Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6294RE: [PRQuorum] RE: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] Tattoos and the military - a PR-driven move ...

Expand Messages
  • Ned Barnett
    Jul 19 9:53 PM
      Allow 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: prbytes@yahoogroups.com [mailto:prbytes@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:46 AM
      To: prbytes@yahoogroups.com
      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]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic