Wish I could say this for real

Attn: certain Army officers
Re: your recent briefing

1. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any particular correlation between "going to church" and what we colloquially refer to as "being a shitbag". There are plenty of churchgoers who do things like beat their spouses and drive drunk and don't change the toilet paper roll after it's empty. There are plenty of good people who do not ever and have not ever gone to church.
2. You said that when soldiers are called into your office for disciplinary reasons you ask them if they go to church. Since we do not work for a religious organization, this is - to put it bluntly - none of your fucking business. If you encourage soldiers to go to church or any other religious service, you are wrong.
2a. To illustrate, let's flip this situation around and pretend you are speaking with a soldier who is facing UCMJ action for, let's say, slapping his wife around. "Do you go to church?" you ask. "No sir," PFC Snuffy says. "Well, did you growing up?" you ask. "No sir, my family never really did." "Well, maybe you should stop, because it's obviously not doing you any good." Would this be okay to you?
3. A mandatory briefing for a group of enlisted soldiers is a grossly inappropriate time for you to discuss or even mention your belief in God, or a higher power, or lack of belief in that, or anything of the sort. You want to make sure we're all aware of the religious services offered on-post? Great, hand out pamphlets or put it in your PowerPoint presentation. For one, it's highly likely that none of the soldiers sitting in front of you are interested in your beliefs. Two, you don't seem to understand that some of us do not in any way agree that there's something 'outside the laws of science' driving the world, so no, it is not something we have to acknowledge.
4. This was a briefing for soldiers who are new(ish) to this unit. Congratulations! Your weird proselytizing-lite made this secular Humanist Jew feel distinctly uncomfortable!
5. I don't know, maybe you were just deeply confused. Just because the briefing happens to be in the chapel does not mean it's okay for you to preach to us.

Priorities

Say you work - well, anywhere. You are an adult, with a job. At your job, Underling A comes to you and says "I saw Underling B raping a 10-year-old." The correct course of action in this situation is to tell Underling A to sit down and wait while you pick up the phone and call the police. There should be no waiting. You should, of course, report this to your superiors, but you do not go to them first. When you are told there is reasonable suspicion that someone has raped a child, you do not wait. 

Say you are an athletic coach, and therefore are required by law to report any suspected child abuse to the police. At your job, Underling A comes to you and says "I saw Underling B raping a 10-year-old." Can you guess what the correct course of action is? Hint: it's "tell the police immediately." 

Say you are an athletic coach, and therefore are required by law to report any suspected child abuse to the police. At your job, Underling A comes to you and says, "I saw Underling B raping a 10-year-old." Underling B runs a program which uses your program's facilities to help young children. What do you do? 

If your answer to that last question is not "immediately call the police and tell them that 'I have just been told that one of my employees may have harmed a child, and he is involved in a youth program, I need you to do something right now', and then going to your employer, relaying the same information, and insisting that you do not want Underling B working for you until the matter is settled by the proper authorities," you're a pretty horrible person. You might be a great football coach, but you fail at basic humanity. 

Dear Daily Mail: Stay away from my state please.

So here's a little article in one of the world's worst newspapers about a town near my hometown. It's a strange little piece that for some reason has gotten under my skin; I think a lot of that is because the author has clearly never been to Los Alamos (or quite likely anywhere in New Mexico). A few points:

The small, dusty city of around 8,000 households has just one public golf course and very few luxury shops, with those wanting to experience the high life usually driving 35 miles northwest to nearby Santa Fe.

1) Santa Fe is southeast of Los Alamos, which if you look at a compass, is in fact the exact opposite of being northwest of someplace.
2) Okay, this may be the weird perspective I've developed having been raised in Philadelphia but then spending six years in New Mexico: Sure, compared to Los Alamos Santa Fe is "the high life". It's a bigger city and has art galleries and the opera and some of the best restaurants in the world* and things like that. But "the high life"? Kind of, maybe, I guess. According to The Internet, the per capita income is about $25k, so...okay.
3) I'm not sure I'd refer to Los Alamos as a "small, dusty city". Small, yes. And well, okay, pretty much everywhere in New Mexico is dusty to some degree or another in a weirdly literal sense. But, uh, let's refer to places like Truth or Consequences - tiny towns where in the eyes of outsiders nothing significant really ever happens as "small and dusty" and perhaps acknowledge that some of the world's most advanced research happens here?

On the other hand...

Kiplinger said of its report: 'If it weren’t for the national laboratory, Los Alamos might be just another stagecoach stop in the desert.

Guys, if it weren't for LANL, there would be no Los Alamos. No stagecoach stop. No anything other than, I don't know, maybe some rancher with a bunch of sheep? I mean this absolutely literally. The town didn't exist until the government bought up all the land in the 40's.

*Oh god stuck in Germany surrounded by horrible hateful food please send huevos rancheros and green chile.