Alberto Gonzales talk English good

Alberto Gonzales confuses subject and object in his resignation letter. That makes me almost as happy the fact that he submitted the letter in the first place.

Boom boom.

Here's a shot of my dad shooting a Belgian FN-Herstal MAG-58, or as you might know it better, a big fat machine gun. The gun makes him feel like a big man (he is already big in the physical sense, but the gun makes up for his psychological and emotional failings).

We were all thinking it

Salon asks the timeless question: What the hell's wrong with Alaska?

The March of Progress

This article analyzes methods by which modern militaries train their soldiers to overcome their natural inclination to killing. It refers to an apparently famous study by the US army's official historian for the European theater of World War II Brigadier General Marshall. The study concluded that in combat situations only 15–20% of soldiers actually fired their weapons with intent to hit the enemy.

Subsequent studies of wars going back to the 19th century support the claim. Soldiers either don't fire their weapon or shoot over the heads of their targets, while still being able to demonstrate risky behavior like rescuing fallen comrades. The Marshall report, while encouraging in the sense that it suggests that even in life-threatening situations most people are unwilling to take a life, obviously came as a shock to army training officials, whose job is to encourage people to overcome that unwillingness in certain situations.

Rather than being composed completely of stationary targets on a rifle range, modern ranges apparently feature dummies stuffed with paint or ketchup. Increased language of killing, as opposed to heroism or glory, is also used.

What's surprising is how effective the army's adjustments to the training have been. From a 15–20% rate during WWII, the number of soldiers in combat situations who fired at the enemy in Vietnam went to 90%.

Hurrah.