Office of the Independent Blogger

Every morning, I roll out of bed, get handsome and make my way to the California Pink Line train station stop. I board the train and ride it to the Clark/Lake station downtown, step off the train and walk out of the Thompson Center onto Clark, heading south. I walk to my office building and pass a homeless woman selling Streetwise magazine (a newspaper put together by Chicago’s homeless which they sell to make money) with her song, “Good morning, Streetwiiiiiiise” and I pass by the Daley Center, its famous statue, and underground/Internet wonder, Farhad Khoiee-Abbasi.

Khoiee is, if you didn’t already know, a man who usually stands outside the Daley Center here in Chicago holding a sign that reads: “FBI Agent Chris Saviano, Stop Raping My Wife!” and beneath it, there’s condemnation of certain political figures, usually Daley but sometimes, as in these times, Alberto Gonzalez. He has also, as a Google search showed me, made appearances in Times Square and at the US Capitol in Washington. I first saw his sign about a week ago. I was tempted to stop and ask what he’s talking about, but I didn’t think it would be a good idea. I needed to make sure that any meeting with Farhad Khoiee-Abbasi came after the first sighting, as I didn’t want to risk coming down with a case of Weird Stranger Paralysis (when you don’t know someone, meet them for the first time and are so surprised by their demeanor or words that you lose yours). Today was different, so I stopped, said “Hello, is your wife really being raped by Chris Saviano?” He said, “Thank you,” and I said, “What?” but then I noticed that he was pushing out a card. After that, he said nothing, and I tried to get him to talk but he wouldn’t say another word. That is not unusual, as I’ve found online and through my boss who told me that she was in a cab, passed by him and watched as a group of attorneys offered to help him but he refused.

I have seen enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his wife is not being raped by any FBI Agent (his wife filed to divorce him in 2004, his wife and daughter have filed for protection against him, and he hasn’t lived with his wife since 2001) and so I wonder, What on Earth is this all about? Is he mentally ill? Is he trying to be hip and chic and ironic? He’s been at it for years: why? Searching through the Internet, I found this, which rounds up much of the Internet material available on him, but the thing that makes me most curious is the card the website has scanned: “Granted Investigation (June 28th, 2006) by FBI Inspection Division / Abuser: FBI Rapist Agent, Chris Saviano Thanks to the Honorable Senator Barack Obama, You, all.”

That is the only true mystery left, in my eyes, and so I’ve sent the following email to the FBI and Barack Obama’s Senate office:

“There is a man named Farad Khoiee-Abbasi who alleges that an FBI Agent is raping his wife and wants him to stop. I truly don’t believe his story, but on a card dated June twenty eighth of last year, he claims he was granted an investigation by the FBI Inspection Division courtesy of Barack Obama. Can you tell me whether this investigation ever occurred and what the results were? [For Obama, there’s an added line: “as well as the Senator’s interest in the matter?”] I am a freelance reporter. I thank you for your time!”

While we wait for a response that may or may not come, check this out. It reads: “Russia has learned how to make nearly perfect impersonators! Infiltrating Russians are required to wed Americans! Their children are often killed and their identities taken by new arrivals! Result: Conquest! Use DNA Testing everywhere!” That was curious as well, but it doesn’t merit further investigation, in my view.

From the Washington Post, Hot Topics: Republicans V. Health Insurance.

The NYT criticizes Republican congressional leaders who have attacked the proposed expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), a bipartisan initiative that would increase the number of insured children from low-income families. Republican “leaders may be on message at the White House, where President Bush is foolishly threatening a veto,” but they they “seem way off message for the American public and even their own party caucuses,” the editors write … the WaPo also criticizes Republicans for blocking efforts to boost the number of low-income children who receive health insurance. The editors note that while Republicans say they “want to concentrate on enrolling poor children” in health insurance programs, they “fail to provide enough money to do so effectively.” Do “House Republicans really want to be arguing for taking away health insurance from children who now have it?” the editors ask … NYT columnist Paul Krugman, noting that President Bush said he would veto the Schip expansion bill on “philosophical” grounds, wonders “what kind of philosophy says that it’s O.K. to subsidize insurance companies, but not to provide health care to children?”

Things like health insurance and school lunches are always the first thing that Republicans go after when they make budget cuts. That’s why I could never be a Republican. A national Republican.

Michael Bloomberg is an interesting man and a fair Mayor. As you know, he’s planning to run for President as an Independent and spend up to a billion of his own dollars to win the race. I’ve said before, He can’t win, but if he wages war on behalf of one of the larger issues facing the country today, he will be looked at fondly by historians, like Fighting Bob almost a century ago. If he doesn’t, he’ll be Ross Perot, whose biggest achievement was in creating a myth (that Bush Senior defeats Clinton without Perot, which was and always will be nonsense).

Well, Mike Bloomberg was sued for sexual harassment a few years ago, settled the suit and that was that until documents became available pertaining to the case. And there, my Dear Reader, you have Reason #2 Why if he backs out of the race (Reason #1: “I’m too smart to spend one billion dollars on a losing Presidential campaign”).

I’ve had limited access to the news this weekend but three stories stood out to me when I heard about them from this lovely young lady at Starbucks. First: England refused to share bin Laden’s rumored whereabouts with us in the 1990s because we refused to promise not to torture him: my take — you tell British intelligence, with a wink and a nod, that you won’t torture him; you try not to, and if it doesn’t happen that way, that’s okay, and MI6 won’t ask further questions because they’re MI6 and we’re CIA. Second: Gonzalez is looking at perjury charges from Congress if he doesn’t hurry up and explain the inconsistencies in his testimonies: my take — he is done as soon as Bush finds a presentable replacement (which, word is, he hasn’t been able to find in forever as he’s wanted Alberto Gonzalez gone for good for quite awhile now). Third: Bush is giving around fifty billion dollars to a variety of Arab countries and Israel to counter-act Iranian influence and contain them: my take — good show of united force, and it’s always nice to see efforts at containment rather than pre-emption as Bush knows it.

Maybe he has read books about Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, after all. Doubt it, but it’s encouraging all the same to see him make such a sound, should-be stabilizing move. Of course, people will howl if the Saudi government is overthrown by al-Qaeda and suddenly they have twenty billion dollars worth of American arms, but that’s the risk you take in situations like these. I just wish we’d spend a little more money here at home, too.

You’ve got to admire the political work of the Clinton campaign. They’ve turned a Washington Post article about Hillary showing too much cleavage into a fundraising letter that’s bound to make the campaign a good deal of money. To be sure, it’s obnoxious to watch reporters fawn and criticize a politician over their clothing style or makeup (as Edwards, Obama, McCain, Romney and Kerry have all found out) but I’m not sure I’m anymore bothered by someone pointing out that Hillary was wearing a low-neckline anymore than I am when they talk about Edwards’ haircuts. My advice to Hillary would be: you’re a beautiful woman, and you know it. But don’t take any risks with clothes, dress conservatively and focus on the message. Any amount of time spent discussing your cleavage in the press takes too much time from your message.

In other news, Mitt Romney is trying to buy votes, but that’s politics for you. You know, he’s not a bad politician, but he’s essentially John Kerry from the middle-right (while Kerry is on the middle-left), and that doesn’t fly in national elections.

I should take this space to inform you, Dear Reader, that I will be gone tomorrow but shall return Sunday night. Have a great weekend!

Recently, I had a conversation with a young Liberal woman who told me that she was a Democrat because she believes in Roe v. Wade and doesn’t want anybody interfering with her right to have an abortion. I shrugged and said, “What else makes you a Democrat?” She talked about how the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are the “Party of Hope.” I said, “Yeah, what does that mean?” and she hee-hawed about the corrupt and evil Bush Administration but said nothing about Liberalism or the Democratic Party of the United States. So I told her, “If your only political concern is abortion, you aren’t a Democrat — you’re an Abortionist.”

That didn’t go over well, but I stand by it. To be a Democrat, you must believe in economic and social justice. That means, a fair and sensible minimum wage. An education system that provides ample opportunity to everyone in our society with minimal disruption to the process. Healthcare that doesn’t keep families away from doctors they need to see, and it must not sink businesses, either. A belief in the value of every single person, and an appreciation for diversity. It is supporting equal pay for women and minorities. It is supporting small businesses. It is supporting democracy. It is not one issue, and it definitely isn’t simply Roe v. Wade — which is a criticism I’d level at Republicans, too: a Supreme Court ruling is not to be interpreted as a political manifesto and if a movement manifests itself as a result of any one ruling it is not for the betterment of any significant portion of the American public, although that is, I think, the ultimate goal of a Democratic candidate for anything.

We must never lose sight of the important issues facing this country and you should stand up to anyone on any side of the aisle who would take the shortsighted route through life and politics.

John Kronus died on July eighteenth. He was a professional wrestler who wrestled in Extreme Championship Wrestling, Xtreme Pro Wrestling and the United States Wrestling Association, as well as a variety of independent federations, but he never made it to WWE. I bring up John Kronus because he died of an enlarged heart (possibly from steroids or drugs, but not for sure), and his death was brought up in the media as another example of a WWE employee dying young.

