eisely

The Man of Steele, as usual, provides some interesting and informative insights and anecdotes. In other threads about finances, before DS became a regular poster, there were various tales of woe about irregular, or at best, unaccountable, unit financial practices. Having two signature accounts, with people from different households on the signature card may be a pain the rear, but it is a very sound practice. Treasurers should make regular reports to the committee. These don't need to be very fancy, but requiring reports keeps the treasurer current with his or her duties. Fewer things slide. As DS points out, theft is rare in scouting, but in my experience non-profits are much more susceptible to embezzlement than other types of organizations, and a few simple checks and balances remove temptation, or at least make theft more difficult. A scout is trustworthy, but we are all human. Every instance I have heard of or read about in the newspaper, where major theft at a non profit occurred, there was one person handling the finances by himself or herself, with no one else watching.

As far as I can tell, I agree with the factual accuracy of everything that has been posted so far. BW makes an interesting distinction arguing for registering adult committee members above and beyond the minimum. As I understand his point, if a committee member is going to perform a specific function as envisioned in the BSA "school solution" to the division of labor within the committee, then it is definitely a good idea that that person be registered. Korea Scouter also makes a point that has been made earlier about the non-requirement to utilize Robert's Rules of Order for the conduct of meetings. I have consistently commented that most committees operate by consensus. Certainly in the committees in which I participated there was no distinction between registered and non-registered adults. Everybody was afforded a chance to speak their piece. Having said all that, I think committees should be prepared to revert to more formal procedures when a difficult issue arises, such as the removal of a volunteer. Fortunately these situations do not arise very often, but given the seriousness of some issues, I think a formal process should be observed in such situations.

Learned something new... I was not aware that the uniforms are all assembled in the US by union labor. I really don't mind all that much, given what the uniform is supposed to represent. Is any reader of this now surprised at the cost of the uniforms?

To be a fully functional member of the committee one must register. Ordinarily committee actions are not contentious and committees acty by consensus. However, the possibility of having to deal with difficult, even divisive, issues cannot be ignored. If a formal vote is ever required, then only registered members of the committee should be allowed to vote. There is nothing wrong with broadening the base of registered adults. Giving volunteers even a modicum of status may encourage them to become more involved. Benefits of registration: I can think of two concrete benefits. You get the magazine. Also (so I am told), if something bad happens and there is a claim, the liability coverage of the local council becomes primary coverage only for registered adults. This second item may or may not be true, and may vary across councils. For any activity requiring a tour permit, at least one of the adult leaders named on the tour permit must be 21 years old, and at least one must be registered.

Wearing a merit badge sash is totally appropriate, and expected, for every Eagle BOR in which I have been involved. OA sashes should be worn for OA events only, so don't worry about the conflict in choosing one sash versus the other.

Boy this thread sure took off like wild fire. NJCubScouter, you are correct. I did indulge in a little bit of labeling. But the truth is that many leading liberal politicians and pundits do condescend to the rest of the electorate, including their own supporters. I have no idea who the original author is, but his proposal seems to be serious and is clearly condescending. Incidentally, as bad as David Duke was, and still is, I don't think he ever did anything as brazen and criminal as the Tawana Brawley hoax that Al Sharpton perpetrated. At least Al Sharpton is entertaining.

This has absolutely nothing to do with scouting, but it is too good not to share with my on line friends in the scouting community. This was sent to me by one of my sons. It was printed in the Economist magazine and is a hilarious send up of a guide for getting through the holidays. __________________________________ SUB SOLE NIHIL NOVI DECEMBER 16TH 1999 Fed up with Christmas and all its excesses? Such woes have an ancient provenance. The following manuscript was recently unearthed during building work in Rome. Written in colloquial, even chatty, Latin (our translation can only be an approximation), the text is a first-century guide to etiquette during Saturnalia, the pagan festival which Christmas replaced. Such guides were popular among imperial Rome's workaholic middle class. Translation follows: SATURNALIA is the most wonderful time of the year, and also the worst. You want to enjoy yourself, but every December you end up exhausted, hung over and broke. All that shopping! All those presents! All that food! All those children and slaves running riot all over the house! Relax. The key to a great Saturnalia is planning. Follow our question-and-answer guide, and you will never drag yourself like a corpse into January again. HOW MANY DAYS CAN I TAKE OFF? The vital question, of course. Saturnalia was originally only one day, the 14th before the Kalends of January. Augustus allowed three days for it, December 17th to 19th, but he was a man of severe habits. The festival usually lasts for a week, and most people take as much time off as they can get away with. Macrobius talks of lounging around "for most of January". That is certainly too long, but the point of Saturnalia is that, with the schools and the law courts closed, people can take a break from the frantic pace of modern life. Here's what Saturn himself has to say about it, in Lucian's words: Not everyone can take a break, of course. Essential services need to be maintained. Cooks go on cooking, accounting for the pall of smog that hangs over us all in December, and the shops stay open for those last-minute gifts you've forgotten. Abroad, too, those men engaged on expanding our glorious empire have to go on doing so. Only actually starting battles is forbidden. A generation ago Cicero, writing from Cilicia to a friend back home, described how a minor tribe called the Pindenissitae ("Who the hell are the Pindenissitae?" you will ask) had given him a great Saturnalia present by surrendering to him, and that he had taken 3,000 prisoners who, when sold at auction, had fetched 12m SESTERCES. "The soldiers are enjoying the festival thoroughly," he added. DO I HAVE TO GO TO THE TEMPLE? Temple-going on the first day of Saturnalia is optional, but it is traditional and good for appearances. Most of us seem to have forgotten the religious point of the festival, if we ever knew what it was. Saturn (just to remind you) is the sickle-wielding god of sowing and grafting. He presided over the Age of Gold, that magic and long-past transformation of the world, when lions lay down with lambs and the earth brought forth crops without ploughing. At Saturn's feast, for just a few days, we pretend we are back in that time of bliss and plenty, "when wine flowed in rivers, and there were fountains of milk and honey; when all men were good and all men were gold," as Lucian says. Virgil once wrote that we are expecting a new golden age that will be heralded by the birth of a mystical child, a bringer of universal peace. It's a nice story for poets and children, but of course we all know that universal peace is what the emperor brings us, if rather more expensively. WHAT DO I WEAR? No problem here. You are absolutely required to leave off the toga and put on the SYNTHESIS instead. (It's that thing in the back of your wardrobe which looks like a dressing gown, only made of flimsier stuff.) Togas mean business, lawsuits, affairs of state; the SYNTHESIS says that you are going to PARTY. Some people complain that it makes no sense to dress like this when there is ice on the ground and Boreas is blowing, especially when they have sweated through the summer in an all-wool TOGA PRAETEXTA. But NIL DESPERANDUM--put on lots of tunics underneath, a fur cloak on top, and beat the slave who fires up the hypocaust. IS IT ESSENTIAL TO GIVE PARTIES? Yes, it is. Only social losers hang round the Arcades trying to cadge an invitation. As Lucian says, there are two main reasons for offering Saturnalia hospitality to your friends: (something lost here in the translation) A few party suggestions. Inviting "More than the Graces" (three) but "less than the Muses" (nine) is the best rule. Food should be plentiful but not extravagant. Eggs and fish for a starter, followed by boar and turbot, then sow's teats and Lucrine oysters and sausages and pastry, followed by cheese and fruit for desert. Keep the wine well watered. Myrtle is always a good choice for decorations. And the conversation should be decent but never serious. Even Caesar, Cicero said, would discuss "only light matters such as literature". Games are essential. "The dice-box reigns supreme," as Martial says. A favourite is choosing a king of the party on a throw of the dice, who then makes the other guests take their clothes off, libel each other or take turns with the flute-girl. People will play for hours, and bet on anything that moves. WHAT ABOUT PRESENTS? This is the biggest Saturnalia headache of all, but the answer is simple: give them to everyone. This means your clients, your patron, your lawyer, your wife, your mistresses, your slaves and your children. Make a list of them, and omit no one. "I hate the crafty and mischievous arts of presents," Martial says; "Gifts are like fish-hooks." But at Saturnalia everyone is fishing, and everyone is biting. How much should I spend? you will ask. Again, the answer is simple: as much as you can afford. Even the young Claudius, who was thought too much of a simpleton to be given a magistracy or anything of that sort, was allowed 40 pieces of gold by Tiberius to spend on Saturnalia presents. And Pliny the Younger reminds us that Julius Bassus, once pro-consul of Bithynia, defended himself against charges of rapine and extortion in his province by saying that he had needed the money "for a few slight gifts on his birthday and at Saturnalia." This will give you some idea of the expenditure required. Lucian suggests putting aside a tenth of your income, as well as going through your cupboards to see if you can spare any old clothes or tableware. These will do for freedmen. Give your slaves a few pennies to spend at the fair in the Forum, where they sell the sort of trinkets slaves like, and give your children nuts and clay toys: they will be broken in a day anyway. But be extremely careful about how you go about cutting corners with everybody else. The tribune Publicius once suggested that because Saturnalia was such a burden on the poor (and even the non-poor), no one should give anything but wax tapers to anyone richer than himself. He was obviously a fool. Whole books have been written on what to give at Saturnalia. Martial's "Good Gift Guide" suggests you cannot go wrong with a nice stationery set, new toga, alabaster bottles for the ladies, or set of silverware. If these are too expensive, the standard offerings these days are a box of candles, set of napkins or jar of plums. Although unoriginal, these are quite acceptable; and, if kept unopened, they can be recycled with nobody noticing. It was sheer bad luck that when Umber sent Martial a festive cornucopia of writing tablets, beans, tablecloths, sponges, olives and figs by special delivery (eight tall Syrian slaves), Martial should have spotted that these were all the presents that people had sent to Umber in the five days before. If you prefer not to recycle, you can try to reduce the worth of your presents year by year, so that the togas get thinner, the cups lighter and the candles more transparent. But this should not be taken too far. Martial complained that the weight of Postumianus's present of silverware fell from four pounds in the first year to two pounds in the second year and one in the fifth, until in the seventh he sent him "half a pound of silver scrapings in a little cup". To another colleague he wrote what might be called an "Ode to Meanness": (also lost in translation) Many friends are a puzzle when it comes to presents. Looking for that special gift for the man or woman who has everything? Can't face another jar of plums this year? Why not consider some of Martial's other suggestions: live mullets, a peacock-feather fly-whisk, a snow strainer, or "Cilician socks from the beard of the fetid goat"? HOW CAN I AVOID FAMILY ARGUMENTS OVER WHICH SHOWS TO WATCH? There is no point in having such arguments, since nothing of quality is ever put on for the holidays. It is always the same old formula: criminals torn to pieces, a commercial break, followed by Gauls eviscerated, and ending with a crowd-scramble when the emperor throws out vouchers for free wine. DO I HAVE TO GIVE MY SLAVES TIME OFF? Unfortunately, yes. Part of the vaguely religious point of Saturnalia is that it is a festival of freedom: "When I was king," Lucian's Saturn says, "slavery was not." This is why prisoners are not executed (except for your viewing pleasure) and children are excused from school; and it is also why your slaves are allowed to dress up, dance, insult you to your face, refuse to wait at table and generally misbehave. It is horribly inconvenient, just when you are trying to impress your friends and hangers-on with the quality of your domestic service, to find it IN FLAGRANTE in the garden, or throwing up in the street. But just for a week, all men are equal. You must indulge all this with a tight-lipped smile. HOW DO I DEAL WITH UNWANTED GUESTS? You must be nice to them, even when they are relatives you wish you didn't have or friends on whom you thought you had turned your back. That is the Saturnalia spirit. And remember, when they walk cheerily through the door, that things might be worse: they might be Julius Caesar and half his army, who turned up uninvited one Saturnalia and expected Cicero to entertain them. The great orator, of course, was stoical about it: CAN'T I JUST SKIP THE WHOLE THING? You must be a philosopher, or some other sad Greek. It is not done to get out of Saturnalia, and only spoilsports try. However, if you insist, you could always retire to your country house and, once there, retreat still further to a summer house in the garden. Pliny the Younger did this. He told a friend that when he sat there, with the interior curtains drawn and the windows open on views of the sea, he was quite unable to hear, in the house, "the licence and mirth of the servants". "I don't hinder their festivities," he wrote, "and they don't disturb my studies." The philosopher Seneca did much the same in his flat in the middle of Rome, and Juvenal said he knew lots of starving poets who simply spent the holidays in their attics, getting their verses ready for the publisher. For poets, of course, the unbridled excess and commercialism of the festival is disgusting. Others might agree. But there is a good reason for taking part, even if you remain unmoved by the magic of these "best of days", as Catullus calls them. The world's only superpower will never preserve its booming economy without the wild holiday spending of ordinary Romans. In this consumer-led Golden Age, Saturnalia is no longer an indulgence. It's a civic duty. > >

One of the difficulties that lefties have in selling their ideas is their obvious condescension to the rest of us. This op ed from the Seattle paper captures the attitude perfectly. _______________ The S factor explains Bush's popularity By NEAL STARKMAN GUEST COLUMNIST Millions of words have been written as to the motivations of voters. Particularly in close elections, as in the 2000 presidential contest, pundits and laypeople alike have speculated on why people voted for whom. The exit poll has been a major tool in this speculation. But the speculation misses the mark by far. It's increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush's popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president's popularity hovers at around 50 percent -- an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people's lives now as opposed to four years ago. What can explain his popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America? Is that likely? Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush's administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president? The answer, I'm afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It's the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don't ask it, the media don't report it, the voters don't discuss it. I, however, will blare out its name so that at last people can address the issue and perhaps adopt strategies to overcome it. It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright. It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think. You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace. Politicians have been aware of this forever; they cater to these people. They offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. They evade directed questions with non-sequiturs. They offer meaningless, jingoistic pap instead of thoughtful policy. And these people, the "S" people, eat it all up with a ladle. I don't have a solution to this problem. To claim I did would belie my previous arguments. But I do have some modest suggestions that might provide a start for discussion: an intelligence test to earn the right to vote; a three-significantly-stupid-behaviors-and-you're-out law; fines for politicians who pander to the lowest common denominator and deportation of media representatives who perpetuate such actions. It's well past time that people confront this issue, no matter who's offended. We are on the way to becoming a nation of imbeciles. I'm certain that a plethora of "George W. Bush" jokes is already being circulated in every capital of the world. We can stop this sapping of our national integrity but we must do it soon, lest the morons become the norm and those of us who use our brains for more than memorizing advertising jingles are ourselves ostracized from society. Let's start talking. Let's bring the S factor out of the closet and into the daylight where we can all see it, gulp at its hideousness and finally make serious attempts to bring it to bay.

The lodge to which I belong here is the result of such a merger and was able to pick up a lower lodge number that was not assigned to any other lodge at that time. This gives a false impression of greater longevity. This is a healthy change.

This has been addressed before, but new confusions have arisen as to when a tour permit is required and when it is not. So I thought I would run this up the flag pole one more time to see who salutes. First of all tour permits are pretty clearly required in any of the following circumstances: 1. Overnight camping or lodging is involved. 2. The event or activity requires special training for the leadership as specified in G2SS and this training must be certified on the tour permit. G2SS specifies special training and certifications requirements for some activities that are not required to be spelled out on the tour permit. I would also consider these activities to require a tour permit. 3. The unit is providing transportation or coordinating transportation to a site other than the unit's "usual meeting place". 4. Day hikes and day bike rides. 5. Activities in the local area that are none of 1 through 4 above, but are not at the "usual meeting place'. This might include service projects. (This is a grey area in my mind where additional input will be helpful.) Tour permits are not required for: 1. Ordinary troop meetings. 2. Courts of honor. 3. Boy led patrol activities at which no adult is present. 4. Council sponsored events and activities. Further thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

A scout is trustworthy. Is it necessary to say more?

I click on it and I can't go there.

The 6th amendment to the constitution reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Writing as a non-lawyer, this would appear to be the basis for the reference in the Milligan case. While Milligan refers to the birthright of citizens, the amendment refers only to the "accused". Non citizens get the same rights as citizens.

You start dreaming about all the things you should have done to make the most recent outing even more successful.

Scoutingagain has raised a very broad question about which we should all be concerned. In our recent history the internment of Japanese and American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII is the clearest example of deprivation of civil liberties of a segment of the population just for who they were. Someone with more knowledge of the facts can comment, but I believe this action was litigated at the time and the Supreme Court found no constitutional prohibition to this action. I think that the precedent still stands. Subsequent moves by the congress to pay a reparation to these people were undertaken not because of the legalities, but because of the consensus that it was a bad idea and unjust to the people interned. I could be wrong about that. Someone correct me if they have better information. Probably the earliest major incidents of the Federal Government in particular under this constitution occurred early in the history of the republic when a series of anti sedition laws were adopted. These were later repealed and/or found unconstitutional. This was probably prior to the Supreme Court asserting authority to rule on constitutionality per se. These laws were a severe abridgment of freedom of the press among other things. If memory serves me correctly, this occurred during the presidency of John Adams, who served a single term. He was our second president after George Washington, who served two terms. One of the single most important civil liberties is the right of access to Habeus Corpus. Section 9 of Article I of the constitution reads, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." As far as I know, the only suspensions of habeus corpus occurred during our civil war, when Lincoln invoked it. Again, I don't enough of the history of this to comment on it. Since the entire confederacy was under military government for some period of time, I suspect that normal civil liberties were limited in those areas while under the rule of the army. The most interesting and important point is that the constitution contemplates situations where normal civil liberties can be suspended or curtailed by the government. One could therefore argue that curtailment of civil liberties by itself is not necessarily unconstitutional. The questions are who decides, what criteria apply, and for how long? These are very serious issues about which we should all be concerned.

I too have found NJCubScouter's input to be informative and helpful. This whole thread has been rather civilized so far.

As I think I noted earlier, the Geneva conventions are agreements among states to govern armed conflict among states. Al Queda is a stateless group of murderous loonies that objects to most governments in principle and clearly believes that the Geneva conventions do not restrict what they can and cannot do. Let's dissect what LeVoyageur posted a little more closely. The most relevant section is pasted below. " Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resisance movements, fulfil the following conditions (a) that being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; ©that of carrying arms openly;(d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." One of the operative phrases governing militias and volunteer corps is "...belonging to a Party to the conflict..." Our basis for invading Afghanistan was the inability and/or unwillingness of the Taliban regime to arrest and turn over the leaders of Al Queda to US authorities. Remember that the Taliban did not even exercise full control over its own territory, but Al Queda was operating openly in the territory controlled by the Taliban. I don't recall reading that Al Queda was a government or country somewhere. How does Al Queda count as a "party to the conflict" when Al Queda does not qualify as a state or government? Most of the Afghan people in the end hated the foreigners among them since the Al Queda were clearly supporters of an unpopular regime. Non Afghans like John Lindh had far less right to be there supporting the Taliban than we had to go into Afghanistan to pursue our vital national interest in running Al Queda to the ground when the Taliban would not do so. Whatever you may feel about our invasion of Iraq, similar observations could be made about non-Iraqis now being captured in Iraq. What business is this of theirs? They cannot be said to be trying to liberate their own territory since what they are trying to do is reinstate the former regime. Detained members of Al Queda also fail to qualify for POW treatment on other grounds, namely (a),(b) and © in LeVoyageur's post. I leave out (d) since the detainees by and large were not directly involved in the attacks of 9/11. Even so, if we were to grant POW status formally to these detainees, then they clearly are not entitled to attorneys, unless they are actually charged with specific crimes. As I noted earlier, being captured on the field of battle as an apparent fighter does not itself constitute a crime. In the case of the Marin Taliban (Lindh), if he had been captured actually attacking US personnel, he probably could have been charged with treason. In the event, he was not so charged, and copped a plea to a lesser offense. Prudence may ultimately force the Bush administration to decide that the detainees should be formally considered to be POWs. I don't really think that would matter all that much. They are receiving humane treatment consistent with the requirements of the Geneva conventions. Representatives of various other real governments whose nationals are detained who have visited Guantanamo have pronounced the conditions to be satisfactory. I also doubt very much that those governments really want their people back. It is more convenient for them to pretend to be concerned and have these people kept off the street. The more interesting and important cases are those who were not apprehended in Afghanistan during the fighting, but those picked up in places like Pakistan. Unless these people were actually captured in active fighting, it is not clear to me what their status is. Eventually such people probably should be charged or released, as in fact has happened to quite a few.

I just couldn't resist posting this piece by Mark Steyn. Steyn is a Canadian writing here in the Telegraph, a British paper. _________________________ The pundits in love with doom and gloom By Mark Steyn (Filed: 30/12/2003) Usually in this spot each year I do an insufferable gloat-fest on the amazing accuracy of my columnar predictions from the last 12 months. But to be honest my heart's not in it this year. Although my confident assertion that Adrien Brody would win the Best Actor Oscar required a tiny modicum of prognosticatory skill, almost everything else I predicted was perfectly obvious - or, as I put it in The Spectator of March 29, "Let me go out on a limb here: the Anglo-Aussie-American forces will win." A week later, in an otherwise hilariously pessimistic issue of the Speccie, I reckoned Baghdad would fall within the next seven to 10 days. It took six. But look, don't all stampede to shower me with Columnist Of The Year awards. That fall-of-Baghdad thing should have been as simple as predicting that at his next press conference Tony Blair will be wearing trousers. Might be navy, might be grey, but the trousered nature of the occasion should not be in doubt. Likewise, Baghdad. In my corner of New Hampshire in late March, if you could persuade 'em to take a five-minute break from chasing their sisters round the hayloft, guys with no teeth face down in the moonshine would tell you the Yanks would be marching down Glorious Saddam, Mighty Slayer Of The Infidel Boulevard by April 15, max. The more interesting question is why the smart fellows cranked out columns like "Baghdad Will Prove Impossible To Conquer". That would be Simon Jenkins in The Times, March 29. It would be cruel to scoff at Mr Jenkins's column that day ("The coalition forces confront a city apparently determined on resistance. They should remember Napoleon in Moscow, Hitler in Stalingrad, the Russians at Grozny," etc), so let's move on to scoff at his column from four days later: "I Predict The Pundits Will Carry On Getting It Wrong", by which he meant the gung-ho neocon Zionist patsies with our predictions that Baghdad would fall within the week. Instead, Jenkins was still recommending that we "prepare for Beirut, the West Bank or Stalingrad". Our boys will be "trapped far from home and in hostile territory, like the Russians in Chechnya." Oh, well. In Hollywood, purveyors of despised American culture to the world's cretins, they at least wait a decade before following Dumb And Dumber with Dumb And Dumberer. Jenkins held off barely a month before filing his own Dumb And Dumberer, in which he predicted that 2003 would go down in history as the year of "the destruction of the greatest treasure from the oldest age of Western civilisation, the greatest heritage catastrophe since the Second World War". This was a reference to the alleged destruction of the Iraqi National Museum, which yours truly said at the time was this year's "Jenin massacre" - that's to say, a complete fiction. And so it proved. Seven months ago, there was so much hooey in the papers about Iraq that I decided to see for myself and had a grand time motoring round the Sunni Triangle. Lovely place, friendly people, property very reasonable. Why were my impressions so different from the doom-mongers at CNN or the New York Times? Well, it seems most media types holed up at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad are still using their old Ba'athist minders as translators when they venture out. That would, at the very minimum, tend to give one a somewhat skewed perspective of the new Iraq. But it only works because the fellows on the receiving end - the naysayers in the media and elsewhere - are so anxious to fall for it. One Saddamite pen-pusher at the museum could only peddle his non-existent sack of Baghdad to the world because, thanks to chaps like Jenkins, it was a seller's market. I don't mean to harp on old Jenkins. When I see him on TV, he seems a reasonable cove with a polished air of authority. But that's precisely why his derangement is so much more alarming than the autopilot frothing of Leftie vaudeville turns like Harold Pinter and George Galloway. Jenkins is one of the great and good, he sits on quangos with big-time baronesses. But I could as easily have cited Sir Malcolm Rifkind or Sir Max Hastings, both broadly conservative types driven bonkers by their cowboyphobia. "It is hard not to hate George Bush," wrote Hastings the other day. "His ignorance and conceit, his professed special relationship with God, invite revulsion. A few weeks ago, I heard a British diplomat observe sagely: `We must not demonise Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.' Why not? The US defence secretary and his assistant have implemented coalition policy in Iraq in a fashion that makes Soviet behaviour in Afghanistan in the 1970s appear dextrous." Does that sound like a Daily Telegraph editor? Former editor, I hasten to add, thank God. Wolfowitz is a demonic figure to the anti-war types for little reason other than that his name begins with a big scary animal and ends Jewishly. But, if you want to know what he's really like, ask Ann Clwyd: "He was a very charming man, an intellectual," the Welsh firebrand told the Observer. Just so. I've been in his presence on a couple of occasions - he's very soft-spoken, thoughtful, not in the least bit lupine. He can reel off the names of gazillions of Iraqis he's been in touch with for years - Kurds, Shias, Sunnis. Hastings mocks these contacts as "Iraqi stooges". But better a stooge than a vast anonymous tide of native extras, which is how Sir Max, whose Rolodex doesn't appear to be brimming with Ramadi and Mosul phone numbers, sees them. Where's the real "ignorance and conceit" here? No one who knows any Iraqis, as Ms Clwyd does, would compare Wolfowitz with the Soviets. The real story of this past year is not Saddam, but something deeper, symbolised by the bizarre persistence of the "anti-war" movement even after the war was over. For a significant chunk of the British establishment and for most of the governing class on the Continent, if it's a choice between an America-led West or no West at all they'll take the latter. That's the trend to watch in the year ahead.

One thing we have always done is to set up a loose leaf binder with the plastic holders they make for baseball cards. This is absolutely perfect for keeping blue cards, rank advancement cards, membership cards for OA, special cards such as BSA Lifeguard, etc. I always made a point of collecting these from my sons at the court of honor where they received them. I also have one for myself where I keep all my training records.

I am not familiar with the circumstances described by leVoyageur or the "Trading with the Enemy Act." Many businesses were also siezed just be because they were German owned. Maybe the law referred to was the legal basis for the seizures. It makes sense that a German owned subsidiary of a German parent corporation would have been "trading with the enemy" at the time when Germany and the US formally declared war on each other subsequent to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Any trading relationships prior to that were perfectly legal.

Numerous German owned businesses were siezed during WWII. If there were innocent US citizens harmed by these siezures, it makes sense that they be compensated in some way. Nobody ever charged these people with crimes of which I am aware. Certainly Lindh was held under conditions that can most charitably be described as primitive. I don't think he has ever said that he was tortured. One has to mindful of the conditions under which that war was being fought at the time. Just because the military was not able to provide better accommodations doesn't mean that he was treated unjustly. The question of access to lawyers and the like is at this point moot. He did have excellent representation in the end and got the best deal he could get. Many Americans would have liked to have seen the death penalty for this young man. I save my sympathy for the US military people and the Iraqis and Afghans they are helping. NJCubScouter, Your input on the jurisdiction question is informative and helpful. I am not sure that I agree, but I suspect the issue will get a full airing again.

Ditto to all of the above.

It is certainly correct that constitutional rights are not limited to citizens of the US. One of the interesting questions about the detainees at Guantanamo is the jurisdiction question. While the constitution assigns original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for certain types of cases, the constitution gives the congress the duty and power to establish other lesser courts and to specify the jurisdiction of those lesser courts. As far as I know the district courts of the US and the appellate circuits do not have jurisdiction outside the United States and its territories. The district court system may also have limited jurisdiction over certain types of US "territories" such as the grounds of consular and embassy establishments. Enclaves such as Guantanamo fall under the authority of the military. US military bases not on US soil would fall under the jurisdiction of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, and any "status of forces" agreement with the host government. This is one of the areas where I think the ninth circus went awry, by creating jurisdiction for itself, essentially usurping the powers of congress.

Ore. Scout Group Fined in Cannon Death Sat Dec 20,12:32 PM ET Add U.S. National - AP PORTLAND, Ore. - A Boy Scout group has been fined $11,500 for safety violations after a teenage camp counselor died from injuries he suffered when a ceremonial cannon exploded. Christopher Kroker, 16, was trying to fire the cannon when part of it flew back and hit him in the head, said Peter DeLuca, administrator of the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division. Kroker died four days later. Investigators concluded that Kroker overloaded the English-made cannon, violating standards set by the National Black Powder Association, DeLuca said Friday. The Portland-based Cascade Pacific Council was fined for unsafe handling and storage of explosives, failure to fully train employees, failure to establish a safety committee and failure to properly assess workplace hazards. Don Cornell, the council's director of field operations, said the group will examine activities at each of its seven Oregon camps. The Cascade Pacific Council represents 53,200 young people in 18 counties in Oregon and southern Washington.

le Voyageur makes a factual assertion in his earlier post that deserves a response. I don't have at my fingertips numbers on the citizenship of the detainees held at Guantanamo. I believe that most of the original captures in Afghanistan of people who were clearly citizens of Afghanistan were ultimately turned over to the provisional government of Afghanistan. It is my understanding that the overwhelming majority of those held in Guantanamo are from third countries captured either in Afghanistan or some place else not the country of their citizenship. Such people can hardly be considered to be "foreign nationals who were captured while defending their homeland..." as le Voyageur states. For example, Saudis captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban may fairly be considered as foreign interventionists supporting a hated regime oppressing the Afghan people. President Bush offered the Taliban government several opportunities to do the right thing and hand over Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts. Frankly I doubt that the Taliban would have had the wherewithal to effect such a handover, but then if that is so, it can scarcely be characterized as a fully sovereign government in control of its own territory. We had every right to go after the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks wherever we might find them, unless the nominal government of the territory where the terrorists were hiding was able and willing to do something about the situation.