Kings Theatre in Brooklyn Set to Reopen

An estimated $95 million is being invested to bring back a long time Brooklyn gem. The Kings Theater, a hot attraction in the 1920s, is being being re-opened sometime in February 2015. The former Loews movie theater is now finding a new use as a performing arts center in hopes to stimulate development in its neighborhood. 

Located at 1027 Flatbush avenue Brooklyn, NY the theater would bring a much needed boost to the community as it provides opportunities for kids to stray away from bad alternative life decisions and it provides potential for tourist attractions, which may stimulate the small businesses in the area, or re-locate them assuming bigger companies get involved. 

Former Brooklyn borough President, Marty Markowitz, expects people will love how they renovated the inside. He believes that this theater will be "Brooklyn's Beacon and Apollo theater in one". Speaking of Apollo theater, Diana Ross would be performing in February, too (Feb 3 to be precise).

Buy or Sell?

Being a child of Brooklyn, I have walked past the theater a few times in my life and I can say I most definitely didn't think much of it, but I know I wasn't a fan of abandoned areas. It was dead, like a lot of other attractions in NY. It was almost too commonplace in Brooklyn, and I'm certain I'm not alone on this, especially many years ago (just look at Williamsburg at the turn of the century). Its good to see a resurgence in investments with the theater and within the community; I buy it. I just hope it doesn't lead to more people being crowded out of their neighborhoods as it may attract wealthier people to the area.

Read More »

29 breathtaking photographs of the human race

There was a post I came across featuring almost 30 photos of people around the world (or at least, people in the Middle East and Asia region). The photos were stunning, depicting humanity's struggles, pride and pain. I liked them so much, I decided to take all of these photos and made a mosaic out of them (using the EasyMoza web app). 

I realize now maybe I shouldn't have used so much, but I think it's still pretty neat. 

Read More »

My frustrations with law enforcement and society encapsulated in one Jon Stewart quote

Read More »

How Sony can capitalize after pulling 'The Interview'

I don't fully understand a lot of what's going on behind the scenes at Sony Pictures, but I know things got serious (and I mean really serious) over the past few weeks. Just recently, news dropped that they decided to pull the plug on showing their upcoming movie The Interview, starring James Franco (@JamesFrancoTV) and Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen). The reason is tied to what the movie is about and threats of terrorist activity. From those threats, the movie theaters backed out, and from there Sony ultimately backed out too.

But instead of getting into what the movie is about, you can just read the synopsis here while I get to the delicious economic opportunity that Sony Pictures has in front of them!

What we know

Just a few weeks back, news broke that Sony Pictures had been hacked by a group of hackers instructed by the North Korean government (or at least that's what we think), leaking important documents, e-mails, salaries, etc. What was leaked ended up circulating the web and was a cause for a wide variety of serious discussion, but whether you believe the media had a right to circulate it or not, the damage was already done.

The company is left dealing with a PR nightmare along with capital-related setbacks, adjusting their fixed and variable costs by replacing hardware and hiring personnel to help them fix their net security issue. On top of that, their workers are filing lawsuits, charging the company with failing to protect their privacy. And all of this happened prior to canceling the release of The Interview. Talk about adding salt to the wound.

Why Sony is able to capitalize: scarcity and national identity

But if you were to ask me if I thought they can bounce back from all this, I would give you an enthusiastic yes, and the reason boils down to narrative, value and scarcity. Usually, economic value is measured by the most someone is willing to give up in other goods and services in order to obtain a good, service, or state of the world. In the movie business, with a fixed price set for movie goers, their value is more or less measured in the amount of visits to the theater.

Despite this financial hit for pulling the movie, Sony can still earn a sizable profit on the interview because the movie has picked up a lot more buzz than was initially created before the scandal. For one, you can think of it hypothetically. After Sony decided not to show it, the movie did all of a sudden became a scarce commodity, which naturally generates more demand for any product. And it helps Sony that the movie is not really circulating online, but this is just ha
lf the point I'm trying to make. Furthermore, you can think about it symbolically, where the hackers (whether under North Korea or not) ended up turning a silly comedy (that I wasn't going to bother watching before all of this) into a must-see movie, at least for Americans.

Following the terrorist threats and the Sony decision, other studios followed suit. According to engaget, Paramount Pictures decided to pull screenings of Team America: World Police (a 10-year film which featured a North Korean dictator as the villain) and film studio New Regency (co-owned by Fox and Warner Bros.) canceled its plans to produce a film adaptation of the graphic novel Pyongyang.

In a country that takes pride in freedom of expression, you can imagine why these series of decisions were frustrating for the average American to see. Even though Sony's move is inherently a smart one when you consider a terrorist threat in the mix, the conventional wisdom sees it as more about a shot to the national narrative and the outcry is, in part, about repairing that identity.

In growing numbers, Americans are expressing their support to have The Interview distributed to the public (however that happens) because watching it became a concern of national identity, and what better better response would their be than to show it as a way to fix uphold that nation identity and stick it to the enemy? This is the audience The Interview has going for it, and Sony would be smart to take ownership of distributing it while its still hard to find online.

Suggestion for Sony: Pull a Beyoncé

There are many different ways Sony can distribute The Interview. While they are weighing their options, I hope one of the considerations is to release it theaters unnounced. Remember back in 2013 when Beyoncé surprised the world when she released her visual album, "Beyoncé", unannounced? That album spent its first three weeks at No. 1 with sold 1.43 million copies sold in just 4 weeks alone. The Interview might not make Guardians of the Galaxy type of money, but the popularity should catapult its revenue intake beyond its expected box office numbers. It would be a shock, and a good one that might find itself within the top 5 or 6 box office movies for a large number of weeks (especially if the movie is a good film). One downside to showing it in theaters is the possibility that a lot of people wont show up because they don't want to take any risks.

On the other hand, the possibility of showing it online is always there too, but there is also the risk of exposing it online leakage, and those who probably wouldn't mind seeing it in theaters have no incentive to bother since they can see it for free.

But in the end, with whatever they want to do, I think they need to do it as soon as possible while the movie is still relevant and there is little competition.

Related links/articles:

• Everything That’s Happened in the Sony Leak Scandal
• Should Sony Pictures Pull ‘The Interview’?
• Celebrities React To Sony Canceling 'The Interview' Release
• Snapchat CEO 'devastated' at Sony leak, but were tech sites right to report it? Open thread
• North Korea Behind Sony Hack: U.S. Officials
• White House calls Sony hack a ‘serious national security matter’
• Sony Leaked Emails Depict Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Leo DiCaprio: Sought-After, Apologetic and ‘Despicable’
• After 'Utter Devastation' of Sony Hack, Experts Ask: Who's Next?
• No 'Interview'...on any platform
• Sony's Amy Pascal likely to be fired over leaked emails that exposed cruel and racially tinged comments
• Why North Korea's Sony hack made 'The Interview' required viewing
• Graphic novel Pyongyang's film killed because of Sony hacks

Read More »

What are key the benefits of migration?

To learn more on this issue, you can visit these sites:

Do immigrant workers depress the wages of native workers?

Do migrants take the jobs of native workers?

The Economic Benefits of Migration

Why supporting migration makes good business sense

The pros and cons of Migration 

Pros and cons of immigration in the USA

Read More »

CBO: The rich ARE paying their fair share

It isn't rare to hear from the President and various other pundits (like Warren Buffet, Robert Reich, and various other Democrats and liberals) that wealthy are not paying their fair share of income taxes and need to be taxed more. President Obama even once said the following: "there is still more to do when it comes to reducing our debt. And I’m willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn't put all the burden on seniors or students or middle class families, but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share."

However this CBO study shows that the rich have indeed been paying their "fair share", at the very least. In 2011, there has been an extremely unequal distribution of government transfer payments and federal taxes. It seems that even though the reality of income inequality appears more blatant and stressful for the lower echelons in income, these same people are also receiving (unsurprisingly) the most transfer payments. What is surprising, however, is the observation that the wealthy have been doing their part in payments, when the general consensus is that they do not pay enough.

If this study turns out to be very accurate to reality, shouldn't it also be seen as another incentive for the wealthy to want a reduction in income inequality, too? Not that the wealthy doesn't actually care about reducing income inequality, but if any of us were in their shoes, chances are we would have a hard time making the necessary sacrifices too. The road to recovery doesn't just take sacrifices from the rich though, and while we are attempting to fix our issues, it appears the rich may be sacrificing more than they need to.

Comes to show how a broad problem doesn't just require one solution.

Source:

• http://www.aei.org/publication/new-cbo-study-shows-rich-dont-just-pay-fair-share-pay-almost-everybodys-share/

Read More »

On Eric Garner's death and the Grand Jury's decision.

In light of all the protests and anger ensued over the results from the Eric Garner trial, I think its important to remember that not all police departments act the same. We often like to make comparisons like this picture entails, but we don't know if the police department would have reacted the same way had the cop choked a black man.

This comparison is like judging people in the high order societies because of the things people in low-order societies do.

I cannot defend the way those cops took down Garner, though I can see why they tried to take him down in the first place. I do know that the chokehold the cop used was a banned practice, but I dont understand how its not illegal. I do not really see racism in all of this (and if at all, then not racism alone), but i do see stereotypes (which often lead to racism). You cant tell me, from the cops position, that you would feel no ounce of hostility from eric garner because of the ghetto-black stereotypes (which you can trace for yourself where this may come from) in combination to resisting arrest, yet from Garner's position, you cant tell me he didnt feel anxious/scared abut the cop approaching him because of trends of cop-civilian engagements wen involving black civilians (which you can see is a bit of a cycle here).

However, in both positions there is a better way to do things. Garner, black, white, red, or blue, should not have been talking back the way he did. You'd have to be a fool to tell the cops to not touch you, making it look like you about to do something. The cops shouldnt have been so naive about the whole take down. The cops are taught a hold around the neck to cut off circulation until the arrestee faints. Say what you want about Garner's health, but NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo put on a chokehold which it lead to Garner's heart attack. That probably would not have killed a more healthy person, but don't you think it should have been adjusted for Garner? In the moment, maybe not something one would think about, but in retrospect, yes. Now the public sphere is fueled with the narrative of an unarmed (black) man suffering a heart attack because of the "police brutality".

My issue isn't about resisting arrest, because Garner was out of line and totally deserved to get arrested, but when he screamed he cant breathe, I thought that the cops would have tried to respect that. I didn't get how there were many cops present and yet they were still on him for as long as they were after the fact. Where was the man going to go? Cops have huge responsibility with their power, and when they make a mistake on it, they should own it, at least. It was probably an honest mistake for the most part, but Garner died rather unnecessarily. The police ain't a bunch of robots. Again, it is no a secret Garner should have been arrested, but you cant say a better way of handling the arrest couldn't have been thought up.

With the cop walking away from this whole thing without indictment is perhaps a big blow to the status on authority-community relationships. More and more people are beginning to trust cops less by the minute.

Read More »

An Interesting find on Stay-at-Home Dads

This is pretty much it in a nutshell (click on the picture for the full report):

According to this PewResearch graphic, there has been a steady growth in stay at home dads which have spiked for a bit since the Great Recession. Not very surprising there, economically speaking.

Here are some key points I found by reading this report:

1. In 1989, 4% of these fathers were at home. In 2013, that percentage was at 7.
2. Black fathers stay at home more: since the Great Recession the biggest increases occurred among blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans; and a more modest increase occurred among whites.
3. In contrast, Hispanic and Asian-American mothers are the most likely to be at home by about 1/3 each. After them in staying at home is 27% of black mothers and 26% of white mothers. 
4. It does not really matter if you were born in the country: The likelihood of being a stay-at-home father is similar for both native-born and foreign-born fathers. 
5. Reasons dads stay at home: 23% can't find a job, 21% to care for home or family, 35% due to illness, disability.
6. Your chances of staying at home are greater with lower levels of education: 14% of fathers who lack a high school diploma are at home, as are 10% of those with just a high school diploma. 
7. Of all fathers who live with at least one of their children, stay-at-home fathers are less worse off financially than their working counterparts. 
8. The stay-at-home fathers are quite a bit older than working fathers. About 43% of stay-at-home fathers are ages 45 years or older: that is 33% among employed fathers. 
9. In a stark contrast, stay-at-home moms tend to be younger than their counterparts in the workforce.

I wonder if these findings are correlated with the emergence of many stay-at-home types of jobs: jobs that may require an enhanced technical ability, whether it be computer science related or graphic design jobs, where one can stay at home. 

If you want to read more on the topic, you can either click that picture (like I mentioned) or you can just click here. 

Read More »

Conversations

The general idea brought up in this video: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a nice clip on perspective, and that its not easy to see the other side of the coin sometimes. It is a very cool video because it depicts the realities of conversations that take place everyday, and these conversations hold a particular heated nature. In the video, you see how the people arguing fail to stay on topic. No really, you will see that the video begins with the professor claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, but when by the end of the clip, the topic is on international relations. But I suppose it cannot be helped, especially if those involved in the conversation do not notice it. If anything, these quick shifts in topics show us what we really want to talk about.

Read More »

Are we "Purge" enabled?

When you look at over the course of human history, you will find that we have also done a lot of horrendous things to one another. That is not to say we have done no good, but we are not blameless on anything we do, no matter how small or large the consequence of our actions. A couple of extreme examples need not any proper introduction, just a few key words (Rwanda, Crusades, Nanjing, Pol Pot, etc). Perhaps the most famous one is to think about is the holocaust, where approximately 17 million people were killed. No one who hasn't been under those conditions (or in any of the other events) can truly imagine the what it is like to live in those situations. Furthermore, most of us can't fathom how people can do these things.

A man once said that we as humans are actually "Auschwitz enabled". Let that settle for a minute. Auschwitz enabled. He understood that Auschwitz does something for us in that it shows us just how sinful/evil humans can be.

Some people may disagree with his statement, but I think he is on to something. This is the state of humanity (not all of it, but a huge part of it), and for all we know this is not the worse we can do. We can make an uproar on how people can be so cruel, but it does not take away the fact that people can do this because people have done it. You, me, him, her, them, us, we all have the capability to carry out these actions, and all it takes is a reason. Crazy isn't it?

After watching The Purge, the thought isn't very crazy at all.



In fact, its a little more clear.

I find the purge fascinating because it is just like an behavioral experiment. Take away the the restrictions and legal consequences, and think of what would people do given particular situations? In a reality where on one day for 12 hours, everything is legal, the we saw the motives of the heart more clearly. On one end, despite the ability to do so, some people decide not to take part in these twisted festivities, whereas on the other end, you have people who do. Its a scary thought, but also a revealing one.

As entertaining as the purge might be, it shows us something about people that is hard to face. Similar to the Auschwitz explanation, the Purge just shows us how evil we can be if we were allowed.

With that being said, I think that The Purge is arguably one of the scariest movies ever made, primarily because it shows us something that can actually happen, if given the chance.

Not to be a pessimist, though.

Read More »