Q. Until 1997 this object was illegal in New York City but legal almost everywhere else. What was it?
Hint: It has to do with your kitchen.
Did you know the answer? Well, neither did we. And the hint was no help.
Okay, okay … the answer is: A garbage disposal unit for your sink.
How about this one: In which New York neighborhood did the classic 1970s sitcom “All in the Family” take place? Give up? Well, it wasn’t Forest Hills, which is what we wrote down as our answer. The correct answer: Astoria.
And as long as we’re on the subject of New York trivia, which constructed building is the second highest in New York City after the Empire State Building? If you said the Bank of America building on 42nd and 6th, you would have been correct. Most of us on the AABANY Trivia Bowl team thought for sure it was the Chrysler. (We should have listened to you, Rio!)
On Friday, May 18, AABANY joined fourteen other teams for the inaugural Trivia Bowl organized by the Asian American Journalists Association, New York Chapter (AAJA-NY). It was held at ABC studios on the Upper West Side, near Lincoln Center, in the same soundstage used for “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”
Our team of nine included me, Rio Guerrero, Tsui Yee, Francis Chin, Karen Lim, Linda Lin, Will Ng, Steve Shapiro and Gary Malone. We had a 10th member who had to drop out at the last minute, and the event organizers were strict about applying their “no substitutes” rule. (Photo below of Francis Chin, Will Ng and Linda Lin, courtesy of Julie Huang.)
The judging panel consisted of six sitting APA judges from New York: Hon. Marilyn D. Go, Hon. Doris Ling Cohan, Hon. John Lansden, Hon. Lydia Lai, Hon. Laurie Lau and Hon. Jeffrey K. Oing. This panel checked each response against the answer key, marked the sheets and tabulated the scores at the end of each round.
The MCs for the evening were JuJu Chang and Ti-Hua Chang. They read the questions for each round, and under the rules, they were only supposed to read each question twice (although for a few of the harder ones, they had to read it one or two more times). The questions were only read, so all the teams had to pay close attention and take notes, jot down answers which were then transferred to the answer sheets. Linda Lin, who has much better handwriting than me, did the honors of transcribing our responses.
The Trivia Bowl consisted of five rounds: first, entertainment; second, geography/science/literature; third, current events/sports; fourth, history/elections/Presidents; fifth, New York. After the end of each round, the MCs conducted raffles or auctions while the judges scored the rounds. Once the scores were in, the MCs read the answers, and after the answers were given, we moved to the next round, repeating the sequence until all the rounds were completed.
After the first two rounds, the AABANY team was in the lead, but our downfall turned out to be round three, current events and sports. I think we might have gotten half the answers right. I guess we didn’t have enough people on our team who kept up with current events or followed sports.
The standings were projected on a screen, and going into the final round, AABANY found itself in a four-way tie for 1st place.
We were hopeful that, as a team of New Yorkers, the fifth and final round of New York trivia would be a breeze. It turned out to be anything but. Our team struggled with the questions (some are repeated above). Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to partake in the free-flowing wine and beer on offer while the game was in progress? I dunno … ya think? They say alcohol kills brain cells; I didn’t expect that the effect would be so immediate.
By the end of the evening, AABANY landed in second place, falling to the team from the New York Times. Congrats, NYT journalists, for being the winners of the inaugural AAJA-NY Trivia Bowl!
Congratulations to the organizers for raising more than $23,000 for scholarship, stipends and fellowship programs to benefit journalism students and professionals. We were glad to be part of the fun and excitement. And there’s always next year – watch out, here comes Team AABANY!
Click here to see some photos shot by Francis Chin.
Congratulations to Huhnsik Chung on being named the Partner-in-Charge of Edwards Wildman’s New York office! Here’s the full text of the release from Edward Wildman:
Edwards Wildman is pleased to announce that Huhnsik Chung, a partner in the firm’s Insurance and Reinsurance Department, has been named partner-in-charge of the firm’s New York office. In that capacity, Chung will continue the growth of the office, promote the firm’s brand in the New York market, and foster a supportive and inclusive work environment.
Huhnsik is a seasoned litigator who, for more than two decades, has successfully resolved complex, high-value disputes on behalf of the insurance industry in domestic and international arbitrations and judicial proceedings. In addition to cultivating an outstanding reputation in his field, Chung has maintained his close ties to South Korea since moving to New York as a child. Working with diverse teams of lawyers, Chung continues to assist Korean clients globally on all types of matters. He will maintain his practice as he assumes his leadership of the New York office.
Under the leadership of Chung’s predecessor, Patti Kantor, the New York City office of Edwards Wildman has seen impressive growth in a number of practice-area disciplines. After four years of leading the New York office, Kantor recently was elected to the firm’s Executive Board and, as a result, will transition the office leadership position to Chung.
“I am confident that Huhnsik will continue Patti’s strong leadership of our New York City office,” said Robert L. Shuftan, the managing partner of Edwards Wildman. “The respect which Huhnsik commands in New York and throughout the firm will allow him to continue to develop the kind of workplace and practices in New York City which are important to fully service our clients’ needs.”
On Wednesday, May 30, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) will lead two legal trainings geared towards community-based organizations that will be engaging in election-related work this year. The trainings, called “Voters’ Rights, Conducting Voter Registration, and Election Rules for Nonprofits and 501©3s,” will occur once from 12 pm – 1:30 pm and again from 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm. AALDEF will cover legal liabilities and procedures for your organization regarding election-related activities.
AALDEF will be providing lunch and dinner at the two trainings. The substance of both trainings will be the same, so if interested, attend the one that is most convenient for you. However, please note that the location of each training is different.
For more information, contact the Voting Rights Organizer Chi-Ser Tran at firstname.lastname@example.org
**Please RSVP by Friday, May 25th at 12pm (noon) here.
In 1982, Vincent Chin was the victim of a hate crime murder in Detroit. Thirty years later, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders continue to face discrimination and bullying. In light of recent tragedies like the suicide of Pvt. Danny Chen and the continuing effects of 9/11, what can Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders do to stand up against racism and discrimination?
Join for a one-hour panel discussion with leading voices from the nonprofit and legal communities as they address these timely issues. Viewing parties have been organized in more than 30 cities and individuals can tweet in questions at #VC30.
Albany • Atlanta • Austin • Boston • Charlotte • Chicago • Cleveland • Dallas • Denver • Detroit • Fremont, CA • Gainesville • Grand Rapids • Hartford • Houston • Irvine, CA • Ithaca, NY • Los Angeles • Lowell, MA • Minneapolis • Morgantown, WV • New York • Philadelphia • Raleigh • Sacramento • San Francisco • San Jose • Seattle • St. Louis • Washington • Wichita and more
Presented by Asian Pacific Americans for Progress
National co-sponsors (in formation): Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), Chinese American Citizens Alliance (CACA), Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), National Association of Asian American Professionals (NAAAP), National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA), National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (NAKASEC), South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), Southeast Asian Resource Action Center (SEARAC)
Before the performance began for “Revisiting Vincent,” the Executive Directors from each of the co-organizers took a couple of minutes to introduce their organizations and state why they were involved in this production. Below is my introduction, not verbatim, because I did not write it out beforehand, so this is taken from memory.
Thanks again to everyone who came, and thanks to our co-partners in this venture, the Asian American Arts Alliance (a4) and the Museum of Chinese in America (MOCA).
It’s a great honor and privilege to be here tonight, with Andrea Louie from a4 and Helen Koh from MOCA for this co-production of “Revisiting Vincent.”
Four days ago, on May 18, Vincent Chin would have turned 57 years old. I imagine him celebrating his birthday in a restaurant near Detroit, surrounded by family and friends. And maybe one of his kids just graduated from college, and they’re celebrating that too.
But I realize that this image is pure fantasy. It never happened. It couldn’t happen – because 30 years ago, in a McDonald’s parking lot in Highland Park, on the night of his bachelor party, two white autoworkers from Detroit beat Vincent Chin to death.
Vincent Chin never had the chance ever again to do all the things we take for granted, to celebrate special times and occasions with loved ones.
Flash forward to 2008. The Asian American Bar Association of New York, with the help of the Hon. Denny Chin and Dean Frank Wu, created the script for the Vincent Chin re-enactment. It was performed by members of the association at the National Convention of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and it was a powerful production and well-received.
Since then the Vincent Chin re-enactment has been performed all over the country, by bar associations, law schools, community groups, usually by lawyers or law students. Tonight, here in this auditorium, it will be performed by a cast of talented professional actors. Never having seen it performed by actors, I am looking forward to this performance.
This year, 2012, the Vincent Chin re-enactment has already been performed twice, first in March by law students at Fordham, by members of the APA law students association there, and again in April, by law students at Hofstra, by members of their APA law students association. In fact, next weekend, members of the Asian American Bar Association of New York will perform the re-enactment again at the NAPABA Super Regional in Atlantic City, on June 2.
Now, with all these performances of the Vincent Chin re-enactment – four times this year already – you may well ask, aren’t we all just a little bit tired of Vincent Chin? Aren’t we burned out on Vincent Chin?
To that, my reply is this: The day that we as a community, as a society, get tired of or are burned out on Vincent Chin, that’s the day that we accept racism, bigotry, intolerance, violence, and injustice as the norm, as the way things are. We can never allow that to happen.
That’s why the Asian American Bar Association of New York is doing this. That’s why we’re here tonight.
In Mayo v. Prometheus Labs, the Supreme Court invalidated a medical diagnosis patent because it was an unpatentable application of a law of nature. The patent was a method for determining the proper dosage level of a certain class of drugs administered to patients. The Court considered the patent to be merely reciting a natural law about the body’s physical chemistry and instructing doctors or researchers to apply that law to routine medical practice or research. The Court seemed to be concerned with diagnostic patents creating monopolies on medical research and practice, and thus inhibiting further discoveries.
Medical researchers and professionals have reacted favorably to the decision. They had feared that diagnostic patents would restrict medical research and experimentation, and that they would need to secure licenses in order to perform their routine work. In fact, doctors point out that the patent was covering something they do all the time: giving a patient different dosages of a drug, observing the results, and making a medical judgment about the proper dosage. Mayo and other academic hospitals will have more flexibility about conducting medical experiments with drugs without fear of infringing on someone else’s patents.
What do you think about the Mayo v. Prometheus decision? Many have criticized the Court’s unsatisfactory reasoning; do you think it was rightly decided based on the Court’s patent law precedents? Most commentators have focused on the practical effect on doctors, medical researchers, and biotech companies. What do you think about the effect and how significant will Mayo be?
(To read the Mayo decision, click on the Supremecourt.gov link below. You can also read the PTO’s preliminary guidance in wake of Mayo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/mayo_prelim_guidance.pdf)