Surprise, surprise! This mini-note, squeezed in on a Wednesday,
comprises four notes about matters on my mind that, if added to the next post,
would burden it unduly. So I’ll
disburden here and let the forthcoming post on movie theaters proceed with joyous
abandon.
Note on annual physicals: “Skip Your Annual Physical” is the title of
an op-ed article by Ezekiel J. Emanuel in the New York Times of January 9, 2015.
The author, an oncologist and a vice provost at the University of
Pennsylvania, asserts that most annual physicals are worthless, so that if we
all skip them we can help reduce health care costs. In 1994 I had no symptoms of anything, but my
routine annual physical revealed that I was slightly anemic. “If you were a menstruating woman I wouldn’t
think twice about it,” said my physician, “but in a man it’s suspicious.” She immediately ordered a colonoscopy – my
first – and the procedure discovered a malignant tumor the size of a golf ball. The surgery that followed removed the tumor,
but metastasis – the spreading of the cancer beyond the colon – had just
begun. Chemotherapy was recommended to
prevent recurrence, but I preferred a nutritional approach instead, with lots
of cruciferous vegetables, garlic, and soy foods; the cancer never
returned. Many annual physicals may
reveal nothing at all, but mine saved my life.
I tried to send a short letter to the editor to the Times, making this point, but the e-mail was immediately rejected
unread. My advice to all: have your
annual physical and rejoice if it reveals nothing; omitting it could put your
life at risk.
I am not Charlie: In the wake of the terrorist attacks in
France, 40 presidents and prime ministers and a million people marched in the
streets of Paris on Sunday, January 11, in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. (Conspicuous
by their absence, incidentally, were our President, Vice President, and
Secretary of State. ???) Many of those marching flaunted signs
declaring JE SUIS CHARLIE. But are they? And are we?
Charlie
Hebdo espouses a kind of satire that is savage, provocative, ruthless, and
sophomoric. As David Brooks has pointed
out in the Times, had they tried to
publish one of their issues on the campus of an American university, protests
would have erupted with cries of “Hate speech!” resounding, and they’d have
been shut down in an instant. We Americans
simply don’t tolerate this kind of deliberately offensive humor. “In America,” one of my Columbia professors,
a Frenchman, remarked long ago, “jokes about religion are unwelcome.” True enough, and now one might add jokes
about ethnic and sexual minorities as well.
We believe in tolerance, even if we don’t always practice it, and
therefore frown on the kind of mockery that Charlie
Hebdo specializes in. Which is not
to say that we approve of Islamist extremists; we march in spirit with the
Paris protesters, whether we identify with Charlie
or not.
Charlie
Hebdo, as I understand it, is a throwback to the 1960s and its mood of
feverish protest, and something of an anachronism today. In fact, prior to the recent attack it was
dwindling down and probably destined for a quiet extinction. But the terrorist attack has vaulted it back
into prominence and given it new life.
Before the attack its circulation per issue was about 60,000; just today
they have brought out another issue, the first since the attack, with an anticipated
circulation of 3 million; the first million copies sold out at once. The issue shows the prophet Mohammed carrying
a sign JE SUIS CHARLIE. But this raises an interesting question: should
the state have to devote precious resources to the protection of a publication
that is determinedly and willfully offensive, especially when those offended
are present in France in large numbers?
Well yes, of course, but … Hmm, I
think I’ll let the French puzzle this one out.
But even if I sympathize with it in the wake of the attack, I am not Charlie Hebdo.
Another real estate bubble in New York? I know little about real estate, don’t even
glance at the Real Estate section of the Sunday Times. But something on WNYC
struck me the other day. The station has
been doing a series on the local real estate scene and its skyrocketing prices
entitled “Who’s Buying New York?” On
this program, of which I heard only the very last part, a real estate agent
being interviewed said that real estate in the city in 2014 had been “on
steroids.” And 2015, she confidently
predicted, would be even hotter. And
2016? “Don’t ask.”
Curious, I googled “real estate bubble,
New York” on my computer and immediately came up with a bunch of reports. For instance:
·
On November 6, 2014, the New York
Daily News quoted Ofer Yardeni, CEO of a prominent real estate development
firm, as saying that the New York residential property market is a bubble about
to burst. “I would very happily short 57th
Street,” he said, referring to the high-end towers surging up along 57th
Street’s “Billionaires’ Row.” Super
luxury apartments are multiplying, but no one knows if there are enough wealthy
foreigners out there to buy them.
·
On August 5, 2014, hedge-fund manager Todd Schoenberger announced that the
New York real estate market, fueled by foreign buyers, was hot, hot, hot – a
bubble waiting to pop.
·
On April 15, 2014, real estate broker Robert Knakal said that he was
frequently asked if the commercial real estate market had become a bubble. Acknowledging arguments both pro and con, he
concluded, “The jury is still out. Only
time will tell. Until then, let the fun
continue.” (This, of course, was months
ago, well before the preceding two observations.)
And so on and so on. Some knowledgeable observers say yes, some
say no, and some say maybe. And who is
buying these properties, or putting up new ones? It’s not easy to say, since often the listed
owner is a shell company that conceals the names of the buyers. But everyone agrees that the boom is fueled
above all by foreign buyers, especially Chinese, who are now allowed to take
money out of the country and are eager to invest abroad. Many of these buyers don’t live here and don’t
pay personal income taxes, and their eager buying, usually for cash, is driving
prices constantly up. Some of these absentee owners keep the
property as a “pied-à-terre” where they can rest their weary bones during brief
visits to the city, while others simply rent the property out. There is a bill now pending in Albany that
would impose an annual “pied-à-terre” tax on properties worth $5 million or
more, but who knows if it will pass?
Symbolic of the current boom is a skinny
building at 432 Park Avenue that soars 1,396 feet, making it the tallest
residential tower in the Western Hemisphere, topping both the Empire State
Building and 1 World Trade Center minus their spires. Visible from almost anywhere in the city,
this new building has been described by local journalists as a “dried piece of
spaghetti,” a “giant matchstick,” and a “cornstalk in the middle of a vegetable
patch” – one worthy of a “toothpick award.”
All of which suggests a less than enthusiastic reception. It’s offering luxury apartments, of course,
with breathtaking views, but at least it was put up by American developers.
So what am I, a layman, to make of all
this? Does it even affect me? Now, no.
But a collapse in real estate prices has a way of sending ripples
through the whole economy, often with dire results. Maybe a popping of the bubble is imminent,
maybe not. But the very thought of it
makes me nervous.
Note on World War I: Last year was the centennial of the outbreak
of World War I, so much has been written about that conflict. Recently the Times Sunday Travel section had an article by an American
journalist who visited sections of northern France where you can still see the
vestiges of the trench warfare that dragged on for years. The Germans were far ahead of the Allies in
their trenches and fortifications, which included a narrow-gauge railroad to
distribute supplies, and underground recreation centers for the troops;
whatever meticulous, sophisticated planning could provide, they had. Small wonder, then, that they held fast
against all Allied attacks until the summer and fall of 1918, when they were
finally dislodged from their elaborate defenses and forced to retreat. The journalist asked the older residents in
several villages what finally forced the Germans out. Always the villagers answered, “Les
Américains.”
Coming soon: As previously announced, Movie Theaters Then
and Now: Palace, Sleaze, and Art.
©
2015 Clifford Browder
No comments:
Post a Comment