Today we honored the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11 that brought astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong to the moon's surface. But we also discovered that NASA indeed taped over the footage of that first landing.

NASA TV specialist Dick Nafzger, who headed the search for the tapes, spoke to KPCC this morning:

"I don't think anyone in the NASA organization did anything wrong," Nafzger says. "I think it slipped through the cracks, and nobody's happy about it."

After a three-year search for the tapes, NASA concluded that the original footage was deleted when the program started erasing old magnetic tape so it could record satellite data. Search team members say that as they discovered that tens of thousands of magnetic tape boxes had disappeared from the enormous government records center, their hope waned for ever finding the original moon landing footage recorded on the lunar camera operated by the astronauts. NASA says the picture was much clearer than the TV broadcast of the historic moment. How sad...

But wait! There's hope.

After piecing together a complete version of the moonwalk from a variety of broadcast television sources from around the world, NASA has contracted with Lowry Digital in Burbank, the digital restoration firm responsible for restoring movies from "Bambi" to "Star Wars," to make the "original" better. They're touching it up, making it less fuzzy and brighter so you can actually make out Neil Armstrong descending from the "Eagle" instead of the dark blob viewers saw in 1969.

So while technology makes it so that our generation and future generations will see the moonwalk with more clarity than ever before, the fact remains that it's not the original. Are we tampering with history, or preserving a moment?

Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Today's memorial service for Michael Jackson at the privately owned Staples Center reminds The Times editorial board of a sad fact of life in Los Angeles: It's a city without a public square. Though the backers of LA Live once promised that the downtown entertainment mall would become L.A.'s version of Times Square, the fact remains that it's a private space whose owners can bar the public anytime they choose.

We also weigh in on President Obama's trip to Russia, which isn't expected to accomplish much -- but even a small thaw in relations between the two countries, and the modest improvement represented by the nuclear weapons pact concluded Monday, is better than the chilly status quo.

And we ponder the lessons to be learned from the example of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died Monday at 93. Though many see parallels between the mistakes made in Iraq and the mistakes made by McNamara in Vietnam, we think the larger lesson is that using yesterday's solutions to today's problems is often the pathway to failure.

Over on the opposite page, columnist Jonah Goldberg thinks all the sturm und drang over the canceled "salons" by the Washington Post, in which lobbyists were invited to pay heavily to attend get-togethers with the newspaper's journalists and top politicians, amounts to little more than posing. After all, many publications offer similar meet-and-greet opportunities, Goldberg says.

The hand-wringing over genetically modified foods, meanwhile, reminds author Tom Standage of another food-related hysteria from a few centuries ago -- over the potato. When the tubers were first discovered in the New World, Europeans feared they were a dangerous, unholy poison. They got over it, just as they'll probably eventually get over their irrational fears about improved crops.

And psychiatry professor Sander L. Gilman cautions against jumping to conclusions about Michael Jackson's cosmetic surgery. True, the King of Pop clearly was fond of surgical reshaping, but that doesn't necessarily indicate self-loathing.

* Illustration by Bob Daly / For the Times

Today, July 1, marks Canada Day. "America's hat," as some have referred to the lovely North American behemoth, celebrates its 142nd birthday.

In honor of this special occasion, Ipsos Reid conducted a poll on behalf of the Dominion Institute to see just how many Canadians recognize their important political and historical figures.

Turns out not too many.

I'm imagining this playing out like Jaywalking, former late-night (now prime-time) host Jay Leno's signature segment where he interviews passers-by about basic facts that they get horribly wrong. While only four out of every 10 Canadians knew who their first prime minister was from a picture, nine out of 10 could pick out 90s pop sensation Celine Dion and eight out of 10 recognized hockey star Wayne Gretsky (the only two people I could identify as Canadian off the top of my head).

Granted, some of the "top 10 Canadians" included the man named the Father of Medicare and 2004's Canadian of the Year, as well as the guy who won the Nobel Prize for discovering insulin. I wouldn't be able to recognize the faces of the American equivalents of those historical figures either.

But not first Prime Minister Sir John McDonald -- whose face is on the $10 bill -- and your current ceremonial leader, Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean (whom only 50% recognized)? That's a little sad. I would seriously hope that most Americans could pick out George Washington and Barack Obama from 10 photos. But then again, the Jaywalkers could (and often do) prove me wrong.

All joking aside, Canadian leaders seemed a bit dismayed by the results.

Some Canadians attribute these less-than-stellar polling results on the country's lack of storytelling, crediting the United States for having a great deal of national pride that has not immigrated north.

