So, Michele Bachmann, are you really going to slit your wrists now? I actually don't wish harm on you, but I really don't like crazed wingnuts who make hyperbolic claims only to spread fear.

Ok, now THAT's what I voted for! The conclusion to that speech was definitely what I was looking for. (Well, I would have preferred single payer, but this is way better than the status quo.)

Now, live up to it. Don't back down on the public option because reform is meaningless without it. Don't get so caught up in the hope of bipartisanship and compromise that you don't get it done. Don't let delay and scare tactics and obstructionism win. Don't let a vocal minority drown out the majority who are demanding real reform. And continue to defend liberalism and empathy as really good things.

We have failed on health care for far too long.

You can't win unless you get in the game

You've got to appreciate a guy who sees what he wants and goes after it, even at great personal risk. Like this guy. He could have sat back and let his opportunity pass him by. He could have said to himself, "That's not mine and it never will be." He could have just walked away from it, giving up on his desire as nothing but a pipe dream, as we all do hundreds of times in our lives. But he didn't. He went for what he wanted, even though it wasn't his and he had no reason to expect it should be. Say what you want about him, but it takes courage to grab for that brass ring.

And, no, I'm not talking about him taking property from this young woman by force. I'm talking about his returning two hours later to ask her out on a date. Not the brightest move, but it was bold. I salute you, sir. And I might even buy you a beer, in 3-5.

Exhibit A

Proof that capitalism kinda sucks:

Walmart's Project Impact: A Move to Crush Competition

Not content to drive thousands of mom and pop shops and 4 of the top 5 toy retailers out of business, Walmart now wants to drive, well, pretty much everyone else out of business. They're not even happy just being the biggest game in town; they want to be the only game in town. And, really, isn't that the theoretical end game of capitalism: to corner the market? Here's hoping antitrust laws kick in at some point so I don't get stuck shopping at Walmart someday.

And we'll all be in a heap of trouble if Walmart ever decides to get into the health insurance business.

The truth about capitalism

Ok, it's time we all acknowledge this fundamental truth: capitalism kinda sucks. Not all the time, not even most of the time. In the small scale, it's great that anyone with an idea, an investor, and lots of hard work can own his/her own business. It's great for encouraging innovation, rewarding hard work and initiative, etc. But pure capitalism, left unchecked, pretty much just screws people.

As James Madison wisely wrote, men are not angels. We have anti-trust laws and banking laws and the SEC for a reason. We outlaw usury. We regulate credit cards. We don't enforce contracts of adhesion. Because, when left unchecked, money and power in a capitalist system tends to congregate among an ever smaller group of people. And then those few with money and power can pretty much run roughshod over the rest of us if they want to, unless we get together as a big collective to stop them. (Well, they could just be nice out of the goodness of their hearts, but I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.) To prevent people's baser, worst human instincts from running unchecked, we intervene here and there. So that we can protect all of us from getting suckered into padding a capitalist's profit motive.

So maybe just a little socialism here and there, like in how we manage some basic things like education, public safety, and some other general needs, isn't such a bad thing. In fact, maybe it's a good thing to protect us all. And maybe, just maybe, health care is one of those basic, vital, fundamentally important things for the public good that should be protected from the corruption of capitalist profit motives. Is that really such a radical idea?

So why'd you pick my guy, exactly?

In most cases, it's pretty clear who the suspect is. The guy beat up his girlfriend or got caught at the scene of the crime or immediately admitted to everything. In most cases, the real question isn't who was involved, but more what the exact charge should be for what really happened.

But in some cases, figuring out who should be charged with the crime isn't that easy. It's clear that a crime occurred because a woman's purse was stolen or a convenience store was robbed or there's a dead body with a gunshot wound to the back. Who did it, though, isn't all that clear. I have found in a lot of these kinds of cases that there's a leap made in the police investigation that I just can't understand.

I get that the liar, I mean snitch, when asked, swore that my guy was the culprit. But I don't have any clue why the police asked about my guy. There was nothing to link my guy to this particular crime until they asked the snitch and the smart snitch, knowing he would get a deal, said, "Sure, I'll say that's the guy." It drives me crazy, not understanding what led that police officer to tie my guy to this random crime.

In the particular case I'm mentioning here, my guy had a very solid alibi for the entire day and the only "evidence" against him was the word of two snitches who lived in the same jail pod and both hoped to benefit from testifying against my guy. For some unknown reason, the jury chose to disregard the 4 alibi witnesses and convict on the word of the two snitches. Oh, yeah, and I now know who really committed the crime. But one thing that will forever bother me about the case is wondering what led the police detective to take a picture of my guy to the snitch in the first place.

Then there are the cases where there are two or more viable suspects. We suspect that one of the two people in this apartment committed the burglary because the stolen items are found there. And both residents kind of match the general description (black man). Or the DNA of two possible suspects is found at the scene, but only one is ultimately charged with the crime based on that DNA. How do the police decide which one to charge? Sometimes it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but just leaves me scratching my head.

The standard police or prosecution response might be, "Well, we have enough evidence to make a plausible case against your guy, so you can point out the other suspect to the jury and we'll just let the jury decide." But the problem with that is that juries put a lot of weight on the choice made by the prosecution and police. Don't tell me about the presumption of innocence because juries do not observe it. They just don't. All things being equal, I believe juries assume the police and prosecution had a reason for charging the one they did and that they got it right. So it troubles me when I encounter a case where I can't see any reason for the decision to charge the guy they charged as opposed to another viable suspect.

Public Service Announcement

They can do paternity testing on dead babies. And on the unborn fetuses of dead pregnant women. So if you kill a baby or a pregnant woman in the hopes of destroying the evidence of underage sex, you will fail. They will still get the evidence to prove the underage sex (the severity level of which will vary from state to state, but will almost always be less than premeditated murder). But now, you will also be facing a murder charge. Of the premeditated variety. In some states, if you kill the pregnant woman, you'll face two murder charges.

In other words, you will not improve your chances with the criminal justice system so it's probably best just to take your lumps for the underage sex. You can't get the death penalty for underage sex.