Article: The Biggest Box Office Hit Ever: Avatar Going for Round Two?

The Biggest Box Office Hit Ever: Avatar Going for Round Two?

            by Zachary Chin

April 15th, 2010

            James Cameron’s Avatar was the highest grossing film to ever appear on the silver screen, and at the start of the New Year, Avatar’s facebook page and bloggers on MTV’s website quoted a very interesting statement from Cameron about a possible sequel, adding what many believe would be another heavy-hitter for the box office.

            Cameron said to MTV that he has a “larger story in mind” for Jake and Neytiri, the movie’s in-focus characters. The first film chronicled Jake’s journey from cultural ignorance to complete assimilation with the Navii of Pandora. It came off as a sort of Pocahontas tale with Neytiri as the native princess, teaching the naïve Jake the many customs necessary to survive in her world.

Bloggers believe Jake and Neytiri, pictured here sharing
a close moment over archery, will be having children in
the Avatar sequel.

            Bloggers on MTV made it very clear that they would welcome a sequel and want to learn a little bit more about “what the Navii heritage was and the history of the various landmarks such as Hometree.” Facebook contributors to the Avatar page made clear that they want to focus on the central storyline, continuing the progression from the end of the first film. One commenter claimed that a good portion of the film’s success will come from “Jake and Neytiri having children.”

            Since Cameron’s first installment of Avatar took over a decade to complete, it stands to reason that viewers can expect a sequel no earlier than 2014 or 2015. Despite the length of time, excitement about the continuation of the Avatar franchise has been substantial. Though other projects stand between Cameron and his labor on the new movie, he has been forthcoming about his intentions to continue the story.

 The director himself expressed his interest in exploring more of the life on Pandora, particularly the oceans. Movie-goers can expect an exciting addition to the Avatar saga that will take the famous story to the depths of the seas.

            

Editorial: The Effects of The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation

The Effects of The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation
            by Zachary Chin


June 10th, 2009


        The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, a supplement to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (better known as NAFTA), has been the catalyst for many grievances surrounding labor and employment. The goal of the agreement was to allow for massive deregulation, such as tariff reduction or elimination, which, in turn, would increase trade among Canada, Mexico & the U.S. The new agreement has had only modest impact on the relationship between Canada and the U.S., but the effect on U.S. and Mexico has been immense.

The explosive growth of low wage factories in Mexico, as a result of the new opportunities for American businesses to outsource, has dramatically reduced the number of American jobs, as well as impairing the health and well-being of many employed Mexicans in the “maquiladoras” (factories that manufacture a foreign client’s goods) that do not adequately protect their workforce. Deregulation has been bitterly criticized by Americans who have lost their jobs or have had their wages suppressed, as well as those who have witnessed or felt the harm to Mexican laborers and the damage to the environment in Mexico.

Between 1994 and 2002, the Economic Policy Institute reported that NAFTA had resulted in a net loss of 879,000 jobs in the United States, 80% of which were in manufacturing. Those companies who did not move to Mexico used outsourcing as a threat to gain leverage over workers and labor unions. Because the American workers wanted to keep their jobs, the owners of these companies were able to hold down wages.

South of the border, thousands of manufacturing plants have been operating to serve American companies and have delivered dramatic increases in the profit margins. There are those who believe that, while the laborers in the United States were harmed by the Labor Agreement, the unprecedented outsourcing of American businesses has helped employment along the border. Yet, the competition for work among Mexican laborers at these maquiladoras has kept wages very low – about $2.30 per hour in U.S.-equivalence according to Ellwyn Stoddard, a professor at University of Texas El Paso and an expert on Mexican borderlands culture.

The labor conditions of these maquiladoras pose another deep concern. Without adequate health and safety regulations, such as those provided by OSHA in the U.S., the American Medical Association labels these Mexican factories "a virtual cesspool and breeding ground for infectious disease.” The workers in the maquiladoras have been subject to numerous respiratory diseases due to the air pollution in the factories. While Mexico’s Gross Domestic Product has grown healthily as a result of NAFTA, the welfare and long-term livelihood of the Mexican laborers are still much in doubt.

In the end, does NAFTA’s labor supplement boil down to the U.S. trading away jobs for healthier corporate sales and profits?  Does the global competitiveness of American firms always require such a horrifying Faustian bargain, where Americans face unemployment, while their jobs, along with labor and environmental abuse, are shipped to our neighbor?  The United States must consider a more holistic concept of trade, beyond the exchange of goods and services, beyond global competition and trade surpluses and deficits.  Jobs are, in and of themselves, precious assets too, not just the revenue or earnings growth they produce for corporate America.  Moreover, turning a blind eye to labor and environmental neglect in Mexico will have downstream consequences to both trading partners.

Article: Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme yields greater consequences

Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme yields greater consequences
     by Zachary Chin

January 4th, 2009

     Police arrived on the scene early Tuesday Morning to find Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, a victim of Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme, dead in his apartment after losing over $1 billion to the Madoff Investment Securities LLC hoax.

     Reports say De la Villehuchet used a box-cutter to make lacerations on his wrists after overdosing on sleeping pills. The scene introduces a horrific element of the backlash of Madoff’s corporate crime. De la Villehuchet’s ties to the French aristocracy, his membership in the New York Yacht Club, and his passion for high-priced investments made him a perfect target for Madoff.
     Madoff allegedly coerced high rolling executives and aristocrats into using his hedge fund, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, to manage their money. He had them deposit their money into his personal account, reported fake figures that far exceeded realistic returns, and in his own words: “used the money in the Chase Manhattan bank account that belonged to them or other clients to pay the requested funds.”

Madoff in his New York City office circa 1999, around the time
Henry Markopolos began trying to expose the corporate scheme. 

    Victims like De la Villehuchet were shocked to discover that the reported returns were not backed by real money, and that they had been misled in a pyramid style scheme. In 1999, there were already serious concerns about the returns that the hedge fund had been reporting. Since then, there had been multiple requests for the Security and Exchange Commission to investigate Madoff’s business, but the corporate scheme continued until Madoff privately confessed to his son that the entire fund was “one grand lie.” 

     Henry Markopolos was the first to try to expose Madoff’s practices and was responsible for multiple attempts to alert the SEC. Yet, his whistle-blowing tactics went unrecognized despite numerous examples of how the figures reported by the investment fund were statistically inconsistent and “literally impossible”.
     Madoff now sits in house arrest in his Upper East Side penthouse apartment while victims are left to recover their lost funds and cope with their broken spirits. Madoff is set to go on trial in March of this year and is being charged on numerous counts of fraud, obstruction, and perjury.

Article: Ben Affleck expresses mixed feelings about McCain’s defense of Obama

Ben Affleck expresses mixed feelings about McCain’s defense of Obama

      by Zachary Chin

October 29^th, 2008

           

            Actor/director Ben Affleck appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and provided a fresh perspective on the recent defense of Senator Barack Obama by McCain. Affleck criticized the popularized dialectic between people of Arabic descent and the term “decent people.” What Affleck finds disturbing is not only the false labeling of Obama as a “Muslim” or “Arab”, but also the assumption by so many that these terms imply poor character and indecency.  

Weeks ago, supporters of Senator John McCain collectively booed their candidate at a rally in Lakeville, Minnesota after McCain parried an attack by a woman who attended the rally who claimed Obama could not be trusted because he was “an Arab.” The crowd groaned at McCain’s defense of his opponent and his assertion that voters should be “respectful.” With November not far away, heated attacks by both candidates have been popular, and McCain’s sudden shift away from the fray evidently disappointed a stadium packed with republican voters from Minnesota.  

Known left-leaning public figures such as Rachel Maddow have come forth to say McCain has taken the high road and that he should be commended for his integrity. His defense of his opponent did not go unrecognized, and many believe that McCain did the right thing in dialing back the attacks on Obama.

Links to videos:

 McCain booed at rally in Lakeville, MN

 Ben Affleck's take on the perception of Muslims and Arabs in the United States

Others, like Affleck, are not as easily convinced that McCain is having the right argument with his supporters. Responding to the woman’s concern, McCain shook his head and replied that Obama was a “decent, family man.” Affleck is concerned that in McCain’s defense of his opponent, he made the implication that Arabs could not be decent people, for McCain did not respond simply by correcting her perception of Obama’s ethnicity.

Fox National News has devoted over ten segments to exposing Obama’s true heritage. Some argue that he is a Muslim or is of Middle-Eastern descent and others claim he is not, but many shrug their shoulders and ask “So what?” According to Affleck, McCain’s response to the woman’s attack on Senator Obama just reiterated the same language that there is a natural opposition between Arabic people and trustworthiness.

With disgruntled republicans criticizing McCain’s defense of Obama from the right, and others criticizing his method of defense, support for the Senator may suffer as voting day draws near.

Article: Senator Clinton criticizes Obama’s softness on Farrakhan

Senator Clinton criticizes Obama’s softness on Farrakhan
            by Zachary Chin


February 28th, 2008


       During Tuesday night’s debate, New York senator Hillary Clinton criticized her opponent, Illinois Senator Barack Obama for what she believed to be a lack of conviction in Obama’s denunciation of Louis Farrakhan’s support for his campaign.
       Farrakhan is notorious for his extreme anti-Semitic views and his leadership in the Nation of Islam*. Many suspect Farrakhan to have been involved in the murder of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (commonly known as Malcolm X) because of the civil rights leader’s sudden shift away from the politics of black supremacy. In his comments following Shabazz’s death, Farrakhan neither confirmed nor denied the suspicion, but instead used the opportunity to communicate a message of warning and intimidation.

Farrakhan during a speech regarding the 
death of El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz 

       Obama immediately retorted Clinton’s accusation of his softness on Farrakhan by saying that he has “denounced” the support offered. The back-and-forth continued after Senator Clinton distinguished the terms “denounce” and “reject”, the latter of which she thought Obama should have done in his comments directed at Farrakhan.
       Bloggers began chiming in during the debate, claiming that this sort of bickering was not conducive to a good discussion and that Clinton should just “cut the chatter and get to the issues”, said one commenter. The New York senator’s distinction of terms, evidently, did not register with voters quite as well as she may have suspected.
     The final talking point on the issue came from senator Obama, who replied to Clinton by saying that denouncing support implies rejection, but to put the issue to bed, he announced his formal denunciation and rejection to Farrakhan’s support to a live audience and the viewers at home.
     Though hardly a bump in the road for Obama’s campaign, the suggestion that perhaps Obama is not as ideologically opposed to black supremacists raises the question of how big of a problem are these issues going to be for the Illinois senator as his campaign continues. Some accusations about his place of birth, religion, and experiences with drugs have already appeared. If successful in earning the democratic nomination, senator Obama may face increased attacks from right-wing figures leading up to the general election.


*Despite its comprehensive sounding name, The Nation of Islam does not by any means encompass the entirety of the Muslim community, nor does it reflect identical values and beliefs as the general Muslim community. Both groups draw their ideological bases from the Qu’ran, but The Nation of Islam refers to a specific movement involving figures such as Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan, and Malcolm X.