80-20's Stance Against Obama (from ChinaLama)

[sandra]

Dear Friends,

Actions or lack of actions speak louder than works. Thus, I want to share with you the e-mail below regarding Senator Obama's lack of response to major concerns of the Asian American community: equal opportunity in the workplace, and fair representation of qualified judges in the Federal judiciary.

Senator Obama's Democrat opponents have responded affirmatively to 80-20's request for an iron-clad commitment to address these issues in the Asian American community. Sen. Obama so far has not. I hope you'll join with me in writing to him about your concerns. Please fax a strong message to his campaign headquarters at: (312) 819-2088/9 . I've enclosed my fax, sent a couple of days ago, below.

Thank you for doing your part,

Best Regards,

Jing



The Honorable Barack Obama
Senator, State of Illinois
Via fax: 312 819-2088


December 15, 2007

Dear Senator Obama,

Many of my friends are big fans of yours. Thus, I was deeply disappointed to hear that you have NOT responded to 80-20 PAC or EF's questionnaire since June 1 of this year. Senators Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and Gavel have already responded with all "yeses." They are simply reasonable requests for doing something concrete for the Asian American community. If they were requests from another community, would you take so long to reply?

Please prove that the faith of so many people in you is well placed. If you don't answer the questionnaire with all yeses, then I must conclude that you simply don't think the Asian American community warrants equal treatment along with others. In that case, I will urge my friends and family, especially in IA, NH, and IL, to not vote for you in the Democratic primaries.


Sincerely,




Jing-Li Yu
(I wrote my address here, too, but I've omitted it here for space)




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. B. Woo < sbw@80-20.us>
Date: Dec 17, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Call To Action
To: jingliyu@gmail.com



Call To Action -- Fax Sen. Obama

All prominent Democratic presidential candidates, including Senators
Clinton and Edwards have replied to 80-20's questionnaire with all
YESES, except one -- Sen. Obama.

When a presidential candidates replies to each of 80-20's questions with
one single word: YES, it means that she/he is giving Asian Ams. an iron-
clad commitment. That is, as the president she/he will help us achieve equal
opportunity in workplaces and a fair representation in the Federal judiciary.
Equal opportunity is America's core value. BUT, Sen. Obama dares not stand
up for that.

He talks about change. But Obama is for the status quo to keep a very
low glass ceiling above Asian Ams. (See footnote 1)

He talks about wisdom. But Obama is afraid to stand up for America's
core value. (See footnote 2) Wisdom without the courage to act is just
imagination.

He and his staff are fond of saying to Asian Ams that when he becomes
the President, Asian Ams. have a better chance to become the US
president. If he is even afraid to stand up for our equal opportunity in
workplaces, what 's the use talking about equal opportunity to be the US
President?! Obama utters sweet words that defy logic.

Is Sen. Obama's political inexperience showing? He imagines an ideal
world but is afraid to stand up for America's core value of equal
opportunity in the real world.

Fax a strong message to Sen. Obama via (312) 819-2088/9 ! Copy me
in via sbw@80-20.us , if you like. Use your own words. Please include the
following central message:

Dear Senator Obama:
Please answer 80-20's questionnaire with all yeses.
Otherwise, I'll ask all my friends and relatives to defeat
your candidacy in Iowa, New Hampshire & the California
Democratic Primary.
Name: 

Address: 

Title (optional, specify "for ID purposes only").

Counting on you. Please to do your share to gain equal opportunity
for out community. Fax it now.

Best regards,
S. B. Woo 

Exec. Comm. member & Founding President, 80-20 PAC, Inc. 

Lt. Governor of Delaware (1985-89)



Footnote 1: Based on publicly available government statistics, Asian
Americans have the least opportunity to enter management when
compared with blacks, Hispanics and women; the slowest rate of progress
toward equal employment opportunity in spite of having the highest
educational attainment. See a full-page color ad in Washington Post on
this matter which contains the complete documentation:
http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org./projects/equalopp_washingtonpost.asp .

Footnote 2: Obama's campaign maintains that "Obama is more vulnerable
to attack in standing up for equal opportunity because he is Black,"
although his Dem. opponents, Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards,
and Gravel have already replied all YESES. Is Obama the kind of
person we want to be our president?

NOTE: 80-20 is highly political but truly NON-partisan. It is equally
tough on both Democrats and Republicans when they fail to share our
concern about achieving equal opportunity.

[sandra]

the questions:

(1) If elected, will you direct the Labor Secretary to hold public hearings regarding the validity of the huge amount of statistical data strongly suggesting discriminatory practices against Asian Americans in workplaces today?

(2) If the data were shown valid, will you issue a directive to the Labor Department asking it to focus on enforcing Executive Order 11246 on behalf of Asian Americans, since in the past similar efforts have already been made on behalf of women and other minorities?

(3) Two years after you have issued the directive described in item 2, will you meet with a group of Asian American national organizations, put together by 80-20 and the Labor Department, to review the progress in extending equal opportunity to Asian Americans?

(4) If elected, will you within your first term of office, seek to increase the nomination of qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III life-tenured federal judges, whenever such vacancies are available until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied? [To put things in perspective, not meaning to imply quota, presently there are 0.6% Asian Am. Federal judges, while the Asian Am. population is 4.5% and the % of Asian Am legal professionals in laws firms of 100 or large is at least 5.3%.]

(5) If elected, will you seek to nominate, within your first term of office, qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III Circuit Judges, whenever there are vacancies in those positions, until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied? [To put things in perspective, none of the 179 Article III Circuit judges is an Asian American.]

(6) If elected, will you consider nominating a qualified Asian America to the Supreme Court, when a vacancy occurs? Two years upon your taking the office, will you meet with a group of Asian American leaders, put together jointly by 80-20 and other Asian American national organizations to review the progress in adding Asian American Federal judges?

[BeTheReds]

It's good that these kinds of things get posted, and I can certainly understand why 80-20 exists, but I can't ever throw my support behind 80-20. While this particular issue is a valid one, I feel that any letter to Barack Obama should be made from concerned Asian-Americans, not on behalf of a voting block like 80-20.

I used to get lots of e-mail in college from 80-20 telling me how I should vote, and plenty of activists supported 80-20, however it's important to actually vote according to an educated informed choice that one makes for himself or herself, not to blindly follow the whims of a voting block (which would basically have you vote according to what a small group of people believe is best. In actuality it's very possible that your vote would benefit them, and not yourself.)

So in this case, I can applaud what 80-20 is doing, I still feel the need to warn people not to blindly follow the whims of the few.

Call me a hater, fine... I'm sorry.

[SunWuKong]

you don't have to vote blindly with 80-20, and i certainly don't, but they do work for the betterman of the Asian American community. you shouldn't vote blindly for a candidate just because some group, any group, tells you to. but 80-20's endorsements probably deserve at least some consideration - and i'm pretty sure they give you reasons why they endorse a specific candidate. it's not like they say, "vote this guy, and don't ask any questions."

as always though, do your own research. just because some politician responded to a questionaire, doesn't mean s/he actually cares. we are talking about politicians after all.

i know that there are concerns that bloc voting amongst Asian Americans basically mean voting what the Chinese American community wants, by virtue of the fact that the Chinese is the biggest ethnic group in the Asian American community. but honestly, i think the Asian American community is actually more politically divided along socio-economic lines than it is along ethnic lines. that Chinese American immigrant small business owner probably has more common opinions with the Korean American or Vietnamese American immigrant small business owner than he does with an American-born Chinese college graduate working a desk job.

[sandra]

i also don't think we should just vote however 80-20 recommends without having our own personal understanding of the issues, but at least this information before us now does raise the question as to why obama won't respond to the questionnaires. i will also point out, however, that clinton also didn't respond (at least it doesn't appear that she did per the 80-20 site) until she received similar pressure from 80-20. could it be that they are too busy in their campaign to respond? perhaps because we make up such a small percentage of the population and even a smaller percentage of the voting population? is it bothersome, though, that they would consider this a valid basis for ignoring asian-american issues?

how important is it to you that a candidate answer 80-20's questions?

[AngryABCGirl]

how important is it to you that a candidate answer 80-20's questions?

For this election in my personal view, not really. First, I'm a very partisian Democrat, so I will pretty much vote democrat no matter what. I haven't made my decision for the primaries yet though and may choose to abstain being that I feel the three top candidates, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama really don't differ that much or don't have the room to politically and also I would not mind any of them being the candidate. All parts being equal, they all have a lot for and against them.

I like Obama because he is the most different and I think he appeals so much to young people. I remember 9/11 happening right after I got my license, and that's like the big coming of age deal. The Iraq War started a few months before I graduated from high school. Through that there's been incidents like Katrina, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, various much publicized police abuses at universities, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay legislation that I think a lot of people in my age group find largely appalling that has largely been met with much complacency on part of society at large. We're ready for a change, and Obama seems like he can be the change.

But, despite all that, honestly I would vote for the democrat that looks like he or she has the best stand of being elected at this point.

For this moment in America and the world, for me it is far more important to be to have an administration that will have (and I'll even settle on somewhat different) less contentious foreign policy in the Middle East, stop the continuous assault on Civil Liberties (anti-Gay marriage legislation, anti-immigration mongering, Patriot Act type legislation), focus more on issues of health care and education system that hits low-income minorities more than any others.

These issues trump anything like trade with Asia, because I believe in the end market forces will trump political forces in that area, or even how much a candidate will cater especially for Asian Americans. People in the world are suffering a lot at immeasurable human costs (deaths of Iraqi Civilians, psychologically and physically scarred US War Veterans coming back to the US) because irresponsible foreign policy and the most unfortunate in America are suffering the most, and none of these will change with another Republican in office as far as I'm concerned. America's schools and medical systems and basic support services are failing everyone at large, but especially to the most vulnerable.

I care a lot more about these issues more than anything else, beyond my Asian American interests.

I do think 80-20 is a really good interest group in educating Asian American Voters, whether you agree with their tactics and/or politics or not, because from what I've seen Asian Americans across the board are not very well informed about the importance of voting and learning about how they can be informed.

[BeTheReds]

the questions:



(3) Two years after you have issued the directive described in item 2, will you meet with a group of Asian American national organizations, put together by 80-20 and the Labor Department, to review the progress in extending equal opportunity to Asian Americans?


Oh please. Who would ever agree to that? What gives 80-20 the authority to choose national orgs? See, this is what I am talking about. 80-20 is no more qualified for this task than Yellowworld is.




(6) If elected, will you consider nominating a qualified Asian America to the Supreme Court, when a vacancy occurs? Two years upon your taking the office, will you meet with a group of Asian American leaders, put together jointly by 80-20 and other Asian American national organizations to review the progress in adding Asian American Federal judges?

Same thing again. Why does 80-20 even have to be involved in the process? What legitimacy does the organization have other than claiming to speak on behalf of 80% of Asian-America based on the number of bogus e-mails they have in their database?

[Yeahman]

Certainly the war and other issues of life and death (in which I also include trade) trump how many AA judges there are. I don't think 80-20 would disagree. Which is why maybe their emphasis on creating a voting bloc is misguided and let's be honest, it's not going to happen. Maybe they should concentrate on just creating a major issue out of AA interests.

But they have a very narrow view of AA interests. E.g., they seem to be concerned about AA representation in government positions. Yet AA judges are over-represented as a proportion of AA applicants. I don't think we'd get 4.5%, even if all AA applicants were hired.

Where's increasing or eliminating visa quotas? That's a much bigger issue affecting many more AA's. And as long as we're just raising issues and not just attempting to create a voting bloc, what about ending affirmative action in college admissions?

Trade is not only a humanitarian issue but it creates opportunities for AA's with a knowledge of Asia. Restrictive trade causes under-utilization of AA's as an economic asset to the US.

I think AA activists have been reading out of the African-American playbook too much. We have our own interests which can be better advanced in other ways.

[AngryABCGirl]

I forgot to add, I'm also an extremely partisian democrat because the right to an abortion is one big ticket issue for me I would not compromise on with a candidate while I'd probably be more open on other issues.

Anyway, I do think 80-20 is one of the larger PACs representing Asian Americans in the area of voter registration and have been for a very long time. So I do give them a certain amount of legitimancy and a lot of credit for getting information about the vote out there to Asian Americans. I do think it needs to go beyond just voting for a politician for the sake of a bloc though, but rather for pitch important issues more. Certain issues like the backlogs on immigration waiting lists could be pretty key in getting Asian Americans out to vote.

[SunWuKong]

of course i have concerns that are not specific to the Asian American community - the war, the economy, etc.

let's put it this way, 80-20 is not perfect, but it probably does a better job than i personally can to ascertain which candidate will be more supportive of the Asian American community. other than reading articles online, there aren't many ways that someone like me can tell how much a candidate cares about the Asian American community. we're not an ethnic demography that gets media or political attention that often. so i'd definitely listen to what 80-20 has to say.

having said that though, i don't even believe in bloc voting. black voters bloc vote, and look what happens to them - the Republicans have given up trying to win their votes, and the Democrats take their votes for granted.

[Yeahman]

^ Yeah and it would be much worse for Asian-Americans. At least blacks have some sway in the Democratic party. If Asians get drawn into a party, we'd still have no say. We'd be expected to support the party on issues that we wouldn't otherwise support.

I'd like to see AAs turn into a swing vote like the union vote. It's a negative voting bloc. Like AAs, union members don't all share the same positions on issues they consider to be more important then the one that binds them together. The unions consistently endorse Democrats, yet their members consistently ignore those endorsements. Both parties kiss up to the unions, not to win their vote as a bloc (which can't be done) but to avoid losing their vote as a bloc.

So I think groups like 80-20 can best serve the AA community by raising issues that can help to eliminate offensive candidates. And personally I don't find not responding to a questionnaire, all that offensive.

[AngryABCGirl]

^ Yeah and it would be much worse for Asian-Americans. At least blacks have some sway in the Democratic party. If Asians get drawn into a party, we'd still have no say. We'd be expected to support the party on issues that we wouldn't otherwise support.

I'd like to see AAs turn into a swing vote like the union vote. It's a negative voting bloc. Like AAs, union members don't all share the same positions on issues they consider to be more important then the one that binds them together. The unions consistently endorse Democrats, yet their members consistently ignore those endorsements. Both parties kiss up to the unions, not to win their vote as a bloc (which can't be done) but to avoid losing their vote as a bloc.

So I think groups like 80-20 can best serve the AA community by raising issues that can help to eliminate offensive candidates. And personally I don't find not responding to a questionnaire, all that offensive.

Yeah I actually think eliminating offensive and harmful candidates might actually be more effective than endorsing the right one, because voters are looking for different things in terms of issues they like. IE Any pro-life candidate is pretty dangerous to young Asian American women's health or those who would make it difficult to operate small businesses.

I think blocs are more useful for local elections rather than a national election like this, hence why gerrymandering is bad.

I think African Americans vote in a bloc more because the Democrats serve their interests no? But I'd like to see a breakdown of African American voting patterns between immigrants from West Indies, immigrants from Africa, and the descendants of slavery and also by social class. I think there may be interesting contrasts. I've noticed Asian Americans tend to view Africans as this big empowered homogenous group, which is not just not the case. It's not as the NAACP represents the view of all Black people in the US or something and not all of them agree with it just as 80-20 doesn't necessarily represent all Asian Americans.

[Yeahman]

Yeah I actually think eliminating offensive and harmful candidates might actually be more effective than endorsing the right one, because voters are looking for different things in terms of issues they like. IE Any pro-life candidate is pretty dangerous to young Asian American women's health or those who would make it difficult to operate small businesses.
What's up with your obsession over killing Asian babies?

OK seriously, as pro-life and anti-war as I am, I don't think a group like 80-20 should be taking positions on those issues, nor do they have a reason to. Just sticking the word "Asian-American" into an issue doesn't make it an AA interest. But you already knew that, AngryABCGirl.

Look what war did for the Republicans and abortion for the Democrats. It distracted from the other issues. If 80-20 took sides, they'd be undermining their own efforts to raise awareness of AA-specific issues. AngryABCGirl, does your political partisanship require you to undermine AA interests for the sake of the Party?

[SunWuKong]

I think African Americans vote in a bloc more because the Democrats serve their interests no?

i think at this point, it's basically a tradition. but i'm not black so maybe i'm just talking out of my ass. one thing to point out is that Bush actually won a bit more black votes in his second election because of the abortion issue. the church plays a big part in black grassroots activism.

[Yeahman]

one thing to point out is that Bush actually won a bit more black votes in his second election because of the abortion issue.
Then came Katrina.


"Black interests" is a broad term. Blacks tend to favor school vouchers but Democrats don't. Blacks tended to favor the partial-birth abortion ban. Republicans have been very good with black presidential appointments.

I think it's more about image than policy. Republicans are seen as racist and for good reason IMO. Republicans, for the most part, completely ignore race related issues. But it's a cycle. Republicans don't feel like they have to address race related issues because they aren't going to get the black vote anyway.

[AngryABCGirl]

What's up with your obsession over killing Asian babies?

OK seriously, as pro-life and anti-war as I am, I don't think a group like 80-20 should be taking positions on those issues, nor do they have a reason to. Just sticking the word "Asian-American" into an issue doesn't make it an AA interest. But you already knew that, AngryABCGirl.

Look what war did for the Republicans and abortion for the Democrats. It distracted from the other issues. If 80-20 took sides, they'd be undermining their own efforts to raise awareness of AA-specific issues. AngryABCGirl, does your political partisanship require you to undermine AA interests for the sake of the Party?

You don't need to be fucking rude about it and say "killing Asian babies" to get your point across alright? I'll explain why I see it as an AA issue in a second.

And, actually if it were another election year (like maybe 2000 when shit wasn't hitting the fan so much) where I wasn't so galvanized mainly by the war and incidents like Katrina, I would scrutinize a candidate a lot more over AA issues and paying attention to them. I think down the line if things become more stable, I'd be a lot more critical.

But I'm willing to sidestep that for right now because I'm appalled by larger trends. That's why I said for this election specifically in my first post. Plus I do see things like the war and social programs as part of AA issues considering I have classmates who Asian American men currently serving in the armed forces now, and I want them to come home. And while this may sound corny, I do think of my vote as being at least somewhat responsible to all people in America and also to the world at large considering how much policy affects people abroad, not just Asian Americans. Most people probably don't think of Asian Americans in their vote, and I acknowledge that, but it's my personal moral choice.

And I think of abortion as an AA interest because Asian American women (especially say teenagers) need access to safe abortions because they're one of the groups most likely to need them because if it wasn't available, a lot of these women would be going the unsafe route to backroom abortions. Might as well make them so that they don't endanger the health of young women. Asian women do have higher rates of abortions than Whites and I consider it a health issue.

I don't like abortion anymore than you do, but it's a reality that they happen under the eyes of the law or not. I would rather have them happen under official auspice and safety.

Anyway, an interest group like 80-20 should do what its goal should be. I see it primarily as a group to get Asians to vote, maybe issues will help that out. It's not like other Asian interest groups don't. No interest group, like I said, can represent everyone in a community as whole.

[Yeahman]

You don't need to be fucking rude about it and say "killing Asian babies" to get your point across alright?
You opened the door.

"Any pro-life candidate is pretty dangerous to young Asian American women's health"

So am I against AA women's health by being pro-life?

I have classmates who Asian American men currently serving in the armed forces now, and I want them to come home.
That doesn't make it an AA issue!

And while this may sound corny, I do think of my vote as being at least somewhat responsible to all people in America and also to the world at large considering how much policy affects people abroad, not just Asian Americans.
That's fine but just don't pretend that you're voting for AA-specific interests.

And I think of abortion as an AA interest because Asian American women (especially say teenagers) need access to safe abortions because they're one of the groups most likely to need them because if it wasn't available, a lot of these women would be going the unsafe route to backroom abortions. Might as well make them so that they don't endanger the health of young women. Asian women do have higher rates of abortions than Whites and I consider it a health issue.
And I consider it gravely immoral. Neither of our positions make it an AA issue!

I don't like abortion anymore than you do, but it's a reality that they happen under the eyes of the law or not. I would rather have them happen under official auspice and safety.
I think I don't like abortion a bit more than you. I don't like abortion like you don't like the war in Iraq. It's not just unfortunate. It's not a necessary evil. It's utterly reprehensible, immoral, and should never happen. I have no desire to make killing safe.

[AngryABCGirl]

You opened the door.

"Any pro-life candidate is pretty dangerous to young Asian American women's health"

So am I against AA women's health by being pro-life?



You can feel free to disagree, I've said my piece. I didn't open the door to rudeness though. I understand you're pro-life, but any kind of abortion ban is going to affect AA women's health negatively. That's the reality. Most Asian American would agree too because we're aware of the dynamics. I'm not saying that because you're a guy it doesn't mean your opinion regarding abortion is invalid, but in the end women are the ones who bear the consequences. I've seen this issue as a hot button one in Asian American organizing so I strongly see it as an Asian American issue.

I also don't see how AA issues need to be mutually exclusive from general issues affecting the entire nation, but each his/her own. The Iraq War is an issue affecting all Americans. It makes it an issue to AAs to consider. I'm actually really against (although I don't think you fall under this based on your posts, but I've seen it throughout the years) the idea that Asian American or any other special interest issue for that matter falls out of the boundaries of general American politics or the policy making process. Or because one candidate helps Asian Americans in one way, but is spotty on number of other issues that could affect a whole range of issues negatively ends up being supported. It's not smart politics to me.

