The standard-issue Army reflective belt, formally known as "Belt, High Visibility," is one of the most enduring symbols of the Global War on Terror. It is also the most indisputably reviled piece of gear in any U.S. service member's kit. Don't let Russian spies or Urban Outfitters convince you otherwise: the reflective belt might be the aesthetic version of a "Kick Me" sign.
Yet despite the previous requirement by the Army Safety Program that all U.S. soldiers are only required to don these heinously brash accessories during nighttime road operations, the use of reflective belts in the daylight somehow persists.
Luckily, Secretary of the Army Mark Esper is here with a shocking, yet brilliant idea: Maybe you don't need a reflective belt in broad daylight.
That's at least the underlying message in one of the several new directives signed by Esper as part of the service's ongoing campaign against bureaucratic time-sucks, per Stars and Stripes:
This month's memo, the first of 2019 in the series, amends the Army safety program policy to state that the service "does not require the wear of the reflective training belt or vest during daylight hours, or while conducting physical training on closed roads or dedicated physical training routes."
The change seems to highlight the glaringly obvious — that a belt worn to increase a soldier's visibility to drivers of cars and other vehicles on predawn or nighttime runs would not normally be needed in broad daylight or where vehicles generally can't go.
Congratulations to Mark Esper for taking the world's dumbest, pettiest safety requirement out back and unloading two barrels of logic into its rotten little heart. Now get Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller to do "no hands in your pockets" next.
Soldiers with the 4th Brigade Combat Team "Currahee", 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), participating in the Soldier, NCO of the quarter and Audie Murphy board, begin the run portion of the Army Physical Fitness Test, at forward operating base Salerno, Afghanistan, July 14, 2013. (U.S. Army/Sgt. Justin A. Moeller)
Editor's Note: The following story highlights a veteran atIron Mountain. Committed to including talented members of the military community in its workplace, Iron Mountain is a client of Hirepurpose, a Task & Purpose sister company. Learn more here.
Jackie Melendrez couldn't be prouder of her husband, her sons, and the fact that she works for the trucking company Iron Mountain. This regional router has been a Mountaineer since 2017, and says the support she receives as a military spouse and mother is unparalleled.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A 40-foot-tall (12 meters) cross-shaped war memorial standing on public land in Maryland does not constitute government endorsement of religion, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that leaves unanswered questions about the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state.
The justices were divided on many of the legal issues but the vote was 7-2 to overturn a lower court ruling that had declared the so-called Peace Cross in Bladensburg unconstitutional in a legal challenge mounted by the American Humanist Association, a group that advocates for secular governance. The concrete cross was erected in 1925 as a memorial to troops killed in World War One.
The ruling made it clear that a long-standing monument in the shape of a Christian cross on public land was permissible but the justices were divided over whether other types of religious displays and symbols on government property would be allowed. Those issues are likely to come before the court in future cases.