unicorn

This is a very complex subject. First of all, there are countless (well, quite a few) conditions which cause an increase in urination, only some which involve the prostate at all. If the prostate is involved in increased urinary frequency, it's because the prostate is preventing you from emptying your bladder completely. The other symptoms which will go along with that are what are called "obstructive symptoms": straining while urinating, a less forceful urinary stream, a sense you aren't completely emptying your bladder, and dribbling after you finish, for example. Other symptoms might point to alternative diagnoses. Irritation and urgency would be more suggestive of infection, for example, and increased thirst and/or volume of urine would be more suggestive of diabetes (of which there are different types, including non-sugar related types). Blood in the urine would suggest either bladder infection or bladder cancer as a cause. Even within the prostate, there are different prostate-related causes, with non-cancerous growth and prostate infection being more common than the (still common) prostate cancer. Getting a PSA level checked is certainly a good idea for men over 45 or so with urinary symptoms, especially if the symptoms are obstructive. That being said, this does NOT mean it's a good idea for men without symptoms to get PSA levels checked on some sort of routine level. I would urge board members reading this to get their health advice from public health officials whose job it is to evaluate all of the scientific facts, instead of relying on emotional stories or discussions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/prostate-cancer-screening Benefits of Early Detection and Treatment The goal of screening for prostate cancer is to identify high-risk, localized prostate cancer that can be successfully treated, thereby preventing the morbidity and mortality associated with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Adequate evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) shows that PSA-based screening programs in men aged 55 to 69 years may prevent approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over approximately 13 years per 1000 men screened.3, 4 Screening programs may also prevent approximately 3 cases of metastatic prostate cancer per 1000 men screened.3 Current results from screening trials show no reductions in all-cause mortality from screening. There is inadequate evidence to assess whether the benefits for African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer aged 55 to 69 years are different than the benefits for the average-risk population. There is also inadequate evidence to assess whether there are benefits to starting screening in these high-risk groups before age 55 years. Adequate evidence from RCTs is consistent with no benefit of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer on prostate cancer mortality in men 70 years and older. Harms of Early Detection and Treatment The harms of screening for prostate cancer include harms from the PSA screening test and subsequent harms from diagnosis and treatment. Potential harms of screening include frequent false-positive results and psychological harms. One major trial in men screened every 2 to 4 years concluded that, over 10 years, more than 15% of men experienced at least 1 false-positive test result.5 Harms of diagnostic procedures include complications of prostate biopsy, such as pain, hematospermia (blood in semen or ejaculate), and infection. Approximately 1% of prostate biopsies result in complications requiring hospitalization. The false-positive and complication rates from biopsy are higher in older men.3 Adequate evidence suggests that the harms of screening and diagnostic procedures are at least small. PSA-based screening for prostate cancer leads to the diagnosis of prostate cancer in some men whose cancer would never have become symptomatic during their lifetime. Treatment of these men results in harms and provides them with no benefit. This is known as overdiagnosis, and follow-up of large randomized trials suggests that 20% to 50% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer through screening may be overdiagnosed.3 Overdiagnosis rates would be expected to increase with age and to be highest in men 70 years and older because older men have high risk of death from competing causes. Harms of prostate cancer treatment include erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bothersome bowel symptoms. About 1 in 5 men who undergo radical prostatectomy develop long-term urinary incontinence requiring use of pads, and 2 in 3 men will experience long-term erectile dysfunction. More than half of men who receive radiation therapy experience long-term sexual erectile dysfunction and up to 1 in 6 men experience long-term bothersome bowel symptoms, including bowel urgency and fecal incontinence.3 Adequate evidence suggests that the harms of overdiagnosis and treatment are at least moderate. Adequate evidence shows that the harms of screening in men older than 70 years are at least moderate and greater than in younger men because of increased risk of false-positive results, harms from diagnostic biopsy, and harms from treatment. Before consenting to screening (which is different from testing when there are symptoms), it's important to be aware of both the potential benefits of screening (which, if you read the USPSTF, are quite minimal), as well as the potential harms--which are numerous and much more likely. So, yes, the original poster should probably get a PSA done due to his symptoms (especially if they're obstructive), and I hope he keeps us updated. However, the takeaway message should NOT be that all men over 50 should rush in and get this testing. There are some pretty significant harms that can come from screening, especially since the vast majority of prostate cancers never affect the life of the man who has it. There is a massive amount of science which has looked into this question, and professionals have spent large amounts of time actually reviewing the data.

In many ways, I see wokeness as an attempt to white-wash, or color-wash, the past instead of acknowledging it and putting it into context. Often this means trying to impugn today's more enlightened values instead of showing things as they were, and explaining that our values have changed. At other times, it involves wholesale book-burning rather than preserving the demonstration of how our culture has changed. For example, the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's portrays some highly offensive racial stereotypes, which certainly could never have been produced today. Rather than banning the movie, the movie has a preface which prepares the audience for the offensive material, and explains how times have changed. In watching the movie, one can therefore gain an appreciation for how society has advanced (as one shrieks "Oh, my god!" while viewing the offensive parts). In other works, however, the works have simply been banned, such as the movie Song of the South and multiple Dr. Seuss books. At other times, works are simply changed to place our more modern, enlightened values onto old works, such as G&S's Mikado, or R&H's Oklahoma!. I personally think there's value in being able to view things as they were, so that we can reflect as to how far we've come. Seeing how things have changed for the better gives us appreciation for the courageous acts of those who helped instill that change, such as Jackie Robinson. One should view the past as it was in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of times past.

I asked my domestic partner if he'd be interested in this new production of Oklahoma! they're putting up in Los Angeles: MADE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY... The Oklahoma! that's coming to the Ahmanson Theatre next month is Oklahoma! as you’ve never seen or heard it before. Without changing a word of text, this visionary 21st-century reimagining allows the classic musical to be seen in a whole new light. Among its themes are hotly-contested conversations about gun violence, Native American land rights, climate change, xenophobia, and toxic masculinity. He wasn't interested because he felt it was too woke and PC. Although I might have wanted to go, I do remember rolling my eyes up several years ago when our local Gilbert and Sullivan group changed the words of The Mikado to make it more PC. Instead of "If you want to know who we are--we are gentlemen of Japan..." they changed it "If you want to know who we are--we are gentlemen of Milan..." and had it set in renaissance Italy. They were concerned that there were too many actors of European ancestry being dressed to look Japanese, although in the "Italian" version, there were multiple Asian (and black) actors who were "white-faced." Then there's Hamilton, of course. Now the Latino-themed La Cucaracha is getting all in arms over James Franco getting hired to play the role of Fidel Castro (though most of the cast and crew are Latino): https://www.gocomics.com/lacucaracha/2022/08/26 https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/entertainment/james-franco-fidel-castro/index.html#:~:text=James Franco%2C here in June,Castro in an upcoming project. I must confess, I feel an uneasy twinge when casting directors feel that only a straight person could play a gay character well (for example, the Harvey Milk movie). On the other hand, I feel we should simply hire whomever we feel would do the best job as an actor. Casting decisions don't have to be dictated by ethnicity or sexual orientation. What have been your feelings on this subject?

My partner and I saw some works of this photographer: http://www.panos-kokkinias.com/images/leave-your-myth-in-greece/nafplio.html He said "Cock in the ass"? What a name! 😀

I've always thought of CNN as centrist. For the left's perspective, I think most would think of MSNBC. For the right's perspective, FOX would go as far as to intentionally "report" information they know to be factually incorrect. As far as I know, MSNBC doesn't intentionally report false information, but they do constantly comment on the information they report from their perspective. CNN seems to mostly just report the news with minimal comment, as far as I can tell (though I don't view/listen to CNN that often).

Oh, I have not doubt but that Putin will be as involved as he can in the 2024 election. If Trump's not in jail by then, I'm sure he'd love to see him run and help him along. I have a suspicion Ukraine wouldn't last much longer without US help, and Putin would be overjoyed to see his puppet back in the WH.

Probably true. And there will certainly be a limited number of people who will fly any new supersonic jet for bragging rights. But those with money to burn would probably rather fly in a private jet, relaxing or sleeping on the sofa, rather than fly in cramped quarters to save a few hours.

Although I was never a passenger on the Concorde, I have been inside the cabin of two former Concordes in museums, and I can assure you that those seats were not comfortable. This is what they look like, from the Wikipedia: These seats are typical of what an economy, or perhaps premium economy seat might be like today. So while the price was certainly not "cattle class," the seat comfort certainly was. Apparently, you even had to hold it in for the flight, even though the champagne was flowing: "..."She was a Concorde regular, and whispered candidly to me, 'You better go to the washroom now. It is impossible to pee once in the air. Too small,'" said Su. "For a girl used to flying steerage, once through the doors of the sleek, tiny, cigar tube into the body of Concorde, I knew I had entered into the rarified air of gods and kings. But dang, things were small and cramped. Leather, polish and flutes of never-ending Champagne, but really squished...." (from https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/concorde-flying-what-was-it-like/index.html) As one can read from the article, it was a noisy, jarring, and cramped experience, albeit a relatively brief one. There's no way to say for certain, of course, but I suspect that most people flew the plane for the certificate they received, and to be able to say "I flew on the Concorde," rather than because the 4 hours they gained were more important than the higher price than the 1st class tickets on other planes. If they ever get built, Boom seats will probably be a bit more comfortable than the Concorde's, but that will just force the price differential even higher. This may be a matter of speculation, but I doubt that the vast majority of people with extra money to burn are more concerned with a few hours' time savings rather than comfort. There will certainly be some. as was the case for the Concorde, who will fly the plane for bragging rights alone. But how many times does one need to do that? https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/supersonic-air-travel-just-took-another-big-step-toward-its-ncna828431

Completely false comparisons. Obviously, the person with primary responsibility in the Rushdie attack was the man who stabbed him, just as the person responsible for a rape is the rapist himself. That being said, a wise person does what he can to mitigate his risks. If I leave a bicycle unlocked and unattended, and someone steals the bicycle, the responsible party is the thief. Nevertheless, it's fairly common sense that unlocked bicycles are extremely easy to steal, so almost anyone would say that it would be foolish to leave a bicycle unsecured. If a woman walks alone in the middle of the night in Central Park in NYC and gets raped, the responsibility is on the rapist. However, walking alone unarmed in a secluded part of Central Park in the middle of the night is certainly not a good idea. NYPD is not the responsible party. Similarly, one would have to think it's common sense that if there were a multi-million dollar bounty on one's head, that one would be careful about security arrangements at any well-advertised public appearance. I can't imagine too many sensible people would think "Well, even if I'm killed, the man attacking me would be responsible, and I'm pretty sure he'd go to jail, so I'm OK with taking that chance." And again, the surgeon's responsibility is to advise the patient of the potential risks and benefits of a procedure, and, of course, to be properly trained before performing a procedure. If a complication occurs, the surgeon is only responsible if he was negligent (for example, performing the procedure while drunk, or performing a procedure he wasn't properly trained to do).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy#Attacks "...Over the next few days, Iranian officials offered a bounty of $6 million for killing Rushdie, who was thus forced to live under police protection for the next nine years. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy..." He was under police protection for quite a bit of time in the UK. As far as i can tell, no taxpayer-funded protection in the US.

Well, I do agree that banning private gun ownership would likely reduce gun violence in the US, though I wouldn't be in favor of that. We have a saying "Freedom isn't free." It seems pretty obvious, however, that Rushdie should have personally inquired about the safety measures at the event, however. Yes, the event planners should also have known better, but the fact that Rushdie should have been more cautious himself is obvious at face value--res ipsa loquitur. He was in complete seclusion for years, and I guess got too confident and sloppy over time. Obviously he is not THE only one who should have been concerned about his safety, but even more obviously, he should have been ONE of the people who should have been more cautious. I can't imagine even he'd disagree with that at this point.

Was a dumb idea back then, still a dumb idea. Not too many people are flying across oceans for quick business meetings. I have a suspicion that those people who have extra money would rather spend it for a flat-bed seat on a comfortable wide-body and spend 10 hours on the flight, rather than paying a good deal extra for an uncomfortable seat on a 6-hour flight. Ultimately the same idea.

There are lists of those with serious mental health issues, restraining orders, and, of course, criminal backgrounds. In California, there is a 2-week waiting period after purchasing a gun before the purchaser can receive the gun he purchased, to give authorities the time to go over those lists. I support that measure. In many states, one can just go to a gun show and buy a gun on the spot, which I feel is a terrible policy. I very much oppose the NRA. That being said, it is simply a fact that gun ownership in Switzerland is many-fold (like 10X to 100X) higher than that of countless other countries with similar gun violence rates. Obviously, much work needs to be done in the US to cut down on gun violence. One can certainly argue how that's best done. However, it is simply false that civilian gun ownership leads to high gun violence rates. By the way, getting to the subject of the original posting, Mr. Rushdie was attacked with a knife. Just to get our facts straight, again. His attack had nothing to do with gun violence in the US, and much to do about the fact that he had a $4 million bounty on his head and was hated by many fundamentalist Muslims. I think this event had nothing to do with American being an unsafe place, and everything to do about someone who knew or should have known his life was threatened from showing up at a poorly-guarded event. Of course, whether or not American is an unsafe is a matter of opinion. However, the attack on Rushdie could have happened anywhere. I personally would have been more cautious had I been in his shoes.

It's still difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in much of the US (such as New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles). For what it's worth, most murders are among gang members, and murder rates tend to be highest in the parts of the US with the strictest gun laws. This might be because someone might think more carefully about shooting someone in a place like Texas, where anyone might shoot back. That being said, I support stricter gun laws, especially required background checks for criminal and mental health histories. All Swiss households have guns, yet their gun violence level is much lower.

These lists are very silly, because they only represent the values of the people who make up the lists. I, for one, would rather blow my brains out than live in Calgary or Toronto, but that's because I greatly value climate--but that's just me. I have a strong suspicion that whoever made up that list didn't include climate as a criterion--yet that's something of great value to a lot of people such as myself. I could hardly be happier living in Los Angeles, but, yes, you'll have a tough time if you don't have health insurance (as in most of the US, which is why I suspect no US city made the list). There isn't a fence or barrier separating Canada from the US. If most people preferred living in Calgary or Toronto, they'd vote with their feet. Yet almost all successful Canadians live in the US (Celine Dion, Justin Bieber, William Shatner, etc.), yet it's very rare for Americans to choose to live in Canada. This is the only "barrier" between Canada and the US (barring rivers, lakes):

Cuban Luis Daniel Gálvez is nice, too.

You zeroed in on the youngest contestants! 😉 My favorite might be Angel Olaya from Argentina....

Am I the only one who thinks Emma Thompson looks like Helen Mirren?

The lead, Daryl McCormack, is going to get some jizz out of me tonight...

I don't know about the situation in Thailand, but in the US, the virus has become extremely weak. The percentage of people hospitalized testing positive is nearly the same as the percentage of people in the general population testing positive (2-3%), and it is extremely rare for the virus to put someone in the ICU or worse, despite very high prevalence rates. The effectiveness of masking has also been quite questionable, since jurisdictions with masking requirements have not seen significant differences in transmission or prevalence compared to jurisdictions without masking requirements. In theory, masks should work (the filter droplets), but real-life statistics don't seem to support their efficacy. I believe we have come to the point where we should be paying far more attention to hospitalization, ICU, and death rates, and far less attention to "case" rates.

I had to look up Karen village. In the US, we're imagining this:

I feel cancelling the parade was a mistake. It's what the terrorist wanted. One can increase the security if needed, but the parade should have went on.

I'm a California Angel!