I'm so tired so these anti-diversity campaigns pretending to give a damn about asians...it happens on my campus all the time

perhaps you could tell us how to rebut these campaigns after your interview? =D

You wrote: "I don't personally have the Fox Business Network."

But then you wrote:  "knowing that the show is very right-winged"

HOW do you know that, if you don't get the FOX Business Network? Is this the kind of dishonestly and inconsistent argument you're going to use on the show? What if they said: "we've never met Ms. Poon, but we're assuming she's X, Y, and Z."  Sounds pretty bad doesn't it?

• 1) A LOT of people, right and left,  see this policy as a blatant attack on the Asian population at UC schools... you apparently disagree, which is absolutely FINE but you're going to have to defend that with something better than: "the neo cons are at it again." Explain how this is the wrong idea without reverting name calling please!
• 2) You accuse FOX Biz of using you as an "Asian face." You have to realize how terrible an accusation that is. They are being journalistically ethical and using common sense by trying to go to the source of the story. Rightly or wrongly, they see Asian students as being the target here, so they're going to ask an Asian student! Makes sense, no? I mean let me get this straight: if they DON'T have an Asian student or recent graduate as a guest, they're being exclusionary or risking not getting the real story and if they DO have an Asian student or recent former student as a guest, they're guilty of tokenism?!? I think you can agree that's an untenable position on your part and borderline hateful.
• This is all so disturbing to read from someone who claims to be an advocate AGAINST prejudice. I am disappointed, but not surprised. The Left and the Right have shown an equal propensity for prejudice.

Be Left or be Right if you like, but you HAVE to be intellectually sound in your arguments. If you descend into name-calling or emotional tirades, you will have proven the other guys right.

FOX has their own preconcived arguments and use their guests to reinforce their points.  If the guests don't agree, they get shouted down and ridiculed.  Anyone that has ever watched FOX news can see that

So yes, I do believe FOX is engaging in tokenism.

though i don't have fox business network on my tv, there is the internet, where I can view the stuart varney show there.

and trust... i have my facts and figures. so far everyone saying this new policy is anti-Asian has no statistical or researched evidence.

Geez "Frank Drebin" -- despite your rant, did you even bother to read spamfriedrice's blog? You chide spamfriedrice with "you HAVE to be intellectually sound in your arguments" but your arguments aren't even focused on hers. In other words, there's no clash just a generalized rant. That's not intellectually "sound", is it? 

Why don't you do a point-by-point takedown (if you can swing it)? If this is your first post on the blog, I don't think you're setting yourself up to be an oracle on anything.

How is it being "dishonest"  to not have Fox Business Network in your television cable programming, but to know that it is neo-conservative (as well as neoliberal) in it's coverage?

There's this thing called YouTube, where there's thousands of clips showing the obvious bias of this network.  If you prefer something more specific to the host of the show in question, here is a concise summary of Stuart Varney's past statements by media watch dog Media Matters documenting his political slant:

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/stuart_varney

But it could be argued that Media Matters is a liberal organization.  Many true conservatives have also spoken out against Fox News.

Traditional conservatives (Paleoconservative) believe in small limited government, states' rights, low spending, national sovereignty, and maximum personal freedom. 

A quick review of the Bush administration, with members self-identifying as Neo Conservatives quickly demonstrates the differences between Neo and Paleoconservatives:  Huge government intrusion and erosion of civil liberties in the name of security, depression inducing deficit spending on non-provoked wars non-threatening to the nation, etc.

The same is true on the left, with Neoliberalism and it's central tenants of: The rule of the market, Deregulation, Privatization, and cutting public expenditure for social services like education and health care as well as reducing the safety net for the poor.  In case folks haven't been paying attention - this was the Clinton administration as well as the current Obama administration. 

Neo Conservatives and Neo Liberals are one and the same.  I don't think that's clear to many progressives on this site, with the blind support that people give to the current administration simply because it's "not republican" or because the president is a person of color.  I have yet to hear from people who were openly critical of the Bush administration, do the same of the current one - when it pursues the exact same policies.

So I agree with you on one thing: "The Left and the Right have shown an equal propensity for prejudice."

Good luck Spam Fried Rice - I'm sure you'll educate Mr. Varney aka Mr. I-won't-go-see-certain-actors/actresses-because-they-insulted-my-president (Bush).

I would disagree with spamfriedrice's assessment of Fox News.

They're not neocon as so much as Fascist.  Fox Business Network, especially.

Also we need more people who understand what's really going on with Faux News to call them for what it is.  Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck in particular.  Fascists.

I oppose discrimination against Asian Americans, aka affirmative action.

I would be happy to publish a list of Bigots for the Left who would be willing to sacrifice their spaces or their children's spaces at colleges, professional schools, companies, etc. so that blacks and hispanics with lower test scores and grades could take their places.

So step up to the plate.

Don W. Joe
Asian American Politics
www.asianam.org

Dear koala,

Bigots for the Left run universities and favor affirmative action which reduces the number of Asian Americans in order to increase the number of blacks and hispanics.  Why don't they reduce the number of white liberals or Jews in order to increase the number of blacks and hispanics?  Because they are Bigots for the Left!

Bigots for the Left run universities.  How many Asian Americans are deans of engineering schools or medical schools?  None?  Why?  Because they are Bigots for the Left!

Bigots for the Left run Hollywood.  How many Asian American men have ever played doctors on television?  None?  You can count them on one hand?  Why?  Because they are Bigots for the Left!

Which state does Al Gore come from?  Did he win his state in 2000?  If he had won his state, what would have happened?  So why do Bigots for the Left say Bush stole the election?

So, koala, you can deal with the facts or you can hide behind your anonymity to call me names.  If you favor affirmative action, send me your name, and I'll list you as willing to give up your spot or your children's spot so that blacks or hispanics with lower grades and test scores can take your place.

Don W. Joe
Asian American Politics
www.asianam.org

Don, for the record, the deans for the of schools enginnering and management at my university are both Asian-American so perhaps you should do your reserch a little better

Wait a minute, Don Joe.

I just read your bio.  How is it that someone with your stature can espouse such dumb and racially insensitive comments?

Is this the kind of behavior befitting of the former president of the Dallas Asian American Bar Association?

In addition to my four questions, can you explain to me how this isn't an active application of affirmative action?

"He has filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against law firms which have poor records of hiring Asian-American attorneys, such as Rutan & Tucker of Costa Mesa, California.  At the time it had the worst record of employing Asian-American attorneys of any large California law firm, even though most of its clients were municipalities."

I mean, I would accuse you of being an imposter, but your rhetoric matches with that on your website.

Do you seriously think that test scores and high school grades are the only factors to success in an university setting?  Are you somehow under the impression that "blacks" and "hispanics" are unintelligent? Would you like to revise your statement?  

And for the record, I believe that diversity is important to a full and complete university experience.  If my kid can't get in (I already graduated), then my kid can't get in.  He or she will find success elsewhere.

You can put my name under any list you want.  Seriously, is this the caliber of analysis and world view that comes out of Columbia Law?

I'll even give you a $10 donation on your website.  Here, you got what you want.  I just did it right now.

What a disappointment.  I thought I would finally get a chance to debate a thoughtful conservative.

Conrad,

1. Do you agree with legacy admissions?

- Many Asian Americans have graduated from selective schools and legacy admissions now benefit their children.  I would prefer to replace affirmative action with a system based on low income/low net worth.  A poor kid with the same grades/test scores gets the preference, if any, which works against legacies, who tend to come from wealthier families.

2. Do you feel that a diverse environment will better contribute to a student's success in today's global environment?

- Hmmm, what does a “diverse environment” mean?  One system of admitting college students would be a random lottery.  That would result in a “diverse environment”.  Oh, but then a large number of those students would flunk out and be burdened with student loans.  One reason they started using SAT scores and grades is that they predicted pretty accurately the chances of graduating in 4 years.  I assume you mean you want a student body from different backgrounds.  So you could set minimum SAT scores and grades and then use a random lottery of those students.

- Hint.  It is illegal to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, disability, etc.  In the employment context, an employer must show a particular trait is necessary for the job (age, height, etc.).  It is illegal to discriminate against Asian Americans.  If an employer discriminates against Asian Americans, I complain about the employer.  If a university discriminates against Asian Americans by reducing the number of Asian Americans in order to admit more blacks and Hispanics with lower scores and grades, I complain about the university.  When states banned race in university admissions, the number of Asian Americans admitted soared.  This means Bigots for the Left were discriminating against Asian Americans.  I am not brainwashed by liberal ideology.  My website compiles all the studies showing Bigots for the Left are discriminating against Asian Americans. http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm

3. How do you define Asian Americans?

- Americans whose ancestors originated from an Asian country such as China, Japan, Korea, etc.  I don't see the relevance of this question.

4. How do you define equal opportunity for all Americans in the context of university admissions?

- I would replace affirmative action based on race with a system based on low income/low net worth.  A poor kid with the same grades/test scores as a richer kid, gets the preference, if any.  This would result in a surge of Vietnamese Americans being admitted.  There is no reason rich blacks and hispanics should receive affirmative action instead of a poor kid.  In a few years, whites will be the minority, so giving affirmative action to blacks and hispanics will be silly.

I'll even give you a $10 donation on your website.  Here, you got what you want.  I just did it right now.

- My comments never asked for a donation, so I am puzzled by your obsession with this feature of my website.

Don W. Joe
Asian American Politics
www.asianam.org

Don W. Joe, Esq.  Here are a couple rules that you will follow.

First, you will be aware that you are old enough to be my dad.  In addition, as an accomplished attorney and a senior member of our community, you will converse with me in a manner that is befitting of your stature and profession.  In return, I will accord you with the same respect I would fashion with a partner of a legal firm.  (Disclaimer: I am a Certified Paralegal and NOT an attorney.)

Second, you will not patronize me nor my colleagues by calling them "Bigots on the Left."  In choosing to use those words, you are openly engaging in hateful rhetoric to members of your own community.  There is a strong historical context to suggest that the use of such words in itself is discrimination.  It's dehumanizing.  Please do not engage in it.  Surely, you would not disrespect a client for his or her political viewpoints.  You will of course treat me as a client as I am now a paying contributor to your website.

Third, we will both admit to the fact that we are both secure in our beliefs that no "brainwashing" will happen.  I am a student of Thomas Payne and you are a student of Sir Edmund Burke.  I am as anti-forced pregnancy as you are pro-life.  Etc.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  I strongly suspect that I am not.

Fourth, we will both admit that both our preferred methods of admissions are not perfect solutions to a complex process.  This is one area where we both will not succumb to the effects of Occam's Razor.

Let me start off with responding to No. 3, "How do you define Asian Americans?"  The question is incredibly relevant and it pains me that you dismiss it so easily.  In fact, to address this, you will make a good faith effort to compile admissions data that actively disaggregates Asian Americans by including a breakdown of our community members.  You have already mentioned Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese Americans.  You will also provide statistics on Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian, Indian, and Hapa Americans and further breakdowns of the individual ethnicities that make up our community.  You may also include Pacific Islander Americans in this break down.  I hope my $10 donation will well contribute to this work.  To be more thorough, please include admissions statistics on the generational breakdowns of each community.  You may need more than $10 for this.  Let me know if you would like help.  I'll do my best to get more people engaged in this project.  It's a worthwhile one.  I promise you.

RE: "Do you agree with legacy admissions?"

You may also aware that many members of our community have not graduated from selective and highly competitive schools.  In fact, I think it's evident that this policy is severely discriminatory towards any student who have recent immigrants as parents.  It's quite un-American.

Everyone should have an equal footing in getting into an elite university.  I don't see how your father's and grandfather's successes determine how well one does in college.  You must be aware that President Bush, a product of legacy admissions, was an average student at Yale.  

Whereas, for example, Supreme Court Justice Nominee Sotomayor, a self-described poster baby for affirmative action, was a star student at Yale and President of the Yale Law Review.

These facts are indisputable.  Although, I can see how that's a pretty weak argument when I look at something like the Forbes Top 500 CEOs.  Many of them might be products of legacy admissions.  Then again, some of the top CEOs directly contributed to the current global depression.  Am I off-topic?  Sorry.  Please disregard.

Bringing the story back to Asian Ameriacns, you may claim that "20% of Harvard students" are Asian American.  It's a question of which Asian Americans are in that 20%.  How? and Why? Are we, as a community, really well represented in that 20%?  I don't know that answer (although I'm leaning "no.").  Please find out and publish your data on your website.  I think it would be an incredible asset and valued resource that liberal and conservative Asian Pacific Americans alike can make good use of.

By the way, what's your opinion of Harold Koh?

RE: Do you feel that a diverse environment will better contribute to a student's success in today's global environment?

By diverse, I mean the widest availability of experiences that's as close as possible to the definition of a true "melting-pot" of America.  I think Affirmative Action would be a better tool to guarantee this.  College is not all about getting good grades.  It's arguably the one time a student may exit their most likely segregated communities and interact with a new ethnically diverse community.  Let's not pretend that ethnicity and race isn't an issue in today's America--it still defines our experiences and world view.  You're obviously aware of this, otherwise, you wouldn't be running a website dedicated to equality and challenging discrimination.

One of the reasons President Obama cites as why he knows America could have better relations with Pakistan is because he had a Pakistani roommate during either Occidental or Columbia.

Don't you think that guaranteeing an experience like this for your children would make your childrens' childrens' world a better place to live?

RE: "How do you define equal opportunity for all Americans in the context of university admissions?"

Let's kind of agree that Affirmative Action isn't widely used in college admissions anymore.  At the least, it's under continuous attack by Mr. Ward Connerly and his anonymous and secretive campaign donors.  I'll reiterate a point I made in an earlier post that I don't think grades and SAT scores are the best indicators of a students' success in college.  If that was the case, college app essays wouldn't need to exist!  Experience matters.

Here's a scenario that incorporate some of my real life experiences and that which I use as a frame when I think about college admissions.

Student A is a second-generation Japanese American who refused to study in high school.  He did pretty okay, I guess.  His parents got him an SAT tutor and he scored barely a 1300 on the SATs.  I think he had a 3.8 GPA weighted.  He submitted a half-assed app at the last minute and got into the University of California, San Diego as a communications major.  He tried to be a cognitive science major because he was afraid a non-B.S. degree would mean that he'd be poor forever.  In his third year, he gave up and just became a History major.  He smoked weed all day and wrote 15 page papers in like 3 hours.  He was once a ranked player in Warcraft III.  He graduated UCSD with barely a 2.8 cumulative GPA.  Oh, btw, he never had to work a day in his life.

Student B is a Black American who had to work 40 hours a week to support his struggling family throughout high school.  He barely eeked a 3.0 GPA and miraculously scored a 1200 on his SATs.  He took on a bunch of student loans, went to a Junior College for a year, then transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles.  His grades were never too well as he still had to work 40 hours a week and by the 3rd year of college he was completely broke.  He took a year off and joined the military.  Served a successful tour and returned to UCLA.  Making the best of his combined life experience and tools that he learned in his Political Science Classes, he became a Student Regent to the all-powerful board of UC Regents.  He has been invited to work as a highly-compensated education consultant and is a proud parent to two beautiful children.

Conrad is still single, woops!

Although Student B was not a student of Affirmative Action, who was more successful?  Student A or B?  Who was more advantaged?  And was his advantage a good indicator of how well of a student Student A was?

This is my story.  What's yours?

EXTRA:

It's also my opinion that no student should have to pay for a quality education in America a scenario much complicated by the late Reagan administration.  (Notice that the UCs have "fees," but not "tuition?") I guess this makes me a socialist.  I really do think you and I should pay with high taxes for a better America for our children.  I think that's true patriotism.

Anyways, you have my $10 that I gave your website.  That's worth more than an hour of my part-time job at the local Taco Bell.  Please make good use of it.

Peace,

Conrad

What is “dehumanizing” about recognizing that there is bigotry on the left, just as there is on the right? 

How is it “hateful rhetoric” to have the opinion that there are “bigots on the left”, in positions of power in academia? Is it "hateful rhetoric" to have the opinion that there are “bigots on the right”, in positions of power in media like Neo-Cons at Fox News?

One should always be careful not to choose a side (left or right) and think the side one aligns him/herself with is infallible, "right" and above scrutiny.  Case in point - where is all the dissent from the “left” (who were vocal critics of the previous administration), when the current POTU$ continues and expands the same policies?

Ah, divine.  I don't really want to get into this cause I'm looking forward to what Don will say, but I'll address it anyways.

