Posted on Apr 28, 2018
This New Air Force Puppet Video Would Be Cuter If 3 Airmen Hadn't Just Had Their Careers Ended
2.06K
10
7
5
5
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
"This video, an annual tradition in the Air Force, would be absolutely adorable — if the Tennessee Air National Guard hadn’t recently decided to nuke the careers of three dedicated airmen for doing essentially the exact same thing"
But the above statement from the article is not accurate. Making a puppet video about Military Month of the Child is not the same thing as using a puppet in swearing the oath of enlistment.
But the above statement from the article is not accurate. Making a puppet video about Military Month of the Child is not the same thing as using a puppet in swearing the oath of enlistment.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PFC (Join to see) - Thanks, but maybe I'm not clear - I don't see any problem with the Military Month of the Child puppet thing. I _do_ have a problem with the use of the puppet in the oath of enlistment video that preceded this. I don't know if the punishment for the use of a puppet in the oath was too severe because I don't understand what the NCO was trying to communicate by using the puppet. It's bizarre. If it was something for her kids (I'm reaching here) then I think it was a bit harsh. If it was some sort of political statement, then watch out of that door on the way out. But I don't understand what she was up to with the puppet in the oath - just strikes me as odd.
So, the author of the article seems to think that the use of puppets in videos is the problem - it's not. The problem is making light of the Oath of Enlistment. The oath identifies the anchor-point of loyalty. That's to be taken very seriously. It's what makes the good guys the good guys. Military Month of the Child, on the other hand, is something perhaps useful in promoting the welfare of dependents, but it isn't in the same universe as the Oath of Enlistment.
So, the author of the article seems to think that the use of puppets in videos is the problem - it's not. The problem is making light of the Oath of Enlistment. The oath identifies the anchor-point of loyalty. That's to be taken very seriously. It's what makes the good guys the good guys. Military Month of the Child, on the other hand, is something perhaps useful in promoting the welfare of dependents, but it isn't in the same universe as the Oath of Enlistment.
(0)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - I agree with you wholeheartedly. The article states she was doing it so her kids understood what she did by swearing in the Oath. However, I can see why this is a big deal. The Oath isn't something to be taken lightly. I think that out of context (taking a shot in the dark) I can see why she got in that much of trouble, but there isn't enough information to make an informed decision.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next