这些天一直想写点东西回应王炼利大姐的文章，她的《奥巴马当选时写给杨恒均的一封信》感动了很多读者，自然也包括我。今天又看到李悔之兄写的一篇《时间开始了，王炼利们的梦破碎了》，更是让我心情久久不能平静。这一切，大概都是我那篇《我有一个梦！——奥巴马当选美国总统的意义》惹的“祸”，按说我应该好好写一篇回应的文章，可是不知道为什么，思来想去，竟然直到昨天才想出了这么一个题目：我为什么写博客？
如果不写博客的话，我根本不会认识这些令我尊敬的哥们姐们。不管王炼利大姐是不是“最著名的下岗工人”，不管她独自一人承担的研究是否让她已经变成了一位名副其实的学者，在我的眼里，她和我一样，是一个“写博客的”；至于李悔之兄，也一样——“一个写博客的”。同样写博客的还有上次和我一起参加2009年中文网志年会的猛博们，以及中文互联网上6000多万的博主们！可是，我们为什么要写博客呢？
以我看来，肯定不是像有些人说的“追名逐利”，因为很简单，迄今为止，靠写博客发财的机率，应该比卖茶叶蛋或者搞传销发财的要低很多，至于出名——有几个名人是靠写博客出名的？如果每年写上百万字的博文可以出名，有人愿意试一下吗？同样，我想加几句，不排除一些朋友利用博客练笔，写好了，被编辑看重了，就登堂入室，到有稿费的平面媒体开专栏，当编辑，甚至进入体制内当老师、当学者，大展宏图，这些都无可非议。但对于我，以及还有和我有类似情结的博主们，写博客就是写博客，在这个国家，写博客本身就是很高的目的，就是有意义的，不必把写博客当成手段，当成垫脚石和桥梁。
对于我，如果你一定要继续追问为何要写博客的话，我还想引用今天奥巴马在上海和中国青年对话时说的一段话，他说，“但是我也应该很诚实的告诉各位，作为美国总统，有的时候我还是希望信息不是那么自由的流通，因为这样我就不需要听到人们在批评我，我认为很自然的。”
奥巴马这段话无意中回答了我的问题！而且，我现在有点后悔没有到上海去亲耳听他讲这段话。在奥巴马到上海的四天前，美国政府方面打电话联系我，问我是否有时间到上海参加奥巴马和中国青年的对话活动，听完演讲后有提问的机会。我当时以已经买好机票，和儿子有个约会而推脱了。
当然这是事实，可还有一个更大的实情是：过去一两年，我一直在起劲地表扬奥巴马，推崇美国的价值观，引起他们注意也是正常的（不注意说明他们失职）。能够被美方邀请而不是被中方安排，应该是一种荣耀。然而，我无功不受禄——我写那些表扬美国的文章都是为了中国，而不是美国，我不想大家误会。而且，如果我去听奥巴马演讲，提的问题肯定会让他不那么舒服。再说，我是一名写博客的，不是活动家。所以，我没有去见奥巴马，而是见了我的儿子。
现在想一下，也许我真应该去，为啥？因为奥巴马回答的这个问题竟然是他指定美国驻华大使洪博培提出的，那洪大使装模作样地说自己的问题来自网友，其实，很可能是早就安排好的。13亿中国人啊？这不是欺我堂堂中华无英雌？复旦大学啊，我的母校啊——你们问的那都是什么问题？为什么把这个关系到中华民族是否能够真正崛起的问题留给美国大使来问？
这是我唯一后悔没有到上海参加奥巴马演讲的，因为如果我去了，至少能为中国人挣回一个面子，别让美国人和全世界自由的人民都认为中国大学生连提问都是事先请示和安排好的。包括我的母校复旦大学的祖国花朵们。还记得20多年前里根总统到上海复旦大学访问时，走进正在上课的国际政治系（我所在的系）课堂，然后我的学长们一个一个站起来，好像突然想起了某个问题，其实是把早就安排好的问题提出来，那时，我是低年级国政系学生，在对面教室里隔窗看他们表演，充满了向往……
奥巴马的回答实在太坦诚了，我虽然在以前的文章中多次提到过，如果给任何一个西方领导人和政府们自由的选择权，他们也许都会选择压制言论自由，反对舆论监督，甚至愿意到北朝鲜去当总统。可是，不愧为是奥巴马，只有他才会如此坦诚地说出了我早就反复重复了多少遍的道理。
大家只要想一下，一个国家的言论自由是用来对付谁和保护谁的？声名狼藉的尼克松总统喜欢言论自由吗？被拉链门折磨得遭到希拉里抽耳光的克林顿喜欢舆论监督吗？再想一下，上任时的民调比奥巴马任何时候都高的小布什总统后来如何被媒体修理并被讽刺得体无完肤？他能够是美国言论自由理念的捍卫者吗？
但他们都没有奥巴马这黑小子如此真诚，只有奥巴马一语中的：作为美国总统，还是希望信息不是那么自由的流通啊。可是，美国的信息是自由的，所以，奥巴马没有办法。可见，美国的言论自由不是美国总统赋予民众的，而是民众用来监督政府和总统，用来保护自己的。换句话说，美国之所以有言论自由，有自由的信息流通，不是因为有奥巴马，而是有了宪法，有了自由和独立的媒体，有了每一个都知道如何使用言论自由之权利的公民！
现在，你知道我为什么说奥巴马无意中回答了我的问题吧？在一个媒体基本上都属于政府的地方，任何信息的自由流通都是打折扣的，更不用说真正的言论自由了，除非你们碰上的那些领导人都比奥巴马高尚几百倍，或者说早已经没有了“人性”——变成神了，只有那样，他们才会施舍你言论自由，让你享受信息自由流通的“权利”，或者，他们自己设立媒体，然后让他们领导的媒体来监督他们自己。
而在我们说到的那个神奇的地方，迄今为止，只有那么一两个虚拟空间里的精神家园，还没有被完全收归“国有”，还有相对的自由，如果你不是为了赚钱，不追求点击率，也不是把它当成今后登堂入室的垫脚石的话，它还是一个相当独立的精神家园。——我说的就是博客！
所以，我写博客。
并在此向李悔之兄，向王炼利大姐，以及所有在自己的精神家园讲述真实的故事，流露真实的感情，传播真实的道理的博主们致敬！
借此机会向博客中国，以及各大博客表达一个博主的谢意，你们也许在开发技术，在做生意，在创造财富，但与此同时，你们也和成千上亿的博主和网友们一起，在创造历史。
杨恒均 2009/11/16
Why Blog? (11/16/2009)
(in partial translation)
... I would like to quote President Barack Obama's conversation with the Shanghai youth today: "Now, I should tell you, 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."
Obama's comment has unintentionally provided the answer to my question: "Why blog?" I am somewhat rueful that I did not go to Shanghai and hear him say that in person. Four days ago, the American government called me and asked me whether I could attend this meeting, with the chance of posing a question after the speech. I turned the offer down on the grounds that I had already purchased an airplane ticket to go and see my son.
Of course, that is a fact. But it is also a fact that my past praises of President Obama and American values have drawn their attention. It was an honor to be invited by the Americans, as opposed to an arrangement by China. Yet, I declined to be so rewarded -- all those essays in praise of America had been for the sake of China and not for America. I don't want any misunderstanding on this. Besides, if I were present at the meeting, my question to Obama would definitely make him uneasy. Anyway, I am a blogger and not an activist. I met with my son and not President Obama.
In retrospect, I really should have gone there. Why? Because Obama's question came from the American ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr whom he had personally appointed. Huntsman acted as if the question came from a Chinese netizen, but it may have been pre-arranged. 1.3 billion Chinese people? Are you saying that there are no heroes among the Chinese people? What kind of questions are the students of my alma mater Fudan University asking? Why can't this question that pertains to whether China can truly rise be left to the American ambassador to ask?
This is my own regret for not having attended Obama's Shanghai Town Hall meeting. If I did, I could have gained some honor for the Chinese people so that the Americans and the free world wouldn't think that the questions from the Chinese university students were all pre-arranged ...
Obama's response was too honest. I have written in many essays before that if given the choice, any western leader/government would choose to suppress freedom of speech and press and even willing to serve as president of North Korea. But only Obama was willing to honestly articulate the principles that I have repeated so many times before.
Let us think about this: Who is going to exercise/defend freedom of speech? Did the notorious Richard Nixon like freedom of speech? Did the "zipper-gate"-plagued Bill Clinton like watchdog journalism? Bush Jr. may have a higher public opinion support than Obama at first, but he was then pilloried later. Can he be the defender of freedom of speech in America?
But none of them have the honesty of Barack Obama. Only Obama can get to the point: As American president, he would rather prefer information not to be so free flowing; but Obama has no choice because information flows freely in America. This shows that freedom of speech in America is not something given to the people by their president; it is something that the people exercise to protect themselves against the government and the president. In other words, America has freedom of speech and information because of the Constitution and not because of Obama. Because they have free and independent media, they are citizens who know how to exercise their freedom of speech.
So now you know why I said that Obama unintentionally answered my question. In a place where the media belong to the government, any free flow of information is discounted, never mind true freedom of speech. Only when your leaders are many times better than Obama or even deified will they give you the "right" to have freedom of information. Or else they set up their own media and let their media supervise them.
In this wonderful place that we are talking about, only a few spots in this virtual space has not yet been fully "nationalized." There is still some relative freedom. If you don't worry about money, if you don't chase after the hits and if you don't regard this as a stepping stone to greater achievements, it is still a relatively independent domain. I am talking about blogs!
This is why I blog.
