As would 99% of any other politician. It's just the fact of life that politicians are constantly trying to vote-grub. I'm sure it's all with the best intentions, but yeah.
well....unless they're willing to commit to quotas any response would be pretty 'non binding.' The questions anticipate that. All the signers are doing is acknowledging a statistical variance (or agreeing to look at it) and 'committing' to be aware of it and discuss it at a later date. Can't really expect more. And I don't fault Baraks campaign for not participating. I somehow doubt it's a priority for Edwards or Hillary's campaing either. I did always suspect Hillary was a YOF.
Interesting responses coming from the faction that is usually on the fence of Equal Opportunity, universal health care, and has been outcrying about inequalities of this and that in America. I guess there is something about the advancement of Asians that irks these folks, who are more eager than anybody else to accept the Asian's status quo and more ready to brush aside facts that Asian Americans are disproportionally under-represented in U.S. judgeship and federal government and have been subject to non-stop prevalent discriminatory practices in U.S. workplaces. Holding public hearings to address concerns and grievances of Asian Americans may not be a top priority for a President, but it is a very specific, tangible, and concrete first step. As tie22fighter put it, you have to start somewhere. Sure any candidate who pledged YES to this question is at liberty to ignore it once he/she gets elected, but nothing will prevent 80-20 from holding him/her accountable. I have no doubt if Obama apologists can come up with something that's more actionable, 80-20 will be more than happy to incorporate the idea into their questionnaire to be posed to presidential candidates. The whole notion of uniting not dividing, and not favoring any one particular group (Asian Americans in particular) is noble. Is Obama really the man that goes all out to avoid "favoritism"? We all know Obama goes to a predominantly African American church in Chicago. There is nothing wrong with that, but it goes against the pretense that he is for all Americans equally. By the way, is Obama's residence in a predominantly African American neighborhood? If the answer is yes and the church he goes to happens to be near where he lives, I am certainly more than willing to accept the "convenience" rationale and to reject the suggestion he too never misses an opportunity to score political points with "his" voter base.
I'm not going to debate you on job discrimination of Asian Americans, I would like to see statistics first. But on your second point, you do realize that churches are probably the most segregated institution in this country. honestly, I always considered you much smarter than to be taken in by that church email.
OldManBernie and other Asian American, After all others' replies, do you still think what 80/20 asked is so insignificant? 80/20 is certainly not asking for "hand-outs". They are not asking to get more welfare checks. They are not asking for more housing subsidies. They are not asking to dumb down the requirements. They are not asking for quota. It is not like it is a secret that Asian American is very successful in the bottom layers of professional government bureaucracy but having great trouble in further advancement. All 80/20 tried to do is to ask the next president to do a study to confirm the irregularity and, if confirmed, to have a place on the table to air grievance. And to ask the question "Madam/Mr. President, what are you going to do about it?" All these are done in the new president's first term. So if the new president is deemed in-sincere, 80/20 and Asian American community can decide whether to support his/her opponent in the next election. Even with such puny request, 80/20 is having such trouble in getting national candidate to say yes. From the response in this board, you actually think 80/20 shall ask for more? ps. I really shall send in my membership fee. After spending all these time propping up 80/20, I really shall put my money where my mouth is.
You've got two of the top three Democrat candidates signing, and the third expressing concerns about wording but committing to and endorsing its intent. I'd say they were pretty successful.
Why couldn't 80/20 just tell the president or candidates what the grievances are? What exactly are they trying to accomplish with the study?
It can be the first step to many remedies, and I guess increasing (self-)awareness can be one of them. pgap, some sort of googling will find you an answer on workplace discrimination against Asians. Here is one from 80-20's site:
I think most Asians are aware that there is discrimination in the workplace. So once again, what do these public hearings actually accomplish?
Yes, that is why I am so impressed with their accomplishment. All the national candidates had always been telling Asian American group about how they are committed and endorsing their cause. But they never do anything afterward. 80/20 tried to actually make they sign something tangible (even if it is something as insignificant as just doing a study). They started in 2000 and 2004. They would LOVE to get republican candidates to sign it. But I guess Mr. Obama and all other Republican candidates have the MO to say no to special interest group for "handouts". (I was be sarcastic in the last paragraph.)
Are most non-Asians (including non-Asian minorities) aware of that? Given what we've seen, I doubt you can speak for them, Bernie. Holding public hearings alone will accomplish little -- this we all agree. But that's where proposals, ideas, initiatives, or even policies can be put forth on table, and we can go from there. Seriously Bernie, I don't know about tie22fighter, but I am kinda tired of explaining the obvious to you over and over again. Workplace discrimination against Asians can't solved overnight, by any single initiative/policy/law. It takes concerned effort by many people, will probably go through many generations. By first addressing rather than turning a blind eye on these issues, you at least open up the possibility of solving them eventually.
Do you have any idea who these people are? If so, would you like to share? If not, how do you know "they" get upset when talking about homosexual civil rights as well?
