Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part VII

This is the seventh and last part of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

If we take a look at the bigger picture of the Chinese community (and maybe, to some extent, the American society as a whole), my experience with AM 1300 (KAZN) is indicative.

First, people are weak, especially those working in the media. They are well-educated, i.e., highly degreed by the educational system, and think that they are supposed to be the winner in the world, making top dollars. The fact that they are actually making bottom dollars (for those working for KAZN, they make less than those working in the fast food chains) makes them think that the society is unfair. Their political ideology is for the government to set up laws and regulations to force employers to pay them "fairly." In the meantime, they would not take the trouble to fight for better treatment, as they would neither make any requests to the management, nor form unions, nor stand up to the station's abuses.

In time, the overwhelming majority of the employees are those who could sustain the station’s abuse. I found out that these are a special type of people. They are smart people. Once upon their lives, they had dreams. However, they are too weak, or too devious, to take any action to make the station a habitable place.

In the meantime, the community at large understands better the difference between being smart and getting paid for it, i.e., the value of risk-taking. Inside an organization, when you fight for the fair treatment, it is risk taking, as you may lose your job. Of course, forming ones' own company is another type of risk-taking. Risk taking typically brings higher remuneration is just a showing of reasonable market, which award improvements, or services to the consumers by doing things in a better way. At a foundamental level, rewarding risk-taking is simply a part of market mechanism to reward those who provide more services to others (customers), as reasonable market set people's earning by the market value that he or she could produce. For market, providing unneeded services (by highly degreed people) and getting paid are contradictions.

As I found out, those who stays in the station long term do not recognize that fact. They are too quick to admit that the ration is their only job possibility. When their English are sufficient to communicate, they almost uniformly admit that their English would allow them to find a job elsewhere. Since the station is the only choice for them, they don’t want to do anything themselves to risk that job. The problem is that they are all smart people. They know that they are being short-changed, but they want someone else to change that situation for them. That someone else inevitably becomes the government, as today’s politicians peddle the classical Marxist class-struggle theories to them to great effect. The result is layers after layers of revengeful regulations burdening the corporations, reducing opportunities to all except those who are a part of the burdening effort. Just like drug addicts, when things are going worse and worse to them, they want politicians to be more revengeful and lay on more regulations to the evil corporations.

In our age, these are the people who inform us what happened in the world. I live in Los Angeles, and have been interviewed by The Los Angeles Times about SCA-5 (the law intended to change the California Constitution so the universities could discriminate the Chinese, among others), but when the article came out, my side of views was not presented. The paper made an appearance of reporting different sides of views, but in fact, at least to me, it reported the same side, the side that supports the discrimination. After I was fired by the station, I wrote down the event and send the article to The Los Angeles Times reporter, who did not even bother to acknowledge my email.

Once, when I was still working in New York, I talked to the managing editor of The New York Times. He said that the paper only hired reporters with more than five years' experience with a comparible newspaper, because the paper relied on the reporters for the selection of the topics to write about. Then, the problem of the bias, for The New York Times, AM 1300, and the like, comes from the fact that the hiring managers typically choose those similarly minded. Those who write positive stories about the market rewarding mechanism of risk-taking probably would offend these people, or to be more precisely, runs afoul with their denial of the benefit of risk-taking and their lack of strength to take risks.

For people outside these so-called intellectual cocoons, such as newspapers and universities, America is a great country because it permits the entrepreneurial spirit, not because the big government forces employers to pay people by their status (college degrees or whatever else) other than the contribution to the business (for the uninitiated, that means services that the customers would pay for). If the employer refuses to pay its employee his market, the employee could simply find a different employer or establish his own company to compete with his former ineffective employer.

For the smart people who refuse to take any risks, the question is why should the society reward them with higher pay, as the duty of the management is to maximize the profitability for the owners. Of course, the employees have their entire denial mechanism to deny any possibility for them to confront that question. Once the denial mechanism is up and running, they use the same mechanism to handle all contradictions in their lives.

For those who work for The New York Times, at least, they have more opportunities open for them. For those working in the Chinese language media, the vast English language businesses are not available to them. So the media outlets could build an isolated island of low pay. One of the first thing I learned after working for the Chinese-language media is that all media outlets treat the employees the same way. Worse, the Chinese-language media live in an environment that many eye balls are taken away by government propaganda (either the Chinese government in their grand overseas propaganda effort or the U.S. government in the Voice of America). Also, the most popular newspaper and radio station are linked to Taiwan. The situation is so bad that I once heard that the Voice of America commented that all Chinese-language media in the U.S. belong to the Chinese government’s overseas propaganda machine. Although that comment is extreme, there is no denial that the Chinese government is putting in a lot of dollars to make sure that the Chinese-language media here do not become the originator of negative content against the Chinese government, as AM 1300 has many joint project with China with questionable financial deals. In this confused environment, it is almost impossible for anyone to launch an independent media operation without serious financial backers (although the market itself, being a wasteland with high-income consumers, is a lucrative one).

Under this type of environment, the Chinese immigrants are separated into two groups. Those who understand English well consume little Chinese media, like me before and after the period when I hosted the program. There is no cultural preservation effort here at all. For those who rely on the Chinese-language media, they are poorly served. The result is that 80% of the Chinese voted for Obama in 2012, making the Chinese community irrelevant to American's political process as the Republicans see no hope of getting any vote from the Chinese, and the Democrats don't see why they should mess with something this good.

I have been critical of the Chinese government. The station stood up to the pressure to fire me, although it might have come close at one point. What became totally unexpected by me was that, after I arranged an interview with Jack Orswell, who was running against Judy Chu for representing the California 27th district, the station first published a notice banning any type of interview to any political candidate, and then fired me after I refused to cancel the interview. Is informing voters that evil?

I live in a place where people work hard and are comparitively wealthy. It is clearly evident to those who care to take a random drive through the Chinese communities east of the downtown Los Angles, where the nicest buildings are occupied by small businesses, rather than large corporations and government offices, like many other areas of the country. Yet, the political system, the media, and the educational system, betray these hard-working people, for their own vested interests.

After working for the radio station for four years, I picked up a strong sense of wasteland. Only for me, May is the cruellest month.

Hearing that I was fired, one listener commented that he has expected this to come for some time now, as he did not think that people like me have a chance to last long.

In any case, I think that I've had a good run. The four-year radio career gave me a clear sense of the community that I live in. For that, I am grateful.

Also, someone said that life is about putting out a record. With some 200 programs, all available at YouTube, I have expressed my thought about the U.S., China, and the world.

Now, after the career of talk show host, I finally have the opportunity to pick up painting.

Old soldiers never die. They just fade away.

Finally, I want to thank everyone who have read this far.

(End of the series)

First published on August 19, 2016

Contact information:

Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng

Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/

Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part VI

This is the sixth part of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

From the time of Mao Zedong’s death, China went through a period of liberalization under Mao’s appointed successor Hua Guofeng, who loosened the speech control somewhat. There was, at that time, a public outcry, permitted by Hua, to get Deng, who was purged by Mao, to work again. The movement was led by the young people, Wei Jingsheng, who would soon be arrested by Deng.

The Hua-Deng liberalization, which is known in China as “reform and open,” was largely releasing the power to the provinces, by allowing the provinces to collect the taxes and spend much of it. The reform lasted till 1989, when Deng called in tanks and troops to suppress the student movement in Tiananmen Square and Zhao Ziyang, his hand-picked manager. From that time on, the security of the Communist rule, rather than the economic liberalization, becomes Deng’s number one issue.

In 1993, Zhu Rongji, then the Premier, worked to take back the power of taxation to the central government. The new tax law was implemented in 1994, when the power moved from the provinces to Beijing. Since that point on, the so-called state-owned enterprises (SOEs) begin to dominate the Chinese economy because it has the government power at its disposal.

At one point, the state run oil companies were not interested in gas stations. However, when they changed their mind later on, they simply have the government issue an order to ask all private gas stations in profitable locations to close their doors.

In a short period, with the government power, in the supply chains of almost all products in China, there would be SOEs that use their monopoly power to set the prices. Therefore, these SOEs are highly profitable. With the SOEs, a stratum of the population becomes rich.

With the 1989 massacre of students by Deng and the subsequent re-centralization by Zhu, the liberalization of the early period of the reform disappeared. Most significantly, the free speech in colleges was no longer allowed.

As children were forced to recite Party nonsense from kindergarten, they developed an underground language, which was represented in Guo Jingming’s novels, and mainly consist a lifestyle full of foreign luxury brand with vain talking, known by the title of one of Guo’s novel Small Epoch (translated in China as Tiny Times). Therefore, for today Chinese youth, who grow up since 1989, their minds are full of the Party doctrines and the vain Small Epoch thinking.

The damage to the children by forcing them into this double thinking is tremendous. One has to have personal relation with some of the Chinese youth to truly feel the impact. Although it is quite possible to see this in those who came to the U.S., the true impact could only be felt inside China.

As monopoly goes, this type of mind-control only steps up, with each generation of the Beijing regime. As the brainwashing was strengthened since 2012 by the present ruler, so have self-contradictions. To prop up the Party’s image, the Chinese newspapers reach out to report stories such as married couples spend their wedding night coping the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, absolutely ridiculous things are reported in China with a straight face. Any publications that are not tightly under the control of the Party’s apparatus, such as 炎黄春秋, or Sprint and Falls of China, which is a magazine run by retired Party officials to record the past, was forced to close by the present regime. As monopolies go, the situation is quick worsening. When asked whether there is a way out, Zhu Rongji simply said: No.

A recent story probably shows the degree of the problem. In a joint news conference with the Chinese foreign minister on June 2, 2016, in Ottawa, the Canadian reporter asked Stéphane Dion, the Canadian foreign minister, a question: “There are no shortage of concerns about China's treatment of human rights advocates, such as the Hong Kong booksellers and its detention of the Garratts, not to mention the destabilizing effects of its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea. Given these concerns, why is Canada pursuing closer ties with China, how do you plan to use that relationship to improve human rights and security in the region, and did you specifically raise the case of the Garratts during your discussions with the foreign minister today?”

The mentioned “Hong Kong booksellers” were kidnapped by the Chinese authority from Hong Kong to the mainland China. The “detention of the Garratts” is about a Canadian couple, Kevin and Julia Dawn Garratt, who were detained in China in 2014 on espionage Charges of stealing state secrets while they lived near the China’s border with North Korea.

Hearing the question, Wang Yi jumped in, uninvited. Here is his comment: “I want to make a response to the questions that the journalist has just raised concerning China. Your question was full of prejudice against China and an arrogance that comes from I don't know where. This is totally unacceptable to me. Do you understand China? Have you been to China? Do you know that China has come from a poor and backward state and lifted more than 600 million people from poverty? Do you know that China is now the world's second biggest economy with $8,000 per capita? If we weren't able to properly protect human rights, would China have achieved such great development? Do you know that China has incorporated protecting human rights into its Constitution? I want to tell you that it's the Chinese people who most understand China's human rights record — not you, but the Chinese people themselves. You have no right to speak on this. The Chinese people have the right to speak. So please don't raise such irresponsible questions again. China welcomes all well-meaning suggestions, but we reject all groundless accusations.”

That exchange was widely reported in China. As soon as the exchange was published, a parody appeared in the Chinese social media:

Neighbor: I heard that you beat up your wife and kids at home.

Mr. Wang: In the past, the don't even have enough food to eat.

Neighbor: I asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: Our family is the second richest family in the village.

Neighbor: I did not ask you that. I just asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: You other neighbor Mr. Liu beat up his wife and kids. Why did you do nothing about that?

Neighbor: I asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: In your history, have you never beat up your wife and kids?

Neighbor: I asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: We have included anti-violence clauses in our family rule book.

Neighbor: I only asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: Your question was full of prejudice against my family and an arrogance that comes from I don't know where.

Neighbor: I only asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: Please don't raise such irresponsible questions again. We welcome all well-meaning suggestions, but we reject all malicious questions.

Neighbor: I only asked you whether you beat up your wife and kids.

Mr. Wang: I want to tell you that it's my wife and kids who most understand my family — not you. You have no right to speak on this. Only my family members have the right to speak. My wife and kids love me to do what I do. You get out.

Today's Chinese social media are full of jokes such as this one. It has become a part of the Chinese social media culture. The Communist Party regularly delete, from its Internet control center, any and all comments that it feels offensive. For instance, if you negatively comment on a speech given by Xi Jinping, the Communist Party General Secretary, the comment will be immediately deleted and you visited by the police. However, jokes, including parodies, are still an exception, at least when it is not aimed at the top leader.

Needless to say, China today is a frustrated mess. On one side, it is the indoctrination (patriotism). On the other side, it is the foreign brand and jokes. So, the college students would go the streets protesting the U.S. imperialism in the day time, and prepare TOEFL (the language examination as a part of the requirement of American universities).

The split mentality is everywhere. So much so that the people do not think about it any more. Contradictions are simply their every day life.

Then, there is the Stockholm syndrome, which is a psychological phenomenon that when the person is in the captured situation, they would side with their capture’s interests, not their own interests. As the Chinese people live in a captured state (brainwashing, speech control, etc.), many of them have the Stockholm syndrome. Even when their rights were infringed, they come out to demonstrate, first by stating that they support the Communist Party, then they want to help the Party to become a better Party. In the meantime, the Party hires more and more police, from the Internet Police to SWAT teams, with the world’s latest weapons to put more pressure on the people, so they would be clear of their captured status.

Those mental problems could be felt by anyone who have been to tourist spots lately and stayed close to the Chinese tourists. One has to understand that reason is something that they have been trying to avoid for all their lives.

When the Chinese people move to the U.S., they certainly bring to the U.S. all their problems. Interestingly, much of the problem is not particular to the Chinese here. Those from Taiwan has the very similar problems. They, just like those from China, take the abuse in stride, by convincing themselves that they have to take the unreasonable treatment of the management.

From a pure labor perspective, being a radio talk show host should require many more years of education than, say, working for fast food chains, so they should not be paid less than those working in fast food chains. (The radio talk show hosts are paid the rock bottom rate, i.e., the minimum salary for the hours that the spend before the microphones, but, unlike those working in fast food chains, they need to prepare for they are going to say. In addition, if you work at the fast food restaurants, you might even get a few cents or even a dollar or two above the rock bottom minimum wage, due to competition.)

The interesting fact is that the fast food employees demonstrate for higher wages, forcing the fast food restaurants to adopt more and more technologies to reduce the number of employees needed to run the operation. If the radio talk show hosts get together and demand higher salaries, say equal income treatment from the fast food chains, the station could not adopt technologies to replace them.

It is their collected belief (that they convinced themselves that they only worth de facto less than minimum wage treatments) that did them in. Of course, this collected belief is partially responsible for the cheap products in Chinese stores.

But, although the employees, collectively and individually, do not want do anything, they want their government to come in to help them out. In the meantime, they are trained in China not to think about the consequence of an all powerful government. For those who come from China (voting for Obama’s second term 80% to 20%), they certainly don’t want to think why they come to the U.S. in the first place.

On one hand, there are many capable people working in the Chinese community, because much money could be made. (Certainly, I am not saying that all Chinese employers use the KAZN’s business model, as I know many employers treating their employees fairly, but KAZN is certainly not the only one using that model, as I have heard lawyers in the Chinese community hiring law school graduates to work for them for free in exchange of being able to put the experience on the resume and get favorable references, among other stories. One story might be worth mentioning here is that the Chinese people, with all the abovementioned problems, lack trust. So many lawyers offer outcome guarantees. Their way to carry out the money-return guarantee, which, in fact, is entirely different from guaranteeing the outcome, is to hire cheap assistants, so they can afford to return some of the fees paid to them.)

On the other hand, those who do not want to mess with the Chinese employers would find jobs in the “main stream” companies.

Then, those who could not manage a job offer in the “main stream” companies are forced to stay and take whatever that is handed to them. These are the people who lack abilities, partially due to their inability to exit the Chinese mentality after moving to the U.S.

The Stockholm syndrome is extremely acute in the radio station as the employees call the station manager who fired me “sister,” who signs her name “Mom” when leaving messages to the employees.

Also, there is a saying in the station that, despite its low pay, etc., the station does not fire anyone. At the same time, many in the station told me that, for some reason, capable people could not stay in the station for long.

In any case, when I was fired, for whatever it is worth, I forwarded the email (originated from the manager to the program director) to everyone. I thought that I should put that nonsense to rest. So, they may think about all those people in the past. Did they leave, or were they fired?

Stockholm syndrome

In other words, there is a concentration of Chinese-minded people.

AM 1300 radio station is an example of this phenomenon.

(... to be continued)

First published on July 27, 2016

Contact information:

Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng

Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/

Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part V

This is part five of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

For someone like me, who had never worked (i.e., made money) in a pure Chinese language environment prior to working for AM 1300, four years of KAZN forced some hard realities of the Chinese people into me, or, to be more precise and to put it mildly, the Chinese mentality. For me, after staying in the U.S. for 30 years, I was so far away from the Chinese culture that I was no longer able to imagine what kind of mental state that many Chinese people live under.

Working in the Chinese language station gave me a window to take a peek into that mental state, as the people working in the station and the audience were primarily those whose English was not good enough for them to enjoy the American culture via English language.

For readers who are not totally familiar with the Chinese culture, I must start the story with the state of the mind of those in China.

In China, all children from preschool years till the time of college graduation (as, in recent years, colleges no longer tolerate speech that is outside the strict lines drawn by the Communist Party, and have been using paid student spies and a heavy hand to make sure that professors and students do not make offensive statement to the Party, such as democracy, free speech, or property rights; in the 1980s, after K-12, which was pure brainwashing, certain degree of freedom was allowed in the colleges) are forced to recite an entire line of Party-fabricated Marxism (for instance, proletariat, which means wage earners according to Marx, are re-interpreted in China as what Marx called “lumpenproletariat,” which means outcasts, such as beggars, tricksters, and criminals), Leninism (for instance, Lenin’s book, when published in China, went through heavy editing to take out what the Chinese Communist Party did not like), and history (including both the world history and Chinese history, which are completely reinvented). For instance, during the Japanese invasion of China, Mao Zedong had a secret pact with the Japanese invaders so the Japanese could focus on the Nationalist’s troops, and allowed Mao to develop its own forces. In history books, the Communist Party becomes the one resisting the Japanese invasion, while the nationalists retreated into the mountains in the southwest. The tens of millions of people who were killed by Mao between 1949 and 1976 (all in peace time) were omitted in the Chinese history, while a Japanese massacre in Nanjing (1937) were exaggerated (to the impossible figure of 200,000) and hammered into the mind of the Chinese children. All evils of the Chinese are the faults of the foreigners lead by no other than the U.S., and supported by its running dogs like the Japanese. The Chinese Communist Party, which in fact has caused the evils, are always correct.

When I grew up, as the Party, lead by Hua Guofeng (chairman of the CCP from 1976 – 1981), started the economic revival, thought-control was loosened up. Even after Deng Xiaoping squeezed Hua Guofeng out of power, he tightened down speech quite a bit but still allowed limited freedom of speech, under his hand-picked manager Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. For instance, in colleges, one of my classmate argued that China would be much better off if Japan had not attached the U.S., so it could occupy the entire China and do to China what it did in Taiwan and Manchuria. Certainly, what Japan did positively to Taiwan and Manchuria was not taught in schools.

I came to understand modern Japan and the Japanese people when I worked for Fujifilm, a Japanese company, for more than five years. Also, I traveled to Japan quite a few times. So, after visiting Japan, I would comment on my radio program about my impression of Japan. Many listeners people angrily called in. To them, any benign comment on Japan was unforgivable. Interestingly, much of this view was held not only by those who come from China, but also those from Taiwan. In fact, much of the mental state in China also exist in Taiwan, although the new generation, which grows up during the 25 years of democratic rule in Taiwan, is erasing that similarity.

One has to see such patriotic propaganda to believe its power. It is such propaganda that made the German people launching the WWII, and Japanese people attacking the Pearl Harbor, both unspeakably stupid undertakings. However, under the government monopoly and people’s patriotic fervor, the political leaders are almost compelled into suicidal endeavors. Today, China is expanding in all directions except Russia, as China believes that the shrinking Russian white population in the Asian part and the Chinese emigration into that part of Russia will take care of that problem in a few generations.

With that kind of patriotic propaganda, the Chinese people are indoctrinated to the hilt. The Chinese people believe that they are a historically great people, while they have been bullied by the foreign powers lead by the U.S. The Chinese territories, which used to cover Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, are taken away and should be reclaimed. However, the Chinese government notably ignored its treaties with Russia to formally secede more than 100 million square kilometers of disputed territories to Russia.

The Chinese people are uniquely great, with uniquely great characteristics, so the foreign beliefs, such as freedom, democracy, human rights, private property rights, and rule of law do not fit the Chinese uniquely great culture. At the same time, China is in fact a free, democratic country with better human rights and rule of law record than the foreigners. For example, the white Americans have fragrantly violated the human rights of the native Americans.

All criticism from abroad are vicious and designed to destroy China. (Of course, those living within the borders of China must support such a greatest party under the sun whole heartedly. Any dissent must be from the demented people, as the Chinese authority has increasing been sending these people to psychiatric wards. Certainly, that is not the main method of dealing with dissent. For the run of the mill critics, the Party would put them in jail on corruption, or tax evasion, charges.) To muffle criticism from abroad, the Chinese government forbid those critical of China from visiting China and only allow those who kowtow to its policies to enter China and “study” China. In time, countries like the U.S. would have a group of “Chinese experts” that are used to recite the Party lines.

China is a strong country, second only to the U.S. (in total GDP, whatever that means). It has a people with confidence in its ways of doing things, in its guiding theories, in its system (stated by Hu Jintao in 2012), and in its culture (added by Xi Jinping in 2014). So, when the international tribunal in the Hague ruled that the Chinese expansion to the Philippine waters were baseless, Li Keqiang, the Chinese Prime Minister, paid the Cambodia $600 million (USD) to have the Cambodia Prime Minister agree with its position in the South China Sea, as the Chinese media reported that 90 countries agreed with the Chinese government’s position. Two days later, Hun Sen, the Cambodia Prime minister, stated that he was on the side of Japan in the East China Sea dispute between Japan and China. (He was talking about the Senkaku Islands, or the Diaoyu Islands as they are known in China.)

Such a confident country has put all of its vice Chairmen in the military commission (highest ranking military men) of the last term in jail. It is increasingly blocking the Internet access of its people. It pays large number of Internet trolls to manufacture public voice over the Internet. If anyone has doubt about the power of such people, who were known in China as 50-cents (about 8 cents USD), which is the amount the government pays these people for putting up each post, he (or she) could visit my program recordings and read their offensive comments. The Chinese government has squeezed Google out of China because Google refused to work with the Chinese government in blocking the unwelcome voices.

China is a weak country, so environmental pollution is a worthwhile sacrifice to put food on everyone's table. Rampant food quality problems are also a price worth paying to put food on everyone’s table.

Chinese is a strong and rich country, so it could spend hundreds of billions (USD) to implement its new silk road, which basically pays to build transportation infrastructure in certain countries in exchange for their diplomatic support of China. These countries know that the loans are really grants. And China knows that, when the money stops, so would be the singing.

Chinese people is a weak people, so the government could not afford to pay for people's medical care or education, as the Chinese spendings in both the medical care and education ranked as share of GDP are at the bottom of the world.

The funniest of all, the Chinese is a great people with its cultural confidence and refuse all the western ideologies, such as democracy, free speech, the rule of law, and the private property rights. However, in the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, the first fundamental guiding theory for the CCP is Marxism (a western theory that promotes the elimination of exploitation, according to the Chinese interpretation, which is another convoluted mess that I am not going to delve into) and Leninism (another western theory that primarily consists the politburo-led governing system). Of course, there has to be some Chinese elements, so Mao's thoughts (e.g., killing three hundred million Chinese people is no big deal – as he said in Moscow on November 18, 1955) lead the way.

(... to be continued)

First published on July 20, 2016

Contact information:
Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng


For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part IV

This is part four of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

Throughout my years of hosting the program, I had invited many Republican and Democratic politicians to the program. Nobody cared to come. For Republicans, they probably didn't see the point of trying to work in the Chinese area. For Democrats, they already had 80% of the votes, without much effort. If they messed with the situation, the only likelihood was for them to lose votes, so they didn't want to get their feet wet.

One day in late April, I came across a campaign sign of Jack Orswell, the Republican nominee for House, against the incumbent Judy Chu. I made a contact for an interview. To my surprise, Jack accepted, but he had other engagement that Wednesday (May 11), so I had to wait for May 18 to interview him. At the end of my May 11 program, I announced that Jack would be my guest of my May 18 program. I did not think much about this.

The next day, May 19, the programming director called my law office and asked me to cancel the program. He told me that the interview was in violation with the FCC regulations. I told him that I didn't think that my invitation of Jack would violate any regulations. In addition, I told him that Jack's acceptance would increase the chance for Judy Chu to accept my invitation. I also emphasized to him that it was important for the Chinese population to know who they were voting for. He said that he needed to get approval from New York and asked me to draft an email to be sent to New York for approval.

On Friday, the response came back from New York asking the matter to be decided by the programming director, another host with no management responsibilities (as far as I know), and a vice president for marketing, to make sure that the invitation in conformance with the FCC regulations. I thought that the matter was settled since New York did not have any problem with doing a program with Jack.

However, that was not the end of this. On Monday, the station put out a notice to all hosts that all interviews of political candidates were henceforth forbidden due to the FCC regulations. I asked the station to show me legal authorities, which I was quite certain that they didn't exist, or apply the principle ex post facto (since my invitation predated the published policy that all invitations to all political candidates were forbidden).

This type of activities had a clear Chinese characteristics. Since China never has the rule of law, law is whatever the authority says. So, for a couple of thousands of years, the authority has been making rules to fit the instant situation. When the tomorrow's situation changes, they would change the law to fit their interests. In today's China, for instance, the court, the prosecution, and the police are run by the so-called political legal commission, which almost routinely headed by the police chief. In other words, the police chief determines the future of prosecutors and court officials, such as their promotion, salary, etc. The outcome is this type of practice, administrative edict in the form of universal rule.

The Chinese legal system is set up that way because its overwhelming priority for a couple of thousands of years has been to suppress disagreements. People in China today are still being sentenced to administrative detentions in China without the legal process for nothing but joking about the government behaviors.

Of course, the KAZN management could not make up laws like the Chinese police could do. But thanks to the federal government, which produces ever increasing complex laws and regulations, they could simply name their laws and make them whatever they like them to be to carry out their policies, which, just like in China, were tightly kept secrets.

After seeing the edict that all political interviews are forbidden, I could only imagine how many times the FCC regulations have been used by the station management to carry out its policies with unspeakable reasons.

According to the programming director, pursuant to the New York instruction, both the other host and the marketing VP voted no to my hosting of the show. Therefore, the decision was made by the majority. His decision does not even matter.

I immediately asked the other host, who said that he has no objection. Since the objection appear to come solely from a marketing vice president, I then asked programming director again to either show the authorities (statutes and legal precedence) of my violation, or ask the marketing people to stand down to let me do my program to inform our listeners about the people they are voting for.

That was Monday.

On Tuesday morning all fronts were quiet.

In Tuesday afternoon, the programming director forwarded to me an email from the station manager, who had henceforth not appeared, that I was fired, effective immediately, without reason.

My insistence of not canceling Jack has several reasons. First, Jack was the first politician who agreed to do the program by facing the Chinese-speaking public. That was precious. Second, more importantly, as I knew that the invitation did not violate any laws, I could not give Jack the FCC regulations as the reason for canceling the interview. In other words, if I cancel, I had to make up a lie to Jack.

Many people think that lawyers and liars, and thus it is part of my daily work to make up lies. For them, lawyer and liar are simply the same word with different spellings. But, contrary to the opinion, many people refuse to believe that many lawyers are squeeky clean. When so many people tell me that all lawyers are liars, I simply ask them this question: If all the lawyers are bad, how can the United States be a reasonable society (comparatively speaking)? Nobody has given me a satisfatory answer. The problem, of course, is that, when they look for a lawyer, they want someone to paint them a beautiful picture in the form of a guarentee. For lawyers, of course, lying is a behavior that gets easier and easier as one starts to practice it, until one practice that for no purposes whatsoever. In any case, I don't lie and don't want to start with Jack.

In addition, I didn't believe that any management should put their subordinates in the situation that they had to lie.

The most important reason for me to insist on seeing the FCC Regulation that I was violating is, of course, the fact that we need to inform the Chinese-speaking community about the political candidates whom they are voting for. That is the reason that I do the radio show in the first place. If I have to refrain from discussing political matters, why would I do the program in the first place?

During the conversation, one thing worth nothing is that the programming manager mentioned to me that Jack could buy advertising time from the station. Probably he wanted to get me to sell advertisements for the station. I didn't know the next step. Going to restaurant and extol food that I hate?

In any case, from a practical aspect, I did not give in, and put the choice in the hand of the station management, which made the move and fired me.

A very interesting question is why would the station so enthusiastically against interviewing political candidates. There are many people guessing the reasons on the Internet in response to my dismissal. I certainly have my conjecture, but a conjecture is only a conjecture.

Although the station fired me summarily and immediately, I did not have a chance to say goodbye to my radio listeners. However, as all my programs are uploaded to YouTube, on May 18, I posted my goodbye message, the response was nothing less than overwhelming and heartwarming. Many suggested that I continue the program over the Internet. This time, the Chinese government trolls held back. So there was almost no negative voices. That was moving.

The funny part of all this is that, if Jack had time to do the show on May 11, my interviewing him would become a fait accompli and the station would have no way to undo what is already done.

So as the fate goes, my radio career was over.

I believe that everybody should serve his (or her) community, with almost four years' of service, I have discharged that duty. Now, after I have earned my tranquility, I can go after some more pleasant pursuits in life.

All my KAZN programming can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

(... to be continued)

First published on July 13, 2016

Contact information:

Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng

Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/

Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

在党的生日 重温党的承诺（转帖）

愚民政策虽然造成了沙漠，却绝难征服民心。
——《解放日报》1942年4月23日

党对政府的领导，在形式上不是直接的管辖。党和政府是两种不同的组织系统，党不能对政府下命令。
——《董必武选集》第54-55页

共产党要夺取政权，要建立共产党的“一党专政”。这是一种恶意的造谣与诬蔑。共产党反对国民党的“一党专政”，但并不要建立共产党的“一党专政”。
——《刘少奇选集》上卷第172-177页

是要彻底地、充分地、有效地实行普选制，使人民能在实际上，享有“普通”、“平等”的选举权、被选举权，则必须如中山先生所说，在选举以前，“保障各地方团体及人民有选举之自由，有提出议案及宣传、讨论之自由。”也就是“确定人民有集会、结社、言论、出版的完全自由权。”否则，所谓选举权，仍不过是纸上的权利罢了。
——《新华日报》1944年2月2日

一切力量来自人民!一切光荣归于民主!
——《解放日报》1945年7月2日

可见民主和言论自由，实在是分不开的。我们应当把民主国先进的好例，作为我们实现民主的榜样。
——《新华日报》1944年4月19日

但是只有建立在言论出版集会结社的自由与民主选举政府的基础上面，才是有力的政治。（毛泽东答中外记者团）
——《解放日报》1944年6月13日

二十年来，尤其是最近几年，我们天天见的是“只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯。”政府所颁布的法令，其是否为人民着想，姑置不论。最使人愤慨的是连这样的法，政府并未遵守。政府天天要人民守法，而政府自己却天天违法。这样的作风，和民主二字相距十万八千里!所以民主云云者是真是假，我们卑之无甚高论，第一步先看政府所发的那些空头民主支票究竟兑现了百分之几?如果已经写在白纸上的黑字尚不能兑现，还有什么话可说?所以在政治协商会议开会以前，我们先要请把那些诺言来兑现，从这一点起码应做的小事上，望政府示人民以大信。
——《新华日报》1946年2月1日

国际民主既然与国内民主不可分割，所以要想参加到世界民主国家家庭中去的人们，就无法违反国内民主的原则。
——《新华日报》1944年1月19日

中国人民为争取民主而努力，所要的自然是真货，不是代用品。把一党专政化一下妆，当做民主的代用品，方法虽然巧妙，然而和人民的愿望相去十万八千里。中国的人民都在睁着眼看：不要拿民主的代用品来欺骗我们啊!
——《新华日报》1945年1月28日

他们以为中国实现民主政治，不是今天的事，而是若干年以后的事，他们希望中国人民知识与教育程度提高到欧美资产阶级民主国家那样，再来实现民主政治……正是在民主制度之下更容易教育和训练民众。
——《新华日报》1939年2月25日

毛泽东，中国共产党的最高政治家，曾经这样表示出中国人民的希望：“我们并不需要、亦不实行无产阶级专政。我们并不主张集体化，也不反对个人的活动--事实上，我们鼓励竞争和私人企业。在互惠的条件下，我们允许并欢迎外国对我们的地区作工商业的投资……我们相信着，并且实行着民主政治”。他说得很对。
——《新华日报》1945年4月19日

限制自由、镇压人民，完全是日德意法西斯的一脉真传，无论如何贴金绘彩，也没法让吃过自由果实的人士，尝出一点民主的甜味的。
——《新华日报》1944年3月5日

他们说这一套都是外国人的东西，决不适用于中国……原来，科学为求真理，而真理是不分国界的……现在固然再也没有顽固派用国情特殊，来反对科学--自然科学的真理了。只有在社会现象上，顽固派还在用八十年前顽固派用过的方法来反对真理……民主制度比不民主制度更好，这和机器工业比手工业生产更好一样，在外国如此，在中国也如此。而且也只能有在某国发展起来的民主，却没有只适用于某国的民主。有人说：中国虽然要民主，但中国的民主有点特别，是不给人民以自由的。这种说法的荒谬，也和说太阳历只适用外国、中国人只能用阴历一样。
——《新华日报》1944年5月17日

这些一切，只有证明全国人民及各民主党派对实施纲领的意见，首先是对人民自由的主张，是切实的，迫切需要实现的，万万“撤销”不得的。
——《新华日报》1946年1月18日

像林肯总统和罗斯福总统那样的民主的政治生活中产生的领袖，是虽在战时也一点不害怕民主制度的巡行的。他们不害怕民主的批评和指责，他们不害怕人民公意的渲泄，他们也不害怕足以影响他们的地位的全民的选举。他们不仅不害怕这些民.主制度，而且他们坚决地维护支持这些民主制度。因此他们才被人民选中了是大家所需要的人。
——《新华日报》1944年11月15日

这说明英美在战时也还是尊重人民的言论出版等民主自由的。英美两大民主国家采取这些重大措置，正说明英美两国是尊重和重视共产党及其他党派，和他们所代表的意见和力量的……同时，（他们）也有一些批评。他的批评对不对，是另外一回事。这种民主团结的精神，是值得赞扬和提倡效法的……全国各党派能够融洽的为共同目标奋斗到底，这是英美的民主精神，也是我国亟应提倡和效法的。
——《新华日报》1942年8月29日

这正如前天座谈会主席左舜生先生说的：“我们不去敦促，自由这一客人是永远不会进我们的门的”!
——《新华日报》1944年5月16日

我们认为最重要的先决条件有三个：一是保障人民的民主自由；二是开放党禁；三是实行地方自治。人民的自由和权利很多，但目前全国人民最迫切需要的自由，是人身居住的自由，是集会结社的自由，是言论出版的自由。
——《中共党史教学参考资料》

“现在是非变不可了!”“但如何变呢?”“我们只要看看人家。换句话说我们一切要民主。我们一切制度、政策以及其他种种，都要向着能配合世界转变上去改造。
——《新华日报》1945年4月8日

曾经有一种看法，以为民主可以等人家给与。以为天下有好心人把民主给人民，于是就有了等待这种“民主”，正如等待二百万元的头奖一样。但是中外古今的历史都证明了，民主是从人民的争取和斗争中得到的成果，决不是一种可以幸得的礼物。
——《新华日报》1945年7月3日

目前推行民主政治，主要关键在于结束一党治国。……因为此问题一日不解决，则国事势必包揽于一党之手；才智之士，无从引进；良好建议，不能实行。因而所谓民主，无论搬出何种花样，只是空有其名而已。
——《解放日报》1941年10月28日

从年幼的时候起，我们就觉得美国是个特别可亲的国家。我们相信，这该不单因为她没有强占过中国的土地，她也没对中国发动过侵略性的战争；更基本地说，中国人对美国的好感，是发源于从美国国民性中发散出来的民主的风度，博大的心怀。
——《新华日报》1943年7月4日

回应 Mgaic Rock

Mgaic Rock commented: 从晚清1840年到现今170余年，启蒙在华人的世界是如此的艰难，儒家的奴性文化深入骨髓，东亚文明的精神枷锁不打碎，亚洲人永远不会产生影响人类的思想和文化。

That is so true. I cannot agree more.

Yesterday, I had discussions with 陈士杰 and Ryan Chen. For 陈士杰, I think that he actually wants to learn and he is at least not a fervent supporter of the Communist Party. Still, he is so versed in the Communist propaganda arguments that were beaten into him by the Communist Party's propaganda machine and China's educational system and that he was so busy giving me those old stale set pieces that he did not even bother to understand what I was saying.

So, discussion with him is an affair of him dumping at you Communist propaganda with him not listening to what you say. So whatever you say does not matter.

If that is not argument for argument's sake, i.e., wasting of time, I don't know what is.

The ultimate sadness for these people is that they are so fervent about the Communist propaganda arguments that they would not think about what they are saying.

It is especially sad if we consider that 陈士杰 actually wants to learn and that he is against the Communist Party.

Brainwashing has done him in. It is pathetic.

For Ryan Chen, who obviously has ever been to Taiwan, automatically assumes that "四种语言推广只是为了让别的国家的游客能看懂."

The problem is that, even if I point that out to him, he is unlikely to listen to what I say, and would immediately throw other Communist propaganda at me.

Ignorance starts at (1) not caring about the facts, or lack of wish to know; and (2) the automatic and almost religious belief of the Communist propaganda that was brainwashed into them in their first 20 years of life.

With that, even when they are in a free world, all they are capable of is Communist propaganda.

Someone from China told me that the young generation, being instilled patriotism, militarism, and doltish pride, by the Communist Party's brainwashing machine, a.k.a., the educational system, is already lost.

Yesterday, we saw two examples supporting that verdict.

My four years of radio experience, in a nutshell, is a discovery of the same conclusion. If this generation is lost, we may have to wait for the next generation, who would not face the Communist propaganda machine and the educational system in the United States.

However, one has to think that these young people would have to live with the Communist brainwashing for the first two decades fo their lives.

That is really lunacy and pity, but we can do nothing about it.

First published on June 29, 2016

Contact information:

Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng

Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/

Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

回应 Ryan Chen

“你在节目里不止一次说过来世不做中国人” -- 我什么时候说的这句话？哪集节目，第几分钟？

“而且你的言论里充满了对中华文明的鄙视” -- 我不觉得我对中华文明（2000多年的那些对不对？）有过鄙视。如果我有过，哪集节目，第几分钟？

我用英文写作，是要做好一个美国人。这和中国的古诗词，有几毛钱的关系？和汉族人配不配民主自由，有什么关系？我们美国人，首先要讲好美国的语言，我就是这个意思。为了让你明白，特此用中文再解释一遍。

在美国混饭吃，如果一肚子中国如此这般，活得累不累？

我这个人，没多大本事。人生目的，就是做一个合格的美国人。然后，除了提供法律服务，为社会做出贡献之外，尽量学画，以图画出点名堂来。如此而已。

“很显然你没有把中共文化和中华文化搞清楚 Red China is not the real China。” -- 中共文化和中华文化，你能分清楚吗？今天中国人的爱国傲慢，你说是中共文化，还是中华文化？

而且，你说“台湾人难道不是中国人？香港人难道不说中国人？同属炎黄子孙”什么的。你了解台湾吗？你了解台湾的年轻人嘛？你知道新一代的台湾人，在想什么吗？看看中国现在的年轻人，再看看台湾的年轻人，如果咱们来比较，台湾的年轻人，更接近于日本的年轻人。

"Ryan Chen：我觉得改成 作为一个被中共乃至所有独裁暴政统治下的中国人感到耻辱"。我已经在美国三十多年了。这这之前，我在中国，没干过坏事，凭什么让我对中国人干的那些缺德事，感到耻辱？

附 Ryan Chen 原文：

Ryan Chen Pujie Zheng 你的说法太荒谬了 台湾人难道不是中国人？香港人难道不说中国人？同属炎黄子孙，人家可以做到的，大陆中国人怎么就做不到？你呼吁所有中国人放弃汉字用英文这种理论更是可笑，语言是不分意识形态的，中国的古诗词用英文写难道还有意蕴吗？照你这么说，你也是汉族人，汉族人不配民主自由，你不是也把自己给否定了？台湾能够民主了，凭什么汉人不行？就像你说的西方一样，难道只有昂格鲁撒克逊民族配？不是把，德意志民族就不配？法兰西民族就不配？德国人法国人都不说英语 你这种以民族或者种族来界定是否配拥有民主制度的说法才是对中国民主化进程的阻碍。

Ryan Chen Pujie Zheng 毛泽东时代的中国人只能代表那一个特定时段 不能代表所有中国人 纳粹时代的德国人能代表现在的德国人吗？难道你也认为德国人不配民主制度？德国人也应该放弃德语用英语？你的说法其实是自相矛盾的

Ryan Chen Pujie Zheng 你在节目里不止一次说过来世不做中国人，而且你的言论里充满了对中华文明的鄙视 很显然你没有把中共文化和中华文化搞清楚 Red China is not the real China.

Ryan Chen Pujie Zheng 我觉得改成 作为一个被中共乃至所有独裁暴政统治下的中国人感到耻辱 更合适


留言：

Ryan Chen

Ryan Chen “放弃中文，脱亚，脱汉” 请问你难道拥有普世价值和用中文写作 是一个亚洲人或者汉族人很矛盾吗？ 你让中国人放弃汉字 这种做法跟太平天国干的事和共产党在文革干的事有什么区别？都是破坏中华文明 每个古老的文明都是有他存在着意义 请问你汉朝唐朝西方文明好还是东方文明好？这些都不是一句“脱汉”能解决的事情 你说中国民主化非脱汉不可 难道德国法国人也“脱法““脱德”了？英美文化和欧陆文化可是有很大的不同 你是学法律的 你应该知道英美法和大陆法 难道法国人德国人就没有民主和自由？人家照样保留了自己的文化 照样拥有民主自由人权. 美国本身就是个多元化社会 本来就应该是合理的吸收与包容 一味的排斥其他族群的文化是违背美国精神的 这个道理难道你不明白吗？

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng 谢谢你没有伪造我的言论，我说的脱汉，是日本人说脱亚那个意义上的，不是中国人说脱亚入欧那个民族情绪意义上的。说明白一点，就是摆脱大酱缸。其实，今天的法国人和德国人，应该好好地脱法、脱德。你不脱法、脱德，人家英国人就要脱法、脱德。

Pujie Zheng

Ryan Chen

Ryan Chen 对American culture的认同不应该停留于形式 像“脱亚脱汉” “放弃中文”这种形式主义 更多的重点应放在对普世价值的认同上，你说台湾的年轻人跟大陆的不一样 那就是普世价值对中华文化的影响，难道台湾人不用汉字？不讲礼义廉耻？中华文化的方向对了就是现在所谓的台湾文化 发展错了就是大陆的中共文化 你说日本文明好，那日本人今天放弃了日语吗?放弃了茶道，相扑等这些日本符号吗？日本人在二战结束前跟中共统治下的很多人用你的话叫“暴戾爱国” 后来不也是认同美国人的价值观变得民主自由了吗？

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng Taiwanese trains have four-language announcements. You think that the Taiwanese people want to use Chinese? Also, on 礼义廉耻, do you think that the Chinese people have 礼义廉耻 these days? Japanese turned democratic so successfully partly due to 脱亚论 in the year 明治18. I don't see your reasoning that area cultural differences, such as the difference between LA and San Diego, Taiwan and Japan, deny the commonalities of the people's thoughts?

Daphne Zheng

Daphne Zheng Red China government is the worst terrorist groups in the world so far.

Zhiqiang Sun

Zhiqiang Sun So,dear Zheng,what are the exaclt differences of the culture,political system,tradition between UK and countries in mainland Europe like France and Germany in your mind?

Zhiqiang Sun

Zhiqiang Sun What do you think about the future of EU?

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng The difference (objective difference) is too big a topic for me to describe here, but EU never had a future (from day one). The system is set up like marriage. The abuser will always win, until someone files for divorce. That is why small families are preferable to big ones, because it is easier for fewer people to work toward common good. When the size increases, the probability of everyone being happy quickly goes to zero. EU has 28 countries. There is no chance for it to work out.


First published on June 28, 2016

Contact information:
Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

回应陈士杰等

回应陈士杰等

快乐大家庭，不怕争论。没有争论，我们就难免混混沌沌地过一辈子。

我觉得，关键问题是：一个政府，你凭什么不让自己的老百姓知道世界上的信息？在自己的国家里，你凭什么不允许一群公民讨论政治？一个国家里的老百姓，如果觉得这样的国家属于正常的话，那么这些人可能不病态吗？可能没有心理问题吗？

其次，如果我们说中国，躲不开幼儿园、小、中、大学洗脑洗出来的爱国主义狂热，指鹿为马的蛮横，那么我们在贸易壁垒和贸易保护主义这个问题上，可以看看别的国家的例子。例如，当年英国的玉米法案，就很能说明问题。

把话说白了，美国公司做中国生意，和中国公司一样缴税、尽各种义务，和中国公司有什么不同？中国政府在公司拥有方面的爱国主义，如果我们不说朱镕基的故意背信弃义，说白了，不就是老子想搜刮你们老百姓兜里的钱，不想让外国公司碍事；或者说，中国的几百个垄断家庭，要关起门来打狗，欺负老百姓。

大酱缸的狂热，带着逻辑混乱，一定伴随拒绝学习的蛮横。一会儿中国的山寨产品一点都不差，一会儿又要保护民族工业。一点不觉得自相矛盾。

这里的问题是：用这样的思想在美国混，恐怕是凶多吉少。


留言：

Alex Li

Alex Li 我所观察到很多人其实是十分焦虑的，一方面看到真实世界与官方教条的极大不同，另一方面却背负着百年来深深的自卑和无法改变现状的无力感。所以只好为了面子而争一时口舌之快。

陈士杰

陈士杰 我之所以会有这种想法，是因为身边的台湾同学说：别看你们大陆没有言论自由，但是互联网发展的比我们台湾好太多了，“我们自己的总统要用美国人的脸书来和自己的人民沟通”。

当然，正如您所说。作为一个老百姓，用哪个国家的网站都无所谓，反正就是个消费者而已。但是如果要是放在社会层面上，如果百度搜狐都没有了，那么中国的IT从业人员怎么活？最直接的问题。

我也知道防火墙的设立，是为了挡住墙外诸如“六四”、“西藏独立”等敏感词而设立的，本来的出发点是邪恶的，但是否同时也达到了意想不到的效果呢？...See More

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng "身边的台湾同学说 ...": That is a standard protectionist comment. It is plainly stupid to say that China's Internet, which has no function of free communication, is better than Taiwan's, which is as good as America's. Ask these questions: why do you want to hi...See More

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 按照郑律师的逻辑，那么华为小米也别做安卓手机了，中国人都用三星吧。

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng 陈士杰 Free market competition is one thing. Government mandated protectionism and monopoly is another. The key is whether outsiders are allowed to compete freely. Google's concept is the availability of information. Government should come out to say: No free communication here.

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 因为有防火墙，有所谓的这个垄断机制，百度才有可能在中国打败Google，搜狐才有可能在中国打败Yahoo，163才有可能在中国对抗Gmail。当然，防火墙是反自由反人权的，是邪恶的。但是这个邪恶也同时帮助了中国的民企，给了中国创业者在互联网领域发财的机会。谢谢律师

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng 陈士杰 The point here is that monopoly and protectionism weaken the Chinese economy. If Baidu is better, why could it not get the foreign market? If Baidu is not better, why have it at all? The point of having so many monopolies is for the rich to exploit the people. Think about it. The people are poorer for those policies. Is the government for the rich, or the massive poor (in China's case)?

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng The Chinese monopoly is a giant exploitation machine. Are you for it, or against it, in whatever name?

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 百度在西方国家也能用，但是没人用，因为你如果search“June fourth massacre”什么也没有。主要是因为中国没有言论自由。

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng That is the problem of the nationalist fervor, which, in my opinion, has already destroyed the young. The worse is yet to come.

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng 陈士杰 Baidu is not competitive and could not survive without the protectionism. So why could not the Chinese people use a better product? Just for those few rich who backed Baidu?

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng The duty of government is for the people. In a democratic system, our problem is that the people do not know what is better for them. So speaking out become a revolutionary act. In dictatorship country, people's desire is flatly suppressed. Baidu is part of the suppression. But that is another thing, just another reason why protectionism and monopoly are always no good.

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 如果习近平今天宣布党禁报禁了，明天中国人去投票了，开放网络了。百度也能存活，因为过了那段艰难的时期。

我的意思是百度是抄袭的Google，如果中国在创业初期就没有防火墙，那么百度搜狐还在创业时期，Google Yahoo就进入中国市场了，先来者居上，百度搜狐就起不来了。

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng 陈士杰 I don't think so. If the ban is lifted, Google would be number one, followed by Yahoo. Baidu, as number three, will close its doors soon. Besides other business related reasons, under protectionism, Baidu never experienced real competition, so it is weak.

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 应该不会，百度没有来自美国的竞争压力。但是有来自奇虎网易新浪搜狐等其他防火墙内的公司的压力，即使现在Google来中国，估计也不会兴起什么大风浪

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng I guess I have already proved one sad point. Today, it is impossible to convince the young people anything. You are equating the competition Baidu got from China with the competition from Google? This is basic. Even you know nothing about business, even you do not invest at all in the US, you should know that the difference of the competitive environment between China and the rest of the world.

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng I am sure you are going to come up with something else for argument. There are right and wrongs in this world. If you invest with your own money, you will soon find out.

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng In any reasonable society, the key is thinking, not really having the rolling argument for argument's sake. That would not solve any problem.

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng I have seen many Chinese young people suffer in the US.

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng Just like the American youth, the problem is with their ways of thinking.

陈士杰

陈士杰 您的意思是中美竞争环境差别很大对吧。

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng My point is this: You are arguing with me without knowing what I am saying. That's argument for argument's sake. We won't improve with that.

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 我看不太懂您的英语

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng Google competes in the whole world (except China), not just the US. It is not something that Baidu is facing.

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng My suggestion is to learn English. Let me tell you. You won't regret the time and energy spent in learning English.

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng Then, we will talk.

陈士杰

陈士杰 我这种反主流的想法，也就是心里想想，也不会公然说出去的。

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng Thinking against trend is good. However, you need to make sure that your logic is right. What I found out is that your logic does not flow, e.g., you equate protectionism to giving up competition. On the contrary, logic (or evidence) shows that protectionism is against free competiton.

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 我在韩国城买的韩国食品上写着“身土不二”，这也是一种保护主义，让其他国家的食品进口韩国很难，韩国人吃自己的食品。

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng The US has protectionsm running as well. That does not make it right. Ask the young people here. The majority wants protectionism. To them, protectionism means job for them. But they are wrong. The politicians are exploiting their mistakes. That is partly responsible for the high unemployment rate among the young.

陈士杰

陈士杰 Pujie Zheng 意思是您是反对保护主义的对吧？

（您的英文我看的挺费劲）

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng Are you arguing with me without understanding what I said?

陈士杰

陈士杰 我看不太明白，我是ESL的学生

Pujie Zheng

Pujie Zheng Learn English first. Then, come back to argue your point.

陈士杰

陈士杰 谢谢


First published on June 28, 2016

Contact information:
Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.

Reflections of a Radio Talk Show Host (of AM1300 KAZN) -- Part III

This is part three of the memoir of my four-year tour of duty as a radio talk show host for AM1300 (KAZN).

Last time, I mentioned the weird way that the station is run, i.e., the radio station has its business model (to pay most of the employees minimum wage or no wage at all) and each employee has his (or her) separate business model to turn the radio fame into cash (as the station’s payment for their services).

From a marketing standpoint, the worth of the “radio fame” is highly questionable, as the time of producing a good radio show (which is significant to produce a good program) could be easily spent on actually improving services or reducing cost, which ultimately is the best form of marketing. For instance, the best way for restaurants, one of the major sources of advertising dollars for the station, to improve its marketing power is to improve the food quality, and of course, reduce cost. On both accounts, certainly on the latter, producing a radio show for the station is against the interests of the business. In fact, It is silly for a business owner, such as a restaurateur, to think that radio fame could contribute to their business clients. By splitting their focus away from their business, they put their businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Of course, for new restaurants, it may be worthwhile to advertise so people will try their food. But the radio fame could be bought easily, with a few advertising bucks. In the meantime, the owner could focus on running his business.

Those who run their own business models besides the station's model (of exploiting them), to put it mildly, never understand the concept of the social division of labor, which has been the key for our societies to become such highly charged wealth creating machines in the past couple of hundreds of years.

The most pathetic situation is probably with the full time employees of the station. For instance, my former boss, the programming director, hosts a daily one-hour show and takes care of all programming troubles, including abuse other hosts. Since he is in the station full time, he could not have a side business. So, what is his personal business model?

It took me no time to figure that one out. His fame was sold directly by the station's business department. Almost every weekend, he would go to a business establishment (what I had accidentally heard have all been restaurants), typically with other station's full-time employees, to do a live show, in which he would always highly praise the food. I didn't know whether it was his passion or the ambient noise, he always appeared emotionally charged, screaming into the microphone to call his listeners to join him in the supposed eating affairs. My guess was that, when he was yelling into the microphone, before his eyes, he saw his radio fame turning into the cool green cash.

In the meantime, other matters, such as his editorial responsibilities as a journalist, would be cast out of the window, together with those advertisement affairs masquerading as regular talk shows. All the exploitation he got from the higher management was finally made worthwhile to him at that moment when he yelled into the microphone. I was told by his daily talk show partner that he had a heart condition. He was the executioner of the station's exploitative business model and also a victim. Maybe his emotionally charged cry was his way to convince himself that he was on the right side of things and that his life is meaningful.

Many say that Mao Zedong was a monster as he killed tens of millions of the Chinese people, all in peace time. But I have always held the opinion that Mao himself has never killed anyone. In fact, as a purist, he even refused to touch money. The tens of millions were killed by other Chinese, who were also Mao's victims. In that sense, the station was an epitome of the great Chinese culture.

At the beginning, I did not know what was going on and asked about it. I was told that they were excited in the restaurants because that were where the money was. Obviously, even for the programming director, his hosting of the daily program and abusing (sorry, I mean managing) of other hosts were not money making opportunities for him. His money-making opportunities were the weekend live shows, where he got the chance to sell his radio fame. Besides weekend outings, he also let himself being used as additional attractions for the tours that the station organizes to far away countries.

When I heard him yelling: come, come, try out such-and-such wonderful food. I always felt sorry for him. But that could not diminish my recognition that he, as the programming director, was the implementer of such pathetic station policies. And I did not imagine that I needed to hold my breath for his response of a, say, food-safety story involving his clients.

After they worked in this mode day in and day out, editorial independence, or media responsibility to listeners, was no longer a concern to them. People got used to things rather quickly. As the situation becomes normalcy, everyone was busy in cashing in, cashing in, and cashing in, while the station exploited, exploited, and exploited. Any disturbing word is unwelcome, even by the exploited.

On top of that, the programming director often warned hosts not to use the programming to advertise their own businesses. For me, that was not my purpose because I did not think that the station was the best place for me to advertising my business (as I have given my opinion to other business lawyers).

Of course, all hosts were smart people. Cat and mouse games did take place. In such imbroglio, it was easy to imagine why I never listened to the station before I was asked to host the program, and why I have stopped listening to the station since I was fired. However, as long as the station had market monopoly, life went on undisturbed and wonderfully, for both the exploiting and the exploited.

Now, revisiting the fact that 80% of the Chinese voted for Obama and big government in 2012, we might be compelled to ask this question: What is the image of free enterprise in the mind of an average Chinese person, or, to be statistically more correct, the medium Chinese person? Since most academicians do not bother with the Chinese population (largely because the data on the Chinese people do not help them reaching their desired conclusions), and the Chinese communities do not have their own NGOs to study these issues, we don't know the answer. But a group of people whose income is higher than the white so overwhelmingly votes for big government, heavier regulation, and higher tax, is in itself a clear indication of a problem.

Incidentally, many academic studies take care of the Chinese problem (or Asian problem) by classify Asians as “others,” so the Chinese data could be disgarded. For instance, a recent study concluded that income was directly related to the level of six graders in public schools. The data on the Chinese directly contradicted the conclusion. In Arcadia (medium family income of $85,000), the six graders are 2.5 grade levels above national average, while Walnut Valley Unified School District (medium income $96,000) was only 1.7 grade levels above average. Loudoun Co. Public Schools in Virginia (medium income $134,000), with a heavy Asian presence, is only 0.9 grade levels above. The background frame of reference is probably the LAUSD, with the medium income of $41,000, it is 1.4 grade levels below. For a six grader, a grade level and a half is significant. Of course, all this data is swiped under the rug by classifying the Chinese as “others.”

Although we don't have solid studies, one explanation could be that such exploitation is happening not just the radio station KAZN. How many and for how much people are been exploited are the dirty secret that we don't know. The Chinese mentality against the management, and thus the free enterprise, may be similar to the people's attitude toward the big oil during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency. People wanted the government to defeat the monopolies, and did not care that in the meantime, they created a bigger monopoly, the government itself.

Once I told a friend that the Republicans could win some minds of the Chinese by entering the Chinese field to push for unions. Certainly, Obama (or local Democrats) could not be bothered with this problem, as they don't want to mess with something this good for them. Anyone who is not sure whether Obama is for big government or for the exploited people needs to go no further.

If anyone cares to put a study to the field, I would not be surprised that the free enterprise carries a better name among the African Americans and Hispanic Americans, but, of course, I am not expecting any of such studies any time soon, because nobody (i.e., Democrats, Republicans, and academicians) has anything to gain with such a study. So, they practice their academic freedom to be ignorant.

To me at least, this is the sorry reality of the Chinese community. In fact, if reasonable independent (i.e., independent of China's state media, Taiwan's media, and the U.S. government propaganda apparatus) investment can come in, it is not only possible, but highly probable to set up a profitable media operation, because the number of Chinese eyeballs, and the sum of the total spending power, obviously, has hit that critical mass, which turned the Spanish media several decades ago.

Now, in the Chinese community, with everyone practicing the convoluted thinking, the public information function of the station is missing. For outside investments, it is also a business opportunity lost.

As of now, without the independent capital to compete with these media joints which are ultimately rooted in either China or Taiwan, confusion is the typical state of mind of the Chinese people, demonstrated by their voting records. Under-the-table deals are the normal state of business. As AM 1300 co-produces programs with the Chinese state media, I have asked about the deals and never got the answer. The business dealings between the station and the Chinese state media, i.e., the Chinese government, is a closely held secret. Although I have learned about that through other channels, it was not what one would call rock solid information.

In the meantime, the station, with its monopoly in the area, is happy to burn time for the audience whose English is not good enough to access the English media. And the Chinese-speaking public, which brought all its psychological and cultural problems from China, never get the chance to hear any independent voice in Chinese. Soon after I started hosting the program, listeners called in and asked why what my voice could not be heard elsewhere. I have forgot what I said, but the point could not be clearer.

If the station is not profitable, there may be excuses, but the station is fabulously profitable, by selling advertisement to the local community as a monopoly. Since I practice law in the station's coverage area, I was approached by the station's sales for advertisement, so I know the advertisement prices, which are much higher than any other forms of advertisement. For my hour, I routinely got between 35 to 38 minutes of programming time, with the rest of the time taken by commercials. Since my program is a one-man affair, it is easy to calculate the station's profit.

What the station get from those weekend affairs and bus tours may be harder to calculate, but we can still get it a close estimate. What is difficult to calculate is the other income the station gets, such as for the co-production of shows with the Chinese state media. It is a widely known fact that the Chinese government has been spending heavily in its “big foreign propaganda” campaigns (or 大外宣 in Chinese), targeted to influence public opinions. When I started the program, the programming director specifically told me to hold back on my criticism of the Chinese government, because my criticism may put those joint projects in jeopardy. Since the contents are more-or-less China is now a rich country with happy people, there was no reason for him to be afraid of losing the content. He was talking about money. As AM1300 has the monopoly in the southern California market, the amount could be significant for the Chinese government to pay to put its voice to the biggest Chinese community in the U.S. In fact, there has been rumors of astronomical money offered to buy out the station by the Chinese state media. The station refused to take what I considered the money that it could not refuse.

Sadly enough, additionally, the Chinese media market is further squeezed by the U.S. government propaganda machine (i.e., the Voice of America). In the old days, the Voice of America was a good content provider to China, where people live under mind control and brainwashing policies. But today, the value of programming produced by a government agency is highly questionable. The tens of millions of dollars that the federal government spend each year to support this 100-plus people operation, in contrast with my one person operation at AM1300, running everything from advertisement to phone lines, is a waste.

If the U.S. government want to produce content, it could simply launch cooperative projects by having content produced by the private enterprises and using the government fund to buy satellite time to bring the content to China. In fact, when I checked the views of a one-hour weekly discussion show of the Voice of America, it has more than 450 videos with 1.2 million views over YouTube. I have 231 videos with 518,000 views. The eyeball attraction power of my one-man part-time show (with a black screen and audio) is far stronger than the operation of 100-plus full-time people (with professionally set-up taping studios).

The U.S. Congress, a body with only one capability left in recent years other than infighting, i.e., to increase the power of the government, passed a law to exempt the Voice of America from the legal restrictions against the government propaganda machine broadcasting in the U.S. That has resulted in many Chinese people, with no other choice left, being forced to listen to the Voice of America.

The Voice of America's dominance is clear if we take a look at the YouTube views. After I was fired, and with my program, which is the number one independent (i.e., no government funding from the U.S. or China) show produced in the U.S. over the YouTube, gone, independent voices were hard to come by. Due to poor programming quality, many Chinese people have reverted back to watch the Chinese state media, a sad event for America.

The fact that my one-man affair, with a blank screen over YouTube, gets the top viewership is itself an indication of the problem, as the program was often produced when I was burned out by my day job, especially during litigations.

A listener commented that my comment about the Voice of America is to bring pain to friend and happiness to enemies (亲者痛，仇者快 in Chinese). First, the comment reflected the scarcity of voice in Chinese now present. The listener was afraid of the disappearance of the Voice of America. Second, the commentator did not count the suppressive effect of the Voice of America to the independent voices. Third, as the Voice of America focuses on the Chinese news, it does not help the Chinese people already in the U.S. to understand the U.S. Without understanding of the U.S., the unreasonableness in the voting records is easily understandable. And fourth, the commentator automatically put me in the U.S. side against China, while I was against both governmental propaganda directly to a supposedly free people.

With so many forces involved in the community, and each force has its business model, as the radio station and its employees each has their own business model; and both the Chinese and U.S. governments have their business model, i.e., spending taxpayers' money to spread the government's words. All these forces interact and devoid the Chinese of any easily accessible channel for necessary civil discourse.

Easy solutions do exist. As I have mentioned above, the U.S. government could outsource the content to independent stations. With competition, the same amount money could certainly produce much more content, both in volume and attractiveness. In fact, the power of bureaucratic drag inside the Voice of America is well-known.

If the independent organization (i.e., without China or Taiwan roots and controls) could get the money to produce programs for the U.S. government to deliver to China, such organizations could also produce programs for the local community. So the government effort may foster an environment for the independent media, carrying out the duty of informing the public, and providing the much needed channel for civil discourse.

A sign for monopoly, including (probably especially) the government monopoly, is that vested-interests talk and reasons walk in all decision-making. In the meantime, the brainwashed Chinese people are left alone on the American soil, devoid of opportunities to know their rights, let alone exercise their rights. That might have been the reason that generations of Chinese, after residing in the U.S. for decades, still think that they are Chinese Chinese, not Chinese Americans. Many would choose to retire in China, which is the only please dear to them.

Once, I was asked by a Chinese journalist in one of the joint-projects, whether I would be the falling leaf returning to roots (a Chinese saying describing the phenomenon of retiring in China). I told her that I was an American and the latest events in China had changed a country with which I was familiar into something beyond my recognition. At the end of the recording, the interviewer in China asked to record for five additional minutes. She volunteered the reason: She needed to do some cutting. The amount of , and her matter-of-fact attitude on cutting, was amazing.

The degree of Chinese media's self-sensor is certainly amazing. Once, a Chinese station director told me that there was no censor in China, as he could put whatever on the air. I immediately suggested that he invite whoever he want to debate me on his station, on the topic of whether China was a democratic country, as it claimed, or a dictatorship. He immediately laughed and gave in. That is pathetic, but the Chinese people's inability to access information, on the American soil, is probably more pathetic.

(... to be continued)

First published on June 22, 2016

Contact information:
Facebook：http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
Past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng

For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.