Health Care "Reform"

Please forgive me for a serious column, only two weeks after another one. Also forgive me for not even bothering to link sports to it. This is too important an issue for literary gymnastics.

Where to begin? Let's begin with this: I am completely opposed to the health care "reform" bill that was enacted (not passed, mind you, as I'll discuss later) by Congress and the President this week. But it's not enough to say it sucks, or that I hate it, or blah blah blah. There are plenty of pundits supporting or deriding the bill who haven't done a sufficient job of elucidating their thoughts. They haven't explained WHY they hold their position.

This came up in a discussion with my mother this week. She had read some particulars in the paper and wondered why everyone she knew was so opposed to the new bill. After all, besides forcing people to buy insurance, what was so objectionable about it? That led to me basically trying to break down objections and explain their source for the next 20 minutes. Hopefully, writing them down will give more clarity to them. So with that in mind, here is why I am completely opposed to this bill, and why I hope you will join me in "throwing the bums out" this November (as much as we can here in Kansas, which generally has more traditional representatives anyway).

There are three primary reasons I oppose the plan. The first is that I oppose the ideology of the plan. Some of what this bill purports to do is simply against the nature of the United States and freedom in general. But before being written off as an "ideologue" that refuses to accept reality, note that there are two other primary reasons to my opposition. The second is practicality. This bill is an unwieldy monster, over 2000 pages of legalese to challenge even the most adroit reader. The third primary reason is the bill's lack of integrity. The story of this bill's enactment is a sordid tale of secret deals, thinly-veiled ulterior motives, and finally a legislative sleight-of-hand that violates the Constitution itself, the very law members of Congress are sworn to uphold. Let's look at each of these primary reasons in turn, answering the comments of a fictional "advocate" of the bill.

Advocate: "Don't you want to help people? What about those poor people who can't afford health insurance? Shouldn't we all pay our fair share to help them?"

Of course we ought to help people, but it must be VOLUNTARY!!!! That is the very nature of freedom. That is the very nature of liberty. If I CHOOSE to do something, then I am exercising freedom. If I am FORCED to do something (and let's please not go down the rat-hole of philosophical discussions concerning whether anyone can really be forced to do anything) by the government, my freedom is being squelched. This bill forces me to purchase something. If I don't, I will be fined for a roughly equal amount. That goes for every man, woman, and child in the country. According to this bill, simply to live requires you to purchase health insurance.

Advocate: "How is this any different from rules that force people to own auto insurance, or even pay taxes, which we've been doing for years?"

First, you don't have to purchase auto insurance. You purchase auto insurance in order to drive a car, but you can choose not to own a car and you won't have to purchase insurance. So there is a choice involved, unlike with this health bill. As for taxes, again there is a choice involved. Taxes are based on income, property, and transactions. If I choose to live off the land, own nothing of significant value, and obtain no discernible income.... I am not liable to pay any taxes. That may be a terrible life, but at least there is the choice. That is different than this health bill, where no matter what choices I make, I will be held liable to purchase insurance.

Also note that there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States that gives the federal government the power to enact this demand. The government may levy taxes and regulate interstate commerce, but nowhere does the Constitution grant a power to force an individual purchase.

Advocate: "You're splitting philosophical hairs. Legal counsel will argue you under the table on the Constitution, and the courts will deny all these states-rights objections being raised around the country. You gotta have a better reason than that to oppose such a wonderfully beneficial piece of legislation."

OK, the second main objection is that this bill simply isn't practical. It forces insurance companies, the same ones from which it forces us to obtain policies, to expand benefits while not denying anyone coverage (the "no pre-existing conditions" stuff). Now just how will the those insurance companies, who already have an average profit margin of a mere 2% (For every dollar you give them, 98 cents goes to pay medical bills and their own employees), respond? They will raise their rates to compensate. So prices will go up. Also, ask any doctor why medical costs are so high and one of the first things mentioned will undoubtedly be the cost of insurance... THEIR OWN. Doctors have to spend a TON of money on medical malpractice insurance, just in case something goes wrong and a patient sues. With that in mind, take a look at this little excerpt from the actual bill:

(A) REQUIREMENT- Beginning not later than January 1, 2011, a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage (including a grandfathered health plan) shall, with respect to each plan year, provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such coverage, on a pro rata basis, if the ratio of the amount of premium revenue expended by the issuer on costs described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) to the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) for the plan year (except as provided in subparagraph (B)(ii)), is less than-

(i) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the large group market, 85 percent, or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine;

(ii) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the small group market or in the individual market, 80 percent, or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine, except that the Secretary may adjust such percentage with respect to a State if the Secretary determines that the application of such 80 percent may destabilize the individual market in such State.

Huh? I'll admit that I'm not the greatest reader in the world. I'll also admit that there are probably some accountant lawyers out there who actually understand this. But remember that this bill is over TWO THOUSAND PAGES of this same legalese. It's a labyrinthine mess. Did we really need over 2000 pages of incomprehensible junk just to help people pay for health insurance? No, but can you now imagine your local ambulance chaser getting hold of this? Do you think that perhaps lawsuits might be springing up left and right? Don't you think it's probable that malpractice and other medical lawsuits are far more likely under such a bill than they already were? Medical costs will skyrocket. Insurance costs will skyrocket. And because we'll be FORCED to join, our bills will skyrocket.

Advocate: "This bill isn't THAT complicated... and besides it will save money in the long run! President Obama and even the Congressional Budget Office said so!"

Uh-huh. Right. Do you really think that playing a spreadsheet shell game with Medicare funding will miraculously provide money for all the provisions in this bill? This bill is such a money-saver that it required a rider piece of legislation that performs a sweeping government takeover of the student loan business (a terribly under-reported issue that gets short shrift simply because it pales in comparison to the health bill itself) to balance plan incomes. This bill is such a money-saver that it required scads of new taxes (the tanning tax, the capital gains tax increase, the medicare tax, etc.). This bill is such a money-saver that it calls for the addition of some thousands of new IRS agents (all federal jobs with big paychecks and benefits) specifically just to track everyone's payments and insurance companies' compliance.

Advocate: "Well, the rich need to pay their fair share! We need higher taxes!"

Without getting deep into this argument, just note that this comes at a time when money around the country is in short supply. The national debt is already so high that it is threatening the stability of our entire economic system, and we're now piling onto it with this bill. Forget fair for a moment. Is it realistic to think that we can throw a bunch of additional taxes on any group in this economic climate without bad consequences? Is it realistic to think that you can levy a bunch of taxes on behavior and get a very specific amount of income? What if the behavior changes? It comes to this: the CBO is largely a calculator. If I ask it what 2+2 is, it will return 4. But if the 2 and the 2 that I gave are crazy to begin with, then their answer doesn't do us much good. That's what's happened with this bill. And remember that government programs invariably end up costing many times more than original estimates. There is simply no way that this bill is going to save money. It will cost money, and it will hurt the economy.

Advocate: "Sour grapes. Just because YOU can't read it, and YOU are afraid that the estimates will be wrong doesn't make it so. If you take the bill at face value and give a little benefit of the doubt, it could be great!!"

I'd like to take this bill at face value. If I honestly thought that it was enacted with altruistic motives, I might give it the benefit of the doubt. But the way this bill was written and enacted completely destroyed those possibilities. Consider: Just to get a bill written involved back-door deals of a disgusting nature. Did you hear about the "Cornhusker Kickback?" To win Ben Nelson's (Senator from Nebraska) vote, the bill was re-written so that the state of Nebraska would not be liable for certain Medicaid payments, to the tune of $100 million. Other deals were soon struck for other states, such as Louisiana and Florida.

Advocate: "AH-HA!!! GOTCHA!! These kickbacks were taken out of the final bill! Your argument is toast!!!"

But you see, those kickbacks weren't ever really taken out of the bill. There was no "final" bill. Due to congressional procedures, the only way to avoid a Republican filibuster (which was made possible by the stunning election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts) in the Senate was to enact a process called "reconciliation." I won't pretend to describe the whole chain of events for you, as it's been much better described here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20100323/cm_weeklystandard/theprocessisthesubstance . The upshot is that the House never actually voted for a final health care bill. They instead voted on a series of modifications, of which the removal of the "kickbacks" was one. But because the modifications said that the original Senate bill was "deemed to have passed," passing the modifications was equivalent to passing the whole bill. It's a ridiculous legerdemain that violates the principle of the Constitution which (in Article 1 section 7) specifies that bills must pass both the House and the Senate before being presented to the President for approval. Now for all the "I"s to be dotted and the "T"s to be crossed, the Senate must approve the House's modifications, putting members in the untenable position of voting to either accept the changes or "vote for the kickbacks." Republicans who opposed the bill from the beginning are now being accused of supporting the corrupt kickbacks ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/now-that-health-care-is-l_b_509935.html ). You see, the senate can stop the modifications, but the underlying bill (the original senate version with all the kickbacks) IS LAW thanks to the House having "deemed it to pass." Those kickbacks are still in there. If the senate blocks the modifications, the original Senate version (with all the kickbacks) will be law, despite never actually having been voted upon by the House. In other words, we could have a health care reform bill that was never actually voted upon in the House of Representatives.

Advocate: "Hey, it's an ugly process, everyone admits that, but at least the reform is good, and people will be helped!"

But the devil is always in the details. At what cost will this "reform" take place? Should I trust this bill and the people who enacted it? They've performed legal back-flips to push through a ridiculously over-sized, legalistic monster of a bill that oversteps the bounds of power that the Constitution provides. They claim they just want "reform" but have repeatedly stated in the past a preference for an entirely government-run health care system. I'm sorry, but as I wrote two weeks ago, the ends do not justify the means. Even if this bill was beneficial, the method by which it was enacted is shameful. Even worse is that this was done by the same people who chided President Bush as being too "secretive" and promised an "open" government where everything would be on C-SPAN. Oops, I guess.

Advocate: "So you would rather let people die?!"

People will die. You can't stop it. I can't stop it. Doctors and nurses can't stop it. Only God can stop it, and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi combined are still nowhere near God. This health care bill will not prevent people from dying. What it WILL do is destroy the core of our freedoms, sink the nation even further into debt, and further corrupt our already corrupt government institutions. Someone, somewhere, will probably benefit as a result of this health care bill. But that doesn't justify the slow ruination of every American's life. If we are to improve health care in the United States, this bill isn't a good way to do it. In fact, it will make things worse. Reform is only good if it improves something. Otherwise, it's change for the sake of Barack Obama's change.

I am steadfastly opposed to this "reform" package. It is wrong on a philosophical level in that it violates our freedoms and the spirit of the Constitution. It is wrong on a practical level because it will raise costs, increase litigation, and sink our nation further into debt. It is wrong on an ethical level because it was slipped through Congress via a series of procedural sleight-of-hands, back-room deals, and broken promises.

Hey! I CAN link this post to sports. Health care reform bill? Strike three.... you're out!

SAH

Managing the Madness

Welcome to my latest blog post, where I will reveal my picks and thoughts on the big NCAA basketball tournament, also known as "Steve makes a complete fool of himself."

I like March Madness, and college basketball in general. Where I pretty much stopped watching the NBA entirely back around 2000 (after it became clear that the NBA postseason results were scripted nearly as well as a WWE pay-per-view event), I still watch college hoops, although irregularly.

But I have to be honest. I suck at basketball. It's not that I dislike playing it, quite the contrary. It can be very fun. I just suck, and I always have. I don't shoot well, I don't dribble well, and my passes don't remind anyone of Magic Johnson. Defensively, I'm about as good as you can expect a slow, 5'11" guy with limited hops to be. Yes, when it comes to hoops, I'm an all-rounder. I suck at everything. But I still enjoy it, and like to think I can talk intelligently about it.

But the sad truth is that I can't. I simply don't see the game that well. When the Shockers (from my alma mater, Wichita State... and let's not forget they're hosting a first-round NIT game tonight!!) are struggling against an opponent, the best I can come up with is "they're not hitting they're shots," or, "they're just not moving quickly enough." In other words, I don't really know why they're struggling, I can just see that they are. So when I give you my rundown on the big brackets, please keep in mind that I really don't know what I'm talking about. But as a positive, isn't usually the clueless person who wins the bracket contests anyway? Maybe one of these years it will be my turn.....

But onto the topic at hand, the 2010 NCAA tournament. I'll go through each region giving my thoughts and picks.

Midwest Region
1st round: KU over Lehigh; Northern Iowa over UNLV; Michigan St. over New Mexico St.; Maryland over Houston; Tennessee over San Diego St.; Georgetown over Ohio; Georgia Tech over Oklahoma St.; Ohio St. over UCSB
I don't see any big upsets here. San Diego St. over Tennessee isn't that big an upset, especially since Tennessee just got completely waxed by Kentucky in the SEC tournament.
2nd round: KU over UNI; Michigan St. over Maryland; Georgetown over San Diego St.; Ohio St. over Georgia Tech
That's right, seeds 1,2,3, and 5 advancing to the sweet 16. I'm boring, I know.
Sweet Sixteen: KU over Michigan St.; Ohio St. over Georgetown
Georgetown is the best basketball team I've seen all year... but they are terribly inconsistent. I don't think they can win 6 in a row.
Elite Eight: KU over Ohio St.
KU has more options than one-man-gang Evan Turner ...I mean Ohio State.

West Region
1st round: Syracuse over Vermont; Gonzaga over Florida St.;Butler over UTEP; Vanderbilt over Murray St.; Xavier over Minnesota; Pittsburgh over Oakland; BYU over Florida; Kansas St. over North Texas;
NO UPSETS. That's right. I'm still boring you. My only other comment here is how on earth did Florida get an invite? It must have been a pity invite to honor the team that was back-to-back champions just a few years ago.
2nd round: Syracuse over Gonzaga; Butler over Vandy; Pittsburgh over Xavier; BYU over Kansas St.
That's right I went there!! Kansas St. is grossly overrated in my opinion. If the Big 12 was so great this year, then how come KU lost a grand total of one game during the conference season? Kansas State flopped against most major competition, and I expect an early flameout for them in the tournament. Of course, please re-read my disclaimers at the top of this blog post....
Sweet Sixteen: Syracuse over Butler; BYU over Pittsburgh
Hey, if the Mormons can beat K-state, why not an erratic Pitt team?
Elite Eight: Syracuse over BYU
Everyone is down on Syracuse because they lost their last two games. But those last two games were largely meaningless in the big picture, and Syracuse dominated the deepest conference in the country during the regular season. I think they'll be fine. (and my friend Tim just set himself on fire knowing that I've doomed his team's chances by picking them to go so far)

East Region
1st round: Kentucky over E Tenn St; Texas over Wake Forest; Temple over Cornell; Wisconsin over Wofford; Washington over Marquette; Montana over New Mexico; Missouri over Clemson; West Virginia over Morgan St.
THERE IT IS!! I think the big upset will be Montana stunning New Mexico. Seriously, how did New Mexico get a high seed? Sure, their record is good, but who did they play? They've played nobody. Also, I think Marquette is worn out from the strain of the past couple of bubble weeks, and are ripe to be picked off by an underrated Washington squad.
2nd round: Texas over Kentucky; Wisconsin over Temple; Washington over Montana; Missouri over West Virginia
Yes, this is the region I see getting blown apart by upsets (which means you ought to pick nothing but high seeds in your own bracket). Texas was a #1 team at one point this season, and they'll have no better chance to salvage their campaign than by upsetting a young and mercurial Kentucky team. Missouri's pressing defense is always hard on teams the first time they see it, and like Marquette, West Virginia will be worn down from the Big East tourney.
Sweet Sixteen: Wisconsin over Texas; Washington over Missouri
Wisconsin will beat a Texas team still celebrating their Kentucky win, and Washington will have enough time to prep for Missouri's press.
Elite Eight: Wisconsin over Washington
Wisconsin is probably the most boring team in this region, and that's one big reason I'm picking them to win it. Badger fans can hate me now.

South Region
1st round: Duke over UAPB; Cal over Louisville; Utah St. over Texas A&M; Siena over Purdue; Old Dominion over Notre Dame; Baylor over Sam Houston St.; St. Mary's over Richmond; Villanova over Robert Morris
A handful of significant upsets here, as Utah St. is much better than most people realize, Purdue is a shell of it's early-season self having lost their best player to injury, and Notre Dame is yet another tired Big East team.
2nd round: Duke over Cal; Utah St. over Siena; Baylor over Old Dominion; St. Mary's over Villanova
I think Villanova is not just another tired Big East team, but that they're this year's team with "experienced" players who have regressed each year they've played. Villanova should've been a title contender, but they just don't have "it".
Sweet Sixteeen: Duke over Utah St.; Baylor over St. Mary's
Utah St. will give Duke all they can handle, but this is Duke's year.
Elite Eight: Duke over Baylor
Baylor will have a home-crowd advantage in Houston, but this is Duke's year.

FINAL FOUR: KU over Syracuse; Wisconsin over Duke
KU and Syracuse will play a de-facto title game in one matchup. These have been the two best teams in the country all year (although Kentucky fans would have a good argument). In the other game, it's been Duke's year for a lot of reasons, but Wisconsin is just mind-numbingly boring good. They'll put Duke to sleep.

Championship: KU over Wisconsin
Is it a homer pick if you live in the state, but never went to school there and never really cheered for them that much? KU is the obvious pick this year, much like North Carolina was last year. We all know how that turned out, but then I didn't curse North Carolina last year by picking them.

Am I nuts (well yes, but I mean about these picks)? Let me know in the comments.

SAH

Culture of Corruption

On the left here is a picture from a recent soccer game played in the English Premier League. Ryan Shawcross (on the right) is shown sliding through Aaron Ramsey, breaking his leg in the process (you can see it if you look closely....but you may not want to). From one point of view, this was a terrible accident. Shawcross had no intention of injuring Ramsey, certainly not this badly. He was in tears following the incident (and after being red-carded and sent off). What's most interesting isn't the injury itself, but the discussions in the aftermath. You see, while Ramsey will be out of action indefinitely (but at least a few months), Ryan Shawcross was immediately "called up" to the English national team. That led to a flurry of articles and opinions about the merit of such a promotion. On one hand, you had folks calling for Shawcross to be suspended for his violent conduct. They argued that Shawcross had no business being on the English squad so soon after committing a horrific foul. On the other hand, you had folks arguing that Shawcross is a "fine lad" who was simply involved in a horrible accident, and shouldn't have to suffer anything more for it.

So which side is true? On which side do we find justice? The answer is the former. Shawcross has no business being anywhere near the English national team right now, and this incident is just the latest symptom of a growing (in my opinion) corruption not only in soccer, but in all sports and Western culture itself.

Those who defend Shawcross typically point out that soccer is a physical game, and accidents happen. They often talk about "being manly" in defense and "getting stuck in." A few hard kicks to the shins of your opponents is just a way to let them know you're there. OK, but if you hold to that you cannot pretend to be surprised when such behavior leads to a brutal injury. Shawcross may not have intended to break Ramsey's leg, but he was performing an inherently dangerous action and must be held responsible for its results, regardless of his intention. He obviously felt no compunction about violently fouling his opponent, so how can we absolve him of guilt when the result was worse than he intended? It is dishonest to pretend that the injury was simply an accident.

I'm going to borrow an excellent analogy from Paul Gardner of Soccer America. If I drive like a maniac along the freeway, honking my horn to scare folks out of the way just so I can get where I'm going a little faster than normal, should I not be held responsible when I cause a wreck? "I never intended to hurt anyone, I just wanted to get home quickly," isn't a valid excuse. When Bart Simpson walked around punching the air in front of him and warning that he wasn't responsible for anyone who happened to get hit because he needed to move his arm... it was a joke. But I wonder if people understand that anymore. It is completely dishonest and immature to behave poorly, and then try to absolve your responsibility for that behavior.

You see, this is not just limited to Ryan Shawcross and a bad tackle. Dishonesty, immaturity, and corruption are rampant, and I no longer see anyone truly standing up against it. During a soccer broadcast some time ago, commentator (and former US national team captain... and apparent philanderer) John Harkes gushed praise on a player for trying to fool the ref into giving him a throw-in when the ball should have gone to the other team. Harkes said something to the effect of, "That's great. You gotta try to get every edge. I always tell players on my teams to do that." Harkes' statement was not challenged by his co-commentator.

The examples go on and on. Today you can hardly watch a game without somebody diving and flopping around on the ground even when they've barely been touched, hoping to win a penalty or other harsh judgment out of the referee. This behavior is often derided by commentators, but how is it any worse than defenders hacking down an attacker simply to slow down the opponent, or standing in front of the ball to delay a free-kick? Those behaviors are often lauded as "professional fouls" or "being a gamer."

The latest prominent example came from a recent World Cup qualifier. France was playing Ireland with the winner advancing to the finals in South Africa this summer. The winning goal came courtesy of a blatant handball by Thierry Henry (the incident is pictured to the right). The referee was blocked by a mass of players and did not see the handball, and the goal was allowed to stand. The Irish went ballistic, as one would expect, but had to go on with the game. They showed exemplary sportsmanship and integrity. Henry and the French did not. But while the uproar was significant, nothing official was done. Even more damning, many folks used the incident as an argument for more officials, or for more replay review of incidents. While those options might be helpful, isn't there some responsibility on the part of the players to police themselves? The unstated theme of those articles demanding more officials and technology is that players will TRY to cheat, and will only obey the rules when the whistle is blown on them. Even worse, the assumption seems to be that players SHOULD cheat, and it's up to the referees to stop them.

To his credit, Henry later came out in favor of replaying the whole game. But it never should have come to that. Everyone screws up now and then. In the heat of the moment, it's understandable that Henry would stick his hand out just a little, hoping to stop the ball so he could get a shot on goal. Sometimes your body just reacts. But as soon as he realized what had happened, Henry should've instructed his teammates (He was the captain of the team, remember) to immediately allow the Irish to tie the game. That would've been the honest and sporting move, and it wouldn't require extra officials or replay cameras. But imagine for a moment if that could've even taken place? Would the other players have agreed to do so? Would the coach have allowed it? And what would the reaction have been in the general public? I greatly fear that had Henry performed such a noble act, in France he would've been turned into a pariah. And for those who think differently, take a look at these other recent incidents, and gauge your response.

This is not just a soccer problem. To wit:

• Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots were recently exposed as having illegally filmed their opponents while they won Super Bowls. While the public at-large criticized him (and the team) in scathing terms, how many Patriots fans offered to surrender their titles? How many demanded a public apology or resignation? By contrast, how many folks did you see (especially on TV) that just scoffed at any such suggestion, proclaiming that "everyone does it," or "if you're not cheating, you're not trying." The whistle-blower, Eric Mangini, was excoriated as a turncoat and tattle-tale.
  
• Scads of baseball players took illegal steroids for a decade or so before they were finally exposed by Jose Canseco. They knew it was illegal. They knew it affected games. They did it anyway. And when they were exposed, how many came right out and admitted wrong? All we got were lies and mumbles about discussing the future. And while the public outcry was large, what really changed? Aren't the users still just popping homers and pointing "scoreboard?" The whistle-blower, Jose Canseco, was excoriated as a lying jerk (although he's been right about just about everything he claimed).
  
• The NBA has been indirectly fixing games for years. Everyone knows it, but it continues simply because everyone is making money. Michael Jordan shoves Bryon Russell out of the way to hit a title-winning shot, and everyone admires his "competitiveness." Sacramento and Portland are eliminated by the Lakers in the early 2000s thanks to some ridiculously one-siding officiating, and everyone buys another Shaq or Kobe t-shirt. The whistle-blower, referee Tim Donaghy, was excoriated as a "rogue element" with a gambling problem and a jerk.
  
• Collegiate "amateur" athletics is a joke. Everyone knows it. Everyone makes excuses. Have fans of USC stopped supporting their team even though the program is rife with payouts and other rules violations? Have people stopped buying Reggie Bush shirts because he accepted a house and money to play at USC (and illegally pushed Leinart into the endzone against Notre Dame, but that's another story)? Have the fans at other big schools (and small) stopped cheering their teams when wrongs were exposed, or have they pointed the finger at other programs and whined about being unfairly persecuted? There has been no USC whistle-blower, because apparently everyone has been bought off or is afraid to come out (and who would blame them? Look at what happened to the other whistle-blowers....)

I could go on and on, but you get the point. And while in each of these instances there has been some type of outcry, what has been the consequence? Nothing has changed, except those brave enough to dare question the corruption have been largely ruined (partly of their own actions, it must be said). And we haven't even ventured outside of sports yet! What about the recent "climate-gate" scandal? Instead of apologies and corrections, we get Al Gore telling us that those folks who fabricated data were just under a lot of pressure and still empirically correct. What about Mark Sanford dancing off to have an affair in Argentina, then retaining his job as governor of South Carolina (only returning public money used to finance his affair after a FOIA request revealed it)? What about President Obama railing against "greedy" wall street executives, then appointing a number of folks to his cabinet that were exposed as having cheated on their taxes?

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating being a legalistic Martinet. I'm not condemning anyone who goes 2 miles over the speed limit. I'm talking about honesty vs. hypocrisy. There is no shame anymore in our society, and it starts with us. When was the last time you felt shame? I have to admit I'm too defensive whenever anyone points out a mistake I've made. I'm too quick to point the finger or make excuses when I come up short. I'm part of the problem.

And how did we get to this point as a society? How did we get to the point that corruption is so widespread and even worse, so widely accepted? There is a phrase to describe the attitude of far too many people these days, and it is a philosophy that has battled for prominence in all cultures and over all time periods. That phrase is:

The ends justify the means

According to Ryan Shawcross (and his defenders), the end of playing strong defense justifies the means of playing like a reckless fool and breaking opponents' legs. According to John Harkes, the end of getting an extra throw-in justifies lying to the referee. According to Thierry Henry, the end of qualifying for the World Cup justifies an illegal handball. According to Bill Belichick, the end of winning a Super Bowl justifies making illegal videos. According to many baseball players, big home runs and big-money contracts justify using illegal steroids. According to Al Gore, protecting the environment (and making big money on the lecture circuit) justifies falsifying data and lying in reports.

Well, I'm saying (writing, actually) that it doesn't. That philosophy is 100% wrong. The ends do NOT justify the means. And you know who actually espoused that a long time ago? The man/Son of God himself, Jesus Christ. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus tells us that it's not just the outward action that counts, but the inner thoughts as well. It's not just the big commandments that matter, but "whoever breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven."

So what are we to do?

We have to start making folks accountable for their actions. We have to stop buying t-shirts from cheats. We have to stop cheering for liars. We have to withhold support from the corrupt and dishonest. And it won't be easy, because the corrupt and dishonest are...... ourselves.

I have to stop making excuses whenever I do something wrong. I have to stop turning a blind eye to wrongdoing performed by people that I like. If my political party does something dishonest and wrong, I have to call them out on it, and demand they be responsible. If my favorite football team cheats, I have to call them out on it and hold them responsible. If the US soccer team wins the World Cup via cheating, I have to call them out on it and not celebrate a tainted "victory."

The ends do NOT justify the means!

SAH

US not good enough to handle Dutch

Let's be clear: Despite a late flurry, the US did not "nearly beat" or even "nearly tie" the Netherlands Wednesday night in Amsterdam. Yes, they only lost by a single goal, and they dominated the last 10 minutes (counting extra time), but that was only after the Dutch had completely shut it down in the last few moments of an inconsequential friendly.

For most of the match, the Netherlands just played keep-away, not interested in really trying to score, but assuming that sooner or later the US would make a big mistake. They were right. Late in the first half, Jonathan Bornstein completely lost his cool and tried to grab a surging Wesley Sneijder as he darted into the penalty box. The Dutchman flopped to the turf, and the referee gave the penalty. Was it a harsh call? Yes, especially as the referee on the night was repeatedly fooled by Greg Louganis wannabes on both sides of the ball. But Bornstein clearly grabbed the arm, even if only for a moment and without much force. He can only blame himself.

In the second half, the Dutch inserted Rafael Van der Vaart into the lineup and he immediately started to carve up the interior of the US defense. The second Dutch goal was unlucky for the US, as it deflected off a defender's back (Bornstein again, having a night to forget), but you can't say the Dutch weren't due for another. It was only after that point that the US really started to come into the game, when the Dutch were satisfied with a 2-0 lead (the old line about the most precarious lead in soccer has a lot of truth to it) and quit playing hard. It shouldn't take desperation to make you try a little attacking soccer.

So overall it was a disappointing night for US soccer, but not everything was bad. Read on for my individual player grades and thoughts about their possible positions in South Africa.

Grades (A is excellent, F is putrid):

The new uniforms: B+
I really like the new uniforms. The "sash" across the front is distinctive without being garish. I do wish it had a little more red highlight to it. The new "home" uniforms will be similar, only white with a "silver" sash across the front. I wish the "silver" sash was red, like the original 1950 uniforms (see earlier blog post for black-and-white pictures of that design), but I understand the "less is more" philosophy.


Starters:

GK -- Tim Howard : A
There was really nothing Howard could have done to play any better. He stopped a screaming Van der Vaart shot in the second half with an athletic lunge. He commanded the box and snuffed out attacks. He only gave up goals on a) a well-taken penalty shot and b) a crazy deflection at the top of the box. Howard is unquestionably a world-class goalkeeper and there's no reason he shouldn't be between the pipes come June.

D -- Jonathan Spector: C
Spector did some good things in this match. After a few outings for the US when he looked lost trying to defend aerial attacks, his positioning and headers were spot-on. He also was the only US defender who looked remotely comfortable on the ball, stringing a few passes together and getting forward for some crosses from the right. But Spector was also toasted a couple of times by Eljero Elia, who seemed to surprise the entire US defense with his quickness and touch. It's a safe bet that Spector will man one side of the defense in South Africa, and you could do a lot worse, but he won't exactly remind you of Paolo Maldini.

D -- Jay DeMerit: B
Although a step slow and sometimes awkward-looking, DeMerit did an admirable job in the middle of the defense. He snuffed out many attacks with timely headers and tackles. He was a liability on the ball, but not so much that you winced whenever he touched it. It's hard to say if he was any better or worse than Oguchi Onyewu, the injured player he's currently replacing, but at least he's close enough for debate. Central defense was not really a problem for us last night.

D -- Carlos Bocanegra: B+
The captain for the evening had a solid outing, plus he contributed the lone goal for the good guys. His communication with Bornstein on the right seemed a bit off all night, but I think that was just Bornstein having a nightmarish game. Bocanegra was usually in the right place at the right time, and he can make decent passes out of the back. Granted, he didn't always do it, but at least he's capable of it. His goal was a terrific header and sparked the US late in the game. Barring injury, Bocanegra will be on the field in South Africa. The only question is whether it's in his customary central role, or outside because we have a surplus of central defenders and a dearth of good outside options.

D -- Jonathan Bornstein: F
It was simply "one of those nights" for Bornstein. He couldn't do anything right. He was constantly beaten off the dribble by Arjen Robben and Eljero Elia. He was caught out of position a few times. He contributed nothing to the attack. He panicked and grabbed at Sneijder, giving up a penalty in the process. A few moments later he was incredibly fortunate not to have a second penalty called against him for an obvious handball. Was it unintentional? Probably, but it was also a clear handball in the box with nobody terribly close to him. I think the referee just felt sorry for him. That the final Dutch goal came off Bornstein's back was just unlucky, but a fitting end to his night. Bornstein is clearly not up to competing against world-class opponents. He can manage fine in MLS, and against most CONCACAF-level foes, but he will be a liability at the World Cup. Let's hope we don't have to use him.

M -- Stuart Holden: C
It's too bad Holden was felled by an awful challenge from Dutchman Nigel De Jong (a flying studs-up tackle which probably warranted a straight red card, but received only a yellow), as he was just starting to come into the game and make some positive plays. While he was out there, Holden never looked overwhelmed or out of place, he simply wasn't making much happen. He showed some good touch and had a couple of nice runs just before the injury, so I think it's fair to say he might've had a much bigger (and better) impact had he not been hurt. As far as South Africa is concerned, Holden probably did enough in this brief appearance to keep his name in the mix, but it would be a surprise to actually see him on the field in June.

M -- Michael Bradley: B
From one point of view, Bradley was the best player on the field. He hustled all over, winning the ball against all comers. His tackling was almost always superb and he avoided the crazy lunging tackles that have led to yellow cards for him in the past. His positioning was unimpeachable and his vision acute. There was just one little problem with Bradley... his touch was awful. Bradley missed pass after pass, simply giving the ball right back to the Dutch when a good ball could've started an attack. He also seemed reluctant to shoot, even when the situation called for it. While it was still a decent performance, and his place on the team is secure (and not just because he's the coach's son), Bradley left a lot on the table last night. Let's hope that maybe he just needs a new pair of shoes.

M -- Jose Torres: D-
Ugh. Look, I like Torres' skills on the ball. In the right system, or in a different environment, he might be a terrific player. But right now he's still trying to play a Mexican-league game when the conditions call for something totally different. What do I mean by that? I mean this: The Mexican league (where Torres plays, and quite well by all accounts) is built around ball possession and passing, punctuated by brief bursts of energy. The pace is relatively sedate, because you simply cannot maintain a full throttle for 90 minutes in either the altitude and smog of Mexico City, or the heat and humidity of the other locales. As a result, the game becomes more cerebral and requires a different skillset than the international game where all the players are supremely fit and the conditions usually conducive to running. In a cool Amsterdam ArenA, Torres looked like he was in slow-motion compared to the other players on the field. Passes that would probably connect in Mexico were cut off by hustling Dutch defenders, unafraid of burning out their legs. Defensive positioning that would probably be correct in Mexico was exposed by darting Dutch runs that could be repeated over and over again. Someone needs to get Torres out of the Mexican league to further develop his game, or else he needs to play only when the conditions are similar to what he faces at Necaxa.

