The Dumbing Down of America

The United States of America is the only superpower left in the world, but I suspect that this will not remain the case forever. Oh don't misunderstand me, I have no special knowledge of an imminent threat to our country. It's just that I cannot believe that we will remain a superpower for any length of time when we are getting so stupid.

"Oh no Tim," you say, "We are the smartest and most creative culture on the planet."
Really, well factor these into the equation and consider your answer again: - We now admit that wrestling is fake, and it's more popular than ever in spite of that. We even still believe in the story lines that they spin for us, and require multiple leagues and shows to feed our fascination with this fiction. 

- Airlines think that they can save us in a crash situation by instructing us on how to use a seatbelt and breathe through a mask.  

- We have more reality shows on TV than Orville Redenbacher has popcorn kernels, with each one sinking lower on the "Jerry Springer Scale" than the last. 

 - Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, and Ben Stiller are actually considered movie stars! 

 - We require safety stickers to keep us from putting our heads in the microwave or our kids into the dryer. 

- Hollywood has so little creativity left in stories for movies that it has sunk to remaking even bad movies like "Hairspray", with John Travolta in women' s clothing (...and I thought that Saturday Night Fever was a low point for him).  

- Minneapolis thinks that the best way to prevent men from picking up each other for sex in it's airport bathrooms is to lower the walls in the stalls. 

- "Two and a Half Men" is currently the #1 show on television. 

- People applying for citizenship know more about this country's history than it's own citizens do. 

- We have designed cash registers to tell the people using them the proper amount of change to give out (and still they get it wrong a fair share of the time). 

- Hilary Clinton has a legitimate chance to become president of the United States! 

Now what do you think? I thought so. It's pretty hard to remain smug when confronted with the ugly truth, isn't it? This country has begun to enter a period in its history where it's collective IQ is a number far to close to it's average show size.  

Well don't worry boys and girls, by the time that this country finally sinks to the level to which we seem to aspire, we will all probably be so dumb that we will barely notice it. Then again, even it we did, we probably wouldn't care as long as we can get our reality shows five days a week, with an Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller movie festival for the weekend. While I still have what little of the brains that I came into the world with (no comments, please), I feel that I can come to only one conclusion: "There is probably no cure for aggressive stupidity."

Airline Security & Political Correctness

I am getting ready to travel by air again for business (an experience that I compare to having hemorrhoid surgery without an anesthetic). This time it looks like my trip will be to a foreign land, which adds a flavor to the experience that can only properly be achieved by the sprinkling on of a little natural fertilizer. 

As I contemplate that future (and suicide by paper cut), I have to tell you that I have completely had it with the airport security procedures that lie ahead of me. Waiting in line, stripping down my luggage, taking off my shoes, and having my laptop swabbed down for explosive residue make me want to chew my own leg off. 

Well, like the character Howard Beale in the movie Network, I want to yell: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this any more!" Instead, I want to make a radical and politically incorrect suggestion here to correct the situation; but before I do I would like to play a little game with you. I would like to have you look at this as a "Final Jeopardy" question. The following events have what in common?

• The attempted attack on American Flt 63 by a man with bombs in his shoes.
• The hijacking of United Flt 175 and American Flt 11 for the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11.
• The hijacking of American Flt 77 for the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.
• The hijacking of United Flt 93, which eventually crashed into a field in Somerset County, PA on 9/11.
• The bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
• The setting off of a car bomb (OK, it was a truck) outside an Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia.
• The 1st bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.
• The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
• The bombing of a discotheque in West Berlin that was frequented by US servicemen.
• The hijacking of the cruise ship, Achille Lauro.
• The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut .
• The bombing of the US embassy in Beirut.
• The attack on the US embassy in Iran and the kidnapping of the embassy staff.

Can you hear the "Final Jeopardy" music playing? Is your brow furrowed as you ponder the difficult nature of the question? Are your palms sweating because you are unsure of the answer? No! The truth of the matter is that you had the answer long before you finished reading the question (and don't worry, I won't make you phrase it in the form of a question).

All of these were acts of terrorism committed by Muslim extremists.

In fact, 100% of the terrorist attacks on commercial airlines based in America for the last 20 years have been committed by Muslim Extremists.

