Egypt, Tunisia: Answers? A Warning?

In a mere three week period we've seen the overthrow of an old-line government in Tunisia and, as I write, the impending similar result in Egypt. The rapid succession of events in the latter is simply staggering. All of this history unfolding in full view of the world is both awe inspiring and frightening. What initially seemed to be somewhat "old news" cable releases by Wikileaks has served as a spark plug for simmering tensions in both countries. The implications of these events are cause for grave concern by other similar middle eastern nations and, perhaps more importantly, the world as a whole. The prospect of a spreading revolt throughout all of the middle east is most unthinkable. The delicate balance of power in the region, particularly regarding Israel, is at stake. The potential opportunity for terrorist activity is certainly a possibility, though perhaps somewhat exaggerated. The economic ramifications to a world just recovering from global recession could be unfathomable. While Egypt has little oil to speak of, a huge percentage of the middle eastern oil, as well as other goods, travel through the Suez Canal, dug by the Egyptians 5000 years ago.. As we all learned in grade school geography, the 100 mile trip through the canal could turn into a 6000 mile trip around the Horn of Africa. Whether intentional or not, any interruption of the canal's operation could cause gasoline prices to rise to astronomical levels overnight. But perhaps the most disturbing is the inevitable suffering of the innocents in the chaos of anarchy. There have already been some killed and numerous injuries, but the foreboding prospect of continued instability could cause a rapid implosion of basic services. Hospitals are already suffering strain from the injuries. There no longer seems to be an operational government in place as all the ministries have been under siege. The usual criminal element to be found in any society are out in force robbing and looting, and some 10,000 prisoners have escaped jails. The citizens have formed vigilante groups to protect property, the police having disappeared. One can only surmise as to the effect on public utilities if there is a protracted conflict.


But what lessons and conclusions can be drawn from all this? What exactly is going on here? And should all this serve as a warning? The experts are raising all sorts of scenarios as to what has happened and where it is all leading. There most likely is some validity to all of them , and I have my own guesses as well.

I believe what we are witnessing here boils down to two growing realities.

The first reality is a function of our 21st century technology. It is clear now that there really are no secrets. Not for governments. Not for the rich and elite. Not for anyone. Any analysis of these events that does not include the effect of the recently released Wikileaks documents would be remiss. Many of them were secret diplomatic cables that shed a most unfavorable light on governments of the region and their relationships both with each other and with businesses. In an obscure article last month in The New York Times a former NSA director admitted there was no such thing as a totally secure computer, not even in government. There are now copycat sites ready to open such as Openleaks which plans it's launch soon. They are promising even more damaging document releases that will target governments and business interests. Even the most disadvantaged individuals on earth now have access to knowledge that was once kept secret.

The explosion of communication technology has far outstripped the ability of most governments to effectively stop the flow of information. Wireless internet, cell phones, texting, and social networking are the tools of the current uprisings. Egyptian protesters are even calling their revolt the "Facebook Revolution". In the face of government shutdown of these services a trickle of information still got out and in. Service provider experts are saying that newer technology and distributed networks are making it more or less impossible to totally stop the flow of information by any government crackdown.

Governments and the well-connected elites they do business with can no longer hide the dirty business they have used to oppress the unfortunate. In this regard the world and how we relate to each other has changed forever.

The second and, I believe, far more important reality is one of historic economic certainty, that has repeated itself time after time. The majority of populist uprisings have more to do with poverty and wealth disparity than with lack of freedom. Human beings have a tendency to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms as long as their basic needs are being met (see Maslow's Theory of Heirarchy of Needs). The current situation is very similar to the European Wars of 1848. The nations of Europe had all been, in one form or another, monarchies or leftover feudal states like those in Germany closely allied with the Church. The sole exception had been the mostly failed Napoleanic outcome of the French Revolution. The people had accepted their plight and station in life. The poor had remained fairly silent and docile even in the midst of The Inquisition and Protestant Reformation. So what changed? For one thing the noble classes had become more and more greedy, holding little regard for the poor. The ideas of the French Enlightenment were beginning to ferment with many commoners seeing the success of the American experiment and beginning to think "Why not us?" Add to that the effects of the worldwide potato famine and there could be only one result, a population craving change. Of course, we here in America and in Australia saw this as the time of the great immigration. But for Europe, 1848 saw one populist revolt after another. Most of them were at least to some degree failures and in retrospect we can see, particularly in the case of Germany, the result was an almost complete century of pain and instability. There are other, more recent examples. More than anything else, economic disparity most certainly led to the Bolshevik Revolution, and to the downfall of the Shah of Iran. In both cases the population had remained compliant under autocratic monarchies for centuries. One could make a similar case for Cuba. In their time, both the Russian and Iranian revolts were widely praised by many in the free world. No one could envision, however, the horrors of the Soviet goulags or the violation of human rights by the mullahs of Iran's quasi- theocracy. Nor could most predict the failed socialist experiment of Fidel's Cuba. There have been uprisings among nations in the middle east with positive conclusions. The Turks, while certainly not willing to bend to every whim of the west, are enjoying not only a representative government but improved living standards of it's peoples. But the crown jewel is the case of India. Poverty has seen a substantial decrease, their economy is one of the world's largest, and their government is the only secular democracy in the region. There is no way to predict at this point wether the results of the current turmoil will be positive or negative. But one thing is certain in the midst of anarchy. Many innocents will suffer. The tragedy is that it could have been avoided.

From the live reports I'm seeing and hearing from the major news sources like Reuters and the BBC, and from blogs of many independent reporters I have concluded that, once again, the real seeds of these revolts are economic in nature. I have particularly listened to the statements and chants of the protesters. They repeatedly are saying that they have no jobs, no money, and are angry at the government and the rich elite who they see as having robbed them for decades. To back their statements economists are reporting rising unemployment and disparity of wealth in many middle eastern countries like Egypt and Tunisia, as well as in Yemen, Algeria, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Lybia. Sixty percent of the population of the middle east is under 30 years old. For example, in Egypt the median age is 24 years. It is estimated that among the young unemployment may be as high as 40 percent. The trend towards polarization of economic condition has worsened over the last decade, not only in the middle east, but throughout the world. Document releases by Wikileaks have only confirmed suspicions of government improprieties and collusion with corrupt business interests, particularly in autocratic governments which show favoritism and loyalty to a select few families and businesses.

What is remarkable to me is that this appears in no way to be a revolt inpired by Islamic extremists. I hear no one chanting "Allah". If anything, the Muslim leaders have been unusually silent to this point. It could very well be that this doesn't bode well for Islamic fundamentalists either. This appears to be simply about economic suppression. The protesters speak excellent English for the most part and wear western clothes. I have also heard hardly any hatred speech towards America. In fact, one protester said that "we love Obama, and beg him to help us". What they are chanting is that they want jobs. The freedoms they are demanding are seen mainly as a way to improve their economic condition. They want justice for those they see as responsible for their plight, primarily the government and rich business people. Late reports indicate that many of the elite are chartering planes to leave the country. I can only assume they've already transferred their wealth to foreign banks. They appear to know they are the enemy to which the Egyptian people are referring.

There is no possible way to predict the results, or whether a new regime will be favorable or unfavorable to us. One thing appears clear. In spite of his maneuverings, Mubarak is finished. I can only hope that our own nation will do the right thing in spite of the potential ramifications and take the high road. We need to revisit our relationships with dictatorships like those in Egypt and elsewhere and withhold aid to those who are violating the basic needs of their poor. In their defense, both George Bush and President Obama have put great pressure on Mubarak regarding these matters, but evidently not enough. We need to make it clear to all the citizens of middle eastern countries that they have our support and will only take action based on their best interest, regardless of their government. If our principles are to have any relevancy at all, we should certainly practice them in all of our affairs. In the long run only this will build any element of trust and chance for meaningful partnerships.

The revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the unrest being reported in several other countries in that region should serve as a warning. What we are witnessing now on our televisions is the least attractive and, in fact, most horrible method of wealth redistribution. There are many other better, more effective, and less painful methods available. But without peaceful, orderly change, the method we are seeing is eventually not just a possibility, but a certainty. Those persons in this world who build their fortunes on the backs of the working poor without respect for their well-being, collude with corrupt governments, and wish to deny the unfortunate even the most basic assistance should take heed. Just because the world's Marxist experiment was a failure doesn't mean the problem disappeared. Any society that shows no regard for the disadvantaged is on the road to self-destruction. Wealth, in and of itself, is not the problem. There are many of the world's rich who have earned their money by hard work, have made sure those who work for them have adequate incomes, have practiced honesty in their dealings, and are good citizens of their communities. Many are champions of the causes of the poor and are much deserving of our admiration and respect. It is my belief that the guilty parties know who they are. And in these days and times we know too. To them I say the world has changed. To them I say the blood of the innocent is on your hands.

Let us all pray for peace.

WikiMania?

The latest cable release by Wikileaks reported by the world's news sources indicates that the Vatican, and in particular Pope Benedict, impeded the investigation of sex abuse by priests in Ireland. Am I surprised? No, not really. Is this not something that was suspected all along? And what exactly will be the result of this revelation? Does anyone actually believe the Vatican will now come out from hiding behind it's shield of sovereign immunity? The cable release goes on to expose the equally non-surprising tidbit of news that the Vatican had some concerns about alienating the Archbishop of Canterbury when it opened the door to some Anglicans to rejoin the Catholic Church. Well, all I can say is "ho-hum".

I must admit that in the days leading up to the Wikileaks releases I was fully anticipating to see information of monumental proportions, some of which may have changed governments and caused a certain degree of diplomatic chaos. While I generally am at odds with conspiracy theorists, I guess there has been some part of me that feared perhaps there WAS some sort of "secret" order of things, particularly as to nations' governance. Surely, these 250,000 documents would contain some eye-opening clues.

Having followed closely the media reports of the leaks as well as some of the original documents, I'm beginning to arrive at a markedly different conclusion. The majority of the disclosures as of right now do not expose anything that could be construed as being really new. Aside from embarrasing statements by nearly all of the world's diplomatic regiment, and a blow by blow description of the "who said what and when", I'm not seeing much "substance" to any of it. Even in cases where there were no prior concrete evidence, there were certainly a great deal of suspicions or speculations already in existence as to some degree of malfeasance or complicity involving nations, corporations and powerful individuals. Courtroom prosecutors and defense attorneys appear to be the biggest potential beneficiaries of what has been exposed to date. I don't see there being much more than a 72 hour news cycle for most of the individual stories coming out of all this.

The singular exception may be the sheer volume and nature of cables related to how the whole of the Arabic world views Iran. There are some surprising statements by nearly all of the leaders and diplomats of these countries, in particular, those of Saudi Arabia. No big news here that these nations have an ongoing concern about Iran. But when King Abdullah gives encouragement to the U.S. to strike Iran to "cut off the head of the snake", this should do more than raise eyebrows. However, even in this case there were plenty of signals ahead of time. While Iran's president has spouted much vitriole in his rantings against Israel, the real harbingers of Iranian power, the Ayatollah and the mullahs, have been publicly clear for years that the immediate aim of their "fatwa" was to consolidate Islam and it's oil-rich nations either directly or indirectly under the power of Iran.

Overall, though, I just don't see the big deal. Is it going to change the world knowing that nations use their diplomats periodically as spies? Or that we and others sometimes use covert activities to further our respective interests? Or that a Saudi prince held "underground" wild parties? What about large sums of money that sometimes change hands in mysterious ways? Or corporations that try to influence elections? And did we really believe that diplomats are always polite and considerate towards others? I just don't think we can delude ourselves into believing these were truths we didn't already know. Unless there is something special in Assange's threatened "poison pill" or in the yet to be released banking documents, this whole thing could end up being perceived as a real dud.

There are in my mind some much larger and more important questions that loom as a result of all this "WikiMania".

First and foremost there are serious questions about national security. How can a Private First Class in the military become an intelligence analyst with access to these documents in the first place? Keep in mind Private Manning just a couple of years prior had been working in a pizza parlor. He evidently smuggled the documents out on a disc labeled "Lady Gaga", hand-written no less. (I suppose there should be no shock in this matter. Drug cartels seem to have minimal trouble building elaborate multi-million dollar tunnels under our borders.) What does this say about our ability to protect ourselves from our real enemies?

And then there is the disturbing situation of internet hackers. Both the cyber-world supporters and critics of Wikileaks along with a group of internet whiz kids interested only in general mayhem have been able to take down websites almost at will. More cause for alarm comes from experts who are admitting little can be done to stop them. I find it both maddening and ironic that these self-described "hactivists", while extolling the inalienable virtues of free speech, have appointed themselves the sole arbiters as to which webpages can be viewed. With so much of our daily lives, communication and commerce so interwoven and dependent on the internet the prospect of an all-out "cyber war" is frightening indeed.

In the end, though, the subject of real debate for the forseeable future will be the argument over the balance between the public's right to know and the individual or institutional need for privacy. At what point does transparency trump privacy? Or vice versa? How does the First Amendment come into play? With the exceptions of child pornography and thievery there are very few regulations of the internet and even in those cases regulation is only marginally effective. Is it even technically possible to regulate the net if we wanted to? Or have we created the ultimate tool of anarchy? Hopefully we won't be eventually faced with some sort of Orwellian solution where we are forced to relinquish our most precious rights to avoid the chaos engendered by a few megalomaniacs. Greater minds than my own will have to sort this one out.

Driving While Blind

I remember vividly the day the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. The newreels of German citizens chipping away at the blocks, the jubilant cheers of Berliners, and the sighs of relief in the free world all led to a feeling of celebration. There was much talk of a "peace dividend", the idea that we would now have more money to spend on projects other than defense now that the Cold War was finally over. The neo-cons collectively declared the "death" of socialism. Capitalism could, and eventually would, become a worldwide phenomenon. Even places like China and Viet Nam were openly participating in free markets. Our economies were to become global. There grew much talk of the emerging economies of third world nations and new stock exchanges opened in many such places. According to many, we were on the verge of a new world, where American free market ideals would spread rapidly. All could participate if they worked hard enough. Some were even forecasting an eventual end of poverty. It would be likely we could all look forward to a comfortable retirement. All was good.

Or so many of us thought. But were we driving while blind?

I'll cut right to the chase. We Americans have made many into demons, and some deservedly so. I personally, thank God, am not acquainted with anyone who thinks Hitler was a good man. Charles Manson is another good example. Their bad deeds are clearly documented. But in the case of a few others the evidence just isn't there. I'm referring to a man named Karl Marx. His name is most generally associated with the tragedy of the aforementioned Iron Curtain and with the Maoists of Red China. People like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung combined in their efforts to give Marx a bad name. Never mind that they followed a narrow version of socialism that hardly resembled what Marx had in mind. The truth is, all Marx did was write a book.

I believe there is good evidence that the solution Marx presented in "Das Capital" has at least one, if not more, fatal flaws. His solution was grossly inefficient, creating oversupplies followed by shortages of goods and services. It required a huge government bureaucracy with all of the elements of fraud and collusion that goes with it. Even Fidel Castro has recently admitted that the model doesn't really work very well. Furthermore, Marx's ideas on collectivism were grossly misused in Russia and elsewhere for political purposes.

But just because Karl Marx's solution was flawed, can we really afford to ignore his analysis of the problem? I think not. I have always thought his description of capitalism was remarkably accurate. His tracing of it's emergence from the mercantilism of the fuedal ages is still regarded by economists as one of his greatest contributions. In light of the current global economic plight, and the blame game that is now occurring, I believe it is time to revisit Karl Marx for a closer look at his analysis of the problems capitalism faces. That is, if we want it to survive. Just because socialism failed doesn't mean capitalism won.

The following is a video by one of the preeminent students of Marx, David Harvey. David is a professor of Anthropology at City University of New York. He gives a chillingly compelling account of recent economic events from a Marxian point of view.

My Right To Vote

This morning I ventured out on a couple of errands which included a stop at the polls. As is usually the case I was pleased that there was no line and the whole process took less than the time it takes to make a pot of morning coffee. Actually in all the years of my voting I've never had any problem excersizing my constitutional priveledge save one instance when I had moved and not updated my registration.

Perhaps it's too easy. I'm guessing the things I didn't have to do are what is important. I didn't have to fight an angry mob to get inside. I paid no poll tax. I didn't have to prove I owned property or show a "party" card, nor did I have to prove my gender. No one asked me if I was Catholic, Protestant or Atheist. I wasn't required to swear allegiance to a corrupt government, or even a non-corrupt one for that matter. They didn't ask me if I was gay or straight, black or white. I got exactly one whole vote, not the total tally of 3/5 vote per slave given to slave owners. Nobody asked if I were "pro-choice" or "pro-life" , wether or not I was employed, or if I had an education or not. And above all, I had no fear of being attacked or put on somebody's "hit" list when I left.