In an equally disturbing story, CW Network runs WWE’s Smackdown! wrestling program and their President was asked whether or not Benoit’s murder-suicide would affect their ratings. He said, “No,” because Benoit has never been on Smackdown! which is obviously false as Benoit had only recently been moved from Smackdown! to ECW. How shameless is that? Either he doesn’t have a clue what’s on his show or he’s lying about it. Either way, you’ve got to shake your head. There have been so many glaring examples of incompetence and dishonesty in the media that knowing about all of them will make you doubt the non-print press for the rest of your life.

Let’s take Glen Beck’s recent take on the matter. He starts by calling The Great American Bash, which is a WWE Pay-Per-View event every summer, the “All American Bash.” He continues with a rant about how wrestling “glorifies” the worst violence of our society, the TVs on his background read, “WWF” despite the fact that the company’s been under a different name for a long time now. He trashes the wrestlers as little more than “B-Movie actors” in “Spandex” (wonder what he’d call Reagan), completely discounting the obvious athleticism involved. Says that there’s more athleticism in a “Jackass movie” than in wrestling (I say there are more facts in a Jackass movie than on his show) and then he adds that because of that, you can’t call your event “The All American Bash” (fortunately they don’t call it “All American Bash”). Then he pretends that he gives a damn about Nancy or Daniel Benoit by ranting about how terrible Chris’s actions were, which they were, but the truth is that he doesn’t care because if he did, he would be talking about doctors and the schedule they worked, not trashing the industry for ratings and kicks.

Beck, adding to his disgraceful rant, cited the misleading “62 wrestlers have died young statistics” and then started to babble about the industry. “Many of these sports entertainers come from troubled backgrounds,” he said, talking about how wrestlers are generally bad people with bad histories. I say, first: Isn’t that a lot of athletes? and then I say, How do you know what their histories are and why should we believe you? You don’t even know the name of their PPV, let alone the histories of ‘many’ wrestlers, and probably not ‘any,’ either. He then said, “There are far more tragic endings than happy ones [in wrestling]” (how would he know?) and referred to the wrestlers as “trash-talking thugs,” all of which conflicts (is he bashing wrestling? wrestlers?). You’ve got to believe a guy when he talks like that, though, because he’s obviously done all of his homework. At least, that’s what someone would believe until he started to speak with Mark Mero. First he called Mark “Jack,” then he paused and said, “Mark” and then finally called him “Mike,” which he repeated over and over.

He interviews him about the industry, along with a doctor (and, as I’ve said, there good points all around, but Mero is an opportunist and he’s dishonest as well, as Lance Storm points out). The rest of the show isn’t worth talking about.

There are other examples of media coverage being off in this whole ordeal, but you know the script by now, and so allow me to explain why I haven’t been writing about this situation lately: I’ve been busy with work, and the news hasn’t been particularly newsish with regard to this matter, so there you go. There are a few things that are going on with this situation, though, that I’d like to talk about.

First: Benoit was likely on steroids and the fact that he didn’t test positive for them means nothing, just like his testing clean for Human Growth Hormone means nothing. It could simply mean that he was on the off-portion of a steroid user’s cycle, or that the tests couldn’t catch them after death, but it’s fairly certain he was juiced up. Not that it has much, if anything, to do with the murder, but that’s the consensus.

Second: there have been two interesting ideas floating around, and I’ll express them as Two A and Two B.

Two A: Former Wrestler and Harvard alum Christopher Nowinski has speculated that Benoit’s actions may have been influenced by concussions he suffered and knew about (or didn’t). It’s entirely possible. Concussions happen all the time in wrestling and Benoit was especially prone to them as he used to do a move called the Kamikaze Headbutt off the turnbuckles. It is a move that should be banned as it is unsafe for anyone to do, much like WWE has banned select moves that affect the cranium. I’m not sure I believe the concussions are a leading or even minimal cause, but it’s definitely interesting and it certainly doesn’t do him, or anyone, any good to live your life concussed.

Two B: The theory that Benoit killed himself to expose the wrestling business has been floated around by Bryan Alvarez and while it sounds ridiculous on the surface, it has some merit, I think. The theory is that Benoit was so disgusted by his best friend Eddie Guerrerro’s death and the deaths of several other professional wrestlers that he decided it would be a good idea to kill his family and leave his steroids out in the open for everyone to see. Benoit, as has come out, destroyed a variety of family photos and documents on that fateful weekend but he did nothing to hide his drugs.

Isn’t that interesting?

Not sure how true it is, as Benoit loved wrestling, but perhaps he loved it so much that he suffered through the deaths of so many friends and thought, “Someone has to blow the whistle and shake it up.” What makes that theory less plausible to me, though, is that Benoit loved his wife and kid, despite whatever problems he had with Nancy. I still believe that Benoit killed her somewhat on accident and then lost his mind, but that theory, like all the others, has some issues (though I think it has the least amount).

Rumors are running that Benoit’s diary has yet to be found but will be and if that’s true, we might gain more insight into his thoughts.

George Bush had better be careful with this Department of Justice scandal, because a report is about to allege that laws were broken and if he shrugs it off or shows further contempt of Congress, he may find himself impeached. It’s still unlikely, and I’m not entirely sure it’d be worth it to impeach the President with such a small amount of time left in his Presidency, but he could force everyone’s hand in that direction pretty soon if he takes an arrogant, petulant stance.

In international news, the US is speaking with Iran and it’s getting heated here and there. They are discussing Iraq, of course, and have been arguing over the country and charges made by the United States that the Iranians are adding to the tension. I’m quite interested to see what comes out of these meetings and I’m hoping for the best. Wish I could be a fly in the wall while the discussions take place.

I’d also like to briefly discuss this: Kissinger met with Putin on behalf of the US Government.

The President has no clothes, or diplomats he can trust, I suppose. Really, there’s no reason to send Henry Kissinger to the Russians unless we’re giving them assurances that they can bomb Britain or something. (As you can tell, I am not a fan of Henry K.)

“A Debate Where Citizen is Star,” declares Christian Science Monitor of the recent YouTube Presidential Debates where everyday citizens asked the Presidential candidates questions on the issues. You know what I think? I think this is further debasement of the political process. Anytime the focus is on the candidate or the voter, the focus is wrong. The focus should always be, if the goal is informed and successful democracy for the people, on the answer. It never is, though, because we have an insatiable lust for stories that aren’t important and issues that, ultimately, don’t matter, so we get results that aren’t ideal because we’re focusing on the man and not the issue.

In better news, Washington state is allowing same-sex couples to register and receive all their normal rights. It isn’t called marriage but it’s a step in the right direction and it’s a damn good start.

Barack Obama declared recently that he’s in favor of “sex-education” for children in kindergarten. He then clarified that he’s in favor of age appropriate sex education in kindergarten. He then clarified that what he really means is, Nothing offensive, so sorry!

There is no age-appropriate “sex education” for kindergarteners. And that gaffe is one of many reasons Barack Obama is not fit for the Presidency of the United States: he isn’t as good a politician as he thinks, he isn’t smart enough to hold up under scrutiny through the primaries, and he, as a black man, is mathematically incapable of defeating the Republicans in an election for the Presidency. (As long-time readers of this blog know, I’ve long contended that America is not above and beyond its racist past and that is why a black man won’t win the Presidency anytime soon.)

In other, happier news: Russ Feingold is introducing censure measures against the President. Good man!

I’ve got a couple of things to say about the news out of Foxington that the United States would “consider direct assaults“ in Pakistan.

Frances Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, signaled today that the Bush administration would consider direct assaults on al-Qaeda hideouts in Pakistan. Townsend was asked on “Fox News Sunday” why the United States isn’t sending Special Forces, attack drones and anything else it can to wipe out al-Qaeda. She replied, “Just because we don’t speak about things publicly doesn’t mean we’re not doing many of the things you’re talking about.”

She added, “Job number one is to protect the American people, and there are no options that are off the table.” A National Intelligence Estimate released Tuesday reported that al-Qaeda has grown stronger, in part because it has established “a safe haven” in northwest Pakistan, in the Federally Administered Tribal Area that is beyond the national government’s control. Pakistani Foreign Minister Kurshid Kasuri warned on CNN’s “Late Edition” against the White House bypassing the Pakistani military in any operation.

“If you have superiority in technical intelligence, please share that with us,” he said. “And then you talk of going after targets — you will lose the war, the battle for hearts and minds. It is much better to rely on Pakistan[’s] army. Pakistan[’s] army can do the job much better, and the result will be that there will be far, far less collateral damage.”

One: it’s a no-brainer that we are already in Pakistan, I’m sure, with covert activities, as Townsend implied.
Two: it’d be moronic to consider public, open, frontal attacks in Pakistan using the American military. Don’t even say such a thing: it’s untrue and harms their government for no reason.

The impression I get from Mitt Romney is that he’s a jerk but a prettyboy meaning that he’ll run his mouth about you and fