Wednesday, June 29, 2016

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.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

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.


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

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.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

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

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

At the beginning, I did not think much about the salary ($10 per hour), as I was looking for a place to spread the words as my pro bono effort. People do different things. Some donate money; I wanted to donate my time to spread worthy words.

However, the issue of the station paying talk show hosts $10 per hour before the microphone is an issue worth further exploring. For me, my law practice supports (or mandates) my pro bono work. That could not be said to several tens of people working for the station. Certainly, there is one other lawyer that I know working as a talk show host at $10 an hour. Another lawyer, according to the programming director, have been paying the station to have his own “talk show,” which has been presented without any hint of being a commercial. I did think the station’s lack of notice is problematic, but that was not my business.

Among other hosts, there were retired people, supported by their retirement pay. However, I thought that it was unfair to them that the station paid so little money for their effort that supported the advertisements. I have seen many hosts, spending hours recording the interviews, and hours to cut out the hesitations and repetitions to produce a one-hour show. (I didn’t cut even the recorded shows for the reason of spontaneity.) On top of that, I routinely heard content control by the station. The station has had a black list, but would not publish it. So, it asked the hosts to get approval for their guests.

The station also forbid hosts to interview anyone who might be otherwise willing to advertise their content at the station. The influence from the advertising department was especially strong, as we often saw posters in the broadcast room of forbidding this-and-that. When I was leaving, the focus was on the movie industry – anyone related to movie industry was not allowed to be interviewed, because it would hurt the advertising revenue (so said openly in the notice).

I talked to the programming director about my position, and was allowed to invite gusts without the approval process. I stayed above this mess.

What I feel truly bad about are the young people, who have their careers ahead of them, but somehow, they choose to work for the station, and have themselves convinced that they could not do any better and allow the station to wear them out. Young people who looked normal when I entered station were already looking beyond their years when I was fired. I guess that if anyone deal with an unreasonable management for four years, this would happen.

Beyond the employees, there is this question: What kind of ideas and spirit this heavily exploited group of people would spread to the Chinese community? Fighting for their rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

Still, as things go, there are many smart people working for the station at rock bottom pay. They could have made more in the fast food chains, which would undoubtedly quickly promote them to be managers. So, why are they stay there?

After some digging, I found out that the station has a kind of unspoken rule. That logic goes like is: The station will give hosts fame. Then it is up for the host to figure out a way to turn that into cash. Many people did well financially, as sale reps, real-state agents, or small business owners. So, the funny thing is that the station has a business model, which is exploiting the employees by paying them minimum wage or not at all; then, each individual has his or her own separate business model, which would turn their supposed fame into cash somehow. Of course, as all business models go, some would succeed, but others would fail.

Interestingly, when my programming content started to promote the listener’s awareness of the situations, such as when I pointed out the fallacy of the China Inc.’s structural problem, and predicted the down fall of the Chinese stock market, the program became controversial, and the station management got calls. When I criticize the Chinese government for persecuting hundreds of lawyers who dared to represent the people who refused to yield to the government abuse, massive amount of negative calls came in. People left messages after my recording, threatening the safety of my children. It is obvious that was the product of the Chinese government’s operation in the U.S. to shut down any voice against China.

When that happened, other employees asked me to stop criticizing and focus on using the opportunity to subtly advertise my business, rather than say things that offend people, which would not help my business. But for me, as I have told the management, I took the opportunity to point out certain things, not to produce a warm-and-fuzzy program as a roundabout way to advertise my own business. If I want more clients, there are other more direct and cost-effective ways to do advertising.

For the station, there were still more people, who were from China or Taiwan, with broadcasting background. They wanted to continue their broadcasting experience. So they chose to work for the station, at the abusive salary or for free.

There is a saying going around in the station that good people won’t last long. That reflects the fact that the station has the monopolistic power, and have no trouble finding people, willing to earn minimum wage to give their own business models a kick start with their supposed fame as a talk show host. As a monopoly, bad quality programming does not hurt the profitability of the station as much as honest pay to the employees. So, when the station needed new hosts, it would advertise free of charge, by squeezing the programming time, and had no trouble getting as many hosts as they wanted. The station’s management philosophy is that, if you want fame, you’d better produce a good quality program. After the station fired me, it took the management only one week to find an accountant to replace me.

So far, KAZN is the only so-called “Chinese” establishment (with Chinese owners and Chinese employees, doing Chinese business) for which I have ever worked as an employee. The station’s management philosophy astonished me, but before they fired me, the management was typically nice to me. They don’t interfere with my content. In return, I don’t take on any of their issues.

As days turned to months, and months years. And as I started to listen to the station’s other programs, I began to get a feeling of the system. Simply stated, when people were treated this way, their programs were negatively impacted. But of course, for the management, as long as you get the time passed without people calling the station to complain, they are happy, because much of the management is also paid at the exploitative rate. To the listeners, the hosts have a shiny image, supposedly, but in the station, they are exploited, undoubtedly. It hurt the programming, but nobody cared.

Of course, when I discussed this issue with some friends in the station, they had plenty of excuses. The most popular was that their specialty was Chinese. Their English was poor. They could not find a regular jobs anywhere else, so they had no other choice but to take the exploitation as an opportunity. With that thought, they didn’t like my disturbances of their business model, i.e., getting their fame from their programs and then cashing it out somewhere else.

When I explained to them that it did not have to be this way, as they could form unions. They immediately looked at me in a way that I was going to destroy their lives. Of course, I shut up right then and there. That is probably also the reason that many people working in the station avoided me.

For many, there were legends who made it big in real-estate or some other business with their radio fame. But for me, I think that those people could do a better job making money with a business model without the radio show, which is probably more of a distraction than a help. Good services, more than the radio fame, would get them business much more effectively in a small closed community.

In discussing business models, my own business model is probably worth mentioning. Seeing the Chinese people needed competent legal services, I initially planned to quickly expand my business to a 10-lawyer and 20-paralegal firm. However, as my practice started, and after I knew how the world here turned, I realized that a large firm would face heavy marketing pressure. I probably would have to offer outcome guarantees like others. Of course, outcome guarantee is theoretically impossible, not to mention its practicality. Outcome guarantees are explained as promising to return all fees if the case fails. But those are two starkly different things. It is fascinating that many prospective clients would think that kind of fee arrangement is preferable to the simpler model of money for services. It is somewhat parallel to the radio station management philosophy, and reflects the tremendous distrust, which people brought here from a place where the legal system is nothing more than a mechanism for the government to suppress people.

Recognizing the problem, I quickly changed my plan and settled down with a small firm. In fact, my modified plan works well for me. Straight talking certainly drives some prospective clients away. The funny thing is that some of the clients would come back and tell us: So-and-so guaranteed. Why are they so confident? Of course, pointing out the obvious, i.e., the theoretically impossibility for a lawyer to be sure of the outcome, will be probably taken as an insult. So, I refrain myself from commenting.

I don’t remember how many times I was told, with straight faces, that there is no good lawyer in the Chinese community or the world. Every lawyer is a liar. To those people, I don’t normally refrain myself and would tell them to check their method of finding a lawyer. At the same time, I would invite them to think this question: With all bad lawyers, is it possible for the U.S. to become a more-or-less reasonable society?

In the end, my program has solid fans. Likewise, my practice has solid fans. The problem is that the number is too few (at least in my opinion), and in the process, I convert even fewer. Maybe we do need to wait for the next generation to change the basic ways of thinking.

Once, a business lawyer asked me whether it was advisable to buy advertising time from the radio station. I told him no. He didn’t believe me and bought advertisement time anyway, and quickly terminated the contract after he admitted to me that I was completely right. Only then, he believed me that I did not take the job to advertise my business.

Now, back to the station employees, through the management process, the station collected a bunch of smart people, who, for some reason, dislike learning (at least English). First of all, they didn’t look at their three-year-old children and ask: Why could they speak perfect English? In addition, many of them, when setting up their own business models, did not bother to actually assess the marginal effect of the radio fame to their business. I think that, to many businesses, such as mine, the marginal effect (i.e., the net business generated by doing the radio show, minus the business hurt by their time and energy producing the radio show) is by no means certainly positive.

But for the employees who chose to stay with the station, they got convinced by one another, that they (many of them are college language majors) could not learn enough English to get a job in the main-stream companies, and must take the exploitation by the station. They have likewise never read about marketing and advertisement theories and refused to hear anything about them. When the station collected a critical mass of these people, the mass would take whatever abuse that the station management cared to hand down.

The radio program gave me a sense of the medieval society and taught me why people, so poor, could build such grandiose churches. The culture of the station is clear: everybody be quiet and stay on their own business model, by taking the advantage of the radio station’s fame, which, to me, is nothing more than simple vanity. Let the station have their motives; and let us have ours. The funniest part of that theory is that the middle management of the station, such as the programming director, who was my boss before he fired me by forwarding an email from the station manager, is living the same life. The programming director has his own daily hour-long talk show. Also, he has to manage all the hosts. To make money, he has to go out during the weekends, to some business establishment, such as a restaurant, and broadcast live to get people to eat there. In addition, the station organizes tours. The advertisement is that they would be touring with the famous hosts of the station.

I never know that human vanity could be this powerful. I guess that is a reflection of the ELD (English Language Development) students that my children are complaining so much about. These children, freshly from China, compete among themselves about the price of everything, their cloths, their toys, the car of their parents, etc. The local kids do not have common language with them because they think those things are vain. That probably explains my difference with the employees of the radio station – the overwhelming power of vanity, plus intellectual laziness.

Now, out of the radio station, just like my kids talking about those Chinese kids in elementary school and middle school, dying their blond and wearing weird cloths, I feel sorry even to think about them, as the station took advantage of this group of smart people, their vanity and their intellectual laziness, and the resulting weakness.

That’s why when I speak to them about things such as unionizing, they clearly wished that I had not been there, disturbing their peaceful (although sorry to me) life. They don’t want people to point out to them the fact that they actually know but try very hard to avoid, i.e., their lives are actually pathetic. They want to think that they are glorious radio talk show hosts.

(... to be continued)

First published on June 15, 2016

Contact information:
Facebookhttp://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.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

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

When I got a call from the local radio station (AM1300-KAZN) for hosting a talk-show program in 2012, I said yes, not realizing that I was going to get an education. Now, almost four years later, when I was fired by the station, it is the time to recollect and reflect. So, this is my memoir.

First, the purpose for me to work for the station is to spread certain words to the Chinese immigrants. Most of the Chinese immigrants are from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or some other area in Asia, where the political systems were much more authoritarian, if not dictatorship, comparing to the U.S. In authoritarian systems, the people are not supposed to stand up and ask questions, let alone their rights. They are supposed to first get on to the good sides of everyone else, especially the politicians, and then somehow work out their issues in a coherent manner. That philosophy produces the opaque decision-making system as we are seeing, from under-the-table deals to outright bribery. The best could be seen in places like Japan and Taiwan, and the worst, China.

On the contrary, in an open system, such as the United States, with the protection of free speech and free assembly, and ultimately the right to bear arms, it is the masses that make the final decisions. In addition, the majority opinions are limited by the fundamental beliefs codified in the constitution. After spending 30 years in the U.S., I understood that the Chinese people’s shortcomings, brought about by the lack of the tradition of openness, e.g., free speech and assembly, resulting in the default mentality that people want to work out with the government by first submitting to their superiority, which might have been the reason that 80% of the Chinese people, whose medium earning is higher than the white, voted for Obama and his big government policies, because they don’t have the concept of weak government and a population empowered by freedom and rule of law.

Second, somehow, it is still the main stream thoughts among many Chinese people that, since they are one of the minorities, they should vote with the minority block for big government (less freedom), heavy regulations (less economic vitality), and large welfare expenses (broken families), etc., not realizing that these typical minority positions do not necessarily agree with their best interests. The core of the problem, of course, is still that the Chinese, throughout their history, have no experience with the free people under limited government, living under the ruled of law. The default position is always big government. The only issue is how to make an authoritarian government benevolent. They never studied the nature of a monopolistic power under either political science or economics.

Of course, a lack of the understanding of the most basic economics principles also contribute to the lopsided voting record. People are too busy making money for themselves to be bothered by figuring out and understanding the best policies to the society as a whole. In fact, when I discussed this with some professors of economics, they appeared to be so specialized that they cannot discuss these most fundamental issues intelligently.

The result of such lack of understanding of the American system is that the Chinese people think that, once they voted for the big government, the big government will do what they promised, i.e., do the best for their interests, rather than that of the government and government employees. They do not know that in an adversarial system like the one we have in the U.S., giving up means giving up. When the California legislature tried to change the California constitution to allow discrimination against the Chinese at the college entrance (the so-called SCA5, or Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5), the change was proposed by no other than Ed Hernandez, who represented part of the largest Chinese population in the country. After passage, the Chinese community demonstrated against the constitutional change. Mr. Hernandez came out and said that he was surprised. I take that he had thought that the Chinese people will warmly welcome the discrimination against their children.

Whatever the problems with the Chinese people. The solution appears to be in the effort to spread the words. It is certain problematic that the radio station does not pay for me to do the program, which supports the more than 20 minutes of commercials, inserted into my programs. But in any case, I take the invitation of the radio station as an opportunity. All time spent was treated as my pro bono outlay.

As I start working on the radio. I quickly come to the realization that the minds of the Chinese population, probably just like for any population, change slowly. For instance, last summer (as I have told the story in my last posting), I explained Hamlet to my children, because I could not find any material that would do the trick. In every program throughout the summer, I asked the local Chinese to join in, so I can answer their questions and interact with them. In the end, not one K-12 from the radio station’s coverage area joined. When I asked some parents about their opinions, they gave me the widely believed myth that their children have no problems with their English, because they speak fluently without accent. In addition, they told me that K-12 math is so simple that they don’t need to be bothered with that either.

If it is hard to convince people that English and math are the two most important subject to the success of our children tête-à-têtes, doing so through radio is probably hopeless. My experience proved that point. Despite that, I had the belief that, in a non-linear system, small perturbations, over time, could cause significant changes. That may still be true. However, my four years of effort does not appear to create any discernible result.

My other confidence in a positive result is that each one of these Chinese immigrant, at some point of time and for some reason, decided to abandon his or her known world voluntarily and chose to come to a totally strange country voluntarily. I thought that such a crowd must be open-minded people, always ready to know more about America. In the end, I don’t have anything to show for my confidence. I have fans, loyal fans, but they hold similar ideas before my program. Certainly, my program has made changes to some, but too few to make a difference.

Of course, according to the non-linear functions, a butterfly’s disturbance could cause a tornado. According to reasons, people who voluntarily chose to come to America should want to know something about this country. But the work is the hard, or not impossible. One of the reasons is that, in the Chinese community, any voice could be easily drowned out by noises. For instance, the number of various organizations in the Chinese community is insane, but the goal for those organizations is almost always to help someone making money, i.e., a form of marketing, not for common good. In fact, most of the preschools in the Chinese communities are set up as nonprofit, but traded between “owners” just like for-profit companies. Among this mess, many people form organizations just so they could be paid by the Chinese consulate, since it is the policy of the Chinese government to buy out the NGOs in the U.S. After being paid by the Chinese government, these organizations are put under the control of the consulate’s agent, otherwise known as the Chinese American United General Association.

In China, people are brainwashed since preschool, till high school. Besides math questions, they must be able to answer correctly questions in other field. For instance, their opinion must be that the Chinese Communist Party is the only solution for China; that the democracy must be implemented in China gradually (i.e., not in my life time); the sole purpose of the U.S. foreign policy toward China is to destroy China, especially its economy; Japan must be pacified by the Chinese military; etc., etc. After giving the correct answers for so many years, many Chinese people actually believe the communist indoctrination. Once, the political indoctrination ends at college, but recently, political education is strengthened in colleges where snitches on government payroll would report those professors or students spreading “incorrect” ideas.

An interesting thing is that many Americans, after living in China for many years, have no clue about the Chinese way of thinking, because they are not in the brainwashing system. Or to put it in another way, the Chinese government has another way to brainwash them, just like all the Confucius schools, and the effort to control Chinese language media all over the world.

First things first, although I live in the Chinese community for years, my employers have been the so-called main-stream companies. When I was interviewed by the station manager, she told me that she could not pay me much. I said that it is okay. I am willing to take the program without pay, as long as she allows me to say my piece.

After settling in, I found that I was not at all the only one making $10 an hour. Other than the $10 per hour standard rate, there are many people in the station not paid at all. I have heard that the Chinese employers exploit the Chinese employees in the Chinese community, but seeing is believing. I never thought that the situation could be this bad. When I questioned this matter, the employees just told me that people working in the station could not find jobs outside the Chinese community so they have to accept the reality. Where is Mr. Obama's union machine at the place it is needed?

But, at least for me, I was settling down. From 9 - 10 p.m. every Wednesday, I made $10 for the hour that I was in front of the microphone. For the time that I prepared for the program, I got nothing.

(... to be continued)

First published on June 8, 2016

Contact information:
Facebookhttp://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.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Learning English, the Most Important Task for the Chinese Immigrants

It’s been three weeks since my last radio program. Still, listeners are leaving messages, asking me to continue the program online. After two weeks of pondering, I have decided to continue what I have been doing, but in a different form -- instead of audio in Chinese, I am going to write in English.

The selection of English is worth explaining. For most, if not all, of my listeners, Chinese is their primary language. Even for those who have been speaking English for decades, Chinese is still usable. However, that could not be said about English, as I have met so many Chinese immigrants who have been in the U.S. for decades and yet their English is still not serviceable.

It is an interesting phenomenon. If their three-year-old children could speak fluent English, why could they not learn the gambit? There has to be a reason for them to leave China, whatever it is. There must be. Why could they take the trouble to leave China, a country that they are familiar with, and come to the U.S., a country they are total strangers, but not learn the language?

From the statistics of my listeners, they appear to be a group of, what I would call, the enlightened few, as the majority could not be bothered with the fact that their children are discriminated against, by skin color, at the college entrance, or such simple things like advanced math education, which was held by private and semi-private effort in Beijing in 1970s and benefited me tremendously when I grew up, but could not exist in the 21st century America, where a significant number children have so much potential untapped by the education system that practices one-size-fits-all teaching method, which basically means, in plain English, that the entire education system is organized at the C student level.

I think that no task is more important for the Chinese immigrants than learning English, a task that their three-year-old children accomplished splendidly. However, in a more advanced level, the English education of the Chinese children, just like the math education, becomes problematic. Last summer, unable to find an appropriate book (or audio/video) to explain Shakespeare’s Hamlet to my children, I ate the bullet and spent the entire summer going through the play with them.

Over the radio, in each and every program, throughout the summer, I asked the Chinese parents to get their children to join in. In the end, in the coverage population of more than 500,000 Chinese Americans, exactly zero youngster from the coverage area participated. In the meantime, adding to my frustration and astonishment, many parents told me that K-12 math was too easy for them to be bothered, and their children’s English was automatically beyond worry, as they could speak fluently without accent. The only thing for them to worry about is extracurricular matters such as music.

So they bring their children to piano classes, which, for one thing, give many of their children nightmares. But that is not the topic for today.

For immigrants, the most important task is to learn English, because only with English aptitude, one can evaluate things such as the English education that our children are receiving, the unfulfilled math potentials of our children, in a time that, for our children, math is probably their magic wand into the ever shrinking middle class. Even today, math education, or STEM which is based on math, promote the earning from $50-70,000 to $70-90,000, and reduce the risk of unemployment from 8% to 3%.

Many argue that we should not forget our Chinese heritage. And a multicultural country is the best for us all. First, urging the Chinese in America to learn English does not conflict with any conservation goals. Second, besides that the colleges are using multiculturalism to implement its redistribution of government educational resources by skin color, rather than by merit, anyone thinking that they could have a good future in the U.S. without the ability of English and math are simply fooling themselves.

The big government is gobbling away the middle class at an exponentially increasing rate, precisely the phenomenon we have seen throughout the history time and again with all monopolistic powers. The frustrated young people are voting for the big government gobbling machine. That is the reality facing our children.

For that, I am going to write in English.

On this International Children’s Day, I write on children also.

June 1, 2016

Blog: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
Past AM1300 program recordings in Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng