No balls about it!

Yesterday's widely publicized questioning period regarding the Roger Clemens steroid scandal provided viewers with some of the most dramatic and intense moments outside of a Fox reality show. As an avid Blue Jays fan, I couldn't help but smile as Clemens awkwardly shifted around his seat, attempting to explain his often contradictory stories regarding his relationship with Jose Canseco and Brain McNamee.

It's no secret around the baseball world that Clemens is an egomaniac, and has told his share of lies. I avidly remember the circumstances in which he left the Jays back in 1998, using a vague (and apparently illegal) clause in his contract to take a much more lucrative offer with the New York Yankees. This was after he repeatedly assured both his Toronto fans and Blue Jays G.M. Gord Ash that he had no intention of ditching the team. For crying out loud, the man is so self-absorbed that the names of all of his children start with the letter "K" as a tribute to his strikeouts (let's see here... Kody, Kimble, Kris, Karen, Kbobby, Kxavier... ).

The, Clemens, the (it’s translated from German).

There are some people in the media who are painting this inquiry as a witch hunt. It is becoming blatantly obvious that steroids were slowly drifting towards general acceptance in the professional sports world long before the whole thing blew up. If you put yourself in the shoes of a young athlete who has sacrificed his or her life to make the cut on a professional sports team and the only difference between being a somebody and being a nobody is an occasional injection, the decision is understandable.

But Clemens was a somebody long before he started taking steroids. To make things worse, he has repeatedly lied to fans, the media, and now directly to a group of congressmen regarding his involvement in the matter. The man seems to have no problem propping up his "solid" character during press conferences, yet he has failed miserably to take the high road during direct questioning. This is in direct contrast to Marion Jones, who in my opinion took an incredibly courageous step by admitting her prior drug use and giving her gold medals back to the IOC. Unlike Jose Canseco, there was no financial gain to be had by admitting her mistakes, and it's a travesty that a misguided judge decided to turn her into a scapegoat by slapping her with a six month prison term.

To me, this arrogant behaviour underscores a major image problem that baseball players have faced since the strike of 1994. The collective bargaining agreement has ensured exponential salary growth to players, while completely marginalizing smaller market teams. Major League Baseball's answer to these problems was to turn a blind eye to the drug problem as the home run explosion effectively brought the sport back to pre-strike levels. Even when the steroid problem became public, it took the sport years before drug testing was finally imposed, as management had to "negotiate" these new policies with the player's union. Shame on both the players union and Major League Baseball for allowing this to go on as long as it has. As far as I'm concerned, this is one witch hunt that is justified.

The land of the free, and the home of the screwed

Although I do believe that many services provided by the government are wasteful and counterproductive, health care certainly isn't one of them. Heath care should be a right of every citizen, regardless of social or financial stature, period.

The notion that a free market will always result in the highest quality to the consumers is a flawed one. There is a fundamental difference between using the free market to purchase a car, for example, and using the free market to purchase health care. Unlike that shiny convertible sitting in the local lot, heath care is a necessity. Therefore, when a person has to choose between going into debt or dying, they're obviously going to choose the former.

In the end, people have no choice but to obtain health care in some way, shape, or form. This forced demand undermines the open market, whereby providers are under no pressure to lower their prices in the face of guaranteed purchasers. For that matter, quality inevitably goes out the window as well.

Hillary: fresh after eating a small container of puppies.

After reviewing the health care policies of the two Democratic candidates, it's clear that neither Clinton nor Obama will fix the American health care system. In fact, it's starting to look like their policies will make the system even worse.

On one side, Obama is suggesting that providing Americans with more health care options and subsidizing those who can't afford it will ensure "quality, affordable, and portable coverage for all." In addition, he has pledged that coverage will be mandatory for all citizens under the age of 25, yet he is still requiring these people to pay for the plans out of their own pockets. These changes will effectively increase the "forced demand" on an already overloaded market and drive costs up for the rich and poor alike. Insurance companies will have the right to increase their prices when a flood of new coverage requests are delivered on their doorstep due to these government-imposed regulations.

Clinton's policy, although she has continually thrown around the phrase "universal health care" in her speeches, is nearly identical to Obama's. Like Obama, she has put special emphasis on subsidies and choices, without addressing how these new rules will affect the open market. In addition, she has promised to introduce laws forcing insurance providers to accept all applicants, regardless of their health history. When two million obese Americans suddenly enter the system, does she really expect coverage to become more affordable?

When it comes to health care, you simply can't have your cake and eat it too. Private or public. Make a choice. The next time the government -- any government -- throws around the word "subsidy" as a compromise, ask yourself exactly who will be reaping this reward.

Tuesday: more "super" than Sunday

America is currently getting geared up for their so-called "Super Tuesday" whereby twenty-four states will vote to elect the leaders of the two political parties. This event has slowly been building momentum in the worldwide media, largely due to the tight race between Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton on the Democratic card. For the first time in recent memory, the mere act of voting is generating genuine excitement south of the border.

Supertuesday: The day is actually a lot cooler than the band.

Indeed, I believe this excitement is well warranted. For the first time in history, there is a very good chance that either a black man or a woman will be elected as leader of the world's most powerful nation. After voters decided to grant George W. Bush a second term back in 2004, it's hard to believe the profound social shift that has occurred in the American psyche. Who could have possibly predicted a liberal-minded woman or black middle-class rookie Senator making it all the way to the November election in this day and age?

However, one cannot simply credit demographics as the sole reason for tomorrow's importance. In my opinion, the policies and attitudes of both Democratic front runners represent an all-out revolution in American politics that hasn't been seen since the Kennedy era. Obama in particular is more focused on peace, equality, and fairness than any American leader in history. For once, he is rejecting the long-standing and childish policies of violence-before-dialogue that has gripped the world in decades of war and violence.

The emergence of these two renegade nominees underscores a major victory with the American brand of democracy. George W. Bush has miraculously managed to skirt his way around his country's own constitution by blatantly siphoning power away from Congress and violating international torture and rule-of-engagement laws. In merely eight years, the US has seen the foundation of its own democracy erode away without as much as a whimper to stop it. However, the last few months leading up to tomorrow's vote has reignited faith in the system, and for the first time in recent memory, voters have been given the mandate to save themselves by demanding a revolution within their leadership.

The irony of this situation is that like a human being, democracy needed to hit rock bottom before gaining the momentum to redeem itself. It is now generating more excitement and attention than it has in decades, and in a twisted way, we have the brutal policies of George W. Bush to thank for it. A democratic country is indeed reflected by the will of its people, and as such, it continually matures in line with the society that shapes it. We're about to witness a huge step forward in this maturity when over half of the country goes to the polls tomorrow.