The thing I admire most about this memo is that every single signatory used blue ink. For you lawyers out there, small dots of yellow highlighter in the same corner of every page are another good method of controlling originals.
Don't, for example, be the careless person who signs off on a PTA with a material term changed by the other party without noticing the change. Hypothetically speaking.
Carry on! And kind regards,
Why is this statement necessary? I prefer the idea of the military as a silent sentinel staying above the fray. There seems to be a need by organizations - both public and private - more and more these days to give a "hot take" or opine on the latest headline news event. I didn't need every company I do business with (or forgotten I did business with who still had my e-mail address) to tell me what they thought about the George Floyd situation over the summer. And now we have this. I thought officers were supposed to keep quiet on political matters.
I don't like the idea of the military opining on anything political and I don't think the military needs to address servicemembers about the events of Jan 6th. I don't think it's a good idea for the Joint Chiefs to characterize the events of Jan 6th, no matter how much I may agree with them.
Everyone in the military, whether a servicemember and/or as a citizen, doesn't need the Joint Chiefs' hot take on Jan 6th. I certainly didn't need the Joint Chiefs to tell me that we're going to have a new President on Jan 20th. The Constitution, the Electoral College vote, and the certification thereof by Congress told me that. It makes me wonder what I don't know that compels the Joint Chiefs to tell me these things. I'd certainly be interested in the learned opinions and hot takes of others on this issue.
Completely agree. I received a very lengthy email a few months back about social/racial issues from.... Uber. I really just want a ride to the airport.
100% agree with you on this, and @Cloudesley Shovell 's take on blue ink.
Week In Review