Ally has been turning out the posts lately. Despite the gloominess of some of the posts, one hopes that she is posting and ranting because life is good.

For our gun-nut readers, I recommend “Gun Ownership.” A question for my fellow ministers: since I am the only Minister to have snuffed out life with a firearm, does that qualify me as an honorary gun nut? Just askin’.

“Looking Inside” shows the perils of honesty. I had a similar situation as a teenager. I knicked a car pulling out of my parking space. No one saw me. I could have driven away, but I parked the car, went into each store in the strip mall and asked around until I found the owner and confessed. Since it was a minor scrape, I assumed the person would say not to worry about it. The woman, of course, made a huge deal out of the scratch. I offered to pay for the repair because I knew that it would be less than the deductible and any report would make my insurance go up. But she insisted on going through the insurance company. She reported a set of dents on the other side of her car. Luckily, my insurance company was a bit dubious about how I could have managed to damage two sides of her car and denied the claim. Lesson: even though you are honest, not everyone else is. The fact that Ally was honest when it was likely to be (and was) financially ruinous, speaks well of her character. She may think she would take a different path if she had to do it all over again, but your humble Smallholder doubts it.

Finally, read the post on the Holiday Blues and send her a cheery e-mail.

Holiday Blues actually gave me an idea for a posting meme for the Naked Villains - we have to do something to jump start the Poet Laureate, Air marshal, Foreign Minister and Minister of Propaganda. Post topic: Recount a happy holiday memory.

I write a post about how prisoner-taking can be a dangerous endeavor. I illustrate it with a war story about a beloved uncle.

And what does Sadie do? Does she reflect on the ugly nature of war? Discuss how international legal niceties are the first casulty of conflict? Give thanks for the safe deliverance of a member of the Minister of Agriculture’s family.

Of course not.

The always scholarly and thoughtful Bill’s Comments has linked to Rite Wing TechnoPagan’s blog. The teaser article was about green energy alternatives, on which I will riff below. Go check it out.

I respectfully submit to the Maximum Leader that TechnoPagan ought to be added to the blogroll. I don’t generally agree with much of what TechnoPagan writes, but he challenges his readers to think and backs up his arguments. Add him, o great arbiter of Nakedvillainous bloggy goodness.

But back to the green energy alternatives.

Technopagan basically argues that subsidies for green energy are misguided since they shift the true cost of those alternatives to taxation, which precludes the invisible hand of the marketplace from making accurate comparisons between energy sources.

A conservative is generally against subsidies.

A liberal is generally for government intervention to determine a “good” result.

I’m a progressive.

The marketplace works. But, to mangle W.C., “Capitalism is the worst form of economics - except for all the others.”

As a progressive, I would like to make sure, like Technopagan, that the true costs of any commodity - energy or otherwise - are reflected in prices so that the market can make accurate comparisons between energy sources. I’ll agree that green subsidies be eliminated IF:

Traditional energy prices are forced to account for the hidden costs that are generally not reflected in price. Coal plants can keep producing energy, but their pollution must be filtered - why should the populace be forced to bear the byproduct of pollution, which is certainly more injurious to the commonweal than a few more pennies of taxation that are used to subsidize green alternatives. Once the true costs of production are factored into the marketplace, I’m confident that green energy is viable. Or, at the very least, higher fuel costs will offer profit incentives for further energy research.

I think there is a bit of a nod toward this position at the end of TechnoPagan’s post:

However, taking the notion of subsidies at face value, it occurs to me that acomplete ban on subsidies would put a stop to a lot of arguments. If virgin paper is “really” more expensive than recycled paper, and only looks cheaper because of subsidies, then getting rid of the subsidies would cause people to switch to recycled quite spontaneously. Likewise, if meat is a low in cost as it is because of heavy subsidies to the Meat Industry, removing those subsidies would convert more people into vegetarians.

Hey - and now he is moving into my pet area - agricultural policy. I would love to see the subsidy of industrial agriculture end. At the very minimum, an end to corn subsidies would end the profitability of grain-based feedlots, saving fuel, leading to healthier grass-fed beef, reducing erosion, making actual family farms economically viable, improving the lives of animals, and eliminating environmental problems like manure nutrient overflows.