In fact it's important to examine how wide-ranging issues like abortion, the war, taxation, etc. affect Asian Americans different from that of other citizens and how they take on facets affecting our community. An issue like the war or abortion maybe a general national issue, but they're issues that affect minorities, such as Asians, differently. Example: disproportionate amounts of the armed forces are compromised of poor minorities. Most of the focus toward this is given to Blacks and Latinos, but it doesn't at all exclude lower-income Asians, many of which serve in the armed forces. In terms of abortion, say things like parental notice or ban in abortion for young Asian American women who have to deal with more shame and stigma from becoming pregnant than society at large may have a ripple effect of women who have to find unsafe ways to have abortions. Different taxation policies could affect Asian Americans disproportionately because of large small ownership rates amongst Asian Americans, etc.

[SunWuKong]

you know, as far as the war is concerned, for me it's not just about bringing the troops home safe and in one piece - that issue itself is not black-and-white because those soldiers are consenting adults that made the conscious choice to join the armed forces, and i know that many of them even want to be right in the middle of the action.

but ever since the Iraq War started i've hated the fact that my tax dollars contributes to it, and that's another main reason why i am anti-war.

[Yeahman]

I didn't open the door to rudeness though.
By implying that me being pro-life endangers AA women, you welcomed a response in kind.

I understand you're pro-life, but any kind of abortion ban is going to affect AA women's health negatively. That's the reality.
And legal abortion affects AA population growth negatively. That's reality. So your pro-choice position is contrary to AA interests.

Most Asian American would agree too because we're aware of the dynamics. I'm not saying that because you're a guy it doesn't mean your opinion regarding abortion is invalid, but in the end women are the ones who bear the consequences.
I've heard that argument and reject it for lack of logic. There's a reason why women aren't any more pro-choice than men.
Men would love to have sex without consequence. Believe it or not, we'd rather not have unplanned children either.

I've seen this issue as a hot button one in Asian American organizing so I strongly see it as an Asian American issue.
You know what's an even bigger issue among AAs? Trade. But you don't seem to care about that. Yeah, I know you're a partisan Democrat and that allows you to be selective in the issues you will attach AA interests to.

I also don't see how AA issues need to be mutually exclusive from general issues affecting the entire nation, but each his/her own.
Not mutually exclusive but an AA-specific issue has to affect AAs significantly differently than the general population. Otherwise, there's no AA position to take on the issue. "I know AAs in Iraq" doesn't cut it.

In fact it's important to examine how wide-ranging issues like abortion, the war, taxation, etc. affect Asian Americans different from that of other citizens and how they take on facets affecting our community. An issue like the war or abortion maybe a general national issue, but they're issues that affect minorities, such as Asians, differently. Example: disproportionate amounts of the armed forces are compromised of poor minorities. Most of the focus toward this is given to Blacks and Latinos, but it doesn't at all exclude lower-income Asians, many of which serve in the armed forces.
Lower-income Asians are disproportionately affected compared to lower-income individuals in the general public? If not, you have no case here.

In terms of abortion, say things like parental notice or ban in abortion for young Asian American women who have to deal with more shame and stigma from becoming pregnant than society at large may have a ripple effect of women who have to find unsafe ways to have abortions.
OK fine so now balance the desire to avoid shame with killing.
I mean it's like me saying that we should legalize drunk driving so that AAs who get arrested for drunk driving don't get stigmatized.
Before you jump to a justification as relatively trivial as shame, you have to first demonstrating that the activity is moral, or at least amoral.

Different taxation policies could affect Asian Americans disproportionately because of large small ownership rates amongst Asian Americans, etc.
I agree but I don't think you'd support immoral tax policies just because it allows certain AAs to pay less. I'm not gonna support a tax policy that benefits AAs if it's objectionable on more important grounds.

[BeTheReds]

Guys guys.... let's continue to talk about 80-20 in this thread. Take your anti-abortion pro-choice debate elsewhere...

[Yeahman]

^ But AngryABCGirl claims that abortion is an AA issue that 80-20 should support.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, can't abortion be a hot button issue for Asian Americans as well as for society at large as long as the incidences of unplanned pregnancies affect Asian American women in specific ways that may not apply toward other women b/c of language/cultural barriers or factors? I understand that there is a great deal of sensitivity surrounding abortion because of the looming specter of morality, but that doesn't mean people who focus on Asian American issues shouldn't also involve themselves in this moral decision-making process re: abortion because of the reason stated above.

