In order to establish the foundation for any discussion that may follow, and to frame future posts on this currently debated issue, I’m going to try and put the history of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) here. I began this discussion here, to address what will most likely become a major topic of discussion from now until the ’08 elections.

The Fairness Doctrine was put into place, not as law, but as “doctrine” to cover radio and TV broadcasting coverage. By my reading, (initial source document) it appears a driving force was the concern over the limited amount of “bandwidth” (using terms we use today about Internet use) that was available and therefore, with the granting of broadcast licenses, the possibility of an imbalance of coverage of issues of importance to the public.

The “fallout,” or if you prefer a less glowing term, that brings us to the debate in our time was the implementation, which, the FCC deemed was an obligation by the broadcasting entity “…to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.” [1]” This was to be done by granting “equal time” to opposing viewpoints to meet this standard.

The “times:” President: Harry Truman – Democrat. FCC Commissioner: Frieda Barkin Hennock.

Who was Ms. Hennock? To begin, she was the first woman appointed to the position as Commissioner of the FCC. Her professional background prior to the taking this position was that of lawyer, and she had been involved in fund raising for political campaigns of Democrats, most notably, Franklin Roosevelt. Noted as her major accomplishment was the “set aside” of “non-commercial” station licenses and hence the genesis of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

At the time, there were 16 TV channel allocations in the designated radio frequency spectrum, and there was interference causing problems. Technically, this was an issue to be addressed, to keep from having stations within the same locale “walk on” each other. Consider this part of the Media Museum’s history of Ms. Hennock:

In addition to the technical issues she faced as a commissioner, Hennock became convinced that television had the power to serve as an important educational tool. As the proposed table of television channel assignments was developed during the freeze, however, there were no reservations for educational stations. Hennock was determined that the opportunity to use television for educating the audience not be lost. She wrote a strong dissenting opinion and became an outspoken advocate for channel set-asides.

Comment: Educating the audience: Good thing. Hiding political indoctrination under a cloak and calling it “education:” Very bad thing and done by dictatorships for a long time now. [Editorial note: It’s about who defines “education”]. Consider this: The concept behind this doctrine was about …”issues of importance to their community…” per the Media Museum’s write up. Therefore, the power to “educate” is not about a course on how to re-shingle your roof or how tectonic plates work, but “issues.” The baseline was to ensure the fairness of “education” in the arena of political issues.

I gather from reading that Ms. Hennock’s major push was to set aside many licenses for education, and did a TV and radio campaign to garner public support. The commercial side of the industry held they did provide educational material, and therefore the set asides were not necessary. Another historical case of governmental control, versus the use of resources for the purpose of free and open competition, I’m sure. Not surprisingly, educators formed the Joint Committee on Education Television, which studied commercial broadcasts and, again, not surprisingly, found commercial media fell short of being educational.

Comment: The educational system of this era was the one that sent astronauts to the moon using slide rules made of bamboo. I don’t think we really needed a set aside for “education,” but “issues.” Certainly commercial owners would object to having the ethereal RF spectrum being used to replicate the school houses, while there was business to be done and money to be made (read: a new method in which to grow an economy).

In doing some reading in a short biographical post, I found this statement:

She advocated FCC preferential treatment for the weaker transmitters of UHF stations, opposed editorializing by broadcasters, and, convinced that television was “just too important a medium,” denounced multiple ownership of broadcast facilities.

Comment: Will those people who are demanding a return to the Fairness Doctrine, and who might make a push to codify it in Federal law be true to Ms. Hennock’s vision, or will they just use it as a rationale to break up corporations? Note that that FCC commissioner was against broadcasters editorializing. So….darn that precedent thing getting in the way…while you may “cut off” the conservative talk show hosts who seems so scary, then ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN broadcaster “journalists” (and I use the term lightly) will be similarly constrained. So much for reporting on “illegal” wars and “THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION!”…

Wrapping up the genesis of the person who initiated the Fairness Doctrine is this quote:

Hennock was not surprised when her term as FCC commissioner was not renewed. Many of the positions she had taken were unpopular with powerful broadcasters. She was an outspoken critic of the practices of commercial networks. She criticized violence in television programming and warned about the growth of monopolies in the broadcast industry. She wrote many dissenting opinions questioning FCC actions. But as her assistant Stanley Neustadt told oral historian Jim Robertson, when she took a position on an issue “she was ultimately–sometimes long after she left the Commission–ultimately shown to be right.” At the end of her term as FCC commissioner, Frieda B. Hennock returned to private life and private law practice.

Comment: Ms. Hennock seemed like and intelligent person, passionate about her ideas, yet the history says there was much discussion on her plan to limit the availability of commercial interests to use the airways, in the context of limiting licenses, a direct impact on money making. I’m not sure I’d have been surprised at that outcome. May not have liked it, but not surprised.

Summary: The Fairness Doctrine was a response to a limited amount of mass communications “channels.” Not a bad idea at the core, and considering the technical limitations of the electronic media at the time. As far as the concern about “the message,” it wasn’t about how the Government would manage to be fair using Government controlled broadcast outlets, it was about telling commercial business how to do business. The “fear” of evil messages only that Representative Hinchey (D-NY) was discussing on Laura Ingraham’s radio show is unfounded when he implies the radio media is like that of the fascist control of the German government in the ramp up to WWII, because our media is not a government entity. His comparison is truly apples to railroad tracks and is merely done to invoke more fear of something that isn’t the case. Certainly we’ve advanced technologically and there are, in fact, many, many educational channels that provide material for distance learning and the busy, two or single professional families who are burning the candle at both ends.

When you come back (more logically, when I post more): More history of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine of 1949 and “Equal Time.”

Cross posted at:
The Wide Awakes

Today’s political, military and geo-political landscapes are a muddy, quicksand like consistency it seems some days. Little clarity, lots of “suction” to keep the progress from occurring. From Hugh Hewitt’s radio show tonight, a moment of clarity, the words of a young man. His words, those of a freshly minted “butter bar” provide the answer to the title of the post, and also convey some wisdom his elders might be wise to take counsel of.

Sadly, these words, most likely would have been doomed to being read by a few hundred or so people in passing on Lt Mark Daly’s MySpace page, but as the result of his death in combat on 1/15/2007, his readership will increase dramatically. Here they are. Pause to consider Mark says things not popular, yet in a professional and forthright manner:

Why I Joined: This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam’s government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. Much has changed in the last three years.

The criminal Ba’ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq’s neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this. Is this why I joined? Yes.

Much has been said about America’s intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as “oil” or “terrorism,” favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me). I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day “humanists” who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow “global citizens” to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses.

When asked why we shouldn’t confront the Ba’ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America’s intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment.

My fellow “humanists” and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America’s historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America’s initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America’s moral crusade. And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein.

One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are. So that is why I joined.

In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere. I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America’s commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children’s lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don’t forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don’t overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don’t cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include “Good Luck” Mark Daily

Mark saw something we have missed or maybe dismissed, in the current debate on the “surge” and defunding the war. He notes that action gets things done. He shut up (about his views held before), suited up and stepped up when it came time. I know there are many more like him. May those ones come home victorious and when peace is at hand in the Middle East.

Rest in peace, Soldier.

Tracked back at:
Chuch and State

Dear Speaker Pelosi;

“Hammerin’ Hank” had a philosophy: Target the closest threat. Kill it any way your can, because your ability to have a future depends on it.

When you have “danger close,” it serves the future little to peer beyond it and pontificate on how you have to make things better for then. If you’re dead from the nearer danger, so what if you’d like to make things perfect for your grandchildren and mine?

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen.

Why the open note to Pelsoi Galore? It seems she is going to make a push to fund the war on global warming.

I take issue with her intention stated here:

“It is important to our children’s health and their global competitiveness to rid this nation of our dependence on foreign oil and Big Oil interests,” Pelosi told the news conference today. “Taking bold measures today to achieve energy independence within 10 years must be the highest priority for this Congress.”

Pragmatic question to Madame Speaker: What are we going to do next year when Iran embargoes oil exports to us?

Just wonderin’….

H:T: Army Lawyer

Tracked back at:
Third World County

“It is a small mind that tries to make the subjective an absolute.” – Me 1/19/2007

That being said, I’m entering the stream of consciousness mode, for this discussion will have legs. Some ground work is necessary, and I’ll openly admit, I have not done “due diligence” and located the actual documents from Congress from the late 40s that seem to be the foundation for the currently brewing discussion in our Nation.

