Good news created by YOU

You Helped Greatly!

We interrupt the series of "Know the 2016 election?" to share GOOD NEWS.This newsletter may enhance your awareness of the significance of your money and support. You enabled 80-20 to form an UNIQUE and independent AsAm view on college admissions & make it heard nation-wide.                    A Powerful Idea Is Spreading     Most AsAm orgs. only follow mainstream views.  For example, they either support "race-preference" admissions or oppose it. However, 80-20 having studied the college admissions issue carefully for years dared to form an UNIQUE, independent, and middle-of-the-road AsAm view.  Here is how the idea has spread: (1) On 8/1/2016, 80-20 EF took this unique & middle-of-the-road position: We would embrace diversity, but oppose strongly the discriminatory practice by elite colleges, which force AsAm applicants to yield 140 SAT points to white applicants. To spread the idea, EF started a petition. (2) On 9/14/2016, Harvard's own campus paper, Harvard Crimson, published an editorial to advocate this brand new idea. (3) 7 days ago, The NY Times published an Op Ed supporting the same concept. The title is:       White Students' Unfair Advantage in Admissions.     Excerpts:    " ... the percentage of Asians in Harvard's student body had remained about 16 percent to 19 percent for two decades even though the Asian-American percentage of the population had more than doubled. . . . .        To explain that disparity some might cite the myth that while Asian students have high test scores, they lack the well-rounded extracurricular interests and activities that colleges prize. But the study isolated race as a factor by controlling for variables like academic performance, legacy status, social class, type of high school (public or private), athletics and other extracurricular activities. So that 140-point gap is between a white student and an Asian student who differ only by race. ...."  (emphasis added)                The Significance of Your Support      Here is how the college admissions battle has developed: (1)  In 2009, Espenshade et al of Princeton published their book. The most important of its findings, so far as AsAm interests are concerned, was hardly reported in the media. The important finding is: To gain equal access to elite colleges, AsAm students need to yield 140 SAT pts. to white applicants*, 270 to Hispanics and 450 to blacks. Shamefully, most AsAm "civil rights" orgs. supported "race-preference" admissions, then and now.  What a shame. (2) In April, 2012, after a national survey of 50,000+ AsAms, 80-20 resolved it would fight the outrageous discrimination against AsAm youths.  (3) In 2013, Ed Blum, the architect of most of the legal battles against "race-preference" admissions, filed his first "Fisher vs. U. of TX (1)".  80-20 filed an amicus brief, to support that effort. (4) Thus far, our side has lost all the legal battles, including Fisher (2) and the complaint filed by the AsAm Coalition for Education. (5) However, since 2012 the handwriting is on the wall, that we'll eventually win.  Why?        (a) All such lawsuits have increasingly focused on the discrimination against AsAm students, and         (b) Our side has steadfastly won the battle in the "Court of Public Opinion."  Evidence?  The newspaper headlines have changed their tones greatly over the years:              In 2012, a NYT headline was "Asian-Ams in the argument".  Note that we were "in the argument" only - a side show.              In 2014, a NYT headline was "Is Harvard Unfair to As-Ams?"  We've moved to the center, but it is questionable whether we've been treated unfairly.              In 2017, a new NYT headline was "White Students' Unfair Advantage in admission"  There is now a declarative recognition that we are being treated unfairly.         Note that headlines are normally written by the editors, although the reporters or authors provided the contents.  Smell the shifting wind!                    Winning Soon???  Do Your Share!       When the vacant seat in the Supreme Court will have been filled by a Trump nominee, our chance to win the court battles will improves drastically.  Do you want to beat the discrimination back?  DO YOUR SHARE.        Join 80-20's petition now!    We need 100,000 signers in another 1.5 years to demonstrate the united support of our community for this UNIQUE and middle-of-the-road proposal for college admissions.   Otherwise, the $10 per petitioner donation will be returned. Thanks. S. B. Woo  President and a volunteer for the past 18 years 80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization, http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php *AsAm students mostly lose seats to white applicants, because there are so many white applicants who are less than 140 pts below AsAm applicants. AsAms students don't lose many seats to Hispanics and blacks, in-spite-of the 270 & 450 pts disadvantages. To know more about 80-20, view these videos : https://youtu.be/dB3eGVqG-wAÂ (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.) http://youtu.be/h781_ECSJYM 80-20 EF Mission Statement

Do you know the 2016 election Part (4)?

