W Magazine, a fashion publication, recently released images from a photoshoot about military trends for Fall 2016. Featuring scantily-clad models draped in navy blue dress coats, sporting camouflage tank tops, and adorned with jewel-toned dog tags, the magazine’s “Make Love, Not War” spread pays homage to military garments.
While the fashion industry has long had an infatuation with civilianizing military gear, we just had to ask: Who wears it better, soldiers or models?
W magazine believes “models are the best candidates to rock military trends.” But we think otherwise.
Who do you think wore it best? Tell us in the comments.
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.