Overall we have a pretty good deal here. But our freedoms are precious...and fragile...There are some who would limit our constitutional freedoms in the name of all sorts of causes, some worthy, but many not. No matter the reason, our Constitution and it's Amendments including the Bill of Rights are all we really have to protect us. With it comes a responsibility to educate ourselves as to its contents and its origin. There is a movement afoot to diminish and ignore the ideas of founders like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Paine. Purveyors of selfish causes wish to remove the words and ideas of these great men from our children's textbooks and replace them with fairy tales. Even in these times of bankrupt budgets state lawmakers, pandering to fear, waste millions of taxpayer dollars enacting laws that they know from the outset are unconstitutional and will be struck down. There is an ongoing movement to diminish the meaning of separation of church and state, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that under our uniquely secular government, religions of all denominations have flourished like never before anyplace on earth.

I urge you to be vigilant. Our country's original documents and a plethora of accompanying original source material, as well as historical research and biographies written by respected authors is all hiding in plain sight in libraries and more and more on the web.

And please excersize your right to vote.

A Kinder Congress

In today's glut of rancid partisanship, infantile sloganry, half-baked reasoning, and political demogagy I find myself wondering if there are any true statesmen who will present themselves in our time of need. Real and complex problems, both domestic and foreign, will never be solved with simplistic political pandering. It seems that for every worthy movement or cause there is a plethora of persons and institutions more than willing to take the helm, more often than not for their own gain. Usually they find a scapegoat upon whom to pile blame. Solutions offered, if any, are generally too vague to be of any consequence. The "other side" gets whipped into a frenzy and, sure enough, some politicians of equally questionable motivation step up to the plate. The really maddening thing, though, is that the problems all remain unsolved.

I'll be the first to admit that Lee Hamilton wasn't the most exciting man. He wasn't a great orator, his facial expression rarely changed, and he wasn't a snazzy dresser. He had few heated debates in Congress. His demeanor was more like that of a college history professor. But he had respect. Respect that he had earned. He never automatically dismissed the ideas of his opposition. He believed in getting at the facts. He understood that great things are only accomplished through compromise. But he wouldn't compromise his basic principles. More than anything, his behavior showed that he knew he was supposed to serve the people who elected him, and yes, even those who voted against him. A good friend of mine had a son in the military overseas and his father was dying. My friend went to Lee Hamilton's office where Lee greeted her personally. He made a couple of calls and had her son on a plane back home within hours. In other words, he was accessible.




The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars honored Lee Hamilton on October 5, 2010, at a Gala Dinner that paid tribute to his 12 years of service as the Woodrow Wilson Center's president and director, as well as the previous 34 years in which he served as a distinguished member of Congress.



Welcome home to Indiana Lee! We could use a few more statesman like you now!
 

Solidarity thru Fear Pledge

I, as a natural born citizen of the United States of America, duly ordained by God with special rights, and having been robbed by lazy poor people in the name of government socialists, do hereby solemnly swear:


1.) To never look out beyond my own perceived reality no matter how small or shallow it may be.

2.) To fear any change or chance thereof. To embrace fear first as an individual choice or right.

3.) To uphold the adherence to living a static life fully vested in fear.

4.) To be fearful of all peoples who don't look, think, or act like me.

5.) To allow fear to trump Constitutional rights.

6.) To promote fear as a defense against any argument or cause.

7.) Despite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, support any lie that will help me maintain my narrow view.

8.) When all else fails, to attack science and institutions of learning.

9.) To direct blame towards those who are least able to defend themselves.

10.) To base my political activity on demogogy and hate.
 
 
Having taken this pledge, I will support candidates who sow doubt and fear into the hearts of otherwise reasonable people, so that I may remain in my insulated cucoon protected from the problems of others.

Fatherhood and the Defence of History

                                                   
"Do you know that it is 93 million miles to the sun?" The question came out of nowhere, his stack of flapjacks awaiting syrup as he patiently awaited our reply. The chorus of blank stares he got in return only served as a prompt for him to inform us as to how long it would take to reach the raging ball of fire by automobile. He would just laugh when it became obvious to him we would rather he just eat his pancakes. "Oh, Fred" Mom would say as she glanced at the early morning clock.