Info on 2016 election that you may not know

About the 2016 Election    In Parts (1), (2) and (3) we cited Hillary Clinton's (HC's) huge advantages in money raised, endorsements by media, and party unity.  We also discussed why all that didn't help her.  In part (3), we also cited facts to show that HC was not a good campaigner, although she is highly respected by her fellow politicians.  We now focus on a more sensitive topic -- Did HC make good political decisions? .                Does HC Make Good Political Decisions?    The answer to this question is subjective.  Hence, I provide NO answers, ONLY questions. I hope that each of you will examine the facts, then rely on your own prowess at logic and deduction to form your own conclusions. 1) Was her vote for the optional war in Iraq, to support the Arab Spring, and to actively interfere in Syria's civil war good decisions? 2) Did she ever look at her campaign rally videos & compare them with those of Sanders & Trump in terms of audience size & enthusiasm? Did she do self-evaluation - a necessary exercise because subordinates normally hesitate to point out what would really hurt the boss emotionally? 3) Did she have the ability to walk in others' shoes, including her opponents' shoes? Did she have a sense of "entitlement" causing her to use "a basket of deplorables" to describe DT's supporters?When Madeleine Albright, standing next to HC, stated  "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help each other," did she get HC's approval first? They were both pros in campaigns.  Fold the above into the fact that her campaign planned to explode fireworks over the Hudson River the night of the election. 4) HC is "candor deficient", yet she hid her health situation when diagnosed to have pneumonia. Did she know that she must protect her weakest flank? 5)  Did HC apply her immense resources wisely?  She received 65 million  votes nationally.  However, had she applied her resources to drive out an additional 11,000 votes in Michigan;  23,000 votes in Wisconsin; and 45,000 in Pennsylvania, she would have been the president. Look at the following shocking facts.        State         Electoral votes  DT's winning margin in votes        Michigan            16                                10,704        Wisconsin          10                                22,748        PA                      20                                44,292     Total:                     46               77,744 or 1.2/1000th of                                                      HC's total 65.8 million                                                      votes.          Were HC to get those additional 80,000 votes, then in terms of electoral votes:                    DT would have (306 -  46) = 260              HC would have (232 + 46) = 278, making her the winner!   Answer for yourself:  Did HC make good decisions? Was she a good strategist?

Do you know the 2016 election Part (3)?

Info on 2016 election that you may not know

REMINDER: S. B. Woo has stepped down from the presidency of 80-20 PAC, although he is still the president of 80-20 Educational Foundation      About the 2016 Election           Hillary Clinton (HC) had such real and presumed advantages over Donald Trump (DT).   Click here to read Part (1) and (2) about what the advantages were and why many didn't work out.  Even though the election was over, looking back at the facts (mixed with some opinion) can help us understand America and American elections.       Why didn't the Overwhelming media endorsements for HC Work?       The HC/DT endorsements ratio was 500/27.  Shouldn't that have had a huge impact?  Apparently not.  Why? 1) HC benefited from the fact that the media intellectuals disliked DT intensely. Voters sensed that media bias.  So the endorsements didn't carry as much weight.  2) Most of the media were into "identity politics" just like HC.  They favored diversity over qualifications when it came to hiring or admissions to schools and colleges.  Such over-emphasis has lessened American voters' respect for the media.        Why Didn't the Overwhelming Endorsement of HC by the Top Political Leaders of BOTH parties Work?       All past and present Democratic officials endorsed HC.  Many of the most prominent past and present Republican top officials rejected or refused to endorse DT.  In effect, the top political leaders of BOTH parties had endorsed HC.  Why didn't that work?      Most politicians knew that endorsements by famous political leaders helped in their fundraising efforts. However, such endorsements were never very effective in getting votes for the candidate.  Ordinary voters didn't read or cared about a candidate's press releases which touted such endorsements.                                      HC's Weaknesses      Every candidate has pluses and minuses. HC's strength was that she was very well respected by elected officials of both parties -- being known as a hardworking colleague who knew the issues, was willing to discuss compromises, and share credit.  Her weakness was that she was a very poor campaigner, and yet ever confident of her imminent victory.  She lost 2 of her 3 national campaigns in-spite-of huge initial advantages over all 3 rival candidates.   1) In the 2008 Dem. primary, everyone said it was "her campaign to lose." At the early stages, her campaign was lavishly pretentious.  At the end, she lost it to Obama, who was almost an unknown initially. 2) In the 2016 Dem. primary, she faced a real unknown, Sen.Sanders. At the end, if it were not for the unshakable loyalty of her 500+ Super Delegates - all elected officials - she came close to losing that one as well. The final pledged delegates ratio between HC/Sanders was 1/0.84.  3) In the 2016 General Election, she was the overwhelming odds on candidate to win over DT.  She enjoyed huge real and presumed advantages. Her campaign planned to have fireworks over the Hudson river on election night, costing $7 million, according to DT.  But she lost that campaign too.      In part (4), we'll ask if HC had make good political decisions.  Please don't construe these e-newsletters as favoring one or the other former candidates.   The election was over.  The real purpose is to help AsAms understand America and American politics.               S. B. Woo  President and a volunteer for the past 18 years 80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization, http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php PS:  Acknowledging another great supporter of my "Swan Song' campaign:  Tina Liu Jen, Parsippany, NJ        $1,000      To know more about 80-20, view these videos : https://youtu.be/dB3eGVqG-wA  (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.) http://youtu.be/h781_ECSJYM  80-20 EF Mission Statement

