared, but I had never heard this. The phrase from the speech quoted in the article is particularly stirring (I would argue that the word should be “God” or “Providence” rather than “Fate”, but I understand why they chose the word “Fate”). The parallelism of “explore in peace” and “rest in peace” is very well put. It would most likely be one of those phrases that lived on long after the speech itself, working its way into the national consciousness, like the phrase “One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.” But I am so glad that we remember Neil Armstrong’s words rather than Nixon’s eulogy.

Michael Ledeen writes the following in the National Review.

At the recent meetings in Tehran between a Syrian delegation led by President Bashar Assad and the Iranians, including Supreme Leader Khamenei and top deputies including strongman Rafsanjani, the head of intelligence Yunesi, several leading officials of the Revolutionary Guards, and Foreign Minister Kharazi, the two sides agreed on five key points:

1. A common strategy involving Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah to thwart American plans for the democratization of the Middle East;

2. Coordination of joint operations against the Coalition and the interim government in Iraq;

3. Coordination of political strategy to influence groups and countries that oppose the American presence in Iraq;

4. Planning for revenge should Israel attack Iranian nuclear, chemical or missile sites, or Syria’s chemical and missile sites, or Hezbollah bases;

5. Full cooperation to prevent the reelection of President Bush, including all possible measures (such as sabotage of oil pipelines and terminals) to drive up the price of oil.

He makes no explanation on how he knows this, but just states it as a fact, as if everyone knows this. From what I have read about Iran and Syria, it certainly seems plausible. But you think that such a meeting would be kept secret, and they would not be publicizing these five goals. Just the fact that the goals are known makes them more difficult to achieve, and so there is a strong incentive to keep them secret. So how does Ledeen know about them?

But assuming he is correct about this meeting and the goals that were agreed upon, isn’t it interesting that the leaders of Syria and Iran have agreed to try to keep Bush from being elected. It seems that for some unspecified reason they are against President Bush, but Ledeen doesn’t say who they would prefer as president. Apparently, Assad and Khamenei are not going to publicly endorse any candidate at this time. But I wonder if they have privately spoken to any of the non-Bush candidates, assuring him of their support and best wishes.

I must be rather dull tonight. I can’t make out the point Jonah Goldberg is making in his National Review article. I’m sure the problem is with me and not with his writing, but it just isn’t clicking. However, right in the middle of it, there is this gem:

[C]onsidering all the problems with young people — chief among them gratuitous exuberance and ignorance — you could claim that whoever has the most young followers is more likely to have the worse arguments. For example, I bet you anything I could destroy Milton Friedman in a debate about economics — so long as the audience was comprised of five year olds. He may have a Nobel Prize, but I can make offensive sounds with my armpit. Advantage: Goldberg!

Sorry, I can’t tell you how that fits into his thesis because I have no idea what his thesis is. (Again, that is my fault and not his.) But just like the five year olds in his example, he has won me to his argument with that statement. That probably tells you something about me.

Gunmen burst into an Indonesian church on Sunday during the service, shot the pastor to death as she was delivering the sermon, and wounded four others.

At the time the article was written, authorities did not know who was responsible or why. They go out of their way to express that they aren’t going to jump to any conclusions about who these people could have been. The even-handed article even hints that the motive might be to upset the coming elections.

The motive was not known, spokesman Batara said. “But clearly they want to disturb security as it has been relatively safe recently.”

In Jakarta, President Megawati Sukarnoputri told reporters: “I ask the public to be alert because we must maintain security and political stability ahead of the final round of the presidential election.”…

Indonesian financial markets have been nervous about possible violence during the elections.

They do admit that it could possibly be religiously motivated, but who the people are who would do such a thing is unimaginable.

Chief Security Minister Hari Sabarno told reporters the incident could spark fresh religious tension.

“This certainly will create a situation that can lead into …conflict,” he said. [Ellipsis in original]

“When the target is a religious leader from a specific religion, people may think this was done by another religion,” he said, without indicating if any specific group was suspected.

“Of course, we cannot accept that a priest who was giving a sermon be shot like that. The person who did it was inhuman.”

But there is the proverbial elephant in the living room that everyone is ignoring.

Palu is near the regency of Poso, where more than 2,000 people have died in Muslim-Christian clashes 1999 [sic].

The attack wasn’t unexpected, as the article makes clear there was a security guard on duty at the worship service.

“Five men opened fire at the front door of the Effata church after threatening the security guard,” said spokesman Victor Batara from Palu, about 1,500 km (900 miles) northeast of Jakarta.

Why did this church have a security guard at their worship service? Against whom were they guarding? Since they perceived a threat, I would think they have some idea from where the threats were coming, and that should give some hint as to who these unknown gunmen might have been and what their motive was.

I think it is obvious who is a threat to attack people an a Christian church in Indonesia, and it is clear why they would do so. To pretend that it isn’t clearly an attack by radical Muslims is to refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

Perhaps it is prudent to not speculate on the motives in this attack on a Christian church in Indonesia before all the facts are gathered, and perhaps if it was an attack on a Muslim mosque, the press would be just as slow to assign blame on the Christians in the area. But it seems a little odd to go so far out of the way to try to avoid even speculating on the obvious conclusion that Muslim extremists were behind this attack.

Back in May, we posted on invisible UFOs “sighted” in Mexico. Now we find that not only are the UFOs invisible, but apparently, so are their occupants.

Headline Washington Times: Aliens hiding in plain sight

Alistair Begg, of the radio program Truth for Life, has been preaching through 1 Corinthians. He recently preached a sermon from 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 entitled Ground Rules for Christian Freedom. He made a some statements in this sermon that I thought were noteworthy. (I am quoting from memory here, so I might not have the wording exactly as he said it.)

1. Alistair said, “A legalist is someone who has all the answers, but doesn’t expect any questions.”

   That’s a pretty clever saying. The one flaw with it is that if you don’t know what a legalist is before the statement, you won’t know what a legalist is after the answer. In that respect it is like a “question” on the game show Jeopardy. I’ve always found it annoying that the “answers” on Jeopardy are the kind that no rational person would ever give in response to a serious question.

   Imagine the following. My sweet, young daughter comes up to me and asks, “Dad, I’ve heard of President George Bush, but who is George H. W. Bush?”

   “Honey,” I say proudly, because I know the answer to this one, having seen it on Jeopardy the previous evening under the category American Presidents, “he celebrated his eightieth birthday by parachuting out of an airplane.”

   “Umm… thanks, Dad…. Mom! Who’s George H. W. Bush?”

   That said, I still think it is a clever saying. I’ll probably start using it myself in the future.

2. Alistair made the point that legalism and license are opposite ends of the pendulum, and in trying to compensate for the one, we often go to far and end up in the other. We have to be very careful in how we apply Biblical principles so we don’t go too far one way or the other.

3. Alistair also pointed out that if we correctly understand the issue of our liberty and of not offending another’s conscience that Paul is talking about in the text, we can sometimes end up in the same place as the legalist. “But,” he said, “the road you took to get there is so vastly different as to almost render it a different place altogether.”

   In other words, we can and should sometimes not exercise all the liberty we might have. Externally, we might look like we are legalists when we do so. But because of our vastly different motives, we are not being legalistic.

I certainly appreciate the issue of balance between legalism and license. That is a difficult line to walk. And I find it helpful to understand that sometimes our actions can seem to be legalistic while in fact our motives are far from being legalistic. Others can only see what we do without knowing our motives, and so they can misjudge why we do what we do. Conversely, I can misjudge the motives of others. It is something that we need to be very careful about in our own lives, and in judging the conduct of others.

It is something I think about particularly in respect to observing the Sabbath. What can we do on Sunday? What should we not do on Sunday? Am I being legalistic in trying to limit the commercial and recreational activities of our family on Sunday? I struggle with these things, and I found the sermon to be helpful in thinking about them.

Q.99. How does God direct us to pray?

A. The whole word of God, but especially the Lord’s prayer, which Christ taught His disciples, directs our prayers.

From The Matrix. Trinity: "You move like they do. I’ve never seen anyone move that fast."

AFP Photo:

Caption: "Watch the ball : Mexican forward Adolfo Bautista controls the ball during a training session at the Santo Inacio de Loyola high school in Piura, northern Peru. (AFP/Antonio Scorza)"

Obviously, Neo would not make a good goal-keeper.

AP Photo:

Caption: “Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards (news – web sites), D-N.C., speaks to supporters during a campaign stop, Saturday, July 17, 2004, in Newport Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)”

See Revelation 6:1-8

It’s against Canadian law for a non-Canadian to advocate voting for or against someone in a Canadian election.

Section 331 of the Canada Elections Act

No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a permanent resident.

And I thought the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law was ridiculously restrictive. If it included these provisions, a lot of invisible foreign leaders would be in a heap of trouble.

Source: National Review