In China, a student asked President Obama, “Should we be able to use Twitter freely?” You and I might have said, “Yes.” President Obama began, “Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone.” He went on, “I should be honest. As president of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely, because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time.” Yet “in the United States, information is free.” And “I have a lot of critics . . . who can say all kinds of things about me.” And “I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear.”

You could argue that this is a clever, nuanced answer — not too brash. But isn’t the answer weirdly me-centric, Obama-centric? And doesn’t he argue from pragmatism — “It makes me a better leader”? How about principle: the principle of free speech, freedom of expression?

I really think a simple “yes” might have been better.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One more thing: Obama said, “There are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely.” Did he mean that, or was that just a matter of rhetoric?

Speaking of what our president means and doesn’t mean: You might have said that the bow to the Saudi king was just a slip-up — some sort of presidential Tourette’s, a weird, anomalous moment. But the bow to the Japanese emperor: That shows us that Obama really, really means these bows. Which is frankly bizarre. I can think of some national leaders — in Israel, Honduras, and Eastern Europe — who do not require bows. Just a little presidential respect.

Obama was asked about his new strategy for Afghanistan. He said, “This decision will put us on a path towards ending the war.” I might have liked it better if he had said, “put us on a path towards winning the war.” But perhaps Obama — like many others — thinks that “winning” is the wrong concept for Afghanistan, and an unreasonable one.

We can agree — can’t we, conservatives? — that the federal government spends money on things it has no business spending money on. The Constitution often seems an afterthought, at best. Bill Buckley used to scoff at “free false teeth”: The government would spend money on “free false teeth or whatever.” It was one of the great WFB dismissive lines. But we can agree that, if federal dollars can be spent on anything, they can be spent on the wars we fight — such as in Afghanistan. That’s why it is so vexing to hear the Obama people fret about the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Apparently, this is a big part of their deliberations.

These are people who are spending zillions on everything they can think of, through the “stimulus” and other gargantuan schemes. But war is actually a federal responsibility. And they get all green-eyeshadey in this area? You may well oppose the war in Afghanistan, for sound reasons. But if this is a war worth fighting, and winning, it is worth spending on. And you can get your savings through fewer false teeth . . .

Speaking to American Indian leaders, Obama said, “I know what it means to feel ignored and forgotten, and what it means to struggle. So you will not be forgotten as long as I’m in this White House.” Nice. But, it seems to some of us, if there are two things Barack Obama has never been, it is ignored and forgotten. As for the “struggle”: Well, who can really know the lives people lead?

The headline read, “Death of an Iran prison doctor raises suspicion.” And the article began, “An Iranian doctor who treated victims of torture at Tehran’s most feared prison has died, amid conflicting reports of a heart attack, a car accident or suicide — raising opposition accusations that the 26-year-old was killed.”

Um, what do you think, dear readers? Heart attack, car accident, suicide — or something else? Don’t bet the ranch on anything other than “something else.” (You recall those poor people in the Communist bloc who pushed themselves out windows, right? And the ones who shot themselves in the head — three or four times?)

I should not point out a beautiful name in a discussion so grim — but the author of the above-cited article is Scheherezade Faramarzi.

According to this article, Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is planning “to bring a bill through his committee calling for the government to study the issue of reparations to descendants of slaves.” Conyers said, “This is not just a feel-good measure. This is very serious business.” A “very serious business” is one way to put it, yes — you might also think of the word “racket.”

I think this is a good idea. The ad says, “Support Freedom of Expression: Buy a Banned Book.” And the ad is for a “human-rights book fair” at the Fordham Law School, New York City, on December 3. I learned about this via Human Rights in China, here.

“Buy a banned book” — yes, a good idea, I think.