unicorn

I'm sorry, but I'm not of the RFK, Jr. ilk who feel that any "opinion," regardless of its basis of known scientific facts, is "valid." This is not an issue in which the experts are "guessing." This issue has been studied extensively in almost countless studies around the globe, involving hundreds of thousands of men. Although there are plenty of different recommending bodies which have gone through the scientific studies and their data (unlike yourself), and there is some disagreement as to whether screening in the 50-69 group should be discussed and/or offered, every single organization composed of members who've looked at the data agree on one issue: screening those 70 and over is harmful. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/prostate-cancer-screening#fullrecommendationstart Recommendations of Others The American Academy of Family Physicians39 and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care40 recommend against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. The American College of Physicians41 recommends that clinicians discuss the benefits and harms of screening with men aged 50 to 69 years and only recommends screening for men who prioritize screening and have a life expectancy of more than 10 to 15 years. The American Urological Association42 recommends that men aged 55 to 69 years with a life expectancy of more than 10 to 15 years be informed of the benefits and harms of screening and engage in shared decision making with their clinicians, taking into account each man’s values and preferences. It notes that to reduce the harms of screening, the screening interval should be 2 or more years. The American Urological Association also notes that decisions about screening, including potentially starting screening before age 55 years, should be individual ones for African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer. The American Cancer Society43 adopted detailed screening recommendations in 2016 that highlight the importance of shared decision making and the need for informed discussion of the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits of screening. It recommends conversations about screening beginning at age 50 years and earlier for African American men and men with a father or brother with a history of prostate cancer before age 65 years. To disagree with every recommending organization on the planet only shows both arrogance and ignorance. There are people whose job it is to review the data. They are not "guessing." And, no, the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, even though RFK Jr. may have a different opinion.

You may wish to inform yourself regarding subjects on which you pontificate. Prostate cancer screening is NOT recommended routinely for anyone. Official guidelines are that it's reasonable to discuss in men 55 to 69, and recommended against from age 70 onwards: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/prostate-cancer-screening Population Recommendation Grade Men aged 55 to 69 years For men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one. Before deciding whether to be screened, men should have an opportunity to discuss the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician and to incorporate their values and preferences in the decision. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of family history, race/ethnicity, comorbid medical conditions, patient values about the benefits and harms of screening and treatment-specific outcomes, and other health needs. Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening. C Men 70 years and older The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older. D I'm guessing that the discovery was made due to bone pain. Biden will be offered hormonal treatment (either physical or chemical castration), and probably will be fine. His other health problems, mainly his dementia, will get to him first.

Quite silly. Obviously, no one is above the law. Even the conservative majority of the SCOTUS stated such when they said Trump couldn't be prosecuted for his actions in his role of POTUS. Also obviously, misdirecting the authorities was not part of her judicial duties.

It looks like a grand jury indicted her yesterday. I wonder if she'll get a speedy trial?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glynn_Simmons "Glynn Ray Simmons is an American man who was wrongfully convicted in the U.S. state of Oklahoma in 1975 of the 1974 murder of Carolyn Sue Rogers.[1] After having been exonerated, he was released from prison in 2023 at the age of 70, after having been imprisoned for 48 years... On August 13, 2024, Simmons was awarded $7,000,000 for wrongful conviction compensation." "...On February 8, 1975, following the lineups, police arrested Simmons and Roberts, and they were charged with capital murder. However, Simmons testified that on December 30, 1974, he was in Harvey, Louisiana and spent the day playing pool with friends. His alibi was confirmed by four witnesses. Nevertheless, on June 5, 1975, Simmons and Roberts were convicted of capital murder. In July 1975, they were both sentenced to death. Since in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided in 1976 that all death sentences prior to July 24, 1976 should be commuted to life imprisonment without parole. In 1995, Robert Mildfelt, the trial prosecutor, wrote a letter to Simmons saying that the only witness [Brown] who identified him had wanted to think about the identification “overnight.” He wrote that Brown had described Simmons as more than six feet tall and over 200 pounds, “a physical description greatly different from Mr. Simmons [sic] stature at the time...".

No doubt, Mr. Sullivan's case is tragic (and there are plenty of wrongfully convicted people everywhere--not all can prove their innocence, which is very difficult). The lost time is forever lost, tantamount to being murdered. One can only hope that the government will at least make financial amends. I was reading up on it, and it seems that there are states which don't! It looks as though the most he could get in the UK is a million pounds. Not much for all of that suffering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice#Consequences "...In the United Kingdom a jailed person, whose conviction is quashed, might be paid compensation for the time they were incarcerated. This is currently limited by statute to a maximum sum of £1,000,000 for those who have been incarcerated for more than ten years and £500,000 for any other cases...". "...At least 21 states in the U.S. do not offer compensation for wrongful imprisonment...".

Obviously it's true that one's youth is lost for good. I don't mean to imply that one can restore the lost years. However, in the case of the Sullivan man who was unjustly incarcerated for 38 years, $3.8 million can provide for a comfortable life for whatever's left. Even in a very expensive city like Los Angeles, one can get a decent house for $1.8 million, and live comfortably off the interest of the remaining $2million.

Those are two essentially opposite cases. In the case of the Menendez brothers, there's no question but that they committed cold-blooded and brutal murders--and had the stupidity of going on a spending spree afterward. That being said, they were extremely young at the time, and could have been rehabilitated after over 35 years behind bars. If they get paroled, they should feel relieved and grateful. And the law should keep a close eye on them. I know I probably don't speak for most people, but if I personally were to be falsely convicted of a crime and faced the prospect of decades behind bars, I would simply arrange my death. I'd just stop eating if there were no easier way to end my life. I don't know what the laws are in the UK regarding restitution after a false conviction. This varies quite a bit from state to state in the US. I would think that $100,000 per year spent behind bars would be appropriate.

I'm on a trip with my husband, and seeing people needing assistance to get on the plane made me think of an analogy. Those needing assistance cannot, by definition, be seated in the exit row since those seated in the exit row need to be able to assist the crew in case of emergency. Similarly, someone needing to take 45 days off because of a 90-second blackout, by definition, should not be an air traffic controller, since those job require a relaxed, attentive, and mindful demeanor.

First of all, it's not at all clear that he agrees with you. He seems to be agreeing with me that these 45 days don't represent bona fide severe psychological trauma. He might shed light on his posts more clearly, but that's how I understand it. Even if he did agree with you, however, only a fool (or very young child) would believe that they are "right" because they know of someone who agrees with him. The staff of the New York Post agree with me. I'm mature and intelligent enough to understand that this doesn't necessarily mean I'm "right." In this situation, common sense has to come into play. (For what it's worth, I don't believe that you believe what you said about these leaves of absence representing genuine metal health trauma either, but that's a separate issue. Some people will spout nonsense because they can't admit they were wrong) And, as I've said earlier, even if it were to be the case that these 5 employees were so severely traumatized, which is highly unlikely, that could only lead to the conclusion that they're unfit for this job in general.

OK, so both of you seem to agree that this constituted a work action, rather than a genuine mental health crisis. At least we're being honest now. 😉

At a minimum, I would ask the website how they verified the age. You might request a consultation from a criminal defense attorney (or barrister, or whatever it is they're called in the UK). That being said, the age of consent in London is 16 (though if money is involved, that makes matters a lot stickier). I'd take a pass on the risk (wouldn't be my type, anyway). However, if you feel confident, the fact that the website said they verified the age should provide some legal protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_Europe#United_Kingdom_and_Crown_dependencies "The age of consent in England and Wales is 16 regardless of sexual orientation or gender, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003... Because it can be difficult to tell whether a teenager is over 16 or not, for the child sex offences in sections 9–13, it is a defence to show that the defendant reasonably believed the other person was 16 or over (for example, they look mature enough that they could plausibly be 16 and tell the defendant that they are)... Under section 47 it is an offence to pay for or promise payment for sexual services of a person under 18 where the client does not reasonably believe that person is over 18, or in any event for a person under 13...". The only two countries in Europe which have an age of consent of 18 are Turkey and the Vatican.

Even if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt, if it were true that the 90-second blackout resulted in 45 days of trauma (and how do these people know they won't be better in a shorter period of time?), then they're simply in the wrong job. What's almost certainly going on, however, is that the union got the 45-day clause into their contract of Memorandum of Understanding, and these people took unfair advantage of that loophole. I wouldn't believe for a fraction of a second that these five people all suddenly woke up the next morning thinking "I'm really shaken up, and will need exactly 45 days to recover!". But, then again, if it really were the case that this equipment failure caused such prolonged mental trauma, then these people really should not be doing this job. Would we want to have fire fighters who took 45 days off because a fire hydrant wasn't working?

Apparently his plan was to keep the plane after he left office.

I can't imagine that this gift is legal.

No one is suggesting it's not stressful. However, the event didn't merit abandoning one's co-workers and the public for over 6 weeks. Hopefully, they're at least keeping tabs on these 5 shady people, to make sure they're not living it up on a nice paid vacation. During 2020, most of my colleagues and I felt we were in grave (even mortal) danger at our jobs (and I would have felt even more frightened had I known at that time that the N95 masks I wore for protection were essentially useless). I didn't hear of a single person where I worked who took off due to "stress." It was our job to help save the lives of others, and we knew the risks involved before we started our training. What would our society be like if people whose job it is to ensure public safety took off at the slightest hint of danger? How about fire fighters or police officers? I think most people can see these 5 employees' actions as an opportunity for some paid time off--with serious consequences. I just hope there are consequences. I wouldn't want to work with someone who high-tails it when the going gets rough. Like fire fighters or other first-responders, this is probably not the appropriate job for someone who can't handle pressure.

I heard on the news that 5 air traffic control employees took 45 days off of "trauma leave," blaming stress over equipment failures at that airport. That airport already suffers from understaffing, and this action will obviously necessitate more overtime and pressure from those who remain, as well as more danger to the public. I find this behavior reprehensible and irresponsible. Although I felt stress as a primary care physician (as well as real personal danger) during the COVID-19 pandemic, it never occurred to me to ditch my fellow health care professionals and take 45 days off due to stress. At the very least, I feel those employees should be required to get daily mental health evaluations to assess their levels of stress and determine their ability to return to work. It seems all highly unprofessional in my view. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/newark-air-traffic-control-lost-contact-pilots-least-twice-source-says-rcna205126 "...While the FAA has not said how many controllers are out on medical disability for stress, the controller who spoke with NBC News said the control tower is struggling to keep up with the flights because four experienced controllers and a trainee are now on leave. Replacing them will take time, an FAA spokesperson said, because any certified controller that applied or volunteered to move to the to the Philadelphia TRACON that guides planes into the Newark airspace would have to do additional training at the FAA's air traffic control training center in Oklahoma City. After which they would be required to do on-the-job training in Philadelphia. On average, it takes about a year and a half to be certified as an air traffic controller in any facility, the spokesperson said. The FAA moved the controllers who are responsible for aircraft arriving and departing from Newark from a facility on Long Island to Philadelphia last year. The move was meant to reduce the workload of the controllers in that facility who were also handling traffic for New York City’s major airports. United CEO Scott Kirby said Monday the Philadelphia TRACON “has been chronically understaffed for years.”...". https://nypost.com/2025/05/08/opinion/faa-workers-dont-need-phony-trauma-leave-after-newark-airport-disaster/ "The Newark Liberty International Airport mess just keeps getting more alarming: Now it turns out that an insane leave policy for air traffic controllers is adding to the chaos. Yes, controllers can take 45 days off to handle alleged “trauma” caused by … equipment failures. Yes, preventing plane crashes is a high-stress job, and it’s surely freaky when your radar cuts out — but that’s not trauma, and treating it as such is deeply irresponsible. One, it’s yet another major intrusion of therapy culture into everyday life, in which the slightest adverse event gets magnified into a life-altering disaster that requires endless healing time. Two, it’s literally putting other people’s lives in danger...".

At least some cities are easy to guess, such as Moeskroen for Mouscron (a town in French-speaking Belgium), and Parijs for Paris (France).

The Flemish/Dutch name for the French city of Lille is Rijsel. The Belgian city of Mons is called Bergen, and the city of Tournai is called Doornik. In Flanders, they'll at least put the French names in parentheses, but not the names of the Belgian cities in French-speaking areas. The only place one will find city names in both languages in Belgium is in Brussels proper:

Well, at least pronouncing aunt like the insect is acceptable in any dictionary, although certainly not preferred in some places. When I'm abroad (in non-English speaking countries), especially with friends/family, I specifically ask to be corrected if I mispronounce. Without learning, one will never get it right. I read that in Japan, it's considered very rude to correct someone. In the end, I suppose this leads to no one learning how to pronounce words properly.

I guess that one has to define "support for Israel." I support it as a state (as I support the state of Palestine). That doesn't mean I approve of Netanyahu's actions, or even him as a person. I believe that he, as well as Trump, are sociopaths who should spend the rest of their lives in prison. I'd also love to see Hamas obliterated. I've even seen Palestinians demonstrate against Hamas, and Israelis demonstrate against Bibi. But I'm fine with the Israeli people and Palestinian people. I've even been sending a generous amount to an organization which helps the Palestinian people, while also being audited to make sure that help doesn't make its way to Hamas: https://www.anera.org/ Anera’s policy is to supply assistance to only legitimate and capable institutions and to comply with U.S. laws. We filter individuals and agencies against computerized lists maintained the U.S. Treasury Department on its Office of Foreign Assets Control list. Because Hamas, for instance, is designated as a “terrorist group” by the U.S. State Department, Anera does not work or even coordinate with them. Anera’s local staff evaluates our partners and assesses accountability, management, technical capacity, and community outreach. Through this process we determine if the institution is capable and eligible to work with Anera. When a project is completed, we generate detailed financial and program evaluation reports. We use robust monitoring and evaluation systems. In this manner, Anera continually evaluates projects from a fiscal and impact standpoint. Anera is audited annually by independent auditors and we follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which are standard financial guidelines for most non-governmental organizations. This measures many of the benefits and the success of each program. Read our accountability statement.