It's just like how I could also see how drug abuse and domestic abuse are huge issues that could be considered African American issues as well, even though obviously drugs and domestic abuse are not exclusive to black families and neighborhoods, or even merely economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in general, because ultimately drug and domestic abuse affect the overall livelihood and interests of the African American community(s) in ways that they would not affect Latino/as or Asians. Perhaps labeling them as "issues of the African American community" sounds better than as "African American issues"?

Anyhow, from this standpoint, it really all just comes down to what you decide to call it, and I don't really see a reason why organizations created for purposes of improving the socio-economic and political livelihoods of a certain racial or cultural demographic shouldn't give special attention to issues such as abortion or drug abuse [among Asian Americans/African Americans].

[Yeahman]

Drugs are a big issue for blacks because they have a much higher rate
of incarceration due to drug-related offenses than the general public.

Can AA's point to a similar significant disparity for abortion to warrant special attention? If not, it's just a distraction from AA issues that really do warrant special attention. That's not to say that it's an unimportant issue, just that there's no need for an AA activist group to address it.

And even if an issue warrants special attention, what the solution should be is quite another story. Should the NAACP support legalization of crack because blacks are disproportionately adversely impacted by it? The NAACP certainly should express a desire to rid black neighborhoods of crack. Likewise, if abortion disproportionately adversely affects AAs, groups like 80-20 may be justified in expressing a desire to reduce abortion among AA women but AngryABCGirl wants 80-20 to endorse easier access to abortion.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Can AA's point to a similar significant disparity for abortion to warrant special attention? If not, it's just a distraction from AA issues that really do warrant special attention. That's not to say that it's an unimportant issue, just that there's no need for an AA activist group to address it.

I don't know the statistics. But if Asian Americans (or AA women more specifically) are affected by unwanted pregnancies in significant ways that other racial demographic groups are not, why shouldn't the issue of pregnancy or abortion receive special attention within AA activist circles? You can always argue that every other issue will take away attention from any other issue that needs to be addressed.

And even if an issue warrants special attention, what the solution should be is quite another story. Should the NAACP support legalization of crack because blacks are disproportionately adversely impacted by it? The NAACP certainly should express a desire to rid black neighborhoods of crack. Likewise, if abortion disproportionately adversely affects AAs, groups like 80-20 may be justified in expressing a desire to reduce abortion among AA women but AngryABCGirl wants 80-20 to endorse easier access to abortion.

The legalization of crack vs. the legalization of abortion is hardly a fair analogous comparison in more than one context. Furthermore, the argument that 80-20 would be justified in expressing a desire to reduce abortion isn't really fair because it's based on the moral assumption that abortion is wrong or immoral, much in the same way that pushing for legalization is based on the idea that abortion is moral, or at least, acceptable and okay. In the case of crack, the surrounding moral argument seems a lot more black and white, and while I suppose there are ways you could argue this, but I don't think anyone out there actually believes that smoking or selling crack yields no harmful consequences (except for perhaps those in so deep that they are cognitively unable to realize the dangers of their addiction)...but of course there are groups that argue that the penalties for drug-related offenses in our country serve only to put a disproportionate amount of minorities in prison.

But in any case I'm in partial agreement with you here - the solution is definitely another story; I'm not exactly a supporter of the legalization of abortion myself, but I gathered from what you were implying was that the issue doesn't have a place on agenda of AA activists or interest groups at all. If you're going to oppose this then you might as well oppose any other group's involvement with the abortion issue that may decide on pro-choice as a possible solution.

[AngryABCGirl]

^ But AngryABCGirl claims that abortion is an AA issue that 80-20 should support.

Did not say that at all. Just said it was an issue that affects AAs, take it or leave it. I thought the discussion on was how to expand 80-20's purpose and voting blocs and expanding its purpose. Someone mentioned how it should expand its intiative beyond bloc voting because it was ineffective and then another suggestion was about issues. So I named some issues that could be pertinent.

Anyway to end this, you may think of abortion as amoral, but it's a reality we have to deal with for me. Asian American population growth as a result of births is not in any measurable danger (quite the opposite). But I think for us the abortion issue is on different sides of ideological spectrum, and we're just not going to agree.

[AngryABCGirl]

Drugs are a big issue for blacks because they have a much higher rate
of incarceration due to drug-related offenses than the general public.