I agree with you that I should not blindly follow one political ideology.  I think we all need to have a critical understanding of our politics.  This is why I'm registered as a Republican and voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries.  I don't regret it at all.

Here is where you and I start disagreeing.  

I don't agree with your observation of the "left."  Where should I be looking to?  Dailykos? Rachel Maddow Show?  Congressional Democrats?

When you write POTU$, what exactly are you pointing to?  The deficit?  The trillions of money flowing into big banks through the Federal Reserve? Tax Deferrals?

Or are we talking about National Security Issues? We can have a frank discussion about FISA and the continued expansion of the Military Industrial-Congressional Complex.  We can also have a discussion about the continued abuses by the "black shirts" at Guantanamo Bay.

Or we can talk about how Obama's Supreme Court Nominee is a Pro-Business moderate.

Let's not even start with healthcare.  Or free trade.

I certainly didn't get this information from conservatives.  I think the information is pretty loud and clear.

At the same time, I think Obama's doing some great things.  And I don't think he's completely a puppet.

On dehumanizing someone.

If you call someone X, and X is to mean that someone is inferior or unintelligent (or perhaps evil)--then yes, it is dehumanizing.

Divinestyler, it's hateful rhetoric to call someone a Bigot or a Racist. Would you disagree?

Contrast this with calling out someone who practices bigotry or racism.

Having an opinion is fine.  Whatever. But, if you're going to express it.  Do it in a decent manner.

I brought it up in this post because I wanted to have a rational debate on Affirmative Action with Don.

I could have easily called Don a Racist of the Right.  But, I didn't.

Dehumanizing someone by calling them names when I don't even know them--look, it just doesn't have any place in rational discourse.

All in all, I take things in the spirit that it's intended.

I categorize the way Don used "Bigot of the Left" as hateful rhetoric.  

Anyways, here.  I'll give you a scenario of why "memes" like Bigots and Racists are bad.

Scott Roeder killed Dr. Tiller because he wanted to murder the "baby killer."

Now, would Scott Roeder have killed Dr. Tiller if he the meme stuck with Roeder was "Dr. Tiller who decided to go into his field of performing abortions because he learned of a woman who died from an illegal abortion?"

How about "Dr. Tiller who often performed late term abortions for fetuses with severe and fatal birth defects?"

There are consequences to afflicting "memes" onto people.

We can even prove this scientifically.  You point to a photograph and tell someone that this person is a bigot over and over again.

Places called the putamen and the insula in the sub-cortex of the brain will eventually light up like crazy.

The putamen is a part of motor system of the brain--a critical component for a person to "take action."

Do the math.  I may not always practice what I preach.  I'm also an asshole.

But I damn well know how powerful words can be.  Just ask Frank Luntz.

Jesus, that looks ugly.

I’m not sure what you inferred with my “observations of the left”.  I didn’t elaborate much except to say earlier in the thread that neo-liberalism is a departure from liberalism, just as neo-cons are different than Paleoconservatives.  Are you perhaps reading a little too much into my comments?  Dailykos and Rachel Maddow Show?  Uh, say whut?

I just didn’t interpret Don writing “bigots of the left” as dehumanizing.  Sorry.  It’s not that I agree/disagree/side with him or you, it’s just a matter of fact that there are bigots throughout the entire political spectrum.   You obviously read it differently, it sounds like you feel he directed that at you personally.  Anyway, no beef - I’m not interested in arguing about this.

Divine, I don't really want to argue with you either.

But, I do feel obligated to point out a couple things.  I wanted to respond to your example that the "left" isn't criticizing Obama.  I don't see any evidence of this.  I think the "left" is being extremely vocal about their criticisms of our current President.  Dailykos and the Rachel Maddow program are examples of this.

Don J. Wu (if you had followed this thread Divine) challenged me in the following manner:  "If you stand for affirmative action, then give me your name so I can identify you as a "Bigot for the Left" on my website."  I don't know about you, but I don't like to be identified as a "Bigot."  I don't consider myself to be one, nor do I consider you to be one, Divine. I mean, do you think that it is okay that my whole existence be crunched down to the single word of "Bigot?"  And just because I'm a firm believer in equal opportunity?  Fuck that.  That's kind of the issue here.  

Sooo my encounter with Don is actually quite personal.  And Conrad being pointed out as a "Bigot" to what I can only assume are people who believe in not only gun ownership, but gun-point diplomacy--wouldn't you be wise to feel somewhat nervous?  With the display of my full name, nonetheless?  Call me stupid for actually responding to that kind of thing with Don, that's understandable.  Still, I have some skin in this game here.

On your thesis that there are bigots throughout the political spectrum.  I just gotta ask you. Do you really think the Huffington Post is a moral equivalent to something like the Stormfront?  At the least, enlighten me with an example of a "bigot" on the left and give me an example of an equal "bigot" on the right.

Or you don't really have to, Divine.

But I do want to point out that your description of Neoliberalism is somewhat misleading (your description of Neoconservative as well).  I mean, I consider Paul Krugman to be a neoliberal for his unabashed support for free trade.

All stuff that should rightfully belong to in probably its own post and not a discussion thread.

Koala, with this being a personal issue you have with Don and no response from him – I’m not sure if you’re trying to debate with me instead?  Not that I mind arguing, but it feels like you’re looking for someone to argue with and I’m the only one replying.

We could get into it on all the stuff you wrote; the degree of the left’s criticism of Obama (this site itself is conspicuously bereft of such a voice), whether the Huffington Post is the moral equivalent of Storm Front (is this a real question?), examples of bigots on the right and left (hmm, Stalin & Hitler), or “somewhat misleading” descriptions of neo liberalism/conservatism (it’s nice that you consider Krugman to be a neo liberal – not clear how that helps to clarify). But it’s rather pointless, no?  

Let’s talk about the unilateral bombing of Pakistan and killing innocent Pakistani women and children, the ever expanding hawkish rhetoric on Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.  Let’s discuss all the political coups happening all over the world, and consider our own disputed elections.  While we’re on it, perhaps we should rap about how we’re facing possibly the greatest economic collapse in history, with the threat of hyperinflation from all the issuance of debt for these so-called stimulus programs.  We are being turned into serfs, while we bicker over false divides.  Let’s not.  Again, I have no disagreement with you Koala – let’s move onward, with what unites us.

Conrad,

The original subject of this page is the University of California changing its admission criteria by dropping certain SAT subject matter tests.  UC studied the effect of the change and concluded the number of Asian Americans admitted would drop while the number of whites would increase.  Arguing this would bring more “diversity” to UC campuses, the UC regents (Bigots for the Left) voted for the change.  We should oppose any and all discrimination against Asian Americans, no matter who perpetrates it, and I have named the UC regents to my website’s Hall of Shame.  http://www.asianam.org/regents_of_u__of_california.htm   All of the Asian Americans in the Calif legislature have opposed the change as discrimination against Asian Americans.

The evidence is overwhelming Bigots for the Left who run universities are discriminating against Asian Americans.  When certain states banned the use of race in university admissions, the number of Asian Americans admitted soared.  This means Bigots for the Left were discriminating against Asian Americans.  My website compiles the studies showing Bigots for the Left are discriminating against Asian Americans. http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm

You do not deny Bigots for the Left are discriminating against Asian Americans and do not offer any contrary evidence.  You merely order me to conduct a study showing that such discrimination helps Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian, Indian, and Hapa Americans.  There is no evidence that discrimination against Asian Americans helps these sub-groups.  These sub-groups comprise 23.5% of the Asian American population.  (The Census Department has no category for Hapa Americans.)  In any case, I fail to see the logic.  “We want to discriminate against 75% of Asian Americans in order to help 25% of them.” does not  make sense to me.  Using poverty instead of race to decide who receives preferences will help poor Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodian Asian Americans.  Indian Americans’ income levels are high and rival that of Chinese and Japanese Americans.

You argue a diverse student body will contribute to a student's success and say Obama had a Pakistani roommate.  This implies the roommate was from Pakistan and not an American with Pakistani parents.  There are 195 countries in the world.  Your argument implies colleges should admit more foreign students, but the primary purpose of American universities is to educate Americans.

As I have written previously, what does a “diverse environment” mean?  One system of admitting college students would be a random lottery.  That would result in a “diverse environment”.  Oh, but then a large number of those students would flunk out and be burdened with student loans.  One reason they started using SAT scores and grades is that they predicted pretty accurately the chances of graduating in 4 years.  I assume you mean you want a student body from different backgrounds.  So you could set minimum SAT scores and grades and then use a random lottery of those students.

One of the great things about my college education was the intellectual stimulation I received from my classmates, most of whom were as intelligent or more intelligent than I was.  One of my freshman roommates was a black student from Ohio who wanted to become a doctor.  He dropped out after receiving his first semester’s grades.  The last I heard from him, he called me to borrow some money.

You write: “I don't think grades and SAT scores are the best indicators of a students' success in college.  If that was the case, college app essays wouldn't need to exist! Experience matters.”  Once upon a time, there were no computers.  Students had to use pens to write essays or solve math problems in order to apply to college.  These essays were laboriously graded manually and assigned scores.  They found that the high scorers did well in college.  Mankind strives to find efficient ways of doing things.  Social scientists developed multiple choice tests which could be graded much faster by machines.  They refined the tests so that the high scorers on essays also scored high on the multiple choice tests and the low scorers on essays also scored low on the multiple choice tests.  They refined the tests so that a high score indicated a high probability the student would graduate in 4 years and do well.  They called it the Scholastic Aptitude Test.  Similarly, a high credit score predicts a person will repay his debts.  An algorithm predicts the first search result on Google is what we are looking for.  No guarantee but a prediction with 70% accuracy can beat Vegas.

In addition, grades and test scores have practical significance.  If an engineer does not design the structure correctly, the bridge or building collapses.  If the pharmacist and doctor do not know their biochemistry precisely, the multiple drugs the patient takes will interact and kill him.  If the chemist does not know his science well, he can’t invent that lightweight plastic with the strength of steel.  If the biologist does not know his science well, he can’t invent the new seed which will feed millions of poor people.  If the computer scientist does not know his software code, the videogames will suck and the mobile phones won’t work.  If business people don’t know how to calculate risk, they make subprime loans to borrowers who can’t afford them (many blacks and Hispanics) and their businesses and the borrowers go bankrupt.

You object to the term "Bigot for the Left".  I first heard it in Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall”.  I believe he dismissed some fact or source and referred to himself as a "Bigot for the Left".

As I wrote previously, liberals run universities and favor affirmative action which reduces the number of Asian Americans in order to increase the number of blacks and hispanics.  Why don't they reduce the number of white liberals or Jews in order to increase the number of blacks and hispanics?  Because they are Bigots for the Left!

Liberals run universities.  How many Asian Americans are deans of engineering schools or medical schools?  Very, very few compared to the number of Asian American engineering and medical students.  Why?  Because liberals are Bigots for the Left!

Liberals run Hollywood.  How many Asian American men have ever played doctors on television?  None?  You can count them on one hand?  They cast an Asian American man as a nurse on “E.R.”  Why?  Because they are Bigots for the Left!

Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson are liberals.  They locked up Wen Ho Lee in shackles and in solitary confinement to coerce a confession from him.  Why?  Because they are Bigots for the Left!  The judge who apologized to Dr. Lee is a Republican.

In light of the above, I submit Bigot for the Left is an accurate term.

Don W. Joe
Asian American Politics
www.asianam.org

Don,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I freely admit that your post made me think and that I concede on a couple points that you make.

I have to say though, that it's rather surprising that your posts were specifically directed towards the new UC admissions policy.  I thought you were on a crusade to identify as many affirmative action supporters as possible to bolster your website's hatorade credentials.  If that's the case, you should definitely check out spamfriedrice's posts here.  It will give you a new perspective that the API Legislative Caucus's numbers don't really matter much in a practical sense.  Also, you're conflating "affirmative action," which was expressly prohibited after the passage of Prop 209 in 1996, with the Regent's recent admissions policy changes.  As a lawyer, you should be aware that these two are not the same.  If anything, you should at least connect the two together and make an intial argument that this is the case; the UC Regent's new policies are a workaround for getting around Prop 209.

I also have to say that "Bigots for the Left" don't run the UC system.  All evidence will show that the UC Regents have progressively moved towards the right since the creation of the Board of the UC Regents.  If the UC Regents were truly "Bigots for the Left"--that'd actually be great news for prospective college students throughout the United States.  Quality education in the state of California would be free, if not super cheap.  It'd actually be fantastic.  Strong socialized education is a must for a healthy nation.  Considering that you seem to be a strong proponent of the public university system, I think you would agree with me that all this talk about affirmative action is really secondary to the biggest barrier to higher education in this country: affordability.

Here's a link to an editorial you might want to check out that sums the changes up pretty well.

The new admissions policy looks like it will increase competition.  If that lowers the numbers of admitted East Asian Americans, but provides an easier barrier of entry for non-East Asian Americans, then.  I'm okay with that.

Although, the way it was explained to me from a student regent was that it just sets in stone what's been practiced unofficially for years.

UCI Campus Newspaper editorial.

Conrad,

Old fashioned racists discriminate against Asian Americans and I fight that.  Bigots for the Left pretend to be friends/allies of Asian Americans but discriminate against Asian Americans and I fight that also.  Affirmative action is one way Bigots for the Left discriminate against Asian Americans.

“If I ran a national public university, if minority Asian Americans consist of 23.5% of Asian Americans, then I want those 23.5% represented in my graduation class of the year that Census was taken.”
- Sorry, quotas are illegal.

I'm not going to address your fantasy of the history of SATs and SATs administration.  As I said, look up Carl Brigham.
- Whatever people used the SAT for is irrelevant.  Many studies show that the higher the SAT score, the higher the chance the student graduates in 4 years or the higher the chance the student does well the first year.  Credit scores predict whether people repay their bills.

I agree with you that grades and test scores are practical.  Except, I disagree with your real world analogies. 
- Well, I suggest you run a factory and see how many defects are acceptable in your products before your business goes bankrupt.

To call Bankers stupid is absolutely ludicrous and insane.  Wallstreet was the one who was bailed out by the Obama Administration.  You and I both agree that Wallstreet bankers engaged in massive corporate fraud against the American people.
- People who took inordinate risks which caused their businesses to go bust are stupid.  I disagree there was massive corporate fraud against the American people: no one forced thousands of Americans to take out mortgages they could not afford.

I will submit to you that the center right Obama Administration sold the American people out.
- Actually, both the Bush and Obama administration did what was necessary to keep the banking system operating.  Without a banking system, capitalism cannot work.

Racists for the Right run our multi-national corporations.  How many Asian Americans are in the Forbes Top 500?
- Chief executive officers are more likely to be Republican but like the general population, they are not all racist.  There are many minority executives and we do need more Asian Americans.  The Forbes Top 500 lists the richest individuals who are not necessarily corporate executives.  Actually there are many Asian billionaires in the world.

Racists for the Right are billionare bankers on Wallstrees.  Ditto.
- Actually many Asian Americans work on Wall Street.

Asian Americans aren't very well represented in media except for efforts to dehumanize Asian Males and hypersexualize Asian Women.  Why is this?  Not the "Bigots for the Left," but the Racists on the Right!
- Wrong.  The media is run by liberal Democrats who produce, direct, write and cast the shows.

Racists for the Right run universities.  Of course, there are not that many Asian American deans of engineering or medical schools.  We are all aware of the Racists on the Right tactics of placing a glass ceiling.
- Wrong.  Universities are run by liberal Democrats who do not hire Asian Americans.

Example: All Neocons support Guantanamo Bay and the shackling and torturing of innocent people of color who's only crimes were to piss off some bounty hunters willing to make a quick buck.
- Actually a large majority of the American public opposes the closing of Guantanamo Bay and opposes the relocation of detainees to American prisons.

It appears you ignore facts in order to worship at the church of liberal ideology.  That is fine but don’t pretend liberals are always Asian Americans’ friends.

Don W. Joe
Asian American Politics
www.asianam.org

Don,

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.  I think this is where we part ways.  I think we can both agree that no "brainwashing" took place on either part.  I'm also glad that there are parts where we agreed.  I take the parts you didn't comment on as silent agreement (or perhaps you just weren't bothered to research what I was talking about)--correct me if I'm wrong.

Your numbers show that the numbers of Asian Americans at the UCs will decline if Affirmative Action is implemented.  Here is a link to a counter argument.  These numbers show that Affirmative Action increases the number of Asian Americans admitted, granted these numbers are from a non-UC.  Mark Twain famously said "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."  I might want to point out as a side note that for a person who is thoughtful enough to point out that the use of quotas are illegal, you're a person who's keenly persistent on arguing around the numbers of Asian Americans in the UC system.

It comes down to this.  Progressives believe in the equal access to the commons of our society: our education, our roads, our healthcare, our protection, our water, our environment, etc.  This is what I am.  This is what you call Bigots for the Left.

Conservatives believe in the accumulation of wealth, losers be damned.  I believe you to be a conservative.  This is pretty evident in your repeated disdain for the poor: lack of a fair shot =lottery system, reason for the mortgage crisis = the poor (code: "hispanics and blacks"), emphasis on 75% of Asian Americans over the less affluent 25%, beggars of money = poor (code: black roommate), and etc. 

In fact, I would go as far as to submit to you that your adoption of Ward Connerly's code word "racial discrimination" is a convenient disguise to conceal an inherently discriminatory and unequal playing field that favors the rich (code word: Asian Americans) over the poor (code words: hispanics and blacks).  You are forced to rely on these code words to insinuate your points because your primary audience has been one who is easily swayed by knee jerk reactionary words (racial discrimination, Bigots for the Left).  People with at least a university degree see through shit like this, and thus, these are the people who are more likely to vote Democrat as proven in the last election cycle.  

Even your tactic of insisting that I "ignore the facts" is classic conservative talk show host rhetoric.  Here's a snapshot of today's reality: "facts" and "studies" are manufactured.  A huge majority of the "facts" that get circulated in the media are manufactured by extremely well funded conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institution, and the all powerful Chamber of Commerce.  The same funds are disproportionally distributed to Mass Media.  This link will show you the results.

I'll add that your website is littered with "facts" and "studies" manufactured by these think tanks that are aligned with your conservative world view.

In light of this, it's actually prudent for someone seeking truth to ignore today's "facts."  It's an exercise that requires critical thinking, something that is widely devoid in the constructions of your arguments.  You make assertions, but are too chicken shit to educate your audience on the "why." I admit that I'm also somewhat of a hypocrite in this sense, but for you, this is inexcusable.  You actively market the fact that you are an accomplished attorney.  Yet, you didn't name me a single court decision in the hundreds of words you typed up.  You routinely exercise the practice of selective emphasis to score cheap shots.  (Did you literally mean racist?;"our" multi-national corporations? I present you "Asian" billionaires; top bankers were bailed out and made off with a lot of money but they were so stupid because they managed to bankrupt their companies; capitalism and hyper-capitalism is the same thing, duh; etc.)  

I donated $10 to your political PAC, at the least, I feel I am entitled to the "whys."

In closing, there is nothing more ironic than putting "liberal" and "church" together.  If you are accusing me of being a worshipper then I freely admit that I worship this phrase: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If there is anyone following this thread, I recommend you read the Powell Memo of 1971 (Confidential Memorandum: Attack of American Free Enterprise System authored by Lewis F. Powell, Jr.). 

All of Don W. Joe, Esq.'s assertions are rooted in the action agendas contained in this memo.

Mahalo, Don.  This was fun.

Don,

Just curious about something.  You wrote:

People who took inordinate risks which caused their businesses to go bust are stupid.  I disagree there was massive corporate fraud against the American people: no one forced thousands of Americans to take out mortgages they could not afford.

You then went on to write:

Actually, both the Bush and Obama administration did what was necessary to keep the banking system operating.  Without a banking system, capitalism cannot work.

Didn’t the banks take inordinate risks, which caused their businesses to go bust?  What do you think about the curious involvement of several former Goldman Sachs executives, with all the key decisions and secret management of the bailout money?   What do you think about the ludicrous bonuses these companies are awarding their executives, on our dime?   

It’s much worse than massive corporate fraud, the entire system is a ponzi scheme and the deck is now collapsing.

Arguing amongst ourselves on disagreements of entitlement privileges is a waste of much needed scrutiny.  Where is the outrage on what is going on?

divinestyler

Didn’t the banks take inordinate risks, which caused their businesses to go bust?  
- yes, some did.  Others managed the risk better and are relatively well and have repaid TARP funds.

What do you think about the curious involvement of several former Goldman Sachs executives, with all the key decisions and secret management of the bailout money?   
- Henry Paulson was chairman of Goldman Sachs and was Treasury Secretary when the housing bubble burst.  I would not be surprised if other Goldman Sachs employees worked at Treasury or other government agencies.  Government agencies need people who understand derivatives and complex financial instruments.  These former Goldman Sachs employees who became government employees do not operate autonomously; they report to supervisors in a hierarchy who ultimately answer to the president.  As for the secrecy, that is common when closing or restructuring banks or other financial institutions because they do not want to cause panics and runs on banks which would cause more damage.  For over 60 years, the FDIC has operated in secret before closing banks.

What do you think about the ludicrous bonuses these companies are awarding their executives, on our dime?  
- By “ludicrous” you may mean “I make $20,000 and that bozo made a bonus of $2 million.”  $2 million is okay if the employee made $20 million for the company, but ludicrous is the company lost money.  Actors and athletes make ludicrous bonuses but it is okay because the company or team made much more due to their efforts.
- Salespeople, such as real estate agents, earn some or all of their pay from commissions based on performance.  Real estate agents commonly earn 6% of the sales price. (There should be more competition in that industry and the commission rate should be lower but real estate agents sue to ban discount brokers which could lower commissions).  Bonuses based on performance can be part of a well designed compensation system. 
- If the bonus is not based on performance, then the bonus is “ludicrous”.  If the bonus exceeds a reasonable percentage of the revenue or profits generated, then the bonus is “ludicrous”. 
- If companies did not have bonuses,  they would have to pay higher salaries to attract and keep employees.  Paying a high salary for mediocre performance is also objectionable; just ask any sports fan about particular athletes.
- If a company does not pay competitive compensation, employees leave for another company which will pay them more.
- It is recognized that the compensation system at American corporations should be reformed.  Forbes and other financial publications publish articles on which executives are overpaid or underpaid, based on the performance of the company's stock.  Shareholders should have more say on approving or denying compensation packages.  