My opening quote is to describe a philosophy I picked up from Wesley E. Jordan, Jr. He told us once to not present statements using subjective terms in our briefings, but to present the numbers (or facts) and “smart people will be able to figure it out.” There were two parts of that approach: The first was to allow the expertise and experience of others factor in (e.g. someone might see 67% this year as a vast improvement, because they knew it was 28% two years ago, but you weren’t around for that time frame), and you could also flow with the mood if the person you were briefing jumped up and said “THAT’S GREAT (HORRIBLE)!” Yes, a political dodge, but, at least you acknowledged that things can be more detailed than you are aware of and subjectivity reigns supreme in just about every venue of life. Get over it, it’s not fair….

So now we open a discussion in the public debate arena on “fairness,” but only in “media” and it’s being led by the Democratic Party. Great. First off, I’ll say the devil is in the details and I now prognosticate that the Democratic Party, if they “have their way” will, once more, fall into the deadly trap they walk into over and over and over (but I digress).

The trap? Precedent. Over 9 months of intensive academic work on a degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies, I walked away with this understanding: “It’s always (note the absolute tone) dangerous (not deadly, just dangerous, worthy of serious consideration and, I’d venture to say, a healthy appreciation for the risk management discipline in cases where physical safety is involved) to set a precedent.” That’s my line. Use it if you need to, but I swear by it, for I believe I have a comprehension of human behavior that is unassailable in this area. Why is it dangerous? Because, just as feminists have found out in the case of sexual harassment and divorce law: “Because you never know when you’ll have to live by it yourself.” (That’s the second part of my understanding of human frailties).

This brings me to the understanding that the efforts to apply “fairness” will necessarily provide lots of entertainment value in the field of unintended consequences. If the Democrats, in their efforts to moderate (being kind) or squelch (less polite terminology) or silence (maybe over the top word?) any critics by legislating “equal time,” let them see the possible firestorm of response that will bring their way. The current concern among conservative talk show hosts, notably Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved and Russ Limbaugh, is the effort is not to make things fair, but to silence them, meaning the conservative talk show hosts, which dominate the RF spectrum was call AM Radio.

If I was them, I’d push my listeners to do everything they could to get this put back into law, and then, let the games begin…..You have to remember, fairness is about a two way exchange, not one side taking over. Has Nancy Pelosi managed to consider that? Much more to be discussed there…

There are many aspects of the details here to debate. on the Laura Ingraham show the day before yesterday, Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) was on. He said this was a revival of the 1949 law, that came about as a result of the people seeing how the media in the nations of the Axis prior to WWII had a large effect on the initiation of the war, and the Fairness Doctrine was an effort to keep from having such narrowness being a major factor in our society. Noble concept, executed by humans (and, therein, lies the pragmatic realities, but…more later in that vein). Without doing my homework, but knowing some history of the world in the 1930-40s era, I’d venture to say that “media” (back them essentially AM Radio) in the nations of our enemies was, in fact, not commercial, privately held, entities, but departments controlled directly and completely by the governments of those countries. If anyone else knows something to the contrary, please leave it in the comments. This being the premise, then to apply a rule set to American “media,” in order to keep from having this happen here is, to be polite, a stretch of logic that boggles the mind. To be less polite, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe that then, let alone now, that our government has that degree of control over “THE MEDIA!”

If you disagree with me, please send me the name of the person today who is the direct equivalent of this man pictured below:

Read the rest of this entry »

H/T: Military.Com News

Project Excelsior. 102,800 feet. Basically freefalling from space. You have a pressure suit on. You ride up in an open gondola. You begin the experiment with only 6 parachute jumps in your logbook. You have been raised to believe no one wants to get out of a “perfectly good airplane.” “Passing a baton” between two freefallers is still a skill to master in the sport (stability required). Olav Zipser and company haven’t been born yet, let alone developing head down freeflying. Who’d want to jump a “square” parachute? Space: Back then it really was a final frontier. One the way “back,” you lose your glove and your hand begins to 1) freeze and 2) swell from the pressure differential.

Col Kittinger still holds the record for altitude for a freefall set Aug 16th, 1960.

Take a few moments to read about Col Joseph Kittinger. Not only did he do this project, he also was involved in testing observations of space from balloons, flew 483 combat missions in Vietnam in A-26s Invaders and F-4 Phantoms, was shot down over North Vietnam and spent 11 months as a POW. Quite a ride, I’d say. Oh, and I guess he still ribs Chuck Yeager about beating him to being the first man to go supersonic….

