Watch Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg deliver his final State of the City address from the Barclays Center in Brooklyn.
Also, New Yorkers, we are interested in the State of Your Block. Please tell us how your block has been doing, or tweet at us using the hashtag #NYCblock.
Below: Twitter highlights from the mayor’s speech:
“The strike is a lost cause” @MikeBloomberg on bus driver strike
— Michael Paulson (@MichaelPaulson) 14 Feb 13
No mention of buying-out homeowners in flood zones, like @NYGovCuomo has suggested. #SOTC2013
— Andrew J. Hawkins (@andyjayhawk) 14 Feb 13
MT @samrob12: Pot possession in NYC? From now on: No overnight jail, just desk appearance ticket from precinct, Bloomberg to say.
— NYT Metro Desk (@NYTMetro) 14 Feb 13
Mayor: We’ll open all of our beaches on Memorial Day weekend this year, just as we always do! #Sandy #SOTC2013
— NYC Mayor’s Office (@NYCMayorsOffice) 14 Feb 13
Bloomberg on Sandy rebuilding: “We’re a coastal city, so we cannot – and will not – abandon the waterfront.” #sotc2012
— Anna Sale (@annasale) 14 Feb 13
Bloomberg throws a hard elbow at Robert Moses, saying — correctly — that Moses cut off the city from its waterfront.
— Clyde Haberman (@ClydeHaberman) 14 Feb 13
“The special interests and campaign donors have never had less power than they’ve had over the past 11 years” – @MikeBloomberg
— Michael Paulson (@MichaelPaulson) 14 Feb 13
Our goal is not to spend the year cutting ribbons. Our goal is to keep NYC on the right course for decades http://t.co/iIJ1sfih #SOTC2013
— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) 14 Feb 13
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian authorities appealed on Thursday against a court order banning the video file-sharing site YouTube for a month over an amateur video that denigrates the Prophet Mohammad, saying the ruling was unenforceable.
"The National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority has presented an appeal to halt implementation of the verdict," said a statement from the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.
Egypt's administrative court ordered the ministries of communication and investment to block YouTube, owned by Google, inside the country because it had carried the film "Innocence of Muslims", said the state news agency MENA.
The low-budget 13-minute video, billed as a film trailer and made in California with private funding, provoked a wave of anti-American unrest in Egypt, Libya and dozens of other Muslim countries in September.
The video depicts the Prophet as a fool and a sexual deviant. For most Muslims, any portrayal of the Prophet is considered blasphemous.
A statement issued after talks between ministry officials and the telecoms regulator said it was technically impossible to shut down YouTube in Egypt without affecting Google's Internet search engine, incurring potentially huge costs and job losses.
"The government cannot carry out the contents of the verdict within Egypt's borders," the statement said. The only step the authorities could take was to block the offending film within Egypt, which had already been done.
Only the United States had the capability to shut down YouTube, it said.
"Blocking YouTube would affect the search engine of Google, of which Egypt is the second biggest user in the Middle East," the statement said. This would cause losses to the economy of up to hundreds of millions of Egyptian pounds (tens of millions of dollars) and affect thousands of jobs, it added.
In a statement, Google said it had created a simple mechanism for legal authorities to request the blocking of content viewed as illegal.
(Reporting by Tom Perry; Writing by Paul Taylor; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
NEW YORK (AP) — Millions of people have watched Maggie Smith on "Downton Abbey." But she's not one of them.
The 78-year-old actress, who portrays Lady Grantham in the popular PBS series, told "60 Minutes" that she hasn't watched the drama because doing so would only make her agonize over her performance. She said she may watch it someday.
Smith told Steve Kroft, in an interview to be televised Sunday, that what she takes from the role is "the delight of acting."
She has three Oscars, two Emmys and a Tony Award, but said the "Downton Abbey" role has given her more public recognition than anything in her career.
Suleika Jaouad writes about her experiences as a young adult with cancer.
Every few weeks I host a “girls’ night” at my apartment in Lower Manhattan with a group of friends who are at various stages in their cancer treatments. Everyone brings something to eat and drink, and we sit around my living room talking to one another about subjects both heavy and light, ranging from post-chemo hair styling tips, fears of relapse or funny anecdotes about a recent hospital visit. But one topic that doesn’t come up as often as you might think — particularly at a gathering of women in their early 20s and 30s — is sex.
Actually, I almost didn’t write this column. Time and again, I’ve sat down to write about sex and cancer, but each time I’ve deleted the draft and moved on to a different topic. Writing about cancer is always a challenge for me because it hits so close to home. And this topic felt even more difficult. After my diagnosis at age 22 with leukemia, the second piece of news I learned was that I would likely be infertile as a result of chemotherapy. It was a one-two punch that was my first indication that issues of cancer and sexual health are inextricably tied.
But to my surprise, sex is not at the center of the conversation in the oncology unit — far from it. No one has ever broached the topic of sex and cancer during my diagnosis and treatment. Not doctors, not nurses. On the rare occasions I initiated the conversation myself, talking about sex and cancer felt like a shameful secret. I felt embarrassed about the changes taking place in my body after chemotherapy treatment began — changes that for me included hot flashes, infertility and early menopause. Today, at age 24, when my peers are dating, marrying and having children of their own, my cancer treatments are causing internal and external changes in my body that leave me feeling confused, vulnerable, frustrated — and verifiably unsexy.
When sex has come up in conversations with my cancer friends, it’s hardly the free-flowing, liberating conversation you see on television shows like HBO’s “Girls” or “Sex and the City.” When my group of cancer friends talk about sex — maybe it’s an exaggeration to call it the blind leading the blind — we’re just a group of young women who have received little to no information about the sexual side effects of our disease.
One friend worried that sex had become painful as a result of pelvic radiation treatment. Another described difficulty reaching orgasm and wondered if it was a side effect of chemotherapy. And yet another talked about her oncologist’s visible discomfort when she asked him about safe birth control methods. “I felt like I was having a conversation with my uncle or something,” she told me. As a result, she turned to Google to find out if she could take a morning-after pill. “I felt uncomfortable with him and had nowhere to turn,” she said.
This is where our conversations always run into a wall. Emotional support — we can do that for one another. But we are at a loss when it comes to answering crucial medical questions about sexual health and cancer. Who can we talk to? Are these common side effects? And what treatments or remedies exist, if any, for the sexual side effects associated with cancer?
If mine and my girlfriends’ experiences are indicative of a trend, then the way women with cancer are being educated about their sexual health is not by their health care providers but on their own. I was lucky enough to meet a counselor who specializes in the sexual health of cancer patients at a conference for young adult cancer patients. Sage Bolte, a counselor who works for INOVA Life With Cancer, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization that provides free resources for cancer patients, was the one to finally explain to me that many of the sexual side effects of cancer are both normal and treatable.
“Part of the reason you feel shame and embarrassment about this is because no one out there is saying this is normal. But it is,” Dr. Bolte told me. “Shame on us as health care providers that we have not created an environment that is conducive to talking about sexual health.”
Dr. Bolte said part of the problem is that doctors are so focused on saving a cancer patient’s life that they forget to discuss issues of sexual health. “My sense is that it’s not about physicians or health care providers not caring about your sexual health or thinking that it’s unimportant, but that cancer is the emergency, and everything else seems to fall by the wayside,” she said.
She said that one young woman she was working with had significant graft-versus-host disease, a potential side effect of stem cell transplantation that made her skin painfully sensitive to touch. Her partner would try to hold her hand or touch her stomach, and she would push him away or jump at his touch. It only took two times for him to get the message that “she didn’t want to be touched,” Dr. Bolte said. Unfortunately, by the time they showed up at Dr. Bolte’s office and the young woman’s condition had improved, she thought her boyfriend was no longer attracted to her. Her boyfriend, on the other hand, was afraid to touch her out of fear of causing pain or making an unwanted pass. All that was needed to help them reconnect was a little communication.
Dr. Bolte also referred me to resources like the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists; the Society for Sex Therapy and Research; and the Association of Oncology Social Workers, all professional organizations that can help connect cancer patients to professionals trained in working with sexual health issues and the emotional and physical concerns related to a cancer diagnosis.
I know that my girlfriends and I are not the only women out there who are wondering how to help themselves and their friends answer difficult questions about sex and cancer. Sex can be a squeamish subject even when cancer isn’t part of the picture, so the combination of sex and cancer together can feel impossible to talk about. But women like me and my friends shouldn’t have to suffer in silence.
Suleika Jaouad (pronounced su-LAKE-uh ja-WAD) is a 24-year-old writer who lives in New York City. Her column, “Life, Interrupted,” chronicling her experiences as a young adult with cancer, appears regularly on Well. Follow @suleikajaouad on Twitter.
SAN FRANCISCO — What do computer programmers and illegal immigrants have to do with each other?
When it comes to the sweeping overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that Congress is considering this year, the answer is everything.
Silicon Valley executives, who have long pressed the government to provide more visas for foreign-born math and science brains, are joining forces with an array of immigration groups seeking comprehensive changes in the law. And as momentum builds in Washington for a broad revamping, the tech industry has more hope than ever that it will finally achieve its goal: the expanded access to visas that it says is critical to its own continued growth and that of the economy as a whole.
Signs of the industry’s stepped-up engagement on the issue are visible everywhere. Prominent executives met with President Obama last week. Start-up founders who rarely abandon their computers have flown across the country to meet with lawmakers.
This Tuesday, the Technology CEO Council, an advocacy organization representing companies like Dell, Intel and Motorola, had meetings on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, Steve Case, a founder of AOL, is scheduled to testify at the first Senate hearing this year on immigration legislation, alongside the head of the deportation agents’ union and the leader of a Latino civil rights group.
“The odds of high-skilled passing without comprehensive is close to zero, and the odds of comprehensive passing without high-skilled passing is close to zero,” said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington.
The push comes as a clutch of powerful Senate Republicans and Democrats have reached a long-elusive agreement on some basic principles of a “comprehensive” revamping of immigration law. Separately, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate in late January focuses directly on the visa issue.
The industry’s argument for more so-called high-skilled visas has already persuaded the president.
“Real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy,” Mr. Obama said in Tuesday’s State of the Union speech.
In a speech in Las Vegas in January in which he introduced his own blueprint for overhauling immigration law, Mr. Obama embraced the idea that granting more visas was essential to maintaining innovation and job growth. He talked about foreigners studying at American universities, figuring out how to turn their ideas into businesses.
In part, the new alliance between the tech industry and immigration groups was born out of the 2012 elections and the rising influence of Hispanic voters.
“The world has changed since the election,” said Peter J. Muller, director of government relations at Intel, pointing out that the defeat of many Republican candidates had led to a softening of the party’s position on broad changes to immigration law. “There is a focus on comprehensive. We’re thrilled by it.”
“At this point,” he added, “our best hope for immigration reform lies with comprehensive reform.”
Mr. Case, the AOL co-founder, who now runs an investment fund, echoed that sentiment after meeting with the president last Tuesday.
“I look forward to doing whatever I can to help pass comprehensive immigration reform in the months ahead,” he said, “and ensure it includes strong provisions regarding high-skilled immigration, so we are positioned to win the global battle for talent.”
That sort of sentiment delights immigrants’ rights advocates who have banged their heads against the wall for years to rally a majority of Congress around their agenda.
“The stars are aligning here,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. “You’ve got the politics of immigration reform changing. You’ve got tech leaders leaning in not just for high-skilled but for broader immigration reform.”
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who is co-sponsoring the bill to increase the number of visas available for highly skilled immigrants, said the cooperation went both ways.
“All the talk about the STEM field — science, technology, engineering, mathematics — has awakened even those who aren’t all that interested in the high-tech world,” he said.
While the growing momentum has surprised many in Washington, comprehensive change is still not a sure thing, especially in the Republican-controlled House.
Mr. Hatch said he would push forward with his measure even if the broader efforts foundered. But his Democratic co-sponsor, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, said she would press for the bill to be part of the comprehensive package.
Last year, technology executives had a taste of what could happen with stand-alone legislation.
Julia Preston contributed reporting from New York.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 13, 2013
An earlier version of this article misstated the current basic annual cap for H-1B visas. It is 65,000 a year, not 60,000.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - As the only remaining defendant in the U.S. government's e-books antitrust case, Apple Inc appears headed for a high-stakes trial that could significantly increase the personal computer company's liability in related litigation.
Apple faces a June 3 trial date over civil allegations by the U.S. Department of Justice that it conspired with five publishers to raise the price of e-books and to fight the dominance of Amazon.com Inc.
On Friday, Macmillan became the fifth and final publisher to settle with the government. The Justice Department alleges that Apple came to agreements with each of the publishers meant to ensure that e-book prices at its iBookstore and other retailers would remain higher than those offered by Amazon.com.
At the Apple trial, to be overseen by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan, the Justice Department will seek not monetary damages but a judicial decree that Apple violated antitrust law, court papers said.
Among other things, government lawyers want the judge to issue an order enjoining Apple from engaging in any conduct similar to that alleged in the case. Such a judgment could make Apple vulnerable to steep damages in related litigation.
Apple and the publishers also face a class-action suit filed on behalf of consumers and a similar suit filed by dozens of state attorneys general. Neither suit puts a figure on the exact amount of damages sought.
The Consumer Federation of America estimated in a letter last year to the Senate antitrust subcommittee that e-book price fixing would likely cost consumers more than $200 million in 2012. State and federal antitrust laws allow plaintiffs to recover triple the amount of actual damages established at trial.
If Apple loses against the Justice Department, those plaintiffs would be in a "powerful position" to win their cases, according to Harry First, a professor at New York University School of Law specializing in antitrust.
Under the Clayton Act, an antitrust statute, plaintiffs can use judgments obtained by the U.S. government as evidence against defendants.
If Apple loses, it is unclear whether both the states and the private plaintiffs will be able to seek and recover damages for the same conduct.
By contrast, if Apple were to prevail, it would cause "a lot more trouble" for the plaintiffs in the other cases, First said.
Apple declined to comment. It still may settle with the U.S. government.
In December, Apple and four publishers came to an agreement with European Union regulators over their antitrust probe into e-books. The fifth publisher, Pearson Plc's Penguin group, also under investigation, was not part of the European deal announced in December.
LITTLE TO GAIN
Apple may have little to gain by going to trial in the United States, according to some legal experts.
Under settlements with the Justice Department, the five publishers were required to terminate or not renew deals with Apple and other retailers that the government claimed were anti-competitive.
Apple and the government have less to argue over since those deals have been undone, Daniel Crane, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said.
"What are they fighting over?" he said.
Crane added that Apple may be interested in going to trial to establish an antitrust principle that might help other aspects of its business such as content deals with entertainment companies.
The trial would be a big test for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, which has sought to enhance its reputation for its trial capabilities under the Obama administration.
The government has been represented by Mark Ryan, who is director of litigation, a new position in the Antitrust Division. Ryan, who began in January 2012, was hired by Joseph Wayland, the former acting assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division.
Last year Wayland cited Ryan in a speech about the Antitrust Division's focus on enhancing its litigation capabilities. Under the Obama administration, the Antitrust Division has scored a number of high-profile trial victories, including a criminal price-fixing case against Taiwan-based AU Optronics Corp last year and a successful challenge of H&R Block Inc's acquisition of 2SS Holdings Inc, developer of the TaxACT digital tax preparation business, in 2011.
Apple is represented by lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. One of the law firm's attorneys who recently made an appearance in the case, Orin Snyder, won a favorable settlement last year for Voom HD Holdings, once a unit of Cablevision, following a trial against Dish Network.
Voom sued Dish for $2.4 billion alleging it violated a 15-year contract to carry a suite of high-definition channels, including those devoted to Kung Fu and video games. Under the settlement, Dish agreed to pay $700 million to Cablevision and AMC Networks, which Cablevision spun off last year.
The case is United States v. Apple Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-02826.
(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Howard Goller and Eric Beech)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — They don't call him Chief for nothing: Eric Church is the top nominee at this year's Academy of Country Music Awards.
The rising country music star has seven nominations for the April 7 awards show in Las Vegas. Hunter Hayes is next with six, followed by Taylor Swift and Miranda Lambert at five apiece.
Swift and Lambert are up for the academy's top honor — entertainer of the year — with Lambert's husband, Blake Shelton, Jason Aldean and Luke Bryan. Swift is going for her third straight win in that category.
Shelton and Bryan will co-host the broadcast, to air live on CBS from the MGM Grand.
Along with naming nominees in a series of videos online Wednesday morning, the academy also awarded trophies in the three new artist categories. Jana Kramer is the new female vocalist of the year, Brantley Gilbert is the new male vocalist winner and Florida Georgia Line took new vocal duo or group, as voted by fans. Those three acts will now compete for new artist of the year.
Fans will continue to have a say in that category and entertainer of the year. Fans can vote in those categories beginning March 25 at http://VoteACM.com.
Hayes began an incredible run on the awards show circuit with a nomination for best new artist at the ACMs last year. He didn't win, but has since has been on a streak. He won the Country Music Association's best new artist in November, was tied with Swift as the top-nominated country artist at Sunday's Grammy Awards, where he performed, and now takes center stage in Las Vegas.
"It's amazing. That puts it in perspective," a groggy Hayes said a few minutes after his manager woke him up with the news. "I'm kind of feeling like I'm part of the family now, especially now, with this. That's such an honor, such a huge compliment. This is serious. This is for real. This says that my music's been accepted by this community and it's unbelievable — and that's one of the best feelings in the world."
Church's "Chief" is up for album of the year along with Swift's "Red," Bryan's "tailgates & tanlines," Carrie Underwood's "Blown Away" and Little Big Town's "Tornado." Jay Joyce scored a rare double in the category: He produced the Church and Little Big Town albums and will take home a trophy if either wins. He's also up for producer of the year.
"Chief," released in 2011, slipped through a loophole and into the category for the second straight year. Academy rules allow an album to be nominated outside its usual qualification period if it did the bulk of its sales during the next opening. The album reached platinum last year and currently sits at more than 1.3 million copies sold.
That album's inclusion may have cost Zac Brown Band's "Uncaged" a nomination just three days after the band took home the Grammy for best country album. Another potential nominee left off the list was Brad Paisley, who had been nominated every year since 1999.
Church also is up for male vocalist of the year with 2012 winner Shelton, Bryan, Aldean and Toby Keith. Lambert will be going for her fourth straight female vocalist of the year award with Swift, Underwood, Martina McBride and Kacey Musgraves, a newcomer who earned four nominations.
Others with four nominations include Bryan and Little Big Town. That quartet is up for vocal group of the year with Lady Antebellum, which has won the award three straight times, Zac Brown Band, Eli Young Band and The Band Perry.
Surprise 2012 vocal duo winner Thompson Square is nominated in that category again along with Sugarland, Big & Rich, Florida Georgia Line, and Love and Theft.
Church also is nominated in the song and single of the year categories for "Springsteen." Lambert's "Over You," Hayes' "Wanted," Eli Young Band's "Even If It Breaks Your Heart" and Lee Brice's "A Woman Like You" round out the song of the year category.
Lambert, EYB and Hayes join Church in the single of the year category with LBT's "Pontoon." A complete list of nominees is available at the academy's Web site.
___
Online:
http://acmcountry.com
___
Follow AP Music Writer Chris Talbott: http://twitter.com/Chris_Talbott .
At a party the other night, a fund-raiser for a literary magazine, I found myself in conversation with a well-known author whose work I greatly admire. I use the term “conversation” loosely. I couldn’t hear a word he said. But worse, the effort I was making to hear was using up so much brain power that I completely forgot the titles of his books.
A senior moment? Maybe. (I’m 65.) But for me, it’s complicated by the fact that I have severe hearing loss, only somewhat eased by a hearing aid and cochlear implant.
Dr. Frank Lin, an otolaryngologist and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, describes this phenomenon as “cognitive load.” Cognitive overload is the way it feels. Essentially, the brain is so preoccupied with translating the sounds into words that it seems to have no processing power left to search through the storerooms of memory for a response.
Katherine Bouton speaks about her own experience with hearing loss.
A transcript of this interview can be found here.
Over the past few years, Dr. Lin has delivered unwelcome news to those of us with hearing loss. His work looks “at the interface of hearing loss, gerontology and public health,” as he writes on his Web site. The most significant issue is the relation between hearing loss and dementia.
In a 2011 paper in The Archives of Neurology, Dr. Lin and colleagues found a strong association between the two. The researchers looked at 639 subjects, ranging in age at the beginning of the study from 36 to 90 (with the majority between 60 and 80). The subjects were part of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. None had cognitive impairment at the beginning of the study, which followed subjects for 18 years; some had hearing loss.
“Compared to individuals with normal hearing, those individuals with a mild, moderate, and severe hearing loss, respectively, had a 2-, 3- and 5-fold increased risk of developing dementia over the course of the study,” Dr. Lin wrote in an e-mail summarizing the results. The worse the hearing loss, the greater the risk of developing dementia. The correlation remained true even when age, diabetes and hypertension — other conditions associated with dementia — were ruled out.
In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed some possible explanations for the association. The first is social isolation, which may come with hearing loss, a known risk factor for dementia. Another possibility is cognitive load, and a third is some pathological process that causes both hearing loss and dementia.
In a study last month, Dr. Lin and colleagues looked at 1,984 older adults beginning in 1997-8, again using a well-established database. Their findings reinforced those of the 2011 study, but also found that those with hearing loss had a “30 to 40 percent faster rate of loss of thinking and memory abilities” over a six-year period compared with people with normal hearing. Again, the worse the hearing loss, the worse the rate of cognitive decline.
Both studies also found, somewhat surprisingly, that hearing aids were “not significantly associated with lower risk” for cognitive impairment. But self-reporting of hearing-aid use is unreliable, and Dr. Lin’s next study will focus specifically on the way hearing aids are used: for how long, how frequently, how well they have been fitted, what kind of counseling the user received, what other technologies they used to supplement hearing-aid use.
What about the notion of a common pathological process? In a recent paper in the journal Neurology, John Gallacher and colleagues at Cardiff University suggested the possibility of a genetic or environmental factor that could be causing both hearing loss and dementia — and perhaps not in that order. In a phenomenon called reverse causation, a degenerative pathology that leads to early dementia might prove to be a cause of hearing loss.
The work of John T. Cacioppo, director of the Social Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Chicago, also offers a clue to a pathological link. His multidisciplinary studies on isolation have shown that perceived isolation, or loneliness, is “a more important predictor of a variety of adverse health outcomes than is objective social isolation.” Those with hearing loss, who may sit through a dinner party and not hear a word, frequently experience perceived isolation.
Other research, including the Framingham Heart Study, has found an association between hearing loss and another unexpected condition: cardiovascular disease. Again, the evidence suggests a common pathological cause. Dr. David R. Friedland, a professor of otolaryngology at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, hypothesized in a 2009 paper delivered at a conference that low-frequency loss could be an early indication that a patient has vascular problems: the inner ear is “so sensitive to blood flow” that any vascular abnormalities “could be noted earlier here than in other parts of the body.”
A common pathological cause might help explain why hearing aids do not seem to reduce the risk of dementia. But those of us with hearing loss hope that is not the case; common sense suggests that if you don’t have to work so hard to hear, you have greater cognitive power to listen and understand — and remember. And the sense of perceived isolation, another risk for dementia, is reduced.
A critical factor may be the way hearing aids are used. A user must practice to maximize their effectiveness and they may need reprogramming by an audiologist. Additional assistive technologies like looping and FM systems may also be required. And people with progressive hearing loss may need new aids every few years.
Increasingly, people buy hearing aids online or from big-box stores like Costco, making it hard for the user to follow up. In the first year I had hearing aids, I saw my audiologist initially every two weeks for reprocessing and then every three months.
In one study, Dr. Lin and his colleague Wade Chien found that only one in seven adults who could benefit from hearing aids used them. One deterrent is cost ($2,000 to $6,000 per ear), seldom covered by insurance. Another is the stigma of old age.
Hearing loss is a natural part of aging. But for most people with hearing loss, according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, the condition begins long before they get old. Almost two-thirds of men with hearing loss began to lose their hearing before age 44. My hearing loss began when I was 30.
Forty-eight million Americans suffer from some degree of hearing loss. If it can be proved in a clinical trial that hearing aids help delay or offset dementia, the benefits would be immeasurable.
“Could we do something to reduce cognitive decline and delay the onset of dementia?” he asked. “It’s hugely important, because by 2050, 1 in 30 Americans will have dementia.
“If we could delay the onset by even one year, the prevalence of dementia drops by 15 percent down the road. You’re talking about billions of dollars in health care savings.”
Should studies establish definitively that correcting hearing loss decreases the potential for early-onset dementia, we might finally overcome the stigma of hearing loss. Get your hearing tested, get it corrected, and enjoy a longer cognitively active life. Establishing the dangers of uncorrected hearing might even convince private insurers and Medicare that covering the cost of hearing aids is a small price to pay to offset the cost of dementia.
Katherine Bouton is the author of the new book, “Shouting Won’t Help: Why I — and 50 Million Other Americans — Can’t Hear You,” from which this essay is adapted.
This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: February 12, 2013
An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the Medical College of Wisconsin. It is in Milwaukee, not Madison.
LONDON – Switzerland said on Wednesday that Swiss banks would be required to hold additional capital for residential mortgages amid concerns that the country’s booming property market was overheating.
The country, which already has more stringent capital rules for its banks than other European nations, said lenders would be required to hold an additional 1 percent of risk-weighted assets to make the financial system more stable in light of an “excessive rise in prices in the real estate market and exorbitant mortgage debt.” Banks have until Sept. 30 to comply.
Property values in Switzerland have been rising as investors spooked by the uncertainties of the economic crisis in the euro zone sought a more stable places for their money.
Greater demand for Swiss homes has pushed up prices at a time of low interest rates and led many buyers to take on larger mortgages. The Swiss central bank has been unable to cool the market by increasing borrowing rates because of an overvalued Swiss currency.
An index created by the Swiss bank UBS measuring the likelihood of a Swiss property bubble was “clearly in the risk zone,” the bank wrote in a note to investors this month.
In the final three months of 2012, house prices soared to six times the annual average Swiss household income compared with about four times in 2000, according to the bank. It called the ever-rising demand for properties not intended for personal use “remarkable.”
The government said it was following a recommendation by the Swiss National Bank to increase the capital buffers. “The sustained growth in mortgage debt and rise in real estate prices of residential properties has led to imbalances which pose a significant risk to the stability of the banking sector and to that of the economy,” the government said in a statement.
Mortgage debt has been growing faster than the economy, and mortgage volume in relation to income has reached “risky” levels, the government said, adding that residential property prices had risen more than what was justified by fundamental factors.
UBS and Credit Suisse, Switzerland’s biggest banks, both said this month that they were working on increasing their capital buffers and that the suggested increase would not change their plans.
The Marriott Marquis, the 50-story convention hotel in Times Square, sits atop some of the most valuable land in all of New York City, if not the world.
But because of a lease signed by the Giuliani administration in 1998, Marriott can buy the property from the city for only $19.9 million, one-tenth of its current $193 million value, according to a new audit by the city comptroller, John C. Liu.
Mr. Liu said the problems with the 1998 lease could end up costing taxpayers $344.9 million in lost rent and proceeds from the sale of the property.
Marriott, whose Marquis Times Square generates more revenue than any hotel in its worldwide portfolio, also owes the city $3.6 million and failed to keep adequate records that would enable the city to determine whether it has received all the money that it is due, according to the audit.
“Even in 1998, it’s hard to imagine that property values would slump so badly,” Mr. Liu said. “There is an opportunity here to renegotiate this deal in a way that could bring millions back for taxpayers.”
Marriott and the Bloomberg administration sharply disputed the audit’s conclusions.
“The comptroller’s office did not understand the Marriott Marquis hotel deal, and its audit report is wrong on all counts,” Marriott said in a statement.
The Economic Development Corporation, a city agency, said the audit “fails to measure the significant impact the Marriott Marquis has had on the Times Square area and New York City overall.”
But Mr. Liu stood by his report, saying the audit relies on Marriott’s lease, prior audits and internal memos at the Economic Development Corporation.
Randy Levine, who was a deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration who negotiated the 1998 agreement, said he could not recall its specifics. Mr. Levine is now president of the New York Yankees.
The most striking finding in the audit is that the city appears to have drastically undervalued the land under the hotel.
The hotel, which includes over 1,900 rooms, a ballroom, exhibition and meeting space, shops and a theater, sits on the west side of Broadway, between 45th and 46th Streets. The hotel is the flagship for Marriott’s 33 hotels in New York City under nine different brands.
“Times Square is a unique market in which the sky may be the limit for land,” said Daniel F. Sciannameo, president of Albert Valuation Group, an appraiser. “Recent prices are off the charts.”
In the early 1980s, the city and the state were desperate to redevelop Times Square, then a district of T-shirt and X-rated shops and shuttered theaters that many New Yorkers avoided. With Times Square considered a risky location, government provided a menu of tax breaks and other incentives to encourage redevelopment projects by Marriott and others.
The city and the state signed a 75-year lease with Marriott in 1982 that was intended to ease the hotel’s financial burden by setting a low initial rent, a portion of which was deferred until the lease expired in 2057.
Under its original 1982 lease, Marriott had the option to buy the land for “fair market value,” after paying all deferred rent and a low-interest federal loan. The lease stipulated that each side would hire an appraiser to establish the price.
Seventeen years later in 1998, Marriott asked the Giuliani administration to revise the terms of its lease, so that it could comply with requirements for forming a real estate investment trust.
By then, Times Square was beginning to thrive.
Marriott agreed to pay $54 million to cover some deferred rent and to repay a federal loan. The city, in turn, changed the rent calculation and amended the purchase price, inserting a formula that effectively reduced it to $19.9 million, according to the audit.
Marriott contends that it does not owe the $3.6 million cited by the comptroller because the original sum had been paid in 1998.
As for the purchase option, Marriott said the annual rent payments it had made to the city should be deducted from the purchase price.
But the comptroller’s office points out that nowhere in the original lease does it say that there would be a deduction for rent payments.
But the revised 1998 lease eliminated the requirement for appraisers and instead set a price. According to the audit, the Economic Development Corporation failed to do a comparative analysis to establish whether the revised lease was in the best interests of the city.
According to internal city documents, Marriott offered to buy the property in 2010 for even less than what was stipulated in the revised lease, $10.7 million, although nothing came of it.
Copyright © Regional News. All rights reserved.
Design 
And Business Directories
