I was put into Little Flower Catholic grade school in Billings, Montana, at age six. I also attended Billings Central Catholic High School. My teachers in grade school were Dominican nuns. That order would not normally have come to Billings, but my maternal great aunt, “Sister Faith,” was the Mother Superior of that order, and so had the power to send her foot soldiers our way as a special favor to our family. This is what my mother told me, anyway.

Catholics at that time were protective of their youth. Deep religious indoctrination was a common practice, and thought to be a good thing. It protected us from worldly influences. Our school had its own special bus, even though public school buses were available. They scheduled the school day so that we did not get out at the same time as Garfield, the public school one block away. They did not want us mixing with the public school kids on a daily basis.

It all seems innocent, and the nuns I had for teachers were wonderful people. They had the best of intentions. We were taught that the Catholic faith was the “one true faith,” and that once we became aware of that fact our choices were to stay in the faith or leave the faith and face eternal damnation. There was a real place called “Hell” that had real fire that really burned, forever.

It scared the shit out of us.

Most kids I went to school with are still Catholics. Even as mature adults that fear-based indoctrination resides in our subconscious. Leaving the Catholic faith, which I did at age 38, was stressful. I was afraid that I was going to be punished and that my life might be destroyed. I took a leap of faith, so to speak, to the other side.

As it turns out, the “other” side is a nice place. But I could not know that. Youthful indoctrination kept me in the faith for twenty years after the end of my Catholic education.

That’s a common experience, but perhaps my family was more religious than most, so I got a heavier dose. That lock they had on me – a child’s fear of burning – is extremely powerful. Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to call it child abuse, and I tend to agree, but only to to a degree. Most people who lead the mainstream religious faiths are not bad people. They love their flocks, and recognize the flaw in human nature: The need to follow and obey authority. To the extent that they lead people to better and happier lives, they can be forgiven. To the extent that they use this power to take our money, bugger our children or taint our world outlook to their political liking, they should burn in hell.

All of this leads me to what made me sit down here – thought prisons. Over the past few blogging years I have had numerous encounters with both Democrats and Republicans, and have found the former resolute and certain of their beleifs. Most Republicans are not conflicted by party adherence. Being a Republican appears easy, and these folks generally have no trouble punishing leaders who do not adhere to the faith. Also, they don’t much question the faith. That’s really comfortable.

Democrats are different. They are faced daily with contradiction, as their leaders behave like Republicans even as they talk like Democrats. This creates internal discomfort, or cognitive dissonance. So the party is constantly torn apart by internal dissension. Will Rogers’ lament that he did not belong to an organized party, but was rather a Democrat, hints that this is not a new phenomenon.

If not a Democrat, what am I? I have but two choices. If I leave the party, there is … nothingness, a void, a form of hell without flames. So party faithful are caught in a mind prison not much different than the conflict of the captured Catholic child. Staying is comfortable, but thinking is not allowed. Leaving is scary, and thinking is hard, even painful.

So, to my Democratic friends and enemies alike who continually ask me “If not this, then what?”, I answer “Uncertainty. Can you deal with it?” It’s not easy not belonging, to have to think and judge independently. Abstaining from casting a vote for either party seems nihilistic, but if neither offers anything productive, is that not nihilism as well?

The two-party system is a natural byproduct of money-control of politics, as no third party can amass the resources to gain critical mass and challenge it. But we don’t have to belong. It might appear that outside the two-party system there is nothing. But it is inside the two-party system where nothingness resides. Outside that system is eternal optimism of the spirit coupled with pessimism of the intellect. There is life out here, just as there is life for young Catholics if only they are willing to take a leap of faith, and leave the faith.

Our science and our technology have posed us a profound question. Will we learn to use these tools with wisdom and foresight before it’s too late? Will we see our species safely through this difficult passage so that our children and grandchildren will continue the great journey of discovery still deeper into the mysteries of the Cosmos? That same rocket and nuclear and computer technology that sends our ships past the farthest known planet can also be used to destroy our global civilization. Exactly the same technology can be used for good and for evil. It is as if there were a God who said to us, “I set before you two ways: You can use your technology to destroy yourselves or to carry you to the planets and the stars. It’s up to you.” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos TV Series)

A US Air Force unmanned spacecraft blasted off on Thursday from Florida, amid a veil of secrecy aboutM its military mission. The robotic space plane, or X-37B, lifted off from Cape Canaveral atop an Atlas V rocket at 7:52 pm local time (2352 GMT), according video released by the military. “The launch is a go,” Air Force Major Angie Blair told AFP. Resembling a miniature space shuttle, the plane ims 8.9 meters (29 feet) long and has a wing-span of 4.5 meters. The reusable space vehicle has been years in the making and the military has offered only vague explanations as to its purpose or role in the American military’s arsenal. Space Daily, April 22, 2010

What else do they need? (Fidel Castro, Granma, April 26, 2010)

In his many writings, Carl Sagan at one time pondered that perhaps the Apollo moon landing program was really disguised military spending, the purpose of which was to perfect the ability to deliver nuclear weapons across continents via ICBM’s. The moon landing produced little of value for humans beyond enthusiasm for the future of the species, not to be discounted. It was unceremoniously dumped with no follow-up. But the limits on our ability to explore space are daunting and unrealistic. Perhaps … just perhaps there might one day be a human on Mars, but … why? Can’t go any further.

Over the years since I read (or heard – I had a cassette version of Pale Blue Dot at one time) Sagan’s words, I have suspected that the Space Shuttle program was also just another military program, and that militarization of space, even while being negotiated in treaties and debated, was going on, hidden in plain sight. What was the value of the on-board experiments in a weightless environment? Cost-benefit analysis anyone? (I concede that fixing the Hubble was a worthy doing. I am glad we had the ability to do that.)

The U.S. has now developed a new “super-bomb,” a non-nuclear device that yields as much destruction. So powerful are these bombs that the Russians insisted in the Start 2 treaty negotiations that the U.S. dismantle one nuclear warhead for every super-bomb deployed. The problem, as always, is delivery – how quickly can we unleash this monster on some perceived enemy? The goal is one hour.

Has the Space Shuttle program solved that problem? Is that why all of the classified activity aboard? Is the X-37B mini-shuttle part fo the solution? Is that the purpose of its nine-month missions? Just as we used moon-landing technology to perfect Werner von Braun’s dream, have we used Shuttle technology to militarize space? If so, the world is now a much more dangerous place than ever before. While the Bush Administration offered assurances, no doubt echoed by Obama, that China and Russia will be given advance notice before launching of a non-nuclear device … how can they know?

The X-37B is a military weapon, and the announced goal of the military is “PGS,” or Prompt Global Strike. We are closer now than ever to that dream.

Maybe the purpose of the Apollo program was to build a safe moon-haven for America military officials in the post-apocalyptic world. Now that would make sense. But our unyielding drive to dominate the planet is a greater danger to the planet than posed by any other activity in human history.

The Denver Post calls Boulder “the most self-satisfied community in America,” and it does have a lot to teach us. Back in the 1960’s, residents of that city saw the future as Denver swallowed up surrounding communities, now only distinguished by freeway signs – Lakewood, Aurora, Superior, Littleton are now part of Denver proper. Boulder government convinced the public to issue bonds for the purpose of buying up surrounding countryside, not to develop, but to leave in its natural state. The result over the succeeding decades was a green zone around the city, with Boulder an island.

It’s an odd city, as every action as an equal and opposite reaction. Indeed it is surrounded by hiking trails and is not part of Denver. Within this enclave is a privileged community with beautiful parks, well-kept streets and thousands of storefronts (and no Wal-Mart). Each morning there is a huge flow of traffic, not to Denver, but into Boulder from the outlying communities. People of ordinary income, unless they have been residents for decades and own their properties, cannot afford to live there. Sixties-style ranch-style homes go for $300,000 plus, and newer developments are usually townhouses with maximization of very little space- maybe a thousand square feet with a storage unit somewhere out-of-town.

The city is the home of the University of Colorado, with 30,000 plus students, and so is heavily dependent on that facility for economic well being. The student population lends to the liberal atmosphere – it’s a fun town, with breweries, brew-pubs, pizza joints, ritzy malls and theaters and restaurants to satisfy every taste. But it is not utopia – you have to be wealthy, or a student, to really take it in.

Here is a link from today’s Denver Post on our neighbor to the south:

Colorado Springs is also heavily dependent on government institutions for its well-being. Fully one-third of its jobs are government-related, with the Air Force Academy the

Colorado Springs now turns off most of its street lights at night, and the sod on its park will deteriorate in the coming months because they cannot afford to water it. Museums and swimming pools have been shut down, buses do not run on evenings and weekends. The city no longer fills its pot holes and does no paving, hoping the state wills step in and take care of busier streets. Police and fire have been drastically cut.

Imagine a woman waiting for a bus on a dark street on the way to work some evening, with a car of thugs harassing her … neither the bus or police will show up.

The idea is that the vaunted private sector will step in and fill these gaps. It hasn’t, of course, and won’t. Government services are such because they do not offer opportunity for private profit – high volume low revenue services are the job of government. The private sector isn’t very good at those things.

Here’s the ultimate in hubris:

Community business leaders have jumped into the budget debate, some questioning city spending on what they see as “Ferrari”-level benefits for employees and high salaries in middle management. Broadmoor luxury resort chief executive Steve Bartolin wrote an open letter asking why the city spends $89,000 per employee, when his enterprise has a similar number of workers and spends only $24,000 on each.

That pretty well sums it up. (Street lights leading to the Broadmoor, of course, are on every night.)

The U.S. government is running massive deficits in its general fund, which includes interest on the debt, the military and its many wars and weapons programs, government infrastructure and some social welfare programs. This deficit could be alleviated by increases taxes in those areas where taxes have been cut, and economic upturn. To allow it to bleed is irresponsible in the extreme, but the leadership of the two political parties are controlled by the sectors whose taxes need to be increased, and so are incapable of action.

So we get distraction instead. According the latest Trustees’ Report on Medicare and Social Security, those two programs have surpluses that might run out in thirteen years (Medicare) or twenty-five years (Social Security). (By the way, when the Social Security Trust Fund expires, as it was designed to do, Social Security will still be able to pay pensions. It will simply not have a surplus to draw on.) New forecasts say that slower than expected economic growth shortens the projected life span of these programs.

Forecasts are a planning tool, but should never be thought of as reliable beyond one year, and so should be revisited often and used only for near-term planning. Those who predict crises beyond five years should be treated as we do Christianity – publicly observed but otherwise not taken seriously. No one knows what our state of affairs will be next year, much less in 2036. The law requires the Trustees to keep an eye out for future trends regarding the two programs, but doomsday predictions are mere political rhetoric used to advance political agendas.

Rep. Paul Ryan has put forward a plan to move senior citizens from Medicare to private insurers, supplying them with vouchers. This is lunacy, as the private insurance system is hardly affordable for healthy people, much less seniors who consume most of our health care dollars. (If private insurers were a positive social value, the government would not have had to step in the 1960’s to form Medicare.) We spend our working years fighting with these leaches, and they refuse to deal with any of us who are aged, possibly having a medical condition that might threaten profitability, or too poor to afford their premiums. The private insurance system simply does not work, as it is in conflict with itself: It cannot both feed investors and perform the social function of providing reasonably priced health care to all citizens. It needs to be scrapped. It is hugely inefficient.

Medicare is indeed a looming problem, however. It is not its structure, but rather its reliance on the private sector, that creates that problem. Private health insurance has created a bureaucratic nightmare, with 31% of our medical expenditures required merely to decide who pays (more properly, who doesn’t) the bill. Single payer would fix the problem, of course, or at least heavy regulation of private insurers, outlawing their ability to profit off of basic medical care. But because free market economics is a religious, rather than rational belief system, those who preach it know no other answer and are bound to keep trotting it out to solve every problem.

Likewise, private pensions are weak sisters of government cousins. The notion of a “defined benefit,” which is the basis of Social Security, was discarded decades ago. The system was gradually converted to defined contribution – the 401K,s IRA’s and SIMPLE’s which are subject to annual fees that drain at least a quarter of their reserves over the long haul (Social Security: 3%.) Once a worker relies on his 401K for retirement, he is daily confronted with the possibility that it will be drained before he dies. “Security” does not exist in private pensions, whose funding is rarely secure for twenty-five years. Libertarians and Randians decry inter-generational transfer, but they have not a leg to stand on in offering secure alternatives. It may offend their senses, but they ought to do as most religious people do – worship on Sunday and live in the real world the rest of the week.

Ayn Rand died reliant on Social Security for income and Medicare to treat her lung cancer, both courtesy of her husband, Frank O’Connor, whom she openly disrespected. She ought to be buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in Somalia, aka, Randistan. In the meantime, we should undertake a concerted effort to find the body of Tom Paine, and restore it to its proper place of honor.

I had a buddy in college who gave me shit about the fact that he had to borrow money and my dad paid a lot of my way. I told him that my job was to get good grades. In other words, don’t take my good fortune for granted. That’s my job. (Message from right-wing blogger on how he handles his personal privilege.)

The above is part of a much longer exchange I had with a right-wing blogger some time ago. I ask permission to use his name, and did not receive it. There is, within our exchange, fodder for a hundred posts, but the smugness and insularity of those particular words has hung with me. It’s quite disgusting.

First, let me expose the overall framework of right wing thinking. It goes like this: I am a wealth producer. Others consume wealth and feed off me. From this comes the natural extension, the notion of “going Galt.” They threaten to leave society, stop producing wealth, leaving all of the rabble to try and survive without them. In another part of our exchange, the right winger above mentioned that he always takes care of his employees before he pays himself, indicating that he even believes his employees to be beneficiaries of his charitable existence, rather than the opposite.

It is indeed a shame that so many of us elect to exchange our freedom and perhaps half of the wealth we produce in exchange for the illusion of security. That’s a side issue.

But at least this person concedes a privileged position. He acknowledges that not having to go into debt to get through college was a gift. He doesn’t talk about the other advantage granted to him, likely because he hasn’t a clue what it is like out there – he was an “insider” in the health care system, and so had access to quality care without the risk of enormous out-of-pocket expense. He has probably never been without the privilege of access to our health care system.

I concluded our exchange by offering up a small piece of wisdom, inaccessible to the right wing mind: We are all wealth producers. As a “left winger” I do not advocate confiscatory policies. I advocate paying back privilege. Imagine that all of our society was offered what he had – a high platform from which to embark on a career. Imagine that all of us could start out our lives with access to education and health care, and build from there. Imagine that so many of us were not chained to our desks by student loans and the need for health insurance, inaccessible to so many of us without employment by others.

That’s all that other industrial “democracies” do – I use quotes to separate us from the others, as we are the least democratic of the industrialized world. The knock on socialism is that it mandates that everyone cross the finish line at the same time. That’s nonsense – socialism merely allows everyone access to the starting gate, even without Daddy to pay the bills.

Sheesh. What hubris contaminates the right wing mind.