Can AA's point to a similar significant disparity for abortion to warrant special attention? If not, it's just a distraction from AA issues that really do warrant special attention. That's not to say that it's an unimportant issue, just that there's no need for an AA activist group to address it.

And even if an issue warrants special attention, what the solution should be is quite another story. Should the NAACP support legalization of crack because blacks are disproportionately adversely impacted by it? The NAACP certainly should express a desire to rid black neighborhoods of crack. Likewise, if abortion disproportionately adversely affects AAs, groups like 80-20 may be justified in expressing a desire to reduce abortion among AA women but AngryABCGirl wants 80-20 to endorse easier access to abortion.

Sorry last post because I didn't see it completely.

It has been under the special interest of Asian American interest groups in CA for the very reasons I mentioned because of specific legislation regarding parental notice and other restrictions in that state. It's why I know about it and think of it as an Asian American issue. It's an issue I've seen Asian American women go through in its own specific dynamics too growing up and then going to school with a high population of Asian American students, of which Asian American women had the highest rates of getting the day after pill and abortions through the campus health service system (don't think abortions were performed there, just referred, but perscriptions given).

Anyway here's some info in general for all (not directing it toward you necessarily, I don't want you to feel like I'm antagonizing you):
http://www.napawf.org/file/issues/Prop73_Opposition.pdf ---> this is was the legislation I was talking about
http://www.napawf.org/file/issues/Abortion_FactSheet.pdf
http://www.aapip.org/pdfs/AAWP_Executive_Summary.pdf

[Yeahman]

I don't know the statistics. But if Asian Americans (or AA women more specifically) are affected by unwanted pregnancies in significant ways that other racial demographic groups are not, why shouldn't the issue of pregnancy or abortion receive special attention within AA activist circles? You can always argue that every other issue will take away attention from any other issue that needs to be addressed.
Emphasis added.
I'm not disagreeing.

The legalization of crack vs. the legalization of abortion is hardly a fair analogous comparison in more than one context. Furthermore, the argument that 80-20 would be justified in expressing a desire to reduce abortion isn't really fair because it's based on the moral assumption that abortion is wrong or immoral, much in the same way that pushing for legalization is based on the idea that abortion is moral, or at least, acceptable and okay.
No, it's not. Are there pro-choicers who want more abortions? If not, reduction is something we can all agree on.

In the case of crack, the surrounding moral argument seems a lot more black and white, and while I suppose there are ways you could argue this, but I don't think anyone out there actually believes that smoking or selling crack yields no harmful consequences (except for perhaps those in so deep that they are cognitively unable to realize the dangers of their addiction)...but of course there are groups that argue that the penalties for drug-related offenses in our country serve only to put a disproportionate amount of minorities in prison.
No different from abortion. Nobody, I hope, will argue that abortions are desirable. The debate is over legalization of an undesirable with both sides claiming that their position is less harmful.

But in any case I'm in partial agreement with you here - the solution is definitely another story; I'm not exactly a supporter of the legalization of abortion myself, but I gathered from what you were implying was that the issue doesn't have a place on agenda of AA activists or interest groups at all. If you're going to oppose this then you might as well oppose any other group's involvement with the abortion issue that may decide on pro-choice as a possible solution.
I'd oppose any pro-choice group on moral grounds but I recognize that certain activist groups have a compelling interest in raising awareness of the issue. You won't see me claiming that Planned Parenthood shouldn't talk about abortion. But absent a significant disparate impact on AAs, I don't see the point in AA activist groups including these issues in their agenda.

Did not say that at all. Just said it was an issue that affects AAs, take it or leave it. I thought the discussion on was how to expand 80-20's purpose and voting blocs and expanding its purpose. Someone mentioned how it should expand its intiative beyond bloc voting because it was ineffective and then another suggestion was about issues. So I named some issues that could be pertinent.
You didn't just name an issue that 80-20 should address. You stated a position they should take: "Any pro-life candidate is pretty dangerous to young Asian American women's health."

But I think for us the abortion issue is on different sides of ideological spectrum, and we're just not going to agree.
Yet you still want AA groups to adopt your ideology.

[AngryABCGirl]

You didn't just name an issue that 80-20 should address. You stated a position they should take: "Any pro-life candidate is pretty dangerous to young Asian American women's health."


Yet you still want AA groups to adopt your ideology.

Named it as an issue, didn't say 80-20 as a group to follow it. I do believe AA groups should adopt it though despite what you think. Like I said, we won't argree.