It’s much worse than massive corporate fraud, the entire system is a ponzi scheme and the deck is now collapsing.
- a ponzi scheme refers to collecting money, not investing it, claiming a high return, and paying some money to initial investors to “prove” a high return, which is what Madoff did.  By “the entire system,” I assume you are referring to the housing bubble.  It does not meet the definition of a ponzi scheme because houses were built so an actual investment was made.  The houses were overvalued by artificial demand.
- The Social Security system meets the definition of a ponzi scheme.  Politicians tax young workers, promise them Social Security will be there when they retire, then pays the funds to retired workers.  There is no guarantee there will be enough young workers in the future to pay the current workers when the latter retire.
- The U.S. did suffer through a real estate bubble during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.  The current crisis was made worse through the use of derivatives such as credit default swaps in which companies bet on the creditworthiness of other companies.  When the bets went against them, they did not enough cash to pay (there was excessive leverage).

Arguing amongst ourselves on disagreements of entitlement privileges is a waste of much needed scrutiny.  Where is the outrage on what is going on?
- It is more than “disagreements of entitlement privileges”.  People should not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc. and they (old fashioned bigots and new Bigots for the Left) should not discriminate against Asian Americans.  It is particularly upsetting to me that associations such as apaforprogress actually support discrimination against Asian Americans.
- I join your outrage at the bursting of the housing bubble.  $170 billion to bail out AIG!  As I say on my website, the directors and officers and particularly the risk managers of AIG should be sued and tarred and feathered.

Don W. Joe
Asian American Politics
www.asianam.org

People sometimes refer to Goldman Sachs as “Government Sachs” because so many of its former employees wind up in high positions in Washington.  The number of former Goldman Sachs senior executives connected to the largest taxpayer bailout ever in history cannot be simply explained by:

Government agencies need people who understand derivatives and complex financial instruments.  These former Goldman Sachs employees who became government employees do not operate autonomously; they report to supervisors in a hierarchy who ultimately answer to the president. 

As for the secrecy, that is common when closing or restructuring banks or other financial institutions because they do not want to cause panics and runs on banks which would cause more damage.  For over 60 years, the FDIC has operated in secret before closing banks.

This is a treasury talking point and I’m surprised this is your position.  Taxpayer money, but no involvement in deciding where it is distributed, no transparency who is receiving it, no accountability on how it is being spent, and everything done in secret.  Just because they say this is why, doesn’t make it so.  Consider Cheney and Haliburton.  People need to stop being this naïve and foolish and follow the money.

You rightly expressed your outrage on AIG and you correctly identified the 170 billion figure, rather than the measley 165 million for the bonuses.  We were told if AIG wasn’t saved, there would be a total market meltdown.  The reality is, it was Goldman Sachs and other banks who received the AIG counter party payments that were saved.  Not only did the taxpayer get screwed in order to bailout Goldman, they used the AIG money (AIG counter party payments) to pay back TARP (so they could pay bonuses without government and public scrutiny). Because of this sleight of hand, they're considered healthy and have found the (taxpayer) money to pay historic bonuses to their employees.

All the bailout amount to, is the government propping up insolvent institutions that have bet on failing derivatives that they created themselves. 

By “ludicrous” you may mean “I make $20,000 and that bozo made a bonus of $2 million.” 

No – I meant that it is ludicrous that there is any bailout for any company at all, let alone using bailout money to pay bonuses.  If these companies were solvent and paying their executives millions in bonuses, on their own dime – that is their perogative and one way they remain competitive in a free market.  This bailout is not function of the free market, it is direct market manipulation which rewards certain companies for their failures, while punishing businesses that were successful, who would’ve otherwise capitalized on these failures.

A ponzi scheme refers to collecting money, not investing it, claiming a high return, and paying some money to initial investors to “prove” a high return, which is what Madoff did.  By “the entire system,” I assume you are referring to the housing bubble. 

With “entire system,” I meant the entire fractional reserve banking system, which is much larger than just the housing bubble.  But I agree that social security system is also a ponzi scheme as well.

It is more than “disagreements of entitlement privileges”.  People should not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc. and they (old fashioned bigots and new Bigots for the Left) should not discriminate against Asian Americans.  It is particularly upsetting to me that associations such as apaforprogress actually support discrimination against Asian Americans.

I understand your frustrations and respect your opinions, just as I do Conrad’s.  That being said, (in my humble opinion) arguing over this while we are engaged in multiple wars, we teeter on the brink of economic collapse and have the military deployed (in violation of Posse Comitatus) within the US for purposes of “civil unrest and crowd control,” is analogous to rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.

meet the definition of a ponzi scheme because houses were built so an actual investment was made. The houses were overvalued by artificial demand. - The Social Security system meets the definition of a ponzi scheme. Politicians tax young workers, promise them Social Security will be there when they retire, then pays the funds to retired workers. There is no guarantee there will be enough young workers in the future to pay the current workers when the latter retire. - The U.S. did suffer through a real estate bubble during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The current crisis was made worse through the use of derivatives such as credit default swaps in which companies bet on the creditworthiness of other companies. When the bets went against them, they did not enough cash to pay (there was excessive leverage). desktop publishing designs | web design company

Your posting is very good and theme base for which it is liking to every people. Thanks a lot!!!

flash navigation designs | flash intros designs