Christine Smith's Blog

Emily Dickinson

 Aside from the occasional exposure to a poem by Emily Dickinson I randomly came across in the past, I had not read much of her work – till now.

I am finding her poetry so good- such expression of so much I, too, feel and am experiencing.  I shall embark on reading much of Emily Dickinson now and obtaining one or more volumes, as I am finding her writing to express so much of my own experience at this time in my life. 

Some of her poems so accurately evoke feelings I’ve had over the past two years.  Some sweet and light, others contemplative and reminiscent of times I spent pondering a number of experiences – spiritual – relational – and of nature.  Some of her poems bring a smile and laugh, others a contentment, a knowing inside – conveying and reminding me of something I’ve acquired in experience, knowledge, and feeling that wasn’t there before…or not to to the degree realized now.

It is a rather amazing experience to find another’s writings so evocative of one’s own feelings and awareness. 

In addition to obtaining more of her work, I must learn more of Emily Dickinson’s life and shall, as the rapport is deep.

Enough words!  Poetry speaks for itself.

I share a few which particularly resonate:

“If I can stop one heart from breaking”

 “Farther in summer than the birds”

“The soul unto itself”

“No rack can torture me”

“Who never lost, are unprepared”

“Have you got a brook in your little heart”

“Going to him! Happy letter! Tell him”

“All circumstances are the frame”

“There came a day at summer’s full”

“How happy is the little stone”

Photos from this morning: A mother bear & her two cubs, & squirrel

When was the last “just war”?

Thus, I’ve read with interest the concept of a “just war,” which dates back to Cicero, including the Just War Theory or Doctrine found in my own faith of Catholicism.  It delineates, from a moral perspective, the reasons and means in which war can be fought in order to be considered just in the eyes of the Church, including as a prerequisite that all other viable alternatives have been attempted first, and that if war ensues that humane treatment of prisoners of war and others involved is maintained.

Everyone likes to think that the U.S. government has always been “just” and righteous in its use of force, but obviously it has violated such principles, terrorizing and killing civilian populations, as well as engaging in torture.  Regardless of what an “enemy” has done, such evil is never justified. The U.S. government is one of the worst offenders in its arrogant use of its might worldwide.  “Might” does not make “right,” but our government has misused its power for decades.

The result of waging unjust wars is never favorable.  For the goal of regime change (to a more favorable government toward U.S. agendas) many people die, hostility toward the U.S. heightens, and civil liberties in America are trampled. 

So, again, I consider the question what wars this government was involved in adhered to the principles of The Just War Doctrine, or were most conflicts avoidable?

As I consider the use of our military, I am unable to identify an instance offhand where 1. Other means besides warfare were really attempted.  2. It was declared with proper authority (in our case, by Congress) 2. Loss of civilian life and property were respected, with civilians not being indiscriminately harmed or killed.  3. There was (what I consider the only legitimate reason) a violent aggressor threatening the United States who had to be stopped. 

Former President Jimmy Carter addressed such issues in regards to the idea of a war against Iraq in his March 9, 2003 piece, “Just War — or a Just War?” in the New York Times.

The instances this government has engaged in war (at least in recent history I recall) have all been fought with all manner of “good causes” being cited often with loads of rhetoric about “defending our freedom” or “spreading democracy.”  But which military actions defended our freedom?  And as for “spreading democracy,” that is not a valid reason for war whether one considers the “just war” theory or the U.S. Constitution.  On the contrary, we could have been a nation at peace if peace had been our goal. Most of our conflicts have not been declared by Congress nor were they presidential responses to a “sudden attack.”

Peace has never been the goal of the U.S. government, and thus warfare continues.  Real motives are concealed and cloaked with a facade of all the “reasons” force must be used, and like obedient children, the American people have often passively accepted whatever is told them.

But what about WWII and the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor?  Though Americans were predominately against entering the war, Pearl Harbor of course changed that immediately.  

One of the best articles examining this is by Robert Higgs and published in the May 2006 issue of The Freeman magazine, “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor.“  I recommend everyone read that informative piece, and for further research any number of books and discussions at the Independent Institutes’s Pearl Harbor Archive.

As Jacob G. Hornberger wrote of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his Dec. 1991 article, “December 7, 1941: The Infamy of FDR,” “Nevertheless, the man who did everything he could in the 1930s to destroy America’s legacy of economic liberty proceeded on a fateful — and illegal — course of action: waging undeclared war on Germany and Japan in an attempt to maneuver them into “Firing the first shot” — thereby justifying America’s formal entry into the war.”   Hornberger’s  article is a must read to clarify and illumine any American who still believes the myths about our entry into WWII that most of us have been taught. 

Regardless of how Americans might “feel,” about any number of the military conflicts, if such conflicts violate our very Constitution they cannot be justified.  An excellent examination of this point, also by Hornberger, can be found in his April 2002 piece, “Declaring and Waging War: The U.S. Constitution.”

To attack and invade nations who have not attacked or are even capable of threatening us allies is unjust. 

Health Care/Health Insurance – None of the Government’s Business!

 Obama spoke in Grand Junction, Colorado on Saturday.  As expected, it was another speech of rhetoric meant to appeal to people’s fear of catastrophic illness while putting the blame on insurance companies for the current costs.  In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. 

Of course, he threw in all his Colorado-themed remarks meant to convince Coloradoans how altruistic his policies (and taxpayer money) have been to our state…while I was thinking I wish he’d take himself and that federal money out of this state.  I never like it when presidents visit – all it causes is major inconvenience for others. 

Now if it were truly about hearing the citizenry, it would be different.  And if you believe that, well…  But no, these are merely expensive propaganda jaunts meant to form the illusion that Obama really listens and cares what we think (while he ridicules those who have opposed his agenda at such “town hall meetings” with his dismissive, “You know how TV loves a ruckus.”). 

Well, maybe “tempers have flared” as he said because of American citizens who have rationally looked at all this “reform” and are convinced that if Obama gets his way all of us will suffer far more than we already do.  It’s enough to cope with government interventionism and the high toll it already takes on families and individuals when it comes to medical costs.  But to be faced with the real prospect of the situation becoming much much worse, I’m sure “tempers” will continue to flare…and, yes, they do represent Americans across this country regardless of what some say. 

Knowledgeable Americans, and even those who haven’t researched it but think for themselves, realize that government healthcare or any form of government “insurance” is the antitheses of the free market; there’s absolutely no way private insurance can compete with a government plan for long.  The absurdity of such a notion is so easily understood by all (save for those who ignore facts and live lives based on believing what a demagogue tells them). 

Since many of us regard these so called “town hall meetings” with Obama as only for show (yet certainly providing a stage for pro-liberty protests nonetheless), is there any real debate going on at all?  Or is it a done deal – the American people be damned? 

Two libertarian friends of mine both expressed to me feelings of hopelessness over the pseudo-debates over health care “reform.”  It’s hard to call this a real debate when many care not about facts, but prefer fine-sounding promises of government “giving” them everything for “free.” 

It’s seems as if we’re talking to brick walls. As Sheldon Richman accurately described in his article The Overlooked Solution for Healthcare, “Discussing healthcare reform with an advocate of government control is frustrating.”  You can say that again!

For those of who reject government intrusion into what should be a personal and private area between patients and free-market healthcare, I share three of the very best articles I’ve read which may be useful on this topic:

When Will the Health-Care Debate Start?
by Sheldon Richman, Future of Freedom Foundation

A Four-Step Healthcare Solution
Mises Daily by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The Overlooked Solution for Health Care
Breaking the debate barrier.
by Sheldon Richman, Foundation for Economic Education

In his talk in Grand Junction, Obama said, “And these struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear. That was true when Social Security was born. That was true when Medicare was created. It is true in this debate today…”

Yes, it sure is, but not in the way Obama would like Americans to see it.  Fear was chosen then and thus the unjust Social Security/Medicare was chosen. To use such failures to try and make his point (similar to his remarks about Fedex/UPS and the USPS) is just plain stupid.

For the hope is in the Americans who protest and rebuke Obama’s health “reform” strongly and who let their representatives know right now that a vote for Obama’s plan will mean a “No” vote against them no matter what office they may ever seek in the future…with fear being in those who want to desperately believe the words of a demagogue.

Thoughts on dialogue & (lowercase) christians, republicans & libertarians

“I hardly know an intellectual man, even, who is so broad and truly liberal that you can think aloud in his society. Most with whom you endeavor to talk soon come to a stand against some institution in which they appear to hold stock, — that is, some particular, not universal, way of viewing things. They will continually thrust their own low roof, with its narrow skylight, between you and the sky, when it is the unobstructed heavens you would view. Get out of the way with your cobwebs; wash your windows, I say!” – Thoreau, Life Without Principle.

A most rewarding aspect of attending Cato University (in addition, of course to the highly informative lectures from some excellent scholars) was the dialogue between attendees.  We had no “cobwebs” getting in the way of our communication.

Most places I go and the people I speak with remind me of another of Thoreau’s observations in Life Without Principle, “Just so hollow and ineffectual, for the most part, is our ordinary conversation. Surface meets surface. When our life ceases to be inward and private, conversation degenerates into mere gossip. We rarely meet a man who can tell us any news which he has not read in a newspaper, or been told by his neighbor….”

At Cato University, rather than “surface meets surface” it was “depth meets depth.”

But Cato University was so different!  Here discussion of ideas flowed.  After lectures, during breaks, while dining, and at receptions and other social gatherings attendees were often discussing issues and ideas.  Rather than “surface meets surface” it was “depth meets depth.”

That was because none of us thrust “some particular, not universal, way of viewing things: upon any other.”  We focused on shared premises, so as to develop thoughtful (and oftentimes entertaining) conversation.  It was always enjoyable!  For example, a friend posed a question at a table of several, qualifying it with the prerequisite we were all little “c” christians, and as all nodded, he proceeded with his point of discussion.

I had never heard the word “christian” used that way before…and the more I pondered it the more I liked it.  Actually, I liked it immediately.  For to engage in truth with others requires certain premises to be acknowledged and agreed upon for the sake of discussion and understanding (while differences,if any, are set aside).  That’s the way to effective dialogue.

The lowercase “christian” concept is one I relate to.  In fact, as I think back on my life, for so many years it would have been a quick way to describe myself (not a member of any church for most of my life, I always told people that I believed in the love Jesus taught, to distinguish myself from practicing any particular religion but not rejecting the premise of living one’s life with goodwill toward others).

And although Catholicism (especially the writings of Catholic mystics being meaningful) is my faith, I still maintain that mine is a spiritual practice far more than a religious one.  I distinguish between the spiritual and the religious.  Often, I think religion can be the way one comes to a deep spiritual path or it may enhance their life. The religious aspects of Catholicism have enhanced my understanding, this I am aware of, but the spiritual focus of my life has always been present.

Letting conscience be the guide

It is my own conscience, not any church pronouncement or “rules”, which determines my choices in life.

In other words, I concern myself with the “way” I spend my life as Throreau would express it, but not in any regard to what anyone else may think about or judge it, including the Church.  In all matters of life, I consider all factors, and then make my decision as to what I believe is personally right for me.

Thus, when in mixed company, such a designation as the lowercase “c” allowed for us all to proceed with an intellectual and ethical dialogue without becoming caught up in our possible differences, rather we all understood a basic meaning, a way of life based on certain ethics upon which we all agreed, so that we could go from there in our talk together.

Lowercase “l” “r” & “c” libertarians, republicans. and christians

It’s just like lowercase “l” libertarians and lowercase “r” republicans.  It makes sense.  As I consider it, ironically, most lowercase “l” and “r” libertarians and republicans I’ve met adhere to principle to a much greater extent than many of their uppercase counterparts, and I have often sadly seen it’s the same with “Christians” and “christians,” with those most loudly declaring their religiosity often some of those who are most far from the loving principle upon which it is based.

My personal emphasis is placing my priority on principle above all. Principles I hold and believe manifest in my work, friendships, as well as in my faith and politics, which makes everything I do a labor or expression of love.

Principle guides every expression without thought to whether it be well-received, approved of, or compensated by others. I cannot say “I know” anything, only that I believe.  As such, I truly appreciate being around others who also forgo egocentric debates in favor of learning and sharing.

“Let us consider the way in which we spend our lives.” – Thoreau, Life without Principle

I really enjoy being around people who value true communication.

I learned a great deal from my many conversations with others at Cato University.  And more than anything in those conversations, I loved listening to others and their perceptions and experiences.  What a joy it was to be with those who are “so broad and truly liberal” (liberal in the classical sense), for conversation brought us together with good dialogue and ample exchange of ideas.  The ethical and political premises we shared allowed us to proceed to learn from one another.

Give me lowercase christians, libertarians and republicans to discuss things with as they (whether they choose to affiliate or not with any organization) are most capable of true communication as no institution takes priority over their own judgment and conscience.

So indeed let’s as Thoreau wrote,  “consider the way in which we spend our lives,” living in ways encompassing truth, love, humility, and thereby fostering rewarding conversation, learning, and friendship.

Obama’s Propaganda

 Bush was bad enough in his socialistic spending of taxpayer money and expansion of government, now look what we’ve got.  Ever increasing debt, gaining more and more power, Obama intrudes with more corporate welfare into industries and corporations which should be allowed to fail if that’s what the market dictates.  He will continue to try and gain greater government regulation of our economy by covering such damage and destruction of America with words that sound healing and hopeful.  He has successfully manipulated many people with his words. Propaganda has gotten him far. 

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, was brilliant.  He knew the immense power in swaying the mass of public opinion through their emotionalism, and while others recognize just how important it can be to, few know how to implement it successfully as he. 

Obama for instance, because of his ability to speak a little better than Bush (as long as his teleprompter was handy), was hailed as a great orator.  But his words meant to inspire people, to create a vision for them to aspire their nation toward, to cause them to think that he could help move this nation from dreams of prosperity and peace into a reality of such, were all a lot of hot air.  Verbal delivery lacking sincerity is soon viewed as worthless. His has never been a voice of strength but of weakness.

So how were millions taken in by his words?  It certainly wasn’t because of any eloquence or brilliance in Obama or his staff (Hitler was actually a powerful orator buttressed with a propaganda minister who understood psychology well).  But Obama is no orator, and though his image packagers did a fair job, it didn’t require great expertise and skill to accomplish what they did.  The sentiment of rejecting Bush was strong, and people wanted someone seemingly as different from Bush as possible.

It was because the American people have come to accept mediocrity in its leaders, that one who appeared to be different, a bit of poise and pseudo-intellectualism, one who could speak, got their hopes up.  And he played it to the hilt.  After all, it’s easy to manipulate people who want so desperately to believe.

Being that so many Americans have been brought up feeling vulnerable and as if they’ve been victimized and deserve provisions from government, many were simply gullible when suddenly this politician appears promising them the world. 

The status of this nation during Obama’s campaign was one of a country filled with people stuck in the victim mentality.  “Victims” who felt hurt, manipulated, and stolen from.  And now, ironically, by choosing Obama for their president, I think they actually will be hurt, manipulated and stolen (taxed) from as never before.

Propaganda, be it true or false (often a cleverly deceptive mix of facts, fallacy, and half-truths), is meant to persuade a people to certain opinions and behavior.  Some propagandists are better than others. All try to appeal to emotionalism.

Obama though far from anything even approaching mastery of the technique when compared with others in history and politics, was adequate enough considering the deplorable country of childish adults he played to.  I say “childish” since to see adults behave as if they must be cared for, comforted, and encouraged or inspired by a politician and the government he promises, reminds me of a child (naturally and understandably looking toward his caretaker for such reassurance but only until he comes of an age to effectively do things on his own; in fact children from the earliest ages want to do things on their own free from our help – where is that craving for self sufficiency in the majority of adults?).

As children mature into young adults, they naturally and healthily seek to pull away from dependency on their parents in order to create a life of their own.  But something has perverted the American people from those healthy traits, distorting them into a mass of weaklings who crave a paternalistic government and its politicians who tell them everything is going to be alright – trust me – I’ll take care of you.  To this libertarian, any politician who espouses that message is sickening and disgusting. 

Who would ever want to encourage weakness in people?  Only a manipulator who seeks power.  For a truly caring and compassionate individual, just as a loving parent, seeks only to see those who previously depended on them go out into the world strong, independent, and free. 

Nobody who loves or truly cares for someone wants that someone dependent on them.  So it is with a nation.  An individual truly motivated altruistically in a concern for the republic would seek only to facilitate independence, not dependence, in the people.

Looking at Obama’s propaganda, it appeals to the emotional state many in America are in – one of hopelessness, despair, and as I pointed out already, he appeals to the feeling of being a victim (regardless of whom they blame).  This, then, is upon what he focuses, promising relief in the job market, the economy, industries, healthcare, education, and the environment.

Is there a similarity today to Goebbel’s  National Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda? 

Certainly we see the great fear Obama has of detractors, and thus he is already attempting to identify those who oppose him – even to the point of having citizens inform on other citizens.   His recent actions show, in my opinion, that he really would prefer you not read or hear anything that opposes his policies, why else would his office release the “Facts Are Stubborn Things” blog on the White House website which says, “…There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it …” 

What’s that about?  “Keep track of all of them”? For what purpose do they seek this information?  Why would the Obama administration dare ask for you to collect information for his White House that “seems fishy”?  Look at the ultra friendly tone, meant to disarm and make you give them the benefit of doubt?  The request in itself is a form of intimidation, not to mention how the information acquired may be used in the future.  The attempt at censorship of critics through intimidation has only just begun, as I believe we will see continued threats to our freedom of speech under Obama. 

Likewise, the prevalent reporting of his policies seems to me to most subjective (in his favor).

Similarly, Obama’s face and voice are everywhere.  One might think he a celebrity in film or music based upon the public show.  And his behavior is not that of a humble public servant (which at best a politician should be), it is of one, in my opinion, of arrogance.  This is the feeling I come away from his many “press conferences” and other appearances with. 

Take today’s (August 8, 2009) weekly address from Obama in which he said, “…And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance…”

But saying it doesn’t make something so.

He then outlined all the “consumer protections” he wants to force upon insurance companies such as requiring insurance companies “to cover routine checkups and preventive care”, preventing insurance companies from considering medical histories, making sure insurance companies must limit your out-of-pocket expense, and stopping insurance companies from placing “arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime…” 

This is, in my opinion, essentially putting government in charge of your health insurance and will likely, I think, lead to a government takeover of health care (which I believe is his goal).  This is government regulation, yet again, on what should be a private industry, meaning government will control and be “in charge” no matter Obama’s verbal protestations to the contrary.

Obama is starting to get a taste of the American people’s awakening.  Some realize they’ve been duped again and they don’t like it.  Others are outraged over policies they anticipated he would advance as he moves fast to implement them.

Not as clever or intelligent as Goebbels’, but good enough for his audience for a time, Obama’s propaganda, though accomplishing him the office of presidency, is now failing.  When winning you over starts to fail, a propagandist turns to intimidation; watch for more. 

But I’ll give credit where credit is due, he said something I could agree with in today’s address, that “…There are those who are focused on the so-called politics of health care; who are trying to exploit differences or concerns for political gain.  That’s to be expected. That’s Washington…”

That’s Obama.

“Tax The Hell Out Of It.” Why?

Whatever line keeping government out of our private activities (that once existed) has been erased so that any number of behaviors are coming under government control. As for the drug war arguments: Seems that same old conversation about legalization as opposed to decriminalization pops up time and again in random conversations with people.

In recent days, I’ve had three such conversations with strangers all of whom condemned the drug war, and all of whom simultaneously espoused the “benefit” the federal and state governments could derive from it in the oft repeated “The government could tax the hell out of it,” in reference to marijuana.

To this “progressive” thought, I simply ask “Why?”

“Why what?”

“Why have it taxed at all? Why not simply legalize it, and keep it free from regulation and taxation whatsoever?”

To this, the most intelligent answer I’ve received is “I hadn’t thought of that,” while others simply begin to explain to me how, of course, the government has to regulate it because of its “danger” or they tell me the government “ought” to be able to make money off of it. Such dialogue perplexes me, since when do people want to give the government more money? Perhaps it simply appeals to them since they’re not in said group being taxed.

Save for the one individual with whom I had a most interesting conversation on the matter and whom seemed far more knowledgeable, thoughtful and liberty minded than many, the others simply couldn’t get past the idea that it, as with other substances now taxed, should also be “controlled.” They seemed unable to even question taxation, rather acting as if taxation of it would be the answer.

Also irrationally, in these random conversations most every person assumes that one who opposes the drug war must be one who partakes in drug usage; after I dispel them of this irrational false assumption as one who opposes the drug war but who has had no interest in any illegal drugs, I go on to cite examples of so many substances regulated by the federal government and the oh so many victimless “crimes” which are prosecuted all of which merely result in vast expenditures of money to attempt to control behavior which harms no other. (Simply enforce existing laws which draw the line at behavior – exacerbated or not by drug usage – which harms another.) Like a gun, a bottle of liquor or a smoke, any currently illegal substance harms none…and most human beings who use any of them do so relatively wisely or well with harm coming to none (other than perhaps themselves).

Regulation better than illegality?

But even libertarian or libertarian-leaning acquaintances argue that regulation of certain substances is to be preferred over illegality thus they battle for causes such as “medical marijuana”…but I don’t see it that way. It perhaps might be better, but still utterly wrong and I’m not about to spend my time lobbying for something which is still oppressive. Such legislation enforces the idea that it’s government’s place at all to be involved in these matters (as if we must beg or bargain for what should be and really is ours free and clear to begin with). Thus, I think there’s quite an argument, too, such regulation decreases liberty overall since the root of government intrusion isn’t challenged but reinforced.

But such what I call ‘behavior taxes’ are gaining enormous support even from the people themselves. Food and beverage taxes are becoming ludicrous. I couldn’t care less about the obesity rate in the United States – sad as it is – it’s still not something I want to have my money directed toward and I certainly should not be forced to pay more for an occasional soft drink or any other item to supposedly fight obesity, no more than cigarettes should be taxed to fund healthcare for children. Sure, there’s any number of social concerns out there, but it’s not the business of government to force me or anyone else to pay for other people’s problems, nor is it the role of government to try and change people’s habits and wants.

Thus, I do not want to see marijuana taxed any more than I want to see the stupid taxation of soft drinks or high caloric foods. Same goes for the taxes on cigarettes and any other item people enjoy. It’s simply none of the government’s business. Same goes for pharmaceuticals.

What’s “public” about health?

The cause used of “public health” isn’t even questioned…what’s “public” about health? Health is an area of solely personal concern and responsibility, but nowadays the term “public health” is thrown around indiscriminately to justify intrusions into so many behaviors and even advertising itself. We’re all different, some do risky things (and isn’t that relative?), just don’t force other people to pay for what other people do when they get into trouble – “problem” solved.

Why not as is said, let all be free to eat, drink, and be merry – self-medicating as we choose? Wouldn’t that be freedom?

People enjoy food, drink, and the human animal has always and will always seek drugs – alcohol or otherwise – to release stress. Why should the most natural aspects of living be exploited by government bureaucrats…and why do so many Americans not care? Why do so many agree with government regulating people’s behavior? And how in the world can anyone be excited and in favor of more taxation? Maybe they’ll draw the line when the behavior the government deems “unhealthy” affects them…maybe they’ll be indignant then…maybe when it’s too late and our society has devolved to the point where government assumes the right to dictate, regulate and tax most all of our behaviors from what we eat, how we exercise or don’t, and even the sports (evaluating the danger/risk factor) we engage in – all in the name of “public health.”

Cato University

Back home in Colorado from a week in San Diego attending Cato University (the annual educational conference/seminar by the Cato Institute), and I feel great. It was a wonderfully enriching educational experience for me – the line-up of speakers/professors and authors and the political topics and history explored made it informative, thought-provoking, and clarified my understanding particularly in regards to issues relating to economics.  To listen to this number of scholars on the topic of the event, “Economic Crisis, War, and the Rise of the State,” was an intellectual treat.  But even beyond the lectures, learning continued as attendees visited amongst ourselves.

A major part of my decision to attend was knowing that Robert Higgs (of the Independent Institute) would be lecturing (he is one of my favorite authors & I always appreciate hearing him in person), so hearing all the other excellent speakers provided even more knowledge about areas of interest to me. 

In addition to the classes, the conversations with international students in attendance were also valuable as they provided a perspective on their nations one is usually not exposed to (offhand, I recall visiting with individuals from South Africa, Nigeria, China, Spain, Canada, Germany, Australia, & Chile). 

I met so many interesting individuals from across the United States, and most of us would just spontaneously leap into conversation about political issues whether we met on the walkways, dining, or festivities after each day’s lectures.  Ideas and discussions were abundant! 

What made the conversations interesting and unique was that it is so rare to be in a gathering of persons all of whom (for the most part) share the common premise of valuing liberty above all else.  Most of the time, in my life, I find myself listening then educating, debating, and hopefully persuading…but at Cato University I found myself listening (much!) and questioning, speculating, and exploring ideas and solutions with others.  It was some of the most intellectually stimulating conversation I’ve had in a long time. 

I intend to write a few future blog pieces abut aspects of Cato University I particularly appreciated, but right now am just resting (and getting back to work) from being away.  It is good to be back home, and on my return home I was greeted first by a beautiful large sunflower smiling at me as I entered the country road to my home.  In 8 days, much had changed as all the wildflowers are now in full bloom. 

Later I will write here about some of the speakers and topics from Cato University, but suffice to say now that it was a wonderful educational experience for one who values liberty.

Meanwhile, I invite you to visit the following Cato University webpages:

Description of this year’s Cato University – Economic Crisis, War, and the Rise of the State.

and 

Schedule–look at the lecture lineup.