Perhaps for its 143rd birthday, Canada's goal should be to tout more of its history so its citizens can learn the stories behind the figures they celebrate on Canada Day.

Photo: Residents of Kimmirut, Nunavut, join crowds as they take part in Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada on Wednesday July 1, 2009. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Sean Kilpatrick)

Comments continue to cascade in response to  Catherine Lyons' thoughtful post on the president of France's broadside against burqas. I thought I'd add my 2 cents' worth, even they're pennies I spent in 2004 when I was writing for another newspaper. In a column headlined "Scarves and Smugness," I suggested that Americans ought to refrain from judging the French too harshly for their ban on the wearing of headscarves -- and other religious garments and adornments -- in state schools.

That policy had drawn criticism from the Bush administration, criticism  echoed by President Obama in his June 4 speech in Cairo. Freedom in America, he said, " is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it."

In my column (full text here) I wrote:

"Official tolerance for religious diversity in this country is a relatively recent phenomenon. It wasn't until 1987, in response to an adverse Supreme Court decision, that Congress allowed Jewish military officers to wear yarmulkes with their uniforms. Only recently have Christmas pageants in public schools been repackaged as ecumenical 'holiday celebrations' that also make note of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa. . . .

"It is tempting to recommend to the French that they copy the U.S. First Amendment, which the Bush administrations seems to think offers simple answers to the question of religious expression in state schools. But that amendment itself pulls in two directions: prohibiting governmental 'establishment of religion' but guaranteeing the 'free exercise' of religion. Into which category should we place an exception in a school dress code for religious apparel?
 
"The sort of 'multicultural' pluralism the Bush administration recommends to France took time to develop in this country and in England, where until the 19th century Roman Catholics and other 'Nonconformists' were second-class citizens. Earlier than that, in Elizabethan times, Catholics were presumed to be traitors because they answered to a pope who had excommunicated England's Protestant queen. The line between religion and politics in those days was a blurred and bloody one. So it is, some would argue, in contemporary France with its large Muslim minority."

"Some would argue" was a hedge on my part, and I'm still torn about whether France should bolster its wall of separation between church and state. I do think that the burqa controversy raises the question of whether Americans should equate the particulars of our democracy or civil society with universal imperatives like representative government, separation of church and state and fair trials. Take the question of an independent judiciary, which appears on the checklists of most definers of democracy. In this country, an independent judiciary includes the right of the Supreme Court to nullify unconstitutional statutes. Britain historically has not gone that far, not surprisingly given its lack of a written Constitution. But British justice, though sometimes flawed (as is American justice), has a deserved reputation for political independence. And while the British have an encouragingly expansive understanding of freedom of religion, they also have an Established Church.

Banning women from wearing the burqa anywhere strikes me as a violation of the basic principle of religious freedom. Banning headscarves and crucifixes from state schools, not so much.  France is more of a stickler for secularism than the is United States, because of its history and culture and not just out of concern about unassimilated Muslims. I'm not quite willing to say  "Vive la différence," but neither will I excommunicate France from the free world.

A would-be Republican challenger is trying to capitalize on Sen. Barbara Boxer's now infamous reprimand of a general for addressing her at a hearing as "Ma'am" instead of "Senator." According to Chuck DeVore, Boxer's dressing down of Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh of the Army Corps of Engineers reflected liberal contempt toward the armed forces and was just what you'd expect from a Vietnam War protester.

But you don't have to be a Republican to be appalled by Boxer's display of pique, which has become must-gag TV on YouTube. "Do me a favor," Boxer told Walsh at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Could you say 'Senator' instead of 'Ma'am?' It's just a thing; I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it." To his credit, Walsh didn't reply: "Yeah, you did raise a lot of campaign contributions, Senator." Later, a Boxer aide said she and the general were pals.

Maybe, but Boxer had better forget about a campaign contribution from Miss Manners. As bloggers have pointed out, "Ma'am" is a term of respect comparable to "Sir," which is the way military officers address the president. It's also a contraction of "Madam," as in "Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton." (Walsh began his testimony by addressing Boxer as "Madam Chair.")  If "Ma'am" is good enough for the Queen of England, it ought to be good enough for Boxer. Yet it was the senator, not the monarch, who was not amused.