Indepundit has more on the Fallujah shooting, in the form of advice he gave his own troops on the rules of engagement.

Read through the discussion thread as well. With a few exceptions (there is always some loon who can’t resist using the towelhead epithet), the commentary is interesting.

The issue of not knowing whether a wounded enemy is likely to try to take U.S. marines with him reminded me of a story that my Uncle John told about Iwo Jima.

Uncle John went ashore with a 105 battery - the marines’ mobile front line artillery. After the beachhead was secured, they set up operations and began exchaning fire with Japanese guns hidden in caves behind steel doors in Surabachi.

Even after the infantry pushed the perimiter back so the battery was not in range of direct rifle fire, marines were being shot periodically. The battery could not find the sniper anywhere and no one could see any flash. This went on for a couple of days, wih two or three marines getting tagged.

The break (as it were) came as the battery commander sat down to take a dump on a used mess can. As he sat there, he saw a flash and a round tore through both buttocks. My Uncle would always start giggling at this point - an officer shot in ass while taking a dump. But as they administer first aid, he directed his men to a length of pipe sticking out of the sand.

The pipe looked like any other piece of detirtus of the shelled beach. But it was actually a breathing/firing tube. As the Americans closed in, a young Japanese soldier - a teenager, crawled into a pit with water and bags of rice. His comrades fashioned postioned the pipe, laid a steel door on top of him, and buried him alive.

You have to respect the courage of this soldier who voluntarily laid down in his own grave. He laid there for days, and whenever a marine stopped in his tunnelvision long enough, the Japanese soldier would light him up.

My uncle was part of the party of marines who dug down through the sand and found the metal door.

One of the marines said that they should take the sniper prisoner.

The sergeant looked at him disdainfully. “He’s likely to have a grenade down there with him. You’re welcome to try, but I’m going to go stand over there.”

The marines considered this.

They pried up the edge of the door and a dozen marines poured rifle fire into the exposed crack.

An execution.

I’m glad the prisoner guy got overruled by his buddies.

Uncle John came home, raised a family, built a dairy farm, and helped feed the nation.

Much angst is being expressed about the videotape of an American killing a wounded insurgent.

Was it a war crime violating the Geneva Convention?

No.

First of all, the “prisoner” was not yet a prisoner; he had not been searched and detained. Iraqi jihadis have often played possum and then detonated an explosive when an American attempted to search and detain him. Thus, it was reasonable for the soldier to shoot the Iraqi playing possum. Notably, the two wounded insurgents who were laying on the floor with their hands raised were not killed. As they were clearly submitting and had their hands in plain sight, they were taken prisoner.

More importantly, it did not violate the Geneva Convention because the insurgents are NOT covered by the Geneva convention. (As an aside, neither are the combatants detained at Guantanamo.)

The Geneva Convention
ARTICLE 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) 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 resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and cusoms of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Clauses 2 and 6 tell the tale. The insurgents do not meet the criteria of resistance in an occupied zone. They also do not meet the criteria of clause six; the insurgents are not spontaneous, having been resisting for a year or more so can legally expected to have uniformed themselves with a fixed sign recognizable at a distance. They also do not respect the laws and customs of war.

Soldiers who refuse to be bound by the wars defining decency in war can have no expectation of receiving mercy. In fact, the insurgents have systematically violated the Geneva Convention’s rules:

(From article 3)
a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Hmm. Even if the insurgents had signed the Geneva Convention, they would, by their actions, released any party to the conflict from having to follow the Geneva Convention.

As un-uniformed combatants, they are subject to being shot out of hand even AFTER they have been taken prisoner. The shooting of combatants hiding in civilian clothes has been a well-established law of war for centuries. Remember Major Andre? How about the German sabateurs who landed on Long Island in World War II? How about the SS troops who disguised themselves as Americans during the Battle of the Bulge?

All shot.

For the Maximum Leader, Wicked Thoughts

Hat tip to Bill’s Comments.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has time for one quick one before he leaves. He commends to you all Blimpish: Britain and Iraq II: A nation not yet (too) afraid. It will take you a moment to read, but it is well worth your time.

Carry on.

From Llamabutchers.

Just so he can use his favorite new word.

Again.

Sadie Mirth, posting over at Straight White Guy, has posted the results of a silly superhero quiz.

Whatever.

But…

The silly superhero quiz reminded me of a silly superhero movie. I don’t hold it to be in the same sill cult classic category as Big Trouble in Little China, but it did amuse me: Mystery Men.

The movie as a whole is a funny conceit: Second-rate superheroes whose powers aren’t all that super - a guy who get really angry a guy who is invisible when no one is looking, a woman who throws bowling balls. The execution of the conceit is rather weak. The part I really enjoyed was the quiet performance “The Shoveler” by William H. Macy.

“Unhand that boy… or you’re mulch!”

Explaining why he works to fight evil, he simply says, “I shovel well. I shovel very well.”

I really identify with this character; I’m not spectacularly good at anything. I’m pretty much across-the-board average.

But I do try to make my little corner of the world a better place.

That’s what matters.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that the American Film Institute Takes on Movie Quotes With New List. The good folks at AFI are planning on listing the 100 best movie quotes in history. Hummm.. While your Maximum Leader doesn’t have the time for listing 100 of his favourites right now, here are just a few. See if you can guess the films…

“I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!”

“You know how to whistle don’t ya? You put your lips together and blow.”

“Young man. Young. Young. Man. You make my mouth water.”

“Luke, I am your father.”

“You talkin’ to me?”

“I’ll be back.”

“Trust me.”

“No Prisoners!”

“I know. You know I know. We know Henry knows. And Henry knows we know it. We’re a knowledgable family.”

“What shall we hang? The holly or each other.”

“I rode bare-breasted half way to Damascus. I damned nearly died of windburn; but the troops were dazzled.”

“When the King is off his arse nobody sleeps!”

“She’s like a democratic drawbridge. She goes down for everyone.”

and of course:

“Khaaaaannnn!”

Carry on.

Here’s a hint, boys.

Free of charge.

When you claim your nuclear research is for peaceful purposes, your claims will have more credibility if you pass the appropriations bill without chanting “Death to America.”

Just sayin’.

Ok, so this has nothing to do with Iran. This has to do with ME. My newest toy. The latest thing that has my wife rolling her eyes in disgust and me running around like a kid in a candy shop. I have to say, having one of these gizmos, I now understand what all the fuss is about. This is damn cool. Ladies, this is the perfect gift for your husband for Christmas. or Hannukah. or Kwanza. Or just to let him know that you actually DO appreciate him. Ok, maybe I’m sexist. Guys, buy this for your wife if she’s technically inclined and has the gadget bug.

Maybe we should supply all the Shiite Mullah’s with iPods loaded with Arabic chants and prayers. They maybe they’d mellow out a bit and realize that we aren’t evil, we’re merely enjoying the fruits of our well earned superiority.

Thanks, Dad.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader recognizes the benefits of ruling like an autocrat. Which, let us not kid ourselves, is pretty much what President Putin is doing in Russia. (How long before we start describing him as “President for Life” Putin?)

One of the benefits of such a style of government is that when the leader wants a new toy. Well by God he’s gonna get one. And that is what it appears as though the Russians are doing by developing a new nuclear missile.

From the articles your Maximum Leader has read (not just the linked one but some others) it appears as though the Russians are introducing iether a new type of ballistic missle or a cruise missile. If they get new toys why can’t the US Army/Air Force/Navy get new toys. (Your Maximum Leader doesn’t think that they let Marines play with nukes. They are likely to use them you know.) What about bunker-buster h-bombs? Your Maximum Leader knows the many arguments againt these sorts of weapons, but still thinks we need to research and test them. Just because we will not doesn’t mean that anyone will follow our example.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will allow this headline to pass without comment. Mainly because he just can’t think of a comment to make.

Mom Breastfeeds Puppy to Protect Baby.

Carry on.