It’s that time again! Post ’em if you got ’em…

Now…the “Sea Story” for the week: “The Original ‘Nickel Back'” or: “How to make civil servant cringe.”

Besides building a lot of FFG-7 Class frigates for us, we also made two for the Aussies; Two w/o LAMPS MK III helicopter capable and two with. Being the officer in charge of training for our non-LAMPS MK III vessels, my office had the pleasure of hosting the crews of the FFG-01 and -02. -01 was there before I reported, but the crew of the ADELAIDE (FFG-02) arrived during my “watch.”

There are funds set aside to show some hospitality to long term foreign visitors (in this case the course was 4 weeks long) and I was informed I could arrange for a visit to the Williamsburg Busch Gardens facility for our Australians. I was also tasked to provide “chaperones” from my staff, and this could include their spouses/girl friends. I forget the ratio, but it was enough for a few of us to tag along on the taxpayers kindness.

Anyhow, I was supplied with the cash to purchase the tickets and pay for some other minor approved charges. We went, we had a great time. The guests of the taxpayer being “english” speaking didn’t require a lot of close supervision, so it certainly wasn’t a strenuous day by any means.

So, on Monday morning, I dutifully added up the receipts for the visit and balanced it against the cash provided. I had a expended all but 5 cents…..I went to Disbursing in the Administrative building at lunch and handed my records and the nickel to the lady civil servant responsible for accounting. She looked at me and said “loose the nickel.” I looked back at her and said “I only have receipts for all but the nickel. Here it is.” Her reply was something like “do you know how much trouble it is to put that 5 cents back into the systems?” and I responded something to the effect that it was a less effort than us both getting hammered for loosing Government money.” and I left.

I know a nickel isn’t much, but it sure wasn’t mine and I had no paperwork to chase it away with, so she got to do the paperwork to put the nickel back in the taxpayers’ account.

Interesting day in military history….“Broken Arrow:” Not the words you want to hear when you’re have the watch…

In 1966, over the Mediterranean Ocean, a B-52 collided with a KC-135 tanker and crashed into the sea, losing it’s nukes…

From the History Channel site:

On this day, a B-52 bomber collides with a KC-135 jet tanker over Spain’s Mediterranean coast, dropping three 70-kiloton hydrogen bombs near the town of Palomares and one in the sea. It was not the first or last accident involving American nuclear bombs.

As a means of maintaining first-strike capability during the Cold War, U.S. bombers laden with nuclear weapons circled the earth ceaselessly for decades. In a military operation of this magnitude, it was inevitable that accidents would occur. The Pentagon admits to more than three-dozen accidents in which bombers either crashed or caught fire on the runway, resulting in nuclear contamination from a damaged or destroyed bomb and/or the loss of a nuclear weapon. One of the only “Broken Arrows” to receive widespread publicity occurred on January 17, 1966, when a B-52 bomber crashed into a KC-135 jet tanker over Spain.

Besides showing some of what we did during the Cold War to ensure we were ready to respond to support “MAD,”, this story also involved a man who recently passed away. BMCM(DV) Carl Brashear, USN lost his leg while conducting the salvage operation for the bomb sitting underwater.

In January 1966, a hydrogen bomb was lost off the coast of Palomares, Spain after two U.S. Air Force planes collided during a refueling attempt. The Navy was called in to find and recover the bomb; and after 2-1/2 months of searching, the bomb was found. On March 23, 1966, during recovery operations, a line used for towing broke lose, causing a pipe to strike Brashear’s left leg below the knee, nearly shearing it off. He was evacuated to Torrejon Air Base in Spain, then to Wiesbaden, Germany; and finally to the Naval Hospital in Portsmouth, Virginia. After persistent infections and necrosis, and facing years of recovery, Brashear convinced his doctors to amputate the lower portion of his leg.

Brashear remained at the Naval Regional Medical Center in Portsmouth from May 1966 until March 1967 recovering and rehabilitating from the amputations. From March 1967 to March 1968, Senior Chief Brashear was assigned to the Harbor Clearance Unit Two, Diving School, preparing for return to full active duty and diving. In April 1968, after a long struggle, he became the first amputee to be certified as a diver. In 1970, he became the first African-American U.S. Navy Master Diver, and served 10 more years beyond that, eventually achieving the rate of Master Chief Boatswain’s Mate in 1971.

Carl’s life story, mostly centered on his struggle in a recently integrated Navy to become a Navy Diver, was dramatically told in the movie “Men of Honor.” Master Chief Brashear passed away last year, after living an inspiring life.

I had the pleasure of reading and interview with the Master Chief, available from the U.S. Naval Institute, and he was a quite a man. He certainly saw everyone as a person and made a point to treat everyone fairly, and on top of that, he regularly deflected praise from his interviewer. It’s a good read.

From the Submarine Force Museum NAUTILUS history page:

On the morning of January 17, 1955, at 11 am EST, NAUTILUS’ first Commanding Officer, Commander Eugene P. Wilkinson, USN, ordered all lines cast off and signaled the memorable and historic message, “Underway On Nuclear Power.” Over the next several years, NAUTILUS shattered all submerged speed and distance records.

She is now resting as at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, CT. Was a “Class Ship,” set a lot of records and steamed over 513K miles during her service….

I can’t believe I scooped Chap and Bubblehead on this submarine force history story….

I have been posting at The Wide Awakes for a few weeks, and I cross posted an old post of mine contrasting leadership styles…Well, it has blossomed into a full blown debate, with some ad hominum attacks, but not many, considering the “sides” represented.

The post is here. If you have anything to add (but read the discussion in the comments section, for it has transmogrified (H/T: Calvin and Hobbes) to a discussion of the current strategy for the Iraq War.

For the record, I don’t think the President has carried out the war as I have. Also for the record, I’m not the President….

I do, however, think there has been an overall strategic emphasis on a “forward defense,” which is quite offensive to some. Amazingly, to those who would call us to withdraw and huddle within our borders, staying quiet, so no one might notice us, are the very same people who refuse to support sealing our borders from illegal immigration.

I find that most interesting…pull out and pull back from an attack by a determined enemy, who makes no bones about wanting to destroy us, and, in criticizing the President, from both sides of the aisle, the comment is often made about how terrorists can slip across our border….

The prevailing mood appears to be that we will grant amnesty to the estimated 12 millions illegal immigrants, and the discussion about securing the border by physical and electronic means is pretty much discouraged.

I would ask: How do we leave a war, yet refuse to secure borders? Somehow the two strategies don’t match up to me. If you aren’t going to go forward to combat a threat, then you need to build a protected area to survive in.

So, I’m rambling, but, the two issues are connected and while some would try to keep them separated in the “grand scheme of things,” they are also the ones who drag out the “the President hasn’t made us safer, because the terrorists are coming across the borders” remark when it suits the purpose to derail the war strategy discussion.

I’m working through the mental hoops on my thoughts (remember: I’m not the President) on the plan to send more troops into Iraq in order to get a handle on the conflict. Between some books I read about a 20 years ago, one that was written about 100 years ago, and another I’m waiting to receive in the mail, I think we are headed on a good track, so long as the message is not the military might is the supreme force to employ.

Received from the author. Besides getting your personalized autographed copy, the book is the foundation of a documentary for next fall!

All,

It’s my pleasure to invite you to a discussion of my book, “No Higher Honor: Saving the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf” (Naval Institute Press, 2006, http://www.nohigherhonor.com) at 7 p.m. this Friday, Jan. 19, at the Borders Books in Springfield, Va (6701 Frontier Drive, Springfield, Va). The store is located near the Springfield Mall, just south of I-495.)

The book (now in its second printing) tells the story of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a small U.S. warship dispatched to the Persian Gulf in 1988. Well-led and well-trained, its crew shepherded oil tankers through the chaos of the Iran-Iraq War — until disaster struck. On 14 April, an Iranian mine ripped open the Roberts’ engineroom, ignited fires on four decks, and plunged the ship into darkness. With seawater rising around their boots, the crew fought fire and flooding into the night. Four days later, the U.S. retaliated, sinking a half-dozen Iranian warships and boats in the biggest surface battle since World War II.

The book has received good reviews; it has also inspired a History Channel documentary that is slated to air this fall.

Hope to see you on Friday!

Brad Peniston

My book report is here.

Oh, yes, and Brad chipped in two copies for the Valour-IT Fund Raiser this past November. Just in case you wanted to support him, too.