Morning Fog

Burn, Baby, Burn

Military rifles.  Assault weapons.  Lasers.  Drones. 

All represent military technology being made available to the public for no good reason, with little or no control and generally only toothless enforcement.  All come with a cost to the public in terms of lives lost (actual or in the case of newer technology, potential), or other costs ranging from lost productivity, nuisance, diverted law enforcement resources, and damage.   All have the potential to become dangerous toys for terrorists around the globe.

None has any business in the hands of an "average citizen," but all have nevertheless become popular playthings for the puerile (for no doubt most buyers are male) and often irresponsible jackasses. Granted they may be a minority, but if they're only 5%, they're numerous enough to be a problem.  But jackasses are easily bored, so let's welcome the newest member of the family:

Flamethrowers.   Check it out on the XMatter website. There are left and right-handed models, not to mention interchangeable wands so you can adapt the flame to "your particular application." 

The website doesn't suggest what "applications" there might be, but in my mind, I see this advertising message:

Yes, now YOU can make your friends' eyes light up (and the rest of them too) with your very own gas-propelled firestick.  Other "applications?"   Make short work of those annoying weeds in your back yard.  Light all the candles on grandma's birthday cake at once.  Barbecue a whole herd of cattle at once for your next big backyard party. 

What can be done?  The best solution that comes to mind is that ol' Uncle Sam just insist on owning the patents and designs for the lethal weaponry it pays for, write contracts that forbid the use of such technology in developing "retail" versions, and prosecute violators.  Unrealistic?  Sure, items will still get out, but it would help a bit.  Failing that, of course, requirements for licensing, training, and registration can help. 

Many owners of these items know their weapons, take precautions, and are responsible.  But for those who aren't, unfortunately it isn't usually the owners of these things who get hurt. I've often thought that mandatory stiffer sentences for criminal or felony acts involving the use of such weapons might also at least help get the offenders off the streets.

The problem of reasonable controls is perhaps a bit easier for another recently introduced consumer product, the three-wheeled motorcycle that's being marketed now, taking advantage of a loophole that defines automobiles as having four wheels.  One such (certainly not the only one) is called the Slingshot, described as a cross between a motorcycle and a Ferrari.  It's easy to see how this toy appeals to a segment of the population. It looks cool, it goes fast, it's fun, and isn't inherently lethal (though I will bet that insurance coverage is just a bit pricey). 

It also has few of the safety features of a standard automobile.  Maybe that's a good thing. If those who misuse it are more likely to eliminate themselves in an accident than anybody else, they can thus help reduce the potential danger to others.  For lack of anything better at the moment, we'll have to hope that this is true of flamethrowers too.   

 

In Sleep Science, The Voice Of The Mallard

The field of medicine isn't immune to trends.  One of its trends since the late 20th century has been the tendency to turn every twitch of a toe, every ache or pain, every mental habit, into a "disease" or a "syndrome") with a name, and a slavering herd of doctors eager to treat it.  Some of those physicians and scientists, I feel sure, are well motivated, but there are always those who (shall we say) speak with the voice of a mallard.

Enter "sleep science," which seems to be becoming more popular these days.  Now, we all know a lot of things can happen while we sleep:  snoring, sleepwalking, restless legs, involuntary movement, dreaming, not sleeping, sleeping fitfully ... the list goes on.   These have always seemed to me to be natural manifestations of human uniqueness.  Some of us sleep better or differently from others, just as in our waking hours, we perform tasks and routines differently.  But increasingly, there are those who would like to interpret these common manifestations as disorders requiring treatment. 

Why am I skeptical?  First, because we are hearing that many of these "sleepenings" (new coinage) are "linked to" everything from shorter life to high blood pressure and cancer.  We must eradicate them.  But where is the evidence that (e.g.) sleep apnea causes (e.g.) strokes?  Absent that evidence, why shouldn't we suppose that apnea is just a symptom that may help predict stroke, but doesn't necessarily cause it?

Second, the methodology of sleep "science" is scientifically suspect to me.  Most of the studies seem to require the individual to repair to a bed in some facility at a university or medical facility, and spend the night there while being harnessed into all sorts of electronic sensors and filmed on camera.  (Read a recent typical story here.) 

Take someone away from the familiar, put them in a strange, isolated, place, strap them into a mess of uncomfortable harness, and make them anxious about sleeping.  Perfect!  How likely is it that their sleep will represent "normal" for them?  The methodology seems to predetermine that "disorders" will be found, and to increase the likelihood they will be. 

Further, by taking the individual out of his/her home environment, things that might really be causing poor sleep -- factors like room temperature, noises in the home or outside, exhaustion, worry, tension, allergies, or acid reflux -- are conveniently removed from the equation. This isn't scientific controlling for variables.  On the contrary, it removes from consideration the many factors that I think most of us recognize intuitively as the underlying causes of our problems sleeping.  

Granted, there are the extreme cases.  People who haven't slept in several days and can't figure out why.  Those who are desperate for better sleep.  Reports indicate that at least some of them have been helped by the results and recommendations coming from sleep studies.  If I were in such a state I would seek out one of the studies that are conducted in the patient's own home; these would appear to offer a better chance for reliable and helpful results.

But for most of us, a little tossing and turning at night isn't a disease and for my money, it shouldn't be treated like one.

  

Good News

Sometimes I think Morning Fog is too focused on being critical, on pointing out what's wrong rather than what's right.

Could that be the reason I haven't written a lot lately?  Is it possible that the world suddenly changed, becoming in a trice the "best of all possible worlds" in which Voltaire's Candide professed to believe?   Well, no, I rather doubt that.  A brief look at the day's news from Syria (refugees, mayhem, the senseless destruction of world-heritage art) or the mass killing du jour, should put that notion rapidly to rest.

Nevertheless, there have been a couple of recent blips on the world screen that offer a hurrah moment.  Let me focus on those today: 

I. 

First, I applaud President Obama's executive order re-naming our nation's highest peak -- no longer Mt. McKinley, it will revert now to its local name, Denali.  This seems (to me) the right way to go. 

It's nice to hark back to a name that can be identified as native-American, but the broader point is to prefer names that reflect local and/or historic usage, rather than some politician who will be totally forgotten in a couple of decades.  

McKinley was no great shakes as a President; his main claim to fame appears to have been to get shot, which served to place his name not just on the recently de-commissioned Mt. Denali, but a school in nearly every town in the country.  Let's continue the trend and return to "Idlewild" for that airport in New York, and move on to "Mt. Whitney," preferably and more interestingly known as Tumanguya.

II.

More recently, a young man named Dylan Marks was shark-fishing from his kayak along the Pacific Coast when he snagged a hammerhead and ended up with a serious bite wound on his foot.  The "regular" Morning Fog might question the wisdom of shark fishing from a fragile craft like a kayak (however, this seems to be a bit of a fad at the moment), or of dangling his foot over the side while doing so (but hey, dude, that's probably a typical California posture - the Laid-Back Loll?).

But today's posimistic Morning Fog applauds Mr. Marks for his attitude after the event:  He resisted the bait dangled by his TV-journalist interviewer, who tried to get him to say he had been attacked.  No, he insisted, he respects the sharks; this particular one most likely bit his (Marks's) foot out of confusion and fear; it was not an attack.  Furthermore, Marks claims he will give up shark fishing.   A cool and sensible response.  Let's have more of those!