Do you know the 2016 election Part (2)?

Info on 2016 election that you may not know

REMINDER:  S. B. Woo has stepped down from the presidency of 80-20 PAC, although he is still the president of 80-20 Educational Foundation.  Did the outcome of the 2016 election surprise you?  Understand why.          The 2016 election is over. Please don't misconstrue the info presented as plugging for one or the other of the former candidates. Knowing these facts could help us better understand America and American elections.       Last Friday, I presented this talk to a group of prominent retired senior professionals, including many former government officials.  Both facts and opinions were very well-received.  Part (1) of this series was on H. Clinton's (HC's) real advantages over D. Trump (DT).   Part (2) is on her presumed advantages, and how the presumed advantages didn't match up with the reality, seen via NYT's exit poll.            Presumed HC Advantages When Compared With Reality 1) The possibility of electing the historic first woman President would induce over-whelming women support for HC.      Truth:  Women voted more for Obama in 2012 (55%) than for HC in 2016 (54%). 2)  Educated whites would NOT vote for Trump       Truth:  Whites with college degrees voted 49% for DT and 45% for HC. 3)  Minorities would be HC's firewall, given HC's identity politics and DT's politically incorrect statements.       Truth:  Blacks, Hispanics and Asians all supported HC by 5 to 8 pts. than they supported Obama in 2012.          2012(Obama/Romney/Others)    2016(HC/DT/Others) Blacks                      93/07                                        88/08/4 Hispanics                 71/27                                        65/29/4 Asians                      73/26/1                                     65/29/4            Why Didn't HC's Real Advantage in Money Raised work?    HC had almost a 2 to 1 advantage over DT in money raised. But it didn't win the election for her.   Why?        Of the $1.4 billion she'd raised, only $102 million or 7% came from donations of $200 or less.  In comparison, Obama raised $214 million from donations of $200 or less in 2012, more than2 times more.  Let's say that the average small donation is $102, then HC has 1 million donors who are ordinary citizens, while Obama had about 2 million such ordinary donors.  The enthusiasm of such small donors is very important to winning an election.  Most politicians have valued that.  Some campaigns were willing to lose money in order to raise this kind of small donations.  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     In the next few EF e-newsletters, we'll continue to explore why HC didn't win in-spite of all the real advantages. S. B. Woo  President and a volunteer for the past 18 years 80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization, http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php PS:  Acknowledging great supporters who responded so generously to my "Swan Song" appeal to raise money for 80-20 PAC.  About $32,000 was raised.  Besides the ones already acknowledged, there are also Alec Y. Chang, Pound Ridge, Ny                          $2,500  Chen Chen & Tuohui Zhong, Greensboro, NC   $1,000 Jerry J Zhang & Weili Fan*, Dana point, CA       $   500 Louisa and Benjamin Chu, Stonybrook, NY        $   500    James and Constance Liu Chen,                        $   500 Billy and Lydia Yeh, Coral Gables, FL                 $   500 THANK YOU, THANK YOU to all the other donors whose names are not listed, owing to space considerations. *Weili Fan is the author of a wonderful Chinese book about the noble but sad lives of a mixed couple who masterfully translated the "Dreams of the Red Chamber" and many other Chinese classics into English.  The book brought tears to my eyes many times, and I am not such an emotional person.    To know more about 80-20, view these videos : https://youtu.be/dB3eGVqG-wA  (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.) http://youtu.be/h781_ECSJYM  80-20 EF Mission Statement

Do you know the 2016 election Part (1)?

Info on 2016 election  that you may not know

REMINDER: S. B. Woo has stepped down from the presidency of 80-20 PAC, although he is still the president of 80-20 Educational Foundation.          Shocking Facts You May NOT Know About the 2016 Election         The following facts (NOT opinion) about the 2016 election may be shocking since most people didn't know it, to my best knowledge .  These facts could be educational in helping AsAm understand how elections are won and lost.        These facts are all referenced.  They are from a talk I'll give on coming Friday to a FL group of which I am a member.  The members are composed of generals, one admiral, many CIA officials, diplomats, medical doctors, physicists, and other professionals with "distinguished" careers, who have retired.     To whet your appetite, here is a "table of contents" plus the details of part (a) of item 1: "HC's Incredible real & presumed advantages in the election."  HC and DT stand for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump respectively.                                   Table of Contents         1. HC's Incredible real & presumed advantages over DT         2. Why the advantages didn't work out         3. Michael Moore, a very strong HC supporter, had 5 fears that HC'd lose         4. Dem. could easily win back the White House in 2020, if .....         5. Worrisome implications to our democracy.             Part (a) of Item 1: HC's Incredible advantages over DT *Money Raised  (as of about Nov. 8).  Click here to know more.        HC has a  2 to 1 advantage (HC:  $1.4 Billion ; DT $870 million) *Endorsements from Major Media     Click here to know more.          500 to 27 in favor of HC. 37 papers didn't endorse, but published editorials advising "No Trump" e.g. The USA Today. 37 was 10 larger than 27. *Party Support     Click here to know which Republicans opposed DT.            HC enjoyed the united support of the Dem. Party, including that of Sen. Sanders, Pres. Obama and all past Dem. presidents and all immediate past presidential nominees (J. Kerry & W. Mondale) DT faced a Terrible Disunity of the Republican Party. He was publicly disowned by the 2 immediate past GOP presidents, rejected by the 2 immediate past presidential nominees (Romney & McCain),rejected by GOP heavy weights Colin Powell, Condo. Rice, even the Koch brothers didn't financially support DT.      How could HC possibly lose???  For clues, look for EF's e-newsletters in the next days and weeks.  They may help you to understand America and American election of the modern days.                            Help Recruit  to Get Matching Funds     41 big Corporations will match donations to EF.  If you work for one of these companies, please recruit your AsAm colleagues to financially support 80-20 EF.  $1 from you or your colleagues will mean $2 to $4 dollars to 80-20's war chest.  To donate, click here.     The names of these companies are:   1. Adobe  2. AIG  3. ALLSTATE  4. Am Eep  5. American Express 6. Amgen  7. Amylin Pharmaceutical LLC  8. Apple  9. AT&T 10. Baxalta 11. Boeing  12. Bristol-Myers Squibb  13.Chevron Employee Funds  14. Citrix System  15. Emerson  16. EOG Resources 17. FMC Technologies 18. General Electric Foundation  19. Genetech, Inc. 20. Google 21. Illinois Tool Wooks Foundation (matching $3 for $1) 22. JP Morgan Chase Foundation  23. Juniper Networks  24. Merck 25. Microsoft  26. Monsanto  27. Morgan Stanley  28. Prudential 29. Qualcomm  30. RBC Capital  31. Rockfeller Foundation 32. Saba Capital Management  33. Sana Capital  34. Sempra 35. Takeda 36. TE Connectivity  37. TripAdvisor  38. UBS  39. Verizon 40. VMWare Foundation  41. Workday, Inc.     S. B. Woo  President and a volunteer for the past 18 years 80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization, http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php To know more about 80-20, view these videos : https://youtu.be/dB3eGVqG-wA (Ignore the last 35 secs. The election is over.) http://youtu.be/h781_ECSJYM 80-20 EF Mission Statement