What's really galling about Boxer's snit is her refusal to give the general the benefit of the doubt. My mother taught her children that if someone knocks you over on a bus, assume it's an accident even if you suspect otherwise. There's no evidence that Walsh was deliberately belittling Boxer, but she flamed him anyway -- before TV cameras. That would be gauche even if Walsh were in the habit of referring to male senators by their proper title but not female senators. But Boxer didn't make that accusation.

Correcting the way someone addresses you almost always makes the other person uncomfortable. Reporters covering the Supreme Court cringed when the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist would correct a nervous lawyer who addressed him as just plain "Justice Rehnquist." Pointing out an error can be awkward even when you're demoting yourself -- which is why I no longer object to being called "Professor" by students who don't realize I'm a lowly adjunct instructor. Cardinal Newman (or maybe it was my mother) said that a gentleman never offends. Neither does a lady senator.

* Photo of Sen. Barbara Boxer by Rich Pedroncelli / AP

Obviously, some California public services will have to be cut, the editorial board observes, but what sense does it make to eliminate CalWorks, a program funded mostly by the federal dollars that enables people to get jobs and pay the rent? The board also notes that this is the big day for switching to digital TV, and it calls on the Federal Communications Commission to define the broadcasters' public-service obligations for digital channels.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta might be right in saying that he can't possibly make public a single paragraph within 65 documents describing his agency's interrogation techniques, the board says, but that doesn't mean the federal judge in the case should take his word for it. The judge should review the documents personally before making a decision, the board advises.

 On the other side of the fold. a teacher of history and education says the use of the term "Hispanic" to denote an ethnic group is a relatively recent phenomenon in the nation's history, and one that has served to make those of Latin American descent feel more "other" than they used to. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor should be seen as the first person of Puerto Rican descent who might be appointed to the high court, Jonathan Zimmerman argues, rather than as Hispanic. And Bill Maher has had enough with the puppies and the hamburgers; he wishes President Obama were less visible and barking more orders over the phone. The man is in serious danger of cute media overexposure, Maher huffs:

We like you, we really like you! You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady. But so's Lindsay Lohan. And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something.

Illustration: Pedro X. Molina

Thomas Starr King, looking for bus fare (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

Federal support was vital to keep General Motors running, the Times editorial board notes today, but the government and its taxpayers should not become the long-term owners of the automaker:

[J]ust as taxpayers are reluctant investors, GM would be far better off with no government ownership. There are just too many conflicts between what the country's political leaders want to accomplish and GM's need to make a profit. The feds' support has been crucial to keeping GM running while it struggles to reorganize along the lines demanded by the Obama administration. But once it gets through this process, the best thing the administration can do for the company is to sell it to someone else.

The board applauds President Obama's time-out on road-building in national forests and calls for more steps to preserve and maintain the forests, including chipping away at a backlog of deferred maintenance. And as the terrorist group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia turns 45, the board observes that U.S. efforts have made a difference in Colombia, though the South American nation is still short of a clear turning point.

On the other side of the fold, Jack Cheevers bemoans the imminent ousting of a statue of Thomas Starr King from the U.S. Capitol, to be replaced by a sculpture of Ronald Reagan. King was a charismatic San Francisco minister who helped keep California in the Union in the days before the Civil War, and his contributions deserve to be remembered, Cheevers writes. And Donald Kirk, author of two books on Korean issues, warns that the Proliferation Security Initiative, intended to monitor and possibly blockade shipments of war-related materiel to and from rogue nations, would not be enough to curb the actions of North Korea.

Photo of Thomas Starr King statue by Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

Two topics dominate today's Opinion pages: the California Supreme Court's validation of Proposition 8, and President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. The editorial board said the debate prompted by the Prop. 8 and the subsequent appeal has helped persuade lawmakers in other states to legalize gay marriage. The challenge for proponents in California, the board said, is to conduct a better campaign for legalization here:

Civil rights groups should be focusing their time and money on reaching out to moderate voters with information that quells misdirected fears. Contrary to what the pro-Proposition 8 ads implied, no religious group ever lost tax-exempt status over refusal to perform same-sex weddings; San Francisco students who attended their lesbian teacher's wedding had the written endorsements of their parents; gay marriage will not be forced into the California schools curriculum; and faith-based adoption agencies will continue to operate.

Columnist Tim Rutten, meanwhile, focused on the ruling itself, calling the justices' reasoning "intellectually and morally incoherent":

So, if a majority of Californians voted to "carve out a narrow exception" to California's right to privacy and applied it only to Jews, would it be constitutionally acceptable? If Native Americans were accorded all the protections of the law by a ballot proposition, except the right to marry a non-Indian, would that be legal?

This is social and moral nonsense.

Regarding Obama's Supreme Court pick, the editorial board likened Sotomayor to 2005 nominee John Roberts (whom the board supported). Her point of view wouldn't be confused with his, the board said, but she also fits "squarely within the tradition" of nominees with excellent legal credentials and views that "fall within the mainstream." On the Op-Ed side of the fold, Rutgers University professor David Greenberg speculates that Obama's choice of Sotomayor was so politically shrewd, it may have "checkmated" conservative opponents. (Backing Greenberg's thesis, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee all but ruled out a filibuster.)

Rounding out the pages, author David Wolman offers an entertaining history of American spelling rules. And readers weigh in on small cows, shrunken education budgets, reduced spending on military cargo planes and a life cut tragically short in Vernon.

Credit: AP Photo / Alex Brandon 

Vice President Joe Biden, left, telling Sen. Arlen Specter how much more fun it is to be in the majority. (AP Photo / Ron Edmonds, File)

I can't claim to have predicted Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party, but I did offer my colleagues an accurate guess about what he would say in his statement: that he would be as much of a maverick in his new party as he was in his old one.

Sure enough, the statement contains this Arlenesque caveat:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans.... I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture.

And although I was surprised by Specter's switch, it reflects traits that have been on view throughout his public life, which I followed closely in my previous job at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Notable among them is Specter's survival instinct, which long before today's party switch inclined him to, er, adjust his position to the demands of the moment.

In a 2005 column written after Specter championed a vote on some of George W,. Bush's judicial nominees, I compared the senator to the Vicar of Bray, a 16th century English clergyman who kept his pastorate as the monarchy seesawed between Protestantism and Catholicism. A poem about the vicar features this refrain:

And this is law, I will maintain
Unto my Dying Day, Sir.
That whatsoever King may reign,
I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir.

Or the senator from Pennsylvania.

Come on, now -- in this economic climate, with so much real estate going for a song, someone wants to spend the money to tear down one building and put up two? Two skyscrapers with all the usual blah-blah condos, shops, offices, hotel?

And it isn't just any building they're tearing down. It's the Century Plaza Hotel. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has just selected it as one of the nation's eleven most endangered places.

Oops. We're not supposed to call it the Century Plaza any more; it's the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza. Not to me, it isn't. Try as they might, these companies that buy historic buildings strive to re-brand them, but the old name, the iconic name, always sticks. The Mann movie theatre company finally gave up on ''Mann's Chinese'' and restored it to splendor as ''Grauman's Chinese.''

The Century Plaza -- born, 1966, died, probably imminently -- has a storied if not gloried history, and a larger place in the nuanced politics of hotels. I am not joking. Hotels have politics. Democrats, liberal groups and causes drift to the Beverly Hills Hotel. In San Francisco, Republicans book the St. Francis, and Democrats have been fond of the Fairmont. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Sacramento; for years, the GOP crossed picket lines to wine and dine at the Capitol Hyatt, and the Democrats put in a block's more shoe-leather to get to the labor-friendlier Sheraton.

A Democratic president did hole up at the Century Plaza once. Lyndon Johnson -- by 1967, as hated by the left because of Vietnam -- was in residence when ten thousand anti-war protesters clamored in the streets below the glass swoop of a building. Police waded in with nightsticks, injured scores and arrested several dozen.

And after that, the Democrats left the hotel to the Republicans. Richard Nixon, as my colleague Martha Groves reported, wined and dined the first moon-landing Apollo astronauts there. Ronald Reagan treated it like an extension of the White House, and both Presidents Bush staged buoyant events there.

The King and Queen of Spain were staying there when the 1987 Whittier earthquake hit, and, given the uncertainties that early earthquake reporting engenders the farther you are from the epicenter, there were worries for a time that hardline old Fascists would try to take advantage of the moment to stage a coup against the democratically minded sovereign. 

Just because we don't have buildings that were put up when Marie Antoinette was still prancing around Versailles with her head still attached doesn't mean we don't have an architectural heritage in LA. The real investor who bought it less than a year ago said. ''A jewel in my hometown,'' he called it. ''An icon,'' he said.

Yeah, well. This is LA. You know how fast we cycle through our icons. Today's jewel is tomorrow's dingy rhinestone.

Nice try, but I'm not buying. I'm with the National Trust -- green the Century Plaza. Mend it, don't end it. Make it work. Keep it ours.  

Photo: The Century Plaza Hotel.  Credit: AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes.