6294RE: [PRQuorum] RE: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the military - a PR-driven move ...
- Jul 19 9:53 PMAllow me to explain.
One is about choices made after enlistment, the other is a bar to enlistment.
Keeping people who might become the best warriors from enlisting because of tats that can be covered up by clothing makes no sense. Requiring uniform hair styles for people who’ve already joined seems very different to me.
But your price may vary, and I am not a monument to consistency. I raised the tattoo issue because it came out about the same time I saw Lone Survivor and realized that those brave and very effective fighters were tattooed, and it made no sense to me to exclude future warriors of that ilk.
However, once you’ve enlisted, you’re expected to follow the rules – about hair, tattoos, etc. The military (as I said) is not the place where you practice personal freedom, but where you defend it. Soldiers get to practice personal freedom once they retire.
All My Best
Ned Barnett, APR
Marketing & PR Fellow, American Hospital Association
Barnett Marketing Communications
420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276 - Las Vegas NV 89110
702-561-1167 - cell/text
www.barnettmarcom.com <http://www.barnettmarcom.com/> - twitter @nedbarnett
05-6-16 BMC Logo
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: [PRQuorum] RE: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the military - a PR-driven move ...
Picture me cocking my head like a confused puppy: why is it okay to require "uniformity" in hair style but not in tattoolessness?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic