"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."
- Louis Brandeis U.S. Supreme Court Justice
After I had viewed the report there was little doubt in my mind that John had run tests who's results ran contrary to his carefully preconceived viewpoint. So like any good Libertarian, he totally misrepresented the science. At the time the EWG report seemed to be particularlly damning. And remember, I was a fan of the guy. So I decided to visit the John Stossel "Feedback" board at the ABC News website. I was curious as to what people were saying and I wanted to join in the debate. I found these defenses for John from people posting to the board.
John was too busy to check the lab test, preferring to rely on producer David Fitzpatrick word that the test were done.
John may have gotten the test results wrong but, bottom line, he was probably right in the main thrust of his report.
Why does no one complain about any other reporter who lies.
Why does no one complain about any politicians that lies.
The (EWG, FAIR, OTA) are known liars. Why not go after them?
You must work for (EWG, FAIR, OTA).
It was a small mistake, everyone makes small mistakes. At least John had the honesty, bravery, integrity to admit it.
This was all depressingly familiar to me. John's fans were arguing just like supporters of Uri Geller. Bring up everything except the true facts of the case. I can understand none of them wanting to talk facts, because the facts looked really bad for John. But the total way they ignored any type of logical argument was depressing to say the least.
Defense number 1. Well all I can say is that to ask me to believe that John did nothing to check the accuracy of those lab reports himself when it became clear that there were serious questions about them, is to ask me to conclude that John was either too stupid, or too lazy, to check out the facts for himself. Whatever else I may think of John, I don't for a moment believe he is a stupid man. Nor do I think he is a lazy man. Lazy men don't get to work for big news magazines. This seemed to be the second most popular defense. I was lectured by people, some who claimed to have written "dozens" of articles or books or whatever, that John was far to busy a man to mess with such a simple thing as fact checking. I really like the job description I got from one particular rabid fan. It turns out that John's job is to come up with the story idea, plan how the story was going to be done, plan how the story was going to be written, and act as sort of an organizer for all the other people he had working with him. When I asked her if she did not think that fact checking was a large part of a reporters job she told me no. That would mean he would have two jobs, and we could not expect him to do two jobs.
Defense 2 draws on the "end justify the means" fallacy. It is not a reporters job to lie to me to protect me. In the end it may prove that John was correct, though after all the reading I have done I think it is doubtful, but in any case this does not excuse him from manipulating data in order to come to the conclusion that he wants. When a reporter starts to tell us little white lies "for our own good" we are no longer getting news but propaganda. I asked many people what would they rather have, propaganda or news, but I never got an answer.
Numbers 3, 4, and 5 all fall under the same umbrella, "Others do it. Why don't you go pick on them". Aside from pointing out that this was the John Stossel board and not the Tom Dick and Harry board, we are stuck with the same problems as with number 2. Yes I know other people in positions of power lie. I can't make it any more clear than to say I don't like public officials that lie to the public. I didn't like it when Bill Clinton did it. I don't like it when George W. Bush does it. I don't like lies.
Number 6 I like to call "slay the messenger". Fans did not like what I was saying, nor the questions I asked. I had a couple of days free so I spent two days on the board. This seemed to drive some people right up the wall. Because I was passionate about the issue and I spent some time on there expressing myself,I MUST have been working for one of those organizations that complained about John Stossel. I was a plant, I was a shill for the forces of evil that wanted to do away the John. This was nothing more than a desperate attempt to deflect attention to what I was saying. If I had worked for one of those companies, as opposed to being just a regular American just expressing his opinion, then what I was saying could not be true. Well sorry. I don't work for any of the companies mentioned above. However I can be bought. And cheaper than John Stossel. Why not? It seems to be the American way.
Number 7 was by far the most popular. It is what the majority of supporters said. In fact, it was all some people said! It was very hard for me to decided if it was real people logging just long enough to say "small mistake = apology = John good" or if it was an attempt by ABC News to swamp those people that were changing minds. And minds were changed, I know of three of them. Made me proud to see.
It is rather hard to say just what ABC News defense is in all this. They did an investigation, reprimanded John, and suspended David Fitzpatrick. With that done, ABC News said that it would offer no more comment. It was said that David made the mistake of thinking the pesticide test was on produce and not on chicken. Though it is hard to imagine how someone can look at a lab report and see "chicken" as "produce" even if we give them this, it still does not explain how David (and John) managed to mistake the results of the test. Remember that the pesticide test showed pesticides on the conventional chicken and not the organic chicken whereas John claimed that there was no pesticides on the samples at all.
At the time, there was a rash of articles and one webpage fighting to "Save John Stossel" (more on this tomorrow). It is a fight that was won before the first word was written. I found them funny because they made many of the mistakes listed above. They were so busy attacking EWG, OTA and FAIR they lost sight of where the real problem lies. That they have their own political axe to grind I think is pretty apparent. It makes you wonder if anyone cares about the high ideas behind "freedom of the press". Most of them are free market sites and needless to say, this is where my distaste for Libertarians started. They have a hard time convincing me that market forces will take care of all problems when I see the type of true information I got from them. Without honest information, when the market uses doublespeak and misinformation to try to fool instead of well reasoned arguments to attempt to sway, then we can't trust that market forces will work in the way the free marketers keep saying it will.
I am doing this because, as a fan of John, I felt he had wronged me. Here was a man that I put trust in and his thanks was to lie to my face. I thought that I would find a tremendous amount of outrage, especially from Libertarian Party. At the time I thought that they were a cut above the other parties. It was a sad thing for me to see how often members of the Libertarian Party would stick around just long enough to call John a man of integrity before fleeing any and all questions. I found only one in the whole group that was willing to discuss the possibility that John lied, and she admitted that perhaps it was not be the best thing for the party to close ranks behind John if it were shown that he was lying. I agreed with her.
Note too how well the defenses of John Stossel fit with a possible defense of Dan Rather. Everything said about Stossel can be said about Rather!
Tomorrow: Did John Lie? Or Was He Just Stupid and Lazy?
As far as important reading goes, nothing is more important than this article from Vanity Fair. It is about the theft of the 2000 elections and what the Republicans are doing to make sure they steal this one. Here is Part 1.Here is Part 2 (cursor down to find the continued article).
It is passing strange to me that the right wing in this country can make such a fuss about Dan Rather and DocumentGate when the press engages in so much more egregious lies on a much more massive scale. The difference is that these lies usually benefit the right wing. So naturally we don't hear a peep.
Last week you could read about Atrios' favorite examples, Chris Vlasto and Nightline. Even though this is kinda late I wanted to chip in with my fav....that liar of liars, the man you simply cannot trust, ladies and gentlemen, let us welcome John Stossel and the Organic Food debacle.
This is a long article so as usual I am going to break it up over several days.
First let me make something clear. I used to be a fan of John Stossel.. I had watched a few of John's specials and had enjoyed them. When I found out he would be a regular on ABC News 20/20 doing a segment called "Give Me A Break" I started watching regularly finding that I happen to agree with a lot of what he was saying, especially when it came to such things as censorship and our outdated, illogical "war on drugs". I got the impression that John was a fine journalist with a most skeptical attitude, which I consider a plus in a reporter.
Then on February 4, 2000 John did a regular segment (not part of his "Give me a Break series) called "Organic Foods - They May Not Be As Healthy As You Think". The report had two main points. The first was that organic food was not cost effective to the consumer. Most people buy organic food because they are afraid of pesticides on conventionally grown food. Yet in test that ABC News had done on organic produce, it was shown that neither the organic sample, nor the conventional sample showed the presence of pesticides. The second point was that organic food might be more dangerous than conventional food because organic food had a higher amount of dangerous E.coli bacteria which can cause food poisoning. John was proud to say that a test to compare E.coli levels that ABC News had done were unique."We searched the records and found there have been no tests done that actually compare bacteria counts in organic vs. normal food, so we did our own laboratory testing.", said John .
To back his position John interviewed a man named Dennis Avery, identified in the piece as "a former research analyst for the Agriculture Department" and two scientist Dr. Michael Doyle of the University of Georgia, and Dr. Lester Crawford of Georgetown University, both who work within the area of food safety and who ran the test for ABC News.
Five months later, on June 10 2000 the report was rebroadcast . At the end of that broadcast there was a bit of after-segment chatter between Cynthia McFadden and John Stossel.
Cynthia McFadden: "Well John, I buy organic produce because I want to avoid the pesticides. Bad idea?"
John Stossel: "You pay much more."
McFadden: "I do."
Stossel: "It's logical to worry about pesticide residues, but in our tests, we found none on either organic or regular produce, and it's never been proven that the pesticide residues hurt anyone, yet we know there are about 5,000 deaths from bacteria so I think you're worrying about the wrong thing."
McFadden: "In fact, washing the vegetables..."
Stossel: "And certainly, either one wash produce before you eat."
I saw both reports and I have to admit I really did not care. As a long time smoker of cigars and cigarettes (quit cigs a year ago) I figured any benefit that I might get from lack of pesticides were more than destroyed by my smoking habits. Since I always wash my veggies really well (a fact my family and my rabbits thank me for) I filed away the info. as interesting and moved on. If I worried about everything on this planet that could kill me, I would never get out of bed.
On July 31, while reading the online copy of the New York Times I ran across a story called "Media Talk; Report on Organic Foods Is Challenged" by Jim Rutenburg. It seemed that there were major problems with this story. I followed the link to the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) home page and read their report "Give Us A Fake" on the organic food story. Wow was it ever an eye opener.
It was about this time my admiration for John started to plummet.
Four days after the original broadcast, on Feb. 8, 2000 the EWG contacted Dr. Michael Doyle one of the scientist that ABC News hired to run their test. They suspected that something was wrong with the test when they heard that there were no pesticides on the conventional produce. According to studies conducted in 1994 (the most recent year in which these studies were published) the United States Department of Agriculture tested 691 lettuce samples and found pesticides on 53% (366) of them. This and other data convinced the group that something had to be wrong with the tests that ABC News had done. When the doctor was asked about the test for pesticides on produce, much to the surprise of EWG Dr. Doyle claimed that no such pesticides test on produce was run, and he was unsure how 20/20 came to the conclusion it had. Another startling item was the test that ABC did to measure the presence of E.coli was a generic test and did not measure the presence of dangerous strains. As most of you probably remember from high school E.coli can be dangerous (called pathogenic) and it can be harmless (called non-pathogenic). A good example is the E.coli you have infecting your intestines right now. As long as it is kept where it is it is harmless. But if they are released into the abdomen, you will get very sick and likely die. Well the type of test that ABC News ran is a simple test to show the presence of E.coli but not to show the difference between pathogenic and non-pathogenic E.coli. Armed with this information EWG sent regular mail, email, and a fax letter to John Stossel asking him explain the discrepancy between their report on organic food and what Dr. Doyle was reporting to them. This was done the same day that the EWG talked to Dr. Doyle, Feb. 8. They also sent copies to the segment producer, David Fitzpatrick, and the Executive Producer of 20/20 Victor Neufeld. You can read the email as part of the EWG's report link to above, along with the complete investigation of the testing.
John bravely responded by...not responding. After a week of repeated calls EWG president Ken Cook was informed that John was not going to respond. Not by fax. Not by mail. Not by email. He was told that he should talk to David Fitzpatrick since David was the producer. Around Feb. 14 David left a message saying that "extensive pesticides test" had been done and they they would be responding in writing soon. Soon turned out to be March 15 when EWG received a two page letter from David Fitzpatrick (dated Feb. 23). He spent the first page defending Dennis Avery (more about him soon). On the generic E.coli test David said that a) the E.coli test was indeed generic but that Dr. Doyle, who did the test, said that "any and all (emphasis mine) testing of the type we conducted is, ipso facto, "generic". Any "generic" findings of the bacteria serves as a watchlamp to the presence of the most deadly type of E.coli" (a claim disputed by both Dr. Doyle and the USDA. See the EWG website). He also claimed that they were careful to have expert testimony point out that it was pathogenic bacteria that was dangerous. As to the pesticide tests, well this is where David waxed lyrical. "We provided the full results of our testing with the Organic Trade Association (OTA) well in advance of our on-camera interview. Those tests included samplings of pesticides on meats (both organic and conventionally grown chicken) and on produce. No indicators of significant pesticide residue were found on any product"
The most ironic part of the letter comes at the end. To once again quote David, "We understand that you wish to defend the organic food industry and you may have even mis-read or glossed over parts of what we did. But assure (sic) you, our story was accurate".
EWG immediately noticed in the letter that David said that they had run test on both produce and meat. But the segment on 20/20 did not mention meat. EWG wrote to the OTA asking if they could see the test. They soon got the three page test from the OTA by fax. Called "Report on Foods from Vegetable Sources-Conventional and Organic." by Dr. Lester Crawford head of the Georgetown University Center for Food and Nutrition Policy. Dr. Crawford was contacted and confirmed that he did pesticide tests on six samples of chicken both organic and conventional. He found the chicken was "remarkably free from bacterial contamination but one natural and one conventional (regular) sample were positive for pesticides whilst the two organic samples were negative. This is too small a sample size to be significant but does invite more study."
Dennis Avery, described in the story as "a former research analyst for the Agriculture Department." is also director of the Center for Global Food Issues for the Hudson Institute, which receives funding from chemical companies like Monsanto, DuPont, ConAgra and Procter & Gamble, among others. If John did not know this, then perhaps he should have read Avery's infamous book, "Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastics". Dennis is best known for prominently citing data from the Federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and research by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as evidence for his claims that organic food posed a much greater hazard from food poisoning than conventional food. He seems to think that only organic farms use manure to fertilize. As a person that lived on a farm for longer than I care to remember (and no, it was not organic) both conventional and organic farmers use manure as fertilizer. The problem was that both the CDC and the FDA said his interpretations of the data was "flawed". Although neither John or ABC News depended on any of these studies for their story (instead they had their own test done), it would have been nice if John would have mentioned some of these facts when interviewing Dennis Avery (more about Avery to come).
Now all of this could have been a simple mistake due to the poor fact checking by David Fitzpatrick except for this one thing. Five months later on July 7, 2000 20/20 rebroadcast the same story, with John sitting right there in the chair next to Cynthia McFadden. At the end of the segment he spoke the words that sealed the verdict! But before you head there, you might want to take a look at what the defense has to say.
Well is he back? Is the Skeptical Blog still going strong? Or is it time to fold the cards?
Naw it was just a much needed week off. I am back and can't believe the amount of mail I have gotten. I am going to share today, then hopefully have a nice meaty article up tomorrow. I have had several interesting discussions....but more about them later.
As we can see from the left side of the blog, my efforts at raising money has not been very successful. A shame too since it would have been fun to confront Penn & Teller in their own back yard (Las Vegas) so to speak, but it is not that big a deal. I have heard nothing from Professor Hall even after sending him email. So I figure they were not going to let me speak anyway. No surprise there. For those of you new to the blog and are wondering what the hell I am babbling about, just click here and all will be revealed.
First up is a little note from Nirvana3240 who has a new blog by the name of Teenage Enthusiast
Hi, I was just looking at your blog. I love it....I just added you to my blogroll. My blog is http://teenageenthusiast.blogspot.com If you like it, do you think you could link to it? I'd appreciate it. Let me know what you think of it. I need input. Well, I just thought i'd tell you to keep up the good work!
Thanks! Nirvana3240
I was all ready to write a nice note explaining that I rarely link to personal diary, type blogs when I dropped by for a visit. Much to my surprise this is no "I broke up with my girlfriend/boyfriend and I am so sad" blogs, this is a political blog, and one that is first rate. Go and give it a read...right now! As Nirv says him/her/itself sez "Who Says All Teenagers Are Apathetic?"
Next up is a newsletter from one of my favorite internet radio stations, Red Bar Radio:
RED BAR RADIO.com NEWSLETER
I wanted to let all of you know that RED BAR RADIO.com released it's newest STICKER. We all know how important this upcoming election is on November 2nd, so in it's honor, we have decided to run.
These "re-election" stickers will only be around until election day, so get yours quick! They're only a buck, and you get a free bottle of AXE Deoderant Body Spray with every purchase!!!!
I can see that the Freeway Blogger is going to be a very busy soul with his/her latest offer:
Dear Friends,
I'm pleased to say that things are really starting to take off now. Signs are going up, pictures are coming in and guerrilla cells are forming around the country. In response to numerous requests that I start signposting in swing states, I've decided to extend the following offer. If I get 25 pictures of signs hung in Arizona, I'll go there and put up 75. Same for New Mexico and Colorado. Please let your readers know and, as ever, feel free to use anything from my site on yours. There's some pretty funny new material up now, so enjoy...
You know, we talk a lot about how minorities were disenfranchised during the 2000 election but how many people talk about the disabled also being disinfranchized?
Well we have a new organization that is just itching to do something about it. They were kind enough to send me this email:
I thought you might be interested in United Cerebral Palsy's new online campaign, DontBlockMyVote.org, which is urging activists to directly call on President Bush to fully fund the Help America Vote Act of 2002. President Bush is only allocating 10 percent of the funds needed to implement the Help America Vote Act. Our campaign is urging activists to write to Bush calling on him to provide the full $650 million promised by Congress. Please feel free to call me at 202.478.6127 if you have any questions.
Kristine Marigomen Online Outreach Coordinator United Cerebral Palsy
September 14, 2004 Contact:Jim Baker (202) 973-7114 jbaker@ucp.org
Bush Administration Slowing Equal Access to Polls
75% of all counties to use the same voting machines they used in 2000
(Washington, DC) - With the Presidential election less than 50 days away, the Bush Administration and Congress have failed to back up the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) with adequate funding, further delaying equal access to the polls for millions of Americans with disabilities.
So far, more than 10,000 letters have been sent to Congress asking lawmakers to fully fund HAVA, heeding the call of the United Cerebral Palsy DontBlockMyVote.org campaign.
DontBlockMyVote.org now is urging supporters to directly call on the Bush Administration to back $650 million in the FY 2005 budget for the implementation of HAVA, not a dollar more than the law itself authorizes.
President Bush only requested $65 million for HAVA for 2005, just 10% of the funds authorized. States simply will not implement the law without the resources promised by the federal government and 75% of all counties in the United States will be using the same voting machines they used in the controversial 2000 election.
When President Bush signed HAVA into law on October 29, 2002, he said, "Every registered voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are honest, that every vote is recorded, and that the rules are consistently applied."
HAVA calls for every polling place to be accessible and have at least one accessible voting machine, yet millions of Americans with disabilities will continue to be disenfranchised if President Bush and Congress fail to live up to the promises made when HAVA was passed.
"The time has come for the President and Congress to back rhetoric with action. Provide full funding to the Help America Vote Act now," said Stephen Bennett, UCP President and CEO.
DontBlockMyVote.org will also make an aggressive push to register people with disabilities, as well as their families and friends, to vote. In many states, September is the last month for citizens to register to vote for the November election.
Using a simple online registration tool created in partnership with Rock the Vote, anyone can register to vote in a few easy steps by visiting www.DontBlockMyVote.org.
"The right to vote simply is non-negotiable," said Stephen Bennett. "It is a fundamental element of democracy and of our vision for an inclusive society. And the community of people with disabilities will accept no less."
United Cerebral Palsy is one of the nation's leading organizations serving and advocating for the more than 54 million Americans with disabilities. Most UCP consumers are people with disabilities other than cerebral palsy. Through its nationwide network, United Cerebral Palsy offers services to individuals, families and communities, such as job training and placement, physical therapy, individual and family support, early intervention, social and recreation programs, community living, state and local referrals, and instruction on how to use technology to perform everyday tasks. For more information, visit www.ucp.org or call (800) 872-5827.
Don Wildmon opposes "The Local Law Enforcement Act"
Dear Dominion:
Yesterday we sent an alert about a "hate crimes" amendment that passed the U.S. Senate and could soon be offered in the House. Our call to action inadvertently included a link about "The Federal Marriage Amendment" which caused confusion. Please accept our apology for the error.
If you have not already done so, please call your U.S. Representative through the capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask your member of Congress to oppose The Local Law Enforcement Act or any other federal "hate crimes" amendment. This "hate crimes" legislation does not presently have a number but is likely to be offered as an amendment to an active bill. The amendment which passed the Senate was called "The Local Law Enforcement Act."
"Hate Crimes" legislation that includes sexual orientation is one more step in the campaign to legitimize homosexuality in our culture by treating it as a protected class along with race, gender, and religion. In the long term, the goal is to create one more platform from which to silence those who hold an orthodox biblical view of homosexuality.
Government officials already feel free to ostracize and demonize those who are bold enough to speak the truth in love about homosexuality; the amendment will undoubtedly pave the way to legislation that will make thinking biblically about homosexuality a “hate crime.”
Please read this excellent article about this issue from Robert Knight of The Culture and Family Institute - 'Hate crimes' bill: Prescription for tyranny.
Again, we apologize for the confusion caused by yesterday's mailing.
Sincerely,
Don
Don Wildmon, Chairman and Founder American Family Association
As far as the article listed above, by all means give it a read if you need a giggle. But any article that lists Orrin Hatch as a liberal Senator is one who's accuracy I have to seriously question!
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) -- A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.
Jerry Allen Bradford, 37, was charged with felony animal cruelty, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office said Wednesday. He was being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to his wrist.
Bradford said he decided to shoot the 3-month-old shepherd-mix dogs in the head because he couldn't find them a home, according to the sheriff's office.
On Monday, Bradford was holding two puppies - one in his arms and another in his left hand - when the dog in his hand wiggled and put its paw on the trigger of the .38-caliber revolver. The gun then discharged, the sheriff's report said.
Deputies found three of the puppies in a shallow grave outside Bradford's home, said sheriff's Sgt. Ted Roy.
The other four appeared to be in good health and were taken by Escambia County Animal Control, which planned to make them available for adoption.
Excuse me just a second.
Bawahahahahahaha! Puppy revenge.
Unmentioned in the above is that Mr. Bradford was arrested on charges of animal cruelty. I can't wait till he tells his cell mates that he was wounded in the wrist by a puppy.
Can you say "Bend over and Smile"? I knew you could!
Well it seems that I am going to be updating later in the day than I am used to. My mornings have become extremely busy as I take the kids to school. So I might start updating in the evening when I have more time to read and, more importantly, study what I am reading.
Last night "60 Minutes" did an expose of George Bush's sterling service to the Air National Guard:
The military records of the two men running for president have become part of the political arsenal in this campaign - a tool for building up, or blowing up, each candidate’s credibility as America's next commander-in-chief.
While Sen. Kerry has been targeted for what he did in Vietnam, President Bush has been criticized for avoiding Vietnam by landing a spot in the Texas Air National Guard - and then failing to meet some of his obligations.
Did then-Lt. Bush fulfill all of his military obligations? And just how did he land that spot in the National Guard in the first place? Correspondent Dan Rather has new information on the president’s military service - and the first-ever interview with the man who says he pulled strings to get young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.
If you missed the show last night go give it a read. It is devastating.
I am also having trouble with my blog, hence no update lately. I am not sure what the problem, it acts as if there is no more room in my server account, but after viewing it I see that I have more than 2 meg left. I removed some pictures and it seems to be working fine again. I will spend the weekend trying to figure out just what is wrong.
As soon as I figure out just what is wrong posting will resume as normal. Thanks for your patience.
We all know that the real problem the Slime Boat Liars for Bush have with John Kerry is that he had the nerve to come back from Vietnam and object to the way the war was being conducted. Imagine that!
(Thomas W.L. "Tad") McCall, now 60, remembers March 14, 1969, because it was his 25th birthday. He'd only been running a Swift boat for a few weeks, having arrived in Vietnam in January 1969, the same month as Means.
At the time, McCall said, the Navy was having trouble finding qualified officers to command those hazardous-duty patrol boats; lieutenant j.g.'s were in increasingly short supply. McCall, the son of Oregon's sitting governor, Republican Tom McCall, was only an ensign. That, the Navy was beginning to realize, would have to do.
"I was really green," said McCall, who joined the Navy as an enlisted man in 1967 and retired in March 1992 as a captain and a JAG, or military attorney.
McCall's crew was supposed to be off duty that day. But McCall was told (Roy F. "Latch") Hoffman needed a ride up the coast to the base at Nha Trang to visit a seriously wounded Navy SEAL.
"I was excited, nervous and kind of pleased we were going to get to take the commander of the task force up the coast, an hour and a half each way," McCall said. "A beautiful trip, an honor for us. The crew didn't think it was an honor, though. They thought it was a pain in the butt."
Hoffman got to the boat at mid-morning, a distinguished-looking officer in brown camouflage.
From the start, Hoffman made it clear the trip would be no pleasure cruise. He wanted to search every Vietnamese boat they passed, it seemed. McCall protested mildly; he knew many of those boats from having patrolled those same waters almost daily.
Then Hoffman set his attention on a small cluster of fishing boats, four small vessels with perhaps 10 fishermen, about 1,000 yards offshore. "We had seen them in the water there many, many times," McCall said. "They were fishing at a good fishing place ... in traditional fishing waters. 'Another patrol is coming up behind us soon,' I told him. 'We're taking you for a ride, not patrolling.'"
But Hoffman ordered a crewman to hail the fishing boats on a bullhorn. The fishermen didn't respond. So Hoffman ordered a crewman to fire his M-16 in their direction, splashing the water around them. The fishermen, perhaps not understanding what they were supposed to do, still didn't respond.
"Shoot closer," McCall remembers Hoffman saying.
"I can't shoot closer, sir, I'll hit them," the crewman said.
"Well, do it," Hoffman said.
The meaning of those words were clear to everyone aboard PCF 88, McCall said. Hoffman was ordering the fishing party destroyed, the fishermen killed.
The officers argued policy; McCall realized it was ultimately his call.
He ordered his men to stand down, leave the fishermen alone and move on. He sent Hoffman below deck, and the captain, cursing, complied.
"From that day on," said Means, who witnessed the exchange from his post at the wheel, "McCall was our hero."
And if you are wondering just who Roy F. "Latch" Hoffman is, just click here!
Well I hope you enjoyed your holiday. I stuffed myself with the traditional hot dog, hamburger, and beer combination so beloved in Texas.
Sorry I did not update more last week, but I got pretty darn busy. Much to my shame I failed to thank the one person that was actually generous enough to send me a pledge, so thanks ivius_drusus for the C-note, though I have a feeling you won't be spending it.
I have a few items to put up later today, but I have to run run run. Check back around noon for more bloggy goodness!