M -- Landon Donovan: C-
Donovan didn't have a good game. He looked a little tired or tentative, and he rarely made anything happen. Honestly, I suspect he's still got his mind at Everton, where he's been playing very well for the past few weeks. Last night looked like just a job he had to get through before going back to the real games. Donovan is clearly the US' most consistently dangerous attacker, and he has to be the leader for us to be successful. He wasn't either last night, and the results speak for themselves. Hopefully, he'll be fully focused in June when the games count.

F -- Jozy Altidore: C+
While he wasn't able to make an impact, Altidore played a decent game. He did an admirable job holding onto the ball and trying to get other players involved, often while on an island up top. he cracked one excellent shot in the second half that forced a good save from the Dutch keeper. He also bamboozled one defender with a little backheel nutmeg that should've led to a shot on goal. It didn't, however, because Altidore's subsequent pass was terrible, and easily kicked away by a defender. That sums up his night. He had flashes of brilliance followed by moments of suckitude. Overall he was a positive, but we'll need more against England, Algeria, and Slovenia.

F -- Robbie Findley: D
In MLS, Findley's speed is a real weapon, one that his team Real Salt Lake used often en route to the title last season. In international play, Findley's speed is common, and his lack of complementary skills starts to show. Against the Netherlands, Findley looked like he belonged on the field, often getting to loose balls and trying to start attacks. In the end, however, he was unable to do anything with the ball or really trouble the Dutch defense. The defenders at this level of play are well-versed in dealing with speedsters, and many are themselves fleet of foot. Findley needs to add another dimension to his game before he can be considered a credible option for us in the World Cup.

Substitutes:

M -- DeMarcus Beasley: B
He came in for Holden after the latter was injured in the first half. Beasley has been struggling for fitness and playing time in Scotland, and it really showed in this game. In the first half and the first few minutes of the second, he looked lost. He scampered around plenty, but was usually out of position and completely horrendous on the ball. But with about 20 minutes left to play, the rust seemingly fell off and Beasley became one of the most dangerous players on the field. He started terrorizing the Dutch right with quick dribbles and hounding defense. He showed up in unexpected places to make plays. He assisted on Bocanegra's goal via a beautiful curling free kick. Where has this Beasley been for the last year? If the rusty DeMarcus Beasley shows up in South Africa, he shouldn't see the field. But if he can somehow bottle those last 20 minutes and play that way for a full game, we'd be idiots to not play him as much as possible.

M -- Maurice Edu: B-
Edu was a huge improvement over Torres, but that's almost damning with faint praise. Edu came in for the second half and held his own. His defense was adequate, but his passing and dribbling still leaves a lot to be desired. He was a positive on the night, though, and his efforts down the stretch were a key part of the US surge. Edu is still pretty young and could grow into a truly great player, but probably not in time for this summer. This summer, we'd be OK playing him in midfield, but we shouldn't expect too much.

F/M -- Alejandro Bedoya: B-
This was the first time I've ever seen Bedoya play, and I have to say I was intrigued. He didn't scare the Dutch defense, but he also held onto the ball better than any other of our forwards and made some smart passes. He tried to link up with Donovan and Altidore, and those combinations were the first signs of life our offense had all night. He moved to midfield late in the game, and seemed to have less impact there. I'd like to see some more of him, and he might have a role as either a withdrawn forward or a pure target man.

D -- Heath Pearce: C
Was largely invisible, even considering the brief time he was out there. He may deserve some small blame for the second Dutch goal, as he was nowhere in the picture while the Netherlands had multiple forwards at the top of the box. But really his job was to clamp down on the wings, and he seemed to do that. Also, defense is where you WANT your players to be largely invisible. That means your forwards and midfielders are constantly on the ball. Pearce may be on the roster in South Africa, but it would be a surprise to see him play much.

F -- Eddie Johnson: D+
Eddie Johnson is simply a slightly older Robbie Findley. At low levels of soccer, his speed and athleticism are enough to make him a dangerous attacker. Against the best teams, however, he's just another guy. Against the Netherlands he ran around and got near the ball a few times, but did virtually nothing with it. He won't scrap and fight for garbage goals, and the defenders are too good at this level to give him a lot of breakaways. At this point, it's pretty clear that Johnson will never develop into a truly great player. He'll always be a fallback option against lesser sides, and he'll probably have a fine career bouncing around second-tier leagues (he's currently doing OK in Greece), but we have to look for other options in the World Cup.

D -- Clarance Goodson: NG
He only saw 8 minutes of game time, and his only contribution of note was a desperate bicycle-esque attempt on goal during a corner kick. He looked OK, but I don't want to grade him on such limited exposure. He may be in South Africa, but we have several big central defenders already on the roster, and I'm not sure Goodson brings anything new to the table.

That's it for now. Feel free to comment below and add your own thoughts and grades. I'll have another post up sooner or later, so come back some time!

SAH