The following newsletters are distributed by 80-20 Educational Foundation. To see newsletters from 80-20 PAC, please visit their website at http://www.80-20initiative.net.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

NY Times Quotes 80-20's Amicus Brief

[A] Good News
   NY Times published a long article entitled "Asian-Americans in the Argument" It quotes a paragraph from 80-20's amicus brief!. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-issue-for-asian-americans.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#
   The article starts with the picture of 8 U. of TX students. They all disagreed with their instructor who supported the "race-conscious" college admission.



   Alright, you guys!!!!!!!!

   Think hard now!

   Which Asian American organization has the ability to put YOU in the argument on big issues?

   In the SUPREME COURT, 80-20 EF's amicus brief advocating a "race-neutral" college admission has placed YOU in the argument!

   In the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 80-20 PAC's advocacy for an Asian Am. bloc vote placed YOU in the argument, as reported in LA Times, CNN, Politico, and all other major TV channels for a delivered 74% bloc vote.

   Who BUT the 80-20 Initiative has the ability to PLACE YOU IN THE ARGUMENT i.e. MAKING YOU RELEVANT IN AMERICA!

[B] Bad News
   In the military court of INjustice, Sgt. Jeffery Hurst, who not only permitted his subordinates to racially and physically abuse Danny Chen, but also led in such abuses, was acquitted of all serious charges except for dereliction of duties. According to a news release from Fort Bragg:

   "Hurst was sentenced to reduction in rank to E4 and hard labor without confinement for 45 days by a panel of eight officer and enlisted members. The military judge for the Hurst court-martial was Col. David Robertson. The prosecution team consisted of Maj. Joshua Toman and Maj. Stephen Hernandez, and the defense team was civilian counsel Haytham Faraj and Capt. Jamie Gurtov."

   Asian Ams who STILL want to join the US Army are clearly placing their lives at risk, because those who want to abuse them can do so without due repercussion. What a shame for the US military!

   There are two more trials. 80-20 EF is contemplating further action when those two "trials" are done. What a shame!

[C] What Do You Want?
   Results like those described in [A] or [B]?

   For results in [B] just sit back, relax and continue to suck it up. For results in [A], you need to think about what YOU are willing to do to help make 80-20 stronger? For donating to EF, a tax exempt organization, click on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/donate/donate.asp

   You make your own destiny.

   Post your comments at: 
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.

Sincerely yours,
S. B. Woo, a volunteer,
President. 80-20 National Asian Am. Educational Foundation, Inc.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

A Must Read. Replacing 80-20 with 90-10?

   Blacks voted 93 to 7 for Obama twice, and had voted 90 to 10 for the Democratic presidential candidate for decades. However, it has a weakness - can't SWING.

   A 90-10 bloc vote is 33% more powerful than an 80-20 bloc vote. That is because a 80-20 bloc vote yields a (80% - 20%) or 60% margin of victory to the endorsed candidate, but a 90-10 bloc vote yields a (90%-10%) or an 80% margin of victory. This is a 20% point increase over the 60 points. Hence, it is a 20/60 or 33% increase in power in helping the endorsed candidate win.

   The following numerical examples illustrate the huge power of a 90-10 bloc vote.

Example 1: POWER of casting a 80-20 bloc vote
Two candidates run against each other in a political division, which for simplicity is assumed to have two constituent groups only. One group has 1 million votes (6.7%) and the other has 14 million votes (93.3%). Candidate A, a novice, courts the larger group. When the ballots are open, candidate A wins the larger community by the ratio of 52/48. The margin of difference is 4%. Since the larger group has 14 million votes, 4% of 14 million votes provides a winning margin of 560,000 votes to candidate A. His opponent, candidate B, is a seasoned politician. She courts the smaller group and wins that community by a ratio of 80 to 20. The difference between 80% and 20% is 60%. 60% of 1 million votes is 600,000 votes. As a result, candidate B wins the election by (600,000 – 560,000) or 40,000 votes. Astounding? Yes.

Example 2: THE INCREDIBLE POWER of a 90-10 bloc vote!
[Same basic story as above, except the smaller group now votes 90-10, and the size of the larger group is increased to 19 million votes.]

Two candidates run against each other in a political division, which for simplicity is assumed to have two constituent groups only. One group has 1 million votes (5% of total) and the other has 19 million votes (95%). Candidate A, a novice, courts the larger group. When the ballots are open, candidate A wins the larger community by the ratio of 52/48. The margin of difference is 4%. Since the larger group has 19 millions votes, 4% of 19 million votes provides a winning margin of 760,000 votes to candidate A. His opponent, candidate B, is a seasoned politician. She courts the smaller group and wins that community by a ratio of 90 to 10. The difference between 90% and 10% is 80%. 80% of 1 million votes is 800,000 votes. As a result, candidate B wins the election by (800,000 – 760,000) or 40,000 votes.

   Incredible?! A small minority of 5%* can be the kingmaker by voting 90-10!! Leading you to the water is 80-20's job.    :-) :-)

   If you want both parties to COMPETE to share our rightful concerns, FOLLOW 80-20. Support us back.

   Post your comments at: http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp .

   I thank Phil Choong of LA, a PAC Life Member, for suggesting the possibility of creating a 90-10 SWING bloc vote!

Sincerely,

S. B. Woo, a volunteer
President, 80-20 Nat'l Asian Am. Educational Foundation
http://www.80-20EducationalFoundation.org/

*5% is 1.7 % smaller than the 6.7% required by an 80-20 bloc vote, and is
0.33 of 5% or 33% more powerful!

 

Thursday, November 1, 2012

AsAm vote too SMALL to count in battle-gd. states?

          Is our vote too small to count in battleground states (BGSs)?
         Most people think so!
   THINK AGAIN! Here is what happened in some battleground states in the 2000 election.
Names of States    Margins of Victory    % AsAm Voters (Population)
  Florida                     0.0092%                        1.2% (2.4%)
  New Mexico              0.06%                            0.7% (1.4%)
  Wisconsin                 0.22%                            1.1% (2.3%)
  Iowa                        0.31%                            0.8% (1.7%)
  Oregon                    0.44%                            1.8% (3.7%)

   Note that the % of Asian American voters is normally about HALF that of our population. This is because only about 58% of the Asian Americans are citizens. In addition, ours is a young population & has a larger than normal % of people under 18 years of age, who cannot vote.
   Compare the columns of margins of victory versus the % of AsAm voters. In every case, our voter % is at least 2.5 TIMES larger than the margin of victory.
   Imagine when the two major parties know that they can count on Asian Ams to deliver a bloc vote, if & when 80-20 endorses its presidential candidate.
   Do you think that our adults will STILL face the lowest  glass ceiling in workplaces, AND our children STILL face the highest admission bars in applying to elite colleges? No way!
   80-20 Educational Foundation can lead you to the water, but we can't force you to drink it. We can provide you with the knowledge and how to make yourselves equal citizens. YOU must decide whether you want it.
   80-20 PAC (not EF) has endorsed Obama for the 2012 election. 

Forward this email far & wide! Counting on you. :-)

Sincerely,
S.B. Woo, a volunteer
President, 80-20 National Asian Am Educational Foundation, Inc.
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/

 

Copyright 2007-2014. All rights reserved.