A scene from “Two Broke Girls.” Actor Mathew Moy, center, plays Han “Bryce” Lee on the CBS show.

If you haven’t been following the web blog, You Offend Me You Offend My Family crew (

www.youoffendmeyouoffendmyfamily.com ), then there’s a small storm of controversy brewing over an article written by Sung Kang over CBS’ travesty of a show, “Two Broke Girls.”

We can scream online all day WITH ALL CAPS regarding the racial caricatures of the show, but ultimately at the end of the day it’s down to one question: Do I take the role or turn it down and keep my dignity?

Now many people would say that actors don’t have any dignity to start with, which I’d agree with. However, the larger picture here is, of course, with the marginalized media images of Asians. Do actors have a responsibility for their portrayals and should they be held accountable?

What promoted me to write this guest blog is that recently a friend has sent me a role for a YouTube project he’s helping out on. However, as soon as the script came around I felt my blood pressure going up (and that’s not caused by the sodium and MSG in takeouts).

The premise basically revolves around a speed dating scenario and the character is simply “a crazy Asian man.” I hope this is considered “fair use” to post this portion of the script: 

A crazy Asian man is sitting in front of [redacted]. [redacted] is bored, but suddently his big gold watch catches her attention. She gets excited!

[redacted]  So, Cong, Chong, Chung..

ASIAN MAN:  Chang! me, Chang!

[redacted]  Right! So Chank what do you do for a living?

 ASIAN MAN:  Me business man!

 [redacted]  Nice! And nice watch!

 ASIAN MAN:  Oh, watch, thank you, thank you!

 [redacted]  You have good taste!

ASIAN MAN:  Want one?

[redacted] smiles big all excited. He opens his jacket, inside the jacket we see a lot of watches and other fake gold stuff hanging.

ASIAN MAN:  Five dollas!

[redacted] take a deep breath and she drinks a whole drink at once.

There are several other — what I thought of as offensive — characters, from a Nigerian scammer to “an illegal short Mexican” looking for a green card.

And the biggest shocker about this project? The writer/director is an Asian guy.

I declined because I was simply aghast such images can be considered over the top funny for anyone’s tastes. Granted, I did enjoy Mel Brooks’ “The Producers” and those gross out comedies don’t faze me one bit – so I’m not prudish about different styles of humor. However, for me at the end of the day, can I look at myself in the mirror and respect my own decisions for not perpetuating what I believe to be offensive racial caricatures?

I’m glad that I declined the project and hope that my friend still considers me a friend if he ever reads this. But what about other actors who might be trying to get involved with anything to get ahead? Who am I to judge what people find offensive or funny? At the end of the day, is there a standard by which we should hold actors accountable for offensive portrayals?

I don’t buy the rationalization of “if I don’t take this gig then somebody else will, so it might as well be me and maybe I can convince the director to change the character around.” If anybody really believes that, then I only have to point out Bobby Lee’s career nowadays in response to that.

This article first appeared on the blog, www.8Asians.com and is re-printed with permission.

Can you imagine the manongs and elderly Chinese women making their way from the ID to the Federal Building?  Cambodians, Hmong, Laotians, or Vietnamese and many others may not find out about such a change  until they get to the old office and can’t read the English sign on the door that tells them in bureaucratese to go to the Federal Building. 

And, when they get there, the Federal Building is a Level IV high security facility.  Anyone entering the building will need a valid state or federal identification.  And, those who enter must pass through a magnetometer, and their belongings through an x-ray machine.  The security guards presumably speak only English, which will be a serious problem for the elderly women to put their purses on the conveyor belt and have an electronic wand run all around their bodies.  It’s intimidating for us, what about our elders? There are just two handicapped parking spaces on the streets surrounding the building, and commercial parking is expensive.  So, even when a friend or family member offers to drive them, there’s no place to park!

Valid state or federal identification is not needed at the current offices.  There are no magnetometers or x-ray machines.  Employees can interpret for non-English-speaking visitors in several languages, and telephone interpreter service is also available.  There are plenty of adjacent free or low-cost parking spaces.

There is still time for SSA to reverse this decision, and to ensure that low income visitors who cannot afford to purchase a Washington State Identification Card, handicapped clients, and those with limited or no ability to speak English can continue to be served in their communities.  
CALL OR EMAIL NOW: 

                SSA Regional Commissioner Stanley Friendship

                stanley.c.friendship@ssa.gov

                206-615-2100

It’s bad enough that federal, state and local governments are making huge cuts to health care and human services.  Now they want to make it inaccessible for our elders and/or those who don’t speak English to get to them!

Signed by:   George Cheung, Diane Narasaki, and all the folks at IDHA:  Carol James, MSW; Chris Anne Abad, MSW; Ning Murro; Emy Gaviola; Rita Castro; Tay Quach; Alma Dea Michelena, MSW; Corinne Manabat; Mindy Au, MPA; Sharyne Shiu Thornton, PhD.

I’m a co-owner at Utopia, a yogurt business in the International District’s Uwajimaya food court. We’ve been there for two years, and last year, we did a Groupon, which just ended in May. We hopped on board the craze of daily deals, because we saw what a lot of other businesses were experiencing: a ton of people trying their products and a big demand. We wanted that too, but we didn’t get it, and that’s the story you don’t hear about as often for these deal sites and services. I want to share Utopia’s story in case other businesses are still considering the Groupons of the world.

I’m staying away from Groupon from now on, for a few big reasons:

1. Utopia lost money doing Groupon, which pressured us to offer too big of a discount. We wished we could have changed it right after we signed on, but it was too late. The deal was on, and people were promised a great discount at Utopia. Since we were new to these types of deals, we relied on Groupon to help guide us.

2. Customers came specifically for the deal – brand new customers we never saw before, but we didn’t see most of them ever again.

3. Some people tried to print multiple, “fake” copies of the Groupon vouchers and redeem them. These sites ask you to print the coupon and bring it to the business, but there’s no way to tell if the coupon has been copied multiple times, only later to do the paperwork and find out that you were scammed by an expert coupon-er.

4. Tracking the Groupon added difficult paperwork on top of all other things staff had to do. We trained them to the best of our abilities, but as a small business, the administration of the deal put a big strain on our workers, and we weren’t sure until later that it was all done correctly. It was a nightmare.

When we asked Groupon for help on some of these challenges, their lack of customer service just turned me off. I know what’s reasonable; I am a full-time pharmaceutical sales person in my day job. There are just certain things you should do for your clients. Plus, most of our clients come from the neighborhood and nearby areas, so it made sense to do more location-specific promotions if we were going to do any. I didn’t just want customers driving over for a deal – and never seeing them again.

Fast-forward to a few months later, and Groupon has come up with Groupon Now, which shows smart phone users deals that are around them. I chose not to go with them because of all the problems Utopia had with Groupon, period, and they even activated a Groupon Now deal without my authorization! Not to mention that the Groupon’s sales person was so aggressive. It was just not cool. I was literally on the phone with the Groupon Now representative for over 30 minutes! The high-pressure tactics reminded me of a used car salesman.

Plus, I just signed on with a company called Pirq, which took note of all the daily deal negatives and came up with a solution that works for both businesses and people looking for deals. Pirq gives us more control over what kind of deal we can do, when we do it and how often. We can give our customers deals of 20-50 percent over and over when business is slow, so we have people coming back, and we can invite brand new customers in the area. The deal is done 100 percent through a smart phone, with immediate verification by Microsoft Tag, a 2D QR code that does the work for us. No watching for a hard-core deal seeker with an agenda. Our employees don’t have to do anything except give the discount and be happy for our customers. The fees are a lot more reasonable, and part of the Pirq deal goes to United Way to help feed the homeless.

Business owners – especially small business owners – need to stick together. I want my customers to get good value from us, but the way we used to do it has changed with the Groupons of the world. We all need a smarter way to build value for our customers with deals that they like, while building a repeat customer base, and without crushing our own bottom lines.

I want to warn other business owners not to get pressured. Just think it through before you sign.

Tonny Louie and Michael Yee in front of the Dragon City Mall in the heart of Toronto’s Chinatown.

Tonny Louie, owns a bar in Chinatown and lives upstairs with his multigenerational family. For four hours on a Sunday evening, Tonny toured me around where I got to learn about their landmarks; meet business owners and other BIA board members; hear about their new Night Market, up-zoning of the neighborhood and weekly phone calls with the local police Captain. It didn’t take me long to determine that Tonny is basically an unpaid Executive Director of their BIA. Also, that Toronto Chinatown faces the same challenges as Seattle and other historic Asian neighborhoods in North America. Remarkably, Tonny does not use the easy excuses I often hear in the ID. I did not once hear Tonny complain about the BIA’s budget or money as the problem to meet their community’s challenges. Tonny’s approach is simple, do more and inspire others to do more. If our BIA has any desire to do things better, I would advise them to talk to Tonny, but be prepared to hear about somebody that lives by doing “everything.”  

I have spent 20 years working on public safety issues with the community and Seattle Police Department in the Chinatown/International District. We battle typical urban drug and crime problems as an urban neighborhood. I have learned fighting these problems demands constant vigilance and diligence on the part of the entire community. The cycle of negative street level activity persists month after month, year after year. Tired of the cycle, there are some who are doing the real hard work of community and economic development in the ID.

Great neighborhoods have great “champions” of change. Sometimes the efforts of our champions go unnoticed, especially by those who will benefit the most by their efforts. Two such champions are Nora Chan and Stan Wu, volunteers for Seniors in Action. Nora reminds me of my mother. She may be small in stature, but not her passion and tenacity. In contrast to Nora, Stan is taller and a self-described newcomer to the Chinatown scene. His voice holds the conviction and confidence of his ideas. Last summer, Nora and Stan embarked on a project to install surveillance cameras throughout the neighborhood. The cameras would be accessible via the web to community members who could then work with police on suspicious behavior and street level crime. Naïve about neighborhood politics, city bureaucracy and funding, they initially set an ambitious schedule to have surveillance cameras installed by the end of 2010.

A year later, Nora and Stan have yet to fully fund and implement the project. But like champions, they are meeting their challenges with determination and tenacity. They went door to door last month to get neighborhood leaders to a community meeting to support the camera project. They now appear to have the momentum and support of various community leaders to make the project happen. There will be a fundraising dinner for the camera project on August 28, 6 p.m. at the House of Hong restaurant. Look for the first cameras to be installed this year, which will be a testament to the hard work of Nora and Stan.

Nora and Stan are championing a project that will provide a tool to the neighborhood that can provide greater vigilance and diligence that has great potential to deter negative street level activity. But a new surveillance camera system is only one part of the strategy to improve public safety in the ID.

There is another group of champions doing their part. The Chinatown/ID Neighborhood Block Watch started a couple of years ago. Every Tuesday and Thursday evenings, a group of residents and community people walk the streets of the Chinatown/ID. Easily identifiable by their blue-colored vests, the group tends to number around 15-20 people. For two hours, they make the streets a bit safer for others. Some say it’s only 2 hours or it’s a waste of time. They are champions because they do not give into apathy and fear of retaliation. They are role models to those who point fingers at others to do the hard work.

Champions provide a vision for change or improvement, but also do the hard work of engaging different neighborhood groups, leaders and organizations. It is very hard work because building collaborations and partnerships in our community are often met with detractors who provide plenty of criticism and no real solutions. As champions, they face their challengers with vision, patience, tenacity and perseverance.

Public safety is often regarded as the top priority in Chinatown ID by residents, business owners and neighborhood organizations. But the level of diligence demonstrated by them needs significant improvement. Those most capable of providing leadership and support, choose not to.

Diligence and vigilance can be as simple as reporting a crime or suspicious behavior to 911. It can be supporting the new camera project. It can also be as simple as walking the streets of the ID.

If you want to do more or want information on the camera project, block watch or other public safety activities, please visit www.idea-space.info.

Au Nguyen, founder of the Glow Center.

Trapped in abusive relationships with nowhere to go, many women find few alternatives to that life or feel forced to remain with the abuser. A nonprofit started by Au Nguyen, 31, provides the escape for these domestic abuse victims and their children. The organization is committed to connecting people in need of transitional housing with unused housing resources.
And while these survivors are coping with a very difficult time, to Nguyen, their story and courage make them “glow” ­— as every woman should — and so the Glow Center was born to offer women a second chance at life.
Domestic violence is stigmatized within ethnic communities and many Asian Pacific Islander Americans (APIAs) don’t speak openly about it. Compound that with an immigrant experience where few women are aware of support services, and the situation gets worse or even normalized.
To some women, explains Nguyen, “The man isn’t doing anything wrong.” Her goal is to raise awareness that domestic abuse is not a way of life; it is not the norm.
Nguyen started on this journey of community involvement through her professional work as a real estate agent. An idea was realized when Nguyen saw that two issues could be used to serve one another. In an economy where the real estate market has suffered dramatically — and homes are left empty after foreclosures — Nguyen saw an opportunity to offer transitional housing to survivors while they get back on their feet.
When homeowners are no longer able to pay their mortgage, they receive a foreclosure notice. This notice means there is a 14- to 18-month window for the bank to respond, explains Nguyen. Within that window of time, survivors are able to move into the property and receive a chance to transition to a new, empowered life.
Donations from landscapers and cleaning services allow the home to be maintained while Glow Center tenants are living on the property. It is a win-win for everyone, Nguyen said. The tenants are safe and the home is being lived in and taken care of.
Tenants go through a simple screening process; only sex offenders and those who have criminal pasts are not accepted. A requirement for tenants is that they must not contact the abuser; if they do, they will have to vacate the property. Right now, four units are ready for survivors to move-in.
“Victoria” (whose real name will be kept private to protect her identity) was Nguyen’s inspiration for the formation of the Glow Center. The 28 year-old was a tenant before the center’s formal development. Victoria said Nguyen’s compassion is the reason she was given an opportunity to live a new life. A temporary home offered refuge from her own abuser and even a new network of supporters.
“My landlords are very compassionate. They’re there for you,” said Victoria. “They talk to you like you’re a real person and don’t give you attitude. I’m blessed.”
Around the age of 21, Victoria met her abuser. At one point she discontinued the relationship, but eventually returned to it. Unfortunately, while Victoria was pregnant with their son, he continued to beat her. Since Victoria had isolated herself from friends and family, she had no where to turn. But it wasn’t long before she recognized she must look for other places to live.
Victoria struggled first-hand finding a new home. Due to a violent background with her son’s father, she was rejected by landlords who observed an unsteady tenant history. It was nearly impossible to reside in one location at the time of the relationship as the disturbance from the domestic abuse caused the couple to be removed from the property often.
She had nowhere else to go, until she connected with Nguyen. She was looking at one of Nguyen’s properties when Nguyen made the choice to provide her shelter and offered assistance with the move-in cost.
Today, Victoria and her 5-year-old son are safe and happy. She said she wants to be a social worker and counsel other domestic abuse victims. I want to help others find a way out of abuse, Victoria said.
Others offering support for survivors at the Glow Center are investors who have actually donated homes, according to Nguyen. David Marshall, 33, a Glow Center board member and treasurer, said the greatest need is houses. A close second is money. Marshall is an IT analyst and software designer who consulted on the development of the website for the Glow Center.
The center, just a year old, is operated and managed on mostly volunteer labor but Nguyen appreciates the support from the community and is coordinating an up-coming gala to build on the foundation she has established.
To support their mission to provide transitional housing for survivors of domestic violence, the Glow Center is coordinating a fundraising gala on September 18, 2011 at Blueacre Seafood. At the fundraiser, Marshall said he hopes to collect donations, build a solid reputation within the community for their work, and gather support from local businesses. So far, businesses such as Costco, Wells Fargo, Hotel Max, Jillian’s Billiard Club, Sullivan’s Steakhouse, and Salon Modello have shown support through donations. And Blueacre Seafood generously donated their venue for the Sept. 18 gala.
In two to three years, the goal is to earn solid relationships with area banks who can provide more donated homes.
“A basic human need is to have a safe place to live,” said Nguyen.

The Glow Center’s fundraising gala, “The Glowing Event”, is on Sept. 18, at Blueacre Seafood, 1700 7th Ave Seattle. Doors open at 3 p.m.; Dinner served at 4 p.m. For more information, contact David Marshall at (206) 322-1200. Purchase tickets at www.brownpapertickets.com/event/189580. For more information about the Glow Center, please visit: www.theglowcenter.org.

Seven times each year, in the classes of college or university students, I distribute Keiji Nakazawa’s autobiographical comic book about how he witnessed the bombing of Hiroshima, “I Saw It” (originally “Ore wa Mita”). Then I show them Nakazawa’s feature-length animated film “Barefoot Gen” (originally “Hadashi no Gen”), which he adapted from his epic-length manga of that name, a historical fiction based on his experiences. Some prefer the comic book, some prefer the film. Most of the students find Nakazawa’s story of what he witnessed as a child emotionally very powerful. They often use the word “moving,” but his story has not visibly moved any of us to actively protest against nuclear weapons. The number of nuclear warheads worldwide has been decreasing (apparently without public pressure) for their entire lives.

I tell my students that the bombing of Hiroshima is not just a story of something that happened long ago and far away. This is an event in “living memory” (Nakazawa, for example, is still alive) and the phrase “Hiroshima bomb” appears in web-posted news items almost every day. To show that the nuclear war issue is not so “far away,” I quote the Seattle Times statement that “… 20 miles from downtown Seattle” is “the largest nuclear weapons storehouse in the United States and possibly the world.”

A man looks over the expanse of ruins left by the explosion of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Photo credit: Associated Press.

Nakazawa’s “Hiroshima: The Autobiography of Barefoot Gen”, which appeared last year in English translation, tells his story at book length, in prose with illustrations rather than in comics or on film. This helps greatly in filling out many details of the true story that he has so expertly condensed and then fictionalized in manga and anime.

In the interview that concludes his “Autobiography”, Nakazawa talks about the memorial at Auschwitz, and the importance of passing stories down as a way to fight against the repetition of such horrors. Nakazawa’s closing words are these: “In order to effect change, each person has to work away at it. I’m a cartoonist, so cartoons are my only weapon. I think everyone has to appeal in whatever position they’re in. Wouldn’t it be nice if we gradually enlarged our imaginations! We have to believe in that possibility. Doubt is extremely strong, but we have to feel that change is possible. Inspire ourselves. And like Auschwitz, Hiroshima too must sing out more and more about human dignity.”

Doubt can be very strong indeed. Sometimes it feels useless to share Nakazawa’s story with people and generate little more than a strong emotional reaction, or to gather at Green Lake in a small crowd in August to light candles for Hiroshima’s dead.

The testimonies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are uniquely important as our best help in understanding what nuclear war means in human terms. Subtract that perspective, and the discussion of nuclear technology will be dominated by endlessly controversial and emotionally disconnected tales of how the bomb demonstrated the genius of science and technology, won the war, saved lives, and then kept the peace. Subtract the stories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we’re left with a fantastically dangerous arsenal and an American mythology that celebrates the bomb as a blessing.

Each of the many warheads on the nuclear submarines parked near Seattle has about 30 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. Can we envision a life without them? Wouldn’t it be nice to gradually enlarge our imaginations!

 
“From Hiroshima to Hope”  takes  place  on Saturday, August 6 from 6 – 9 p.m. on the North Shore of Green Lake.  This event is created annually by local peace, faith and community organizations. The lantern floating ceremony honors victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and all victims of war and violence. It starts at 6 p.m. At 7 p.m., a program of musical performances and speakers will begin. For information, call (206) 453-4471 or e-mail: fhthvolunteers@gmail.com.

By Caitlin Fuller
IE Contributor
New America Media
www.newamericamedia.org

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith

“The law would just drive eight million unauthorized workers even deeper into the shadows,” said Angela Kelly, an analyst at the Center for American Progress (CAP).

Back in 2006 and 2007, proposed immigration reform packages included E-Verify mandates, but were counterbalanced by legalization programs for the 11 million or so undocumented people currently living in the United States. Today, only 4 percent of U.S. employers use E-Verify. If participation in the program becomes mandatory through the Legal Workforce Act, however, it would likely take the wind out of comprehensive immigration reform bills such as the one introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) last month, according to Kelly and her colleagues at CAP.

During a recent teleconference hosted by New America Media, Kelly and Philip Wogin, both immigration policy analysts at CAP, told ethnic media reporters that the E-Verify legislation would also have other unintended consequences.

“This bill would break the backs of small businesses,” said Kelly, who shared CAP estimates showing that the mandate would cost small businesses a total of $2.6 billion a year.

In theory, E-Verify allows employers to ensure that all of their employees are legally authorized to work in the U.S. To do so, the employer enters personal information, including the birth date and social security number or alien identification number of the employee, into the E-Verify system. Then, the Social Security Administration and U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cross check that data against existing records. If the information matches up, E-Verify issues proof of work authorization.

If there is a mismatch of information, E-Verify issues a tentative non-confirmation to the employer. When this occurs, the employee must contact the government in order to sort out the issue. If the employee fails to resolve the data discrepancies, E-Verify then issues a final non-confirmation notice. Under Smith’s proposed bill, the employer would be legally obliged to fire the worker after receiving the second notice.

Part of the problem, said Kelly and Wolgin, is that the current E-Verify technology is not accurate. CAP estimates that the system will accurately identify only about half of all employees who are not legally authorized to work in the country. Conversely, many employees who are legally authorized to work could be erroneously flagged by E-Verify as unauthorized. CAP estimates those employees would then have to spend an average of $450 in lost wages and transportation costs just to straighten out the misunderstanding with the government. Although legally, employers have to wait for the final non-confirmation notice before firing their employees, CAP has found that employers who already use E-Verify often fire their workers after receiving the first, tentative non-confirmation. CAP estimates that 770,000 people who are legally authorized to work in the United States could lose their job if E-Verify becomes law.

Kelly noted that the federal government would also stand to lose revenue, if unauthorized workers choose to move from the formal to an informal economy as a result of the E-Verify mandate. In addition to the lost income and tax revenue that will cause, said Kelly, there is also the startup cost to the federal government.

“This is a program that would result in a massive expansion of government,” said Kelly. CAP estimates that the Department of Homeland Security would spend about $800 million just to establish the program. It would cost the Social Security administration $281 million.

The bill was expected to be debated in the Judiciary Committee, of which Smith is the chair, last month. If it passes the Republican-controlled committee as expected, it could be introduced on the House floor as early as September.

Although Congressional Republicans appear to support the bill, it is not without some controversy within the party. Pennsylvania Representative Lou Barletta, the former mayor of Hazleton, who famously cracked down on the employers of undocumented immigrants in his town, objected to the federal government taking on what he sees at a state issue. To date, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Indiana have all passed immigration laws that include E-Verify mandates.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he will not support a federal E-Verify mandate separately from comprehensive immigration reform.