(Now here is where the part comes in that illustrates what a cold-hearted, mean-spirited, and politically incorrect person I really am.) 

Why aren't we focusing on the only group of people who have been attacking us? Why do we harass old people in wheelchairs and walkers, pat down salesmen, and make small children cry as we force them to walk through metal detectors without their parents? Why is our politically correct society's answer to the question of how to insure our safety to treat us all as if we were suspected terrorists.

I know, I know, this is racial profiling and this is a practice that is simply wrong. Or is it? Would you watch your children more closely if they were playing in a park next to a church picnic or a homeless man in a dirty overcoat? Would you feel more comfortable walking down the hallway of an upscale hotel or the hallway of a cell block in a jail? 

We all make informed judgements based on visual cues and experience everyday to insure our own safety and that of those we care about. We do this almost without thinking. Why can't we ask our government (who is used to functioning without thinking) do the same thing? Have we become so politically correct that we will inconvenience everyone for fear of offending some?


Listen, you can say what you want about the fairness of the concept of racial profiling; but in this case I'm not sure that you could argue with its potential effectiveness. Doing so may actually be no more than what Captain Renault sought to do in the movie Casablanca, "rounding up the usual suspects".

Nuclear Power

While not buying into global warming, and certainly not buying into man's responsibility whatever climate change has occurred, (contribution yes, sole responsibility no) I would like to think that I am never the less concerned for the environment in my own way. I am probably more concerned however about this nation's reliance on fossil fuels and dependence for those fuels on bunch of countries who I truly do not believe are our friends. 

I know that going to more fuel efficient vehicles will help, as will solar and wind power; but I have to ask myself why we insist on ignoring nuclear power as an alternative. France, who purchased their reactor technology from Westinghouse (a US company), now has 56 nuclear power plants generating 76% of their electricity. With an additional 12% of their power generated from hydroelectric plants, this leaves France in the position of being almost completely energy independent. In fact, with this program begun in 1973, France is now exporting power to other European nations. 

Now I don't want to be the guy who admits that France might be doing something right (hell, I drink California wine), but I might have to admit that in this respect I am jealous of them. How does the US match up then? After all, we brought nuclear technology (for good or evil) to the world. The first nuclear reactor to generate electricity was done on December 20, 1951 at the ERB-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho. Today, though currently we have 103 nuclear power plants in the country, they are capable of producing only 20% of the electricity required. As for construction, no new nuclear plant has been ordered since 1973, and none has come online in the US since 1996. This means that the following countries have built more nuclear power generation plants than the United States during the vacuum of that period (that I was able to track during just a quick check):

• China
• South Korea
• North Korea
• Japan
• India
• Pakistan
• Iran
• Iraq
• (and now maybe) Syria

Everyone in the world seems to be climbing on the nuclear power generation bandwagon except the world's largest consumer of power. Is it just me, or does this not seem more than slightly bizarre?

Most of our power currently comes from power generation plants using oil or coal. Coal still seems abundant in this country, but also seems to be the source that generates the most pollution. Oil is a source whose cost seems steadily on the rise, and presents a whole other set of concerns as well. We apparently have only limited interest in drilling for oil in the places where it exists in any significantly amount in this country (for environmental reasons). 

Much of the rest of the world's oil is in places of political instability and will be problematic to obtain. The politics of the Middle East does not promise to get better any time soon, and the governments that run these countries are monarchies and dictatorships that we would not normally put up with unless they had something that we really, really needed. 

Meanwhile, nobody is going to call Russia, Mexico, or Venezuela our friend; and our opportunities of obtaining oil from these nations are going to remain limited at best.
Solar, hydroelectric, and wind power generation can and are filling some of those needs in an environmentally friendly way. I cannot believe however that we are ready to replace the blighted scenery of oil derricks crowding out the skies in our past with that of dams, solar grids, or wind turbine farms becoming the bane of our future. That leaves the re-exploration of nuclear power generation as an alternative.

Now I admit that nothing is life is danger-free and that no technology is foolproof, but I believe that we do have the ability to use this technology safely (or at least as good as the French). I also believe that we are running out of choices. We had better begin to address this situation soon, or the impending power crisis will be beyond our control.

Tipping

There is something that has been out going on out there for some time that may seem like a bit of nonsense, but that is really starting to bug me. Since I seldom (if ever) let such things pass without comment I have decided to take up the issue here. The thing that's setting me off these days is the practice of tipping, or more accurately, the lousy way that most people do it. Let me say right up front that I over tip everywhere I go. I have done so for years and I am rather proud of the position that I have taken on this practice. I am disappointed therefore, that so few people in this country seem to believe as I do on this subject. (I am likewise displeased in most of what the majority of people do believe in, but that is a topic for another day.) Providing a tip for service is a form of social contract; and while not a legally binding one, it is never the less a custom of long standing. Failing to do your part is a breach of both custom and etiquette.

• Have you ever actually stopped to think what people who work for tips get in the way of hourly wages?
• Have you ever considered how far below the minimum wage that recompense actually is?
• Has it occurred to you that employers are allowed to pay this paltry rate of pay because of the additional compensation that is supposed to forthcoming through a gratuity?
• Have you ever considered how miserly behavior affects those who count on you to do your part in this process?

Now I would like to believe that the problem here is that most of us being served simply don't understand our part in the process, but I am afraid that this is more a naive belief in the goodness of my fellow man and a bit of wishful thinking than anything else. Far too often I have watched someone dealing with a delivery person, or my fellow patrons in a bar or restaurant, attempting to calculate the absolute minimum allowable without appearing cheap to their friends (and sometimes not even bothering with concern about appearances if the opportunity of anonymity presents itself). Others carry cards full of pre-calculated amounts in order to simplify and expedite the process. Still others attempt to do the calculations in the head while staring at their final bill (you can tell by watching the way they move their lips as they do it). Both of these last two groups seem to think that choosing to follow some arcane and arbitrary guidelines that no one understands (including those who printed the cards) excuses them from the paltry amount that they typically provide. In the end all of these groups, having settled on the amount that they will give, either hand it over as if it were a Christmas present that should be gratefully accepted, or pass it across like a dirty diaper that they would rather not be caught with.
As for myself, no one can ever say that I have never been one to follow rules when any reasonable alternative presents itself (or an unreasonable alternative if I am just being stubborn), my disobedience here however is on a more fundamental level. It is based on the fact that:

• These are some of the least appreciated, least respected, and most overlooked jobs being done out there.
• No one has ever convinced me that the customary percentage is enough, or has shown me that those who originally came up with it knew what in the heck they were talking about.

So for those who choose to ignore this warning and continue your miserly ways remember that we are watching, that justice can often be swift and terrible, and that your day is coming. Personally, my hope is that you are some day forced to live a lifestyle commensurate with the generosity that you have shown to others. As Abraham Lincoln once said in a when speaking about a form of labor performed without proper recompense: "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

Ethanol

I was looking over an outstanding article on the use of ethanol this evening from the Fall edition of "Regulation Magazine", from the CATO Institute. I thought might be worth sharing:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n3/v30n3-1.pdf

This article, by James and Stephen Eaves, and goes through the numbers in far more detail than I would care to quote. I would however, like to share the conclusion of that article with you especially: "When we assume that the ethanol production process is full renewable, it would take all the corn in the country to displace about 3.5% of our gasoline consumption - only slightly more than we could displace by making by making sure drivers' tires are inflated properly.

There are also ethical considerations. In particular, the United State is responsible for over 40 percent of the world's corn supply and 70 percent of total global exports. Even small diversions of corn supplies to ethanol could have dramatic implications for the world's poor, especially considering that researchers believe that food production will need to triple by the year 2050 to accommodate expected demands."  

Pretty heady stuff... As a sometimes "compassionate conservative" therefore, I must therefore strongly suggest that the country re-evaluate its energy policy concerning ethanol.

• I do not ask this because without government subsidies, that ethanol production is not currently a viable energy option economically.
• I do not ask this because recent studies have shown that ethanol produces more pollution than fossil fuels.
• I do not ask this because current increases in corn prices and corn futures are putting scandalous profits in the hands of evil corporate farmers and speculators.
• I do not ask this because, except as an additive, ethanol does considerable damage to current version of internal combustion engines that is used today.

I ask instead, that we find the compassion in our hearts not to take the food out of the mouths of starving people all over the world, both now and in the future. I ask so that we can use this corn as a source of good in the world, instead of an example of our own greed. I ask, in the hope that we look beyond our own selfish needs and look instead to ease the suffering of "the children". I ask that we not burn up one of the few things on the planet that this country is capable of exporting. (OK, so I haven't gone completely soft in the head.) Hey, isn't this the kind of emotional, heart-tugging, feel-good nonsense that is so often used by those of the liberal persuasion on us? Man this stuff can be fun! (and please, check the air in your tires tomorrow....)

The Lost Battalion

Like many of my generation, my father served in the Armed Forces during World War II. His service was with the Marine Corps in the South Pacific, with Company A, 10th Amphibian Tractor Battalion. I was privileged earlier this year, to be able to attend reunion of these Marines (I once had the temerity to comment that they were ex-Marines. The correction that I received, that there are no such thing as ex-Marines, only Marines who are not currently serving, leaves me shamed and humbled to this day.)  

I am privileged again, to be able to share with you a part of their story.

Activated on December 5, 1943, this unit was deployed the following month to Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. After enemy resistance had ceased there (a curiously benign expression considering what was going on, but that is the way it was described to me) the bulk of the 10th, along with Company A of the 11th Battalion was sent to Maui. Company A however, was told to remain with the 25th Marines, set up camp on a little stretch of sand known as Andrew Island, and watch as the departing ships slipped over the horizon.

Left on their own with no spare parts for their (20) LVT-2's (Landing Vehicle Tracked), their maintenance people were forced to scrounge for whatever was required to keep them a fighting force. This scrounging ended up requiring not only stripping the wrecked vehicles on the beach; but eventually diving on the tractors that were sunk on the initial landing and remained under water. When relief finally arrived after a month however, it was painfully short-lived. Before Company A could be more than half embarked on a ship with the 25th, they were told to disembark once again. Returning to their "island paradise", they discovered that their new neighbors were now the 22nd Marines. 

Knowing that Marines can easily become bored on extended island visits and perhaps concerned that such idleness might lead to misadventure, they were issued orders to make "reconnaissance missions" to some of the neighboring atolls. This resulted in landings at the following Japanese held positions: 

Woth Atoll March 7-14, 1944  
Ujae Atoll March 7-14, 1944  
Lae Atoll March 7-14, 1944
Alinglapalapalep Atoll March 18-27, 1944  
Emmuik Atoll March 18-27, 1944  
Ebon Atoll March 18-27, 1944  
Kili Atoll March 18-27, 1944  
Namu Atoll March 18-27, 1944  
Rongelap Atoll March 18 - April 6, 1944  
Bikini Atoll March 18 - April 6, 1944
Lemuik Atoll March 18 - April 6, 1944
Mejit Atoll March 28 - April 5, 1944  
Hiluk Atoll March 28 - April 5, 1944  
Uterik Atoll March 28 - April 5, 1944

Amazingly, after months of hard use and 17 landings on enemy held positions, 19 of the original 20 LVT-2's were still in running condition. The final unit finally succumbed during this period, and ended its service as spare parts for the rest, even to the stripping of metal from its sides to repair holes in the other tractors.

(The LVT-2 that Company A used) 

During all of this time, these Marines received no mail, no spare parts, little in the way of supplies, and of course no pay. In fact, it appears that the Marine Corps was not entirely aware of where Company A was. Finally on April 6th and almost by accident, this "lost battalion" was picked up by the USS William P Biddle, a transport ship that happened by with no actual orders to do so.

USS William P Biddle 

Forced to leave all of their equipment behind as the part of the price of passage, the Company was transported to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, where they arrived on April 12th. While no garden spot, the Company was at least "found" as far as the Marine Corps was concerned, and able to get their first mail in four months. Since there was not much of the original group left, what was left was detached from the 22nd Marines and attached to the 4th Amphibian Tractor Battalion.

Thus began another deployment, and a period of extended ship-board travel in which Company A visited such exotic ports of call as: Kwajalein Atoll,Tulugi, Eniwetok Atoll, and finally ended up on Guam. The company was immediately pressed into action after spending 59 days aboard ship, which included some ship-board entertainment provided by the Navy achieved by sailing through a hurricane. Soon after, the Company was detached from the 4th, which of course moved on, leaving Company A behind and orphaned once again. This time however, they were at least able to receive the first pay that had come their way in ten months (excepting a total of $30 in emergency payments).    

Company A of the 10th Battalion was finally changed to Company D of the 3rd Amphibian Tractor Battalion by the Marine Corps on October 19, 1944. Shortly afterward, being only a temporary addition to the 3rd Battalion, they were disbanded completely and transferred to other Amphibian or Armored Amphibian Battalions for the rest of the war; and the "Lost Battalion" was lost again (except perhaps to history).

------------------------

Can you imagine the embarrassment of the Corps. and the outrage of the press and public today if it were discovered that an entire battalion of troops had been lost for months? Can you imagine the non-stop demagoguery of legislators in Congress and demonizing of military leaders and the Administration if the conditions that these soldiers had been forced to live under in the field had been exposed? (Thank God that this happened 60+ years ago. Can you imagine the reality show that some shameless fool in Hollywood would probably have come up with based on their experiences, calling it "Gilligan's Battalion" in homage to what passes for originality on TV these days?)     

As for the members of "The Lost Battalion", there aren't many of them left these days. Those that are stay in touch with each other regularly though and continue to gather every year they can to renew the bond that they shared during those war-torn days. Many of them died during that war and some have passed away since. All however, share a fierce love for each other; and a equally fierce pride in their service, their country, and the Corps. We who know them can't help but feel pride in them as well. 

That pride though, is not for them alone. At this time, when many are currently serving overseas, it's only right to honor all of those who have answered the call of service to their country. It's good to remember those that served then, those who serve now or will be doing so soon.  It's likewise important to revere those who made and will make the ultimate sacrifice in the protection of freedoms that we far too often take for granted.

 

That's Not Right #1- Go Out and Play

This is something that I expect will become a irregularly regular part of this blog. It will consist of things not worthy of a full posting, but particularly annoying to me none the less. Todays annoyance is:  
"Go Out and Play" This commercial has been running on the radio the last couple of weeks on the local radio stations and has finally gotten to me. Using a professional announcer to reminisce with us through those "four words" that we have been hearing since we were kids, and to a soothing musical background, we are lovingly allowed to picture in our minds the fields of our youth, sports, apple pie, and a simpler time in our lives. This gentle soul then explains to us that we can return to that feeling by gambling at a Native American Casino in Michigan?

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong! Forget all of the junk about gambling addiction, throwing away the rent money on a slot machine, or the grocery money at the blackjack table. Anyone who feels the need to do so has a personal problem and needs to deal with it. What I object to is the not too subtle play on the memories of my youth (which are now ruined by the way) and the assumption that I am so stupid that I would feel that hanging around inside a windowless casino while losing my last buck would bring them back. Nice try, but your blatant attempt to play on my emotions has gotten an emotional reaction. I will now go across a national border to Canada to throw away my money before I will give it to you.

Ohio State is #1

Well it's official, Ohio State is #1. I'm not talking about the BCS rankings, though OSU should certainly be congratulated about that, even this early in the process. No, I am talking about the numbers being released for the size of enrollment at universities, and OSU came in at the top of the heap. Associated Press just released the numbers, and Ohio State has 52,568 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. The University of Florida at Gainesville was second, with 51,876; and Arizona State University at Tempe was third, with 51,481. Being the top school in enrollment is a laudable accomplishment. Much like the days when Ohio claimed to be the state fair with the largest attendance however, I wonder how much meaning it really has. I will tell you two things that do strike me about the release of these numbers though:

1. Providing education on this grand scale does not appear to allow OSU to provide a volume discount or achieve any efficiencies of scale. Normally, one would expect that the larger the group served, or the more something is being done, the less expensive it would become to produce the item or provide the service. Evidently education does not fall under that standard business model. Of course I'm sure that such things as tenure for professors, sabbaticals, countless teaching assistants, and constant new building projects have nothing to do with this. Neither does appear to affect the university's ability to suckle at the teat of state and federal grants and funding, and to ask for more every year both from government and in the form of tuition from its students.
2. I saw nothing in the press release about how OSU fares in it's graduation rates, either in comparative percentage or in simple raw number comparisons. Perhaps it's enough that we manage to pack students into the campus, and concerning ourselves as to whether these students graduate with a degree is too much to ask.

Don't get me wrong, I am not unhappy that so many people have decided that Ohio State University is the best place in the country to pursue their education. I lived near the university for years, and even had a son who attended OSU; though he did not finish his education there, citing "getting lost in the crowd" as one of the reasons. I can't help but wonder what these numbers really mean in the end however. Does being the biggest school mean being the best? 

 

More Questions

I recently received some additional questions by email that I felt were worth sharing with you, along with a few additional that I have come up with myself since the last posting of this type. I hope that they tickle you the same way that they do me:

• Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
• Why do they use sterilized needles for death by lethal injection?
• Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
• Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
• When you're are getting your oil changed, what are they changing it into?
• Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?
• Why do people give you a "thumbs up" as congratulations, when in fact it was the signal for death in the Roman arena?
• Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
• If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
• Why is it that no matter what color bubble bath you use that the bubbles are always white?
• Why do people keep running over a string a dozen times with their vacuum cleaner, then reach down, pick it up, examine it, and put it down to give the vacuum one more chance?
• Why is it that no plastic bag will open from the end on your first try?
• Why is Upper Sandusky, OH south of Sandusky, OH? (This one actually has an answer, check it out.)
• In winter why do we try to keep the house as warm as it was in summer, when we complained about the heat?
• How come you never hear father-in-law jokes?
• How did 80% of the people considered poor in the US manage to afford at least one color television?
• Why do people insist that you smell something that they just discovered smells really bad?
• If there is no such thing as a stupid questions, what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart right before they ask them?

Remember, answers to any and all of these can be posted as comments. Inquiring minds would like to know.

Stun Guns

The Toledo Blade today published an editorial on the use of stun guns "Stun guns a crutch for cops". http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/OPINION02/710140301

While I am sure that the full editorial will be available in a day or two, I would like to share my thoughts on the subject with you today. (I know that this contradicts my earlier posting today, but I have always been a study in contradictions.)  

I have to take exception with this Blade editorial for the conclusion that is drawn and the way that it is reached. While the writer makes on valid point at the beginning saying, "The stun gun can be a useful tool for police to subdue and individual who is dangerously out of control without resorting to standard firearms or risking injury in a fight." They then goes on to destroy their own logic and credibility in the ensuing editorial, especially when concluding, "In the old days, police used hand to hand physical force and billy clubs to bring criminal suspects under control. They need to be firmly reminded that they should still use such means before resorting to a stun gun."  

Quite frankly it is difficult to see how the conclusion can be logically drawn from the premise. Additionally one has to wonder whether such a conclusion should be drawn. While it's true that there have been accidents with the use of stun guns, and that instances of abuse of this technology could also be conceded, I fail to see how going back to billy clubs and fists will resolve this.

• Can the writer seriously believe that fewer incidents will occur if we return to using fists or billy clubs on suspected criminals?
• Can the writer believe that using fists or billy clubs will produce fewer or less serious injuries?
• Can the writer believe that the reputation of the police departments will be enhanced by descriptions or pictures of subduing a suspect through the use of either fists or billy clubs?
• If the Blade writer's conclusion is to be taken, and that primitive technology is to be the answer, perhaps the use of brass knuckles, chains, or even fist-sized rocks might also be of benefit as tools of law enforcement.
• Does the Blade subscribe to going back to those 'bad old days' as an answer, or are they perhaps simply looking for pictures of the bruised bodies of arrested criminals to dress up a story?

Stun gun technology was developed as a safe alternative to physically beating a suspect, and in part because of videos from the past showing police beating suspects with fists and billy clubs flashing across our television screens and pictures splashed across our newspapers. It is an effective method, but like any method that involves the use of force, it carries some risks. Subduing suspects during an arrest is always going to be an difficult issue to deal with. We who have not attempted to do it have no idea how difficult it can be for those who have to deal with situations that can change in an instant. No matter how much training we provide police officers, decisions on the use of any force will come into question in these highly charged and potentially dangerous situations. We have mechanisms to evaluate the use of force in the process of arrest, and we need to trust these before returning to "Flinstone" technology to subdue criminals.