The US Army Unofficial Consensual Sex Flow Chart

I found this in a box of memories and decided to share it.

When I reported to my first military unit way back in the 1990s, I received a laminated flow chart to assist me in case I engaged in sexual relations. To this day, I am not sure the validity of this flow chart, nor do I know if it was authorized or not. I was new to the Army and like a good new soldier, I didn't ask questions.

If you can't read the above image, here are the instructions:

The Unofficial Consensual Sex Army Flow Chart

Step 1: Check individual's ID card for proof she is 18 or over. If no, do not proceed any further. If yes, go to Step 2.

Step 2: Check individual for wedding ring. If yes, do not go any further. If no, go to Step 3.

Step 3: Administer field sobriety test to insure person is not under the influence. If yes, do not go any further. If no, proceed to Step 4.

Step 4: Administer blood test to insure person has no communicable diseases. If yes, do not proceed any further. If no, go to Step 5.

Step 5: You are now ready to have sex. Go to Step 6.

Step 6: During the act, ensure you record the event to ensure the person at no time says no. If person does not speak English, ensure subtitles are used and notarized by a notary public.

Step 7: After completion of the act, get a signed affidavit from your party stating that she was willing during the whole event. This must also be witnessed by a notary public.

I can't say I used the consensual sex flow chart very often, but I did carry it with me.

AfroSquad on AFN Europe

When I was in Afghanistan, I had the privilege of watching hours upon hours of the Armed Forces Network. This staple of deployed broadcasting isn't terrible, but it has its peculiarities. A big difference between AFN and American television is the lack of commercials. That's right, for nearly a year I did not see one commercial shilling a product.

Instead of commercials, AFN airs hundreds of public service announcements. They range from instructions on when to salute to history of the military to proclamations denouncing sexual harassment. They are all good things and I wish American TV had a few of them on cable television.

But there was one AFN commercial that was absolutely ironic to me. In order to capitalize on the "Party Rock" craze that was popular at the time, a few military actors donned afro wigs and glasses and the attire of the band LMFAO. While there is nothing intrinsically ironic about that, the subject of their commercial is what makes it my absolute favorite.

They made a commercial about speeding.

Meanwhile, sitting in Afghanistan watching their commercial was a member of the Afro-Squad who was the unfortunate recipient of nearly 10 speeding tickets in eight Florida counties. That's a ticket every two years I've been driving in over 10% of the 72 counties in Florida. I'm not exactly proud of that, but I think being that I have never been in an accident, I don't think I am a bad driver, just a little fast on the gas.

But perhaps if I listened to my European Afro-Squad friends.

The Homeless Dilemma

A few years ago, long-time friend Clark Brooks wrote an interesting post on his thoughts on homeless people. Clark looked at recent incidents of panhandlers faking the funk and not being who they appear to be and pondered on whether or not to ever give a dollar or two to local panhandlers he sees in the Tampa area.

In the dilemma of whether to keep giving or not, Clark didn't come to a conclusion either way.

Contrary to popular belief, as Clark points out, not all panhandlers are homeless. While some are complete frauds, I've been told by a few that they live in nearby cheap hotels. Which is a small step up from living under a bridge. If they can beg for $30 a day, they can pay for their next night in a hotel. So when they plea the "hotel locked me out" story, it's not 100% made up. Maybe only 50%.

But in other cases, there are certain panhandlers I will absolutely never give anything to.

The biggest group I deny is homeless Vietnam vets.

Before anyone chastises me for being unpatriotic, let me explain.

Yes, I am a veteran. Yes, I have compassion for fellow veterans who might have fallen on hard times. Sometimes adjusting to life in America is difficult after a year or more in a high pressure combat zone. I totally understand that and I sympathize.

But my sympathy is nil with those who use Vietnam as an excuse for being homeless or jobless.

It's been 40 years since American involvement in Vietnam ended. Vietnam veterans have had 40 years to find assistance. While that assistance might not have been easily accessible upon their return, it is easily accessible now. There are veterans' hospitals, veterans' counselors, and veterans' assistance centers everywhere. And there are plenty of public libraries where those without personal computers can look up their local veterans' assistance facilities.

Homeless Vietnam veterans have no excuse. By now, they should have found the help they need. Therefore, they get no money from me.

Which brings me to a recent interaction I had with a panhandler. I have never been so insulted or wanted to physically confront a panhandler so much in my life.

On the way to visit my parents a few weeks ago, I exited I-95 in Melbourne, Florida. At the intersection of Eau Gallie Road and John Rhodes Boulevard, I stopped at a red light. In the median was a disheveled man with a scruffy beard and old clothes. He was carrying a small sign that read "Love / God Bless".

I was the third car in line waiting for the light in the left turning lane. As the disheveled man began walking the line, his eyes locked into mine. I knew he was headed my way. Perhaps he thought the fact that I was looking at him meant I was interested in providing assistance.

As he walked up to my car, I turned down the stereo (Slayer, of course). He was near my car when I broke the ice.

"How are you?" I asked.

"Vietnam vet," he replied.

Not an expected answer, so I asked him to repeat himself.

"Vietnam vet," he said again.

"That's cool," I replied, immediately shifting into my stubborn stance of not assisting veterans from that conflict. Had he said that he need money for beer or that he was a recovering crack addict, I would have helped. But not a dime to panhandling 'Nam veterans.

Of course, I could have questioned his credibility and asked him what unit he was with. That's not a bad option. If he stated a unit and mission, that might have improved his chances of receiving a handout. Then I might be able to confirm he is the real deal. Or we could have exchanged war stories. I could have made a friend.

He then skipped the formalities and went straight for the deal.

"Can I get some money?" he asked.

Ballsy. And not a good approach.

"Sorry, I don't have any cash," I said.

After I politely rebuked his plea, the conversation turned weird. And borderline offensive.

"Yeah," he said, looking at me in disgust. "But we have millions for those Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. If you ask me, they are just a bunch of punks."

"Woah, Nellie," I thought to myself.

Did he have any idea he was talking to a Bosnia veteran who spent 14 months in Afghanistan working with the people he just called "punks"? I doubt it. If there was any chance he was getting a handout, it was obliterated, decimated, and cremated then and there.

"If you say so," I said. It was the least I could say without getting out of the car and confronting him. Which would have made for a very awkward scene.

Imagine if someone got out of a car to fight a homeless person. People in cars are supposed to be more civil. What would the other drivers think if a driver exited their car to pummel a panhandler? Drivers have the power to put up the window and drive away, if possible. They are expected to exercise that power if needed. They are not supposed to engage panhandlers in pugilism.

"You disagree?" he continued. I don't think he understood that I was offended by his line of panhandling.

"Yes, I do," I said. "But you keep on thinking that."

Before he could reply, the light turned green, the cars in front moved forward, and I pressed the gas pedal to drive away from the disheveled malcontent.

I can't imagine this particular panhandler being very successful in his game. Insulting veterans is not a good play. I hope no one gave him a dime.

Normally, I am helpful to the unfortunate. I know I would want people to give me a hand if I was ever completely down on my luck. But while Clark Brooks didn't have any hard rules on who to give or not give to, I have one solid one:

I won't give a dime to people who insult me or people I think highly of.

If they stick to that rule, everything else is cream cheese.

Thoughts on Guns and Government Part 2

Since gun control is still in the news, I am again going to drop some of my ideas and theories on the subject here. Feel free to respond.

In science, Newton’s Law says Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is only transferred from potential to kinetic and back.

I believe the same theory holds with the psychological measurement of Power. Power is in every relationship we have. Bosses have power over employees, friends share power, married couples may share power depending on the culture, slave owners have power over slaves, parents have power over children, etc, etc. Every relationship is a balance of power in some way, shape, or form.

In a positive relationship, power is agreed upon. In a bad relationship, power is disputed.

This goes for individuals, tribes, governments, and even nation states.

In a global community, a nation can only be as powerful as other nations let it. Unless it is the top nation, then no nation can stop it.

Likewise, a government can only be as powerful as its citizens let it. If the people revolt, either they will overthrow the government, die as martyrs, or accept the power of the government. The American constitution was written to ensure the central government cannot have more power than the people. It was spawned from the rejection of a powerful kingdom. Checks and balances were placed in the American Constitution so no body of government could be more powerful than any other.

The US Constitution is a miraculous document. Nowhere in its pages allowed for unchecked power.

With that in mind, let’s look at Power. To many, violence equals power, weapons equal power, and guns equal power.

A chief may hold the sole rifle in a tribe. A nation with more nukes is considered more powerful. Some nations such as Iran aspire to have nukes to raise their power profile in their region.

This is why we have arms races and huge defense budgets.

Someone with a gun is considered more powerful than someone without, especially among the masses.

Consider this:

In 1999, Amoundo Diallo was shot 41 times by New York City cops.

In 2006, Sean Bell and friends were shot 50 times by cops.

In 2012, US Army SSG Robert Bales went into an Afghan village and shot 16 people, including nine children.

These are all examples of the powerful misusing their tools of power on the powerless.

In none of these cases was the ability to bear arms questioned or repealed in any way.

Going back to the national level, over the last 100 years American military, police, and government power has grown unchecked. In the 19^th century, military forces belonged to the state. After the Civil War, soldiers and sailors were organized into a true national military able to project force worldwide. America vastly changed its socio-military culture.

America now has the largest military in the world by far. There is no way any organized military can defeat it. There is also no way any group of citizens or revolutionaries can defeat it either. In its current state, America will probably only collapse under its own weight – budget collapses, etc. That is what happens to all empires.

However, we also have a volunteer military. If revolution were to happen in America, which way would they go? State pride is much lower than it was during the days of Robert E. Lee, so few would leave because of love of state or region, such as the South or Virginia. Would American soldiers turn their arms on American citizens? Or would they lay down their arms and join the proletariat as Russian soldiers did during the Russian Revolution when they failed to get paid or equipped? And what would happen to the nation’s weapon systems if the volunteer force quit?

With all this in mind, in the wake of massacres done by mentally unstable people in America, lawmakers (those with power) are discussing ways to disarm the populace further tipping the balance of power away from the citizens.

Maybe I have listened to too much Public Enemy but I worry about a nation that grants its government unchecked power. I worry about a nation that has far more firepower than its citizens. What if a better form of government was thought up, say as Marx did for Russia or Jefferson did for America? Could we ever uproot our form of government and enact another?

That would take a lot of power.

By the way, I once wrote an article claiming that people who were anti-gun should be for the Iraq war because our premise was that we disarming Saddam Hussein and removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We were exercising global weapons control. I also wrote that pro-gun people should be for Saddam having weapons equal to his neighbors, after all, an armed society is a polite society, or something like that.

Unfortunately, as it was counter the real-life opinions on the war, few understood it.

Name Checking Hackers and Attacking the Mouse

Since this blog has gone in a million different directions lately, I figured I might as well go somewhat political-military-strategic today.

In the last few years hackers have caused almost as commotion and aggravation to governments and businesses as terrorists. I'm sure there are people out there that would label them "cyber terrorists". Two of the premier hacker groups are the associations Anonymous and LulzSec. Both of these groups aim to debilitate the powers that be that they feel are taking advantage of the little guy. They are sticking it to The Man as they see fit.

More power to them.

But my question is, are there any rappers who name-check them yet? Rappers are big in name-checking African rebels, Muslim terrorists, domestic terrorists, freedom fighters, and other folks who fight the power. But do they ever mention either of the two groups who are causing the most ruckus? I'm sure there is a lot you can rhyme with Anonymous or LulzSec.

Second thought:

I was reading an article on a conspiracy web site that talked about how a terrorist attack at Disney World could severely destroy what remains of Florida's economy. According to the counterterrorism analyst, if the tourism goes, so does Florida's economy. Makes sense to me.

But I have always thought terrorists could take a Disney attack to the next level. Why stop at Disney World? Why not attack Tokyo Disney, Euro Disney, and Disney Land as well? If a group of suicide bombers synchronized their watches and exploded bombs at the main entrance of each Disney park at the same time, it could send ripples through the global tourism industry. Granted at least one bomber wouldn't claim any victims as the parks would be closed, but I don't think that's not the point of most terrorism.

If the point is to show global reach and the ability to scare people from doing what they would normally not be scared to do I think an attack on each Disney main entrance at the same time would do that.

Disclaimer: I like my blog. I like writing on it. I am not advocating or supporting the actions of any group mentioned in this post. Nor am I advocating any violence. I own Disney stock, why would I not want people to go there? What I am doing to expanding on issues that are in the news and brainstorming a little.