My father loved Science. He loved Astronomy. But above all else he loved History. The breakfast table was his podium. Much to our chagrin and in spite of my mother's mild chastisements, he took every opportunity at this early hour to give us all a quick lesson before we headed off to school. His breakfast lectures were always short and most often began with a question. While he rarely talked much about the war itself, he often would give historical anecdotes about places he was stationed like England, Italy, and North Africa. As a 10 year old I was only mildly amused, and surmised that Dad's obsession with history and biography was a result of not having enough "fun" things to do.

Wether or not his eccentric historical musings were calculated efforts I'll never know. What I do know is that he wanted us to read and become informed. He was skeptical towards those who made statements without doing their homework. Either lack of money or lack of interest kept him away from most best sellers. It was much more likely to find him reading a dusty old biography gotten from the public library. "Let me see that!". The excitement in his voice and the broad smile caught me off guard. Mrs. Chandler at the library had recommended I read "Daniel Boone" and Dad was enormously pleased.

As I read each chapter he would casually ask me questions about it, as if he didn't know the answers, putting me in the role of the teacher. However, by the time I finished the book it became obvious that he had a professor's knowledge of our state's history, our early immigrants, and our role in our nation's history as a whole. While proud of our heritage, he wasn't at all hesitant to point out some of the more dubious aspects as well, particularly the plight of native Americans and the near extinction of the buffalo.

                  
As I grew a little older I too became enamored with History. I began to see how the events of our time and our culture have been shaped by what went before. Though he looked ascance at my preoccupation with the likes of Karl Marx and Camus, Dad was, in the least, happy I was reading. Oddly, it was he who informed me that Hitler hated Karl Marx and socialism. He went on to point out that the Nazis were freely elected by a democratic government. Somehow this led to a discussion of the Russian Revolution whereupon he displayed an uncanny knowledge of all the parties involved. I remember asking him what he thought were the most important parts of history. His answer: "All of it."
Much as droplets of water descend from mountain streams arduously seeking companionship with the ocean, new histories unravel. Stories of people, places and events wait to be written, analyzed and contextualized. Those who are committed to it readily admit that History is an inexact endeavor but a  necessary one.

In the nearly 27 years since my father's death the world has witnessed many events. The fall of the Berlin Wall. The technological inventions of the cell phone and the internet. China has it's own stock market. We buy clothing from Viet Nam.
We have a black President. Advanced doppler weather radar! Dad would be excited and envigorated by all of these. But he would be troubled by much too..The growing disparity between the rich and poor in much of the world. The events of 9/11. The wars in the Middle East. The rancor and hate speech of his fellow citizens. The trampling on the Constitution. The oil spill in the Gulf. The uncompromising partisanship of politicians.

 But above all else he would be apalled at what is happening to History and how it is being used. In Dad's time professors of History were allowed to do their jobs. Many of them would spend an entire lifetime studying one nation. They were respected. Rarely would you hear one taking a political stance, the pursuit of objectivity being their only goal. In times of war or other crisis Presidents would seek their counsel. Unfortunately, today much of our historical awareness, if we have any at all, comes from talk radio and cable TV "hosts" who have no background whatsoever. Former deejays ramble on with references to history without having even a cursory knowledge of the people and events involved. The Constitution has been sliced into sound bites to be used as evidence in support of the basest of causes. Authors are hired by think tanks and special interest groups to write historical books and articles skewed towards predetermined conclusions. The average American hasn't read the Constitution since high school, if then. Most can't name three of the first five Presidents. And greviously, local school boards are requiring textbooks and curricula to represent a partisan view of history that twists facts, omits key arguments, and includes falsehoods and half-truths specifically designed to mislead our children about our past.

Unsettling. Saddening. But as my father would have most certainly proclaimed, something good might come out of all this. Citizens may be tempted to read some of our founding documents in their entirety. There may evolve a renaissance of interest in historical events and those persons associated with them. Thoughtful discussion of historical perspective and respectful discourse may begin to replace the rancor. We may all begin to see that a thorough examination of our past and a well-informed citizenry can only lead to a brighter future.

"Let's see...93 million miles divided by...hmmm...at 60 miles per hour..... How long Dad? How long to get there?"

I Love You Dad! Thanks for the History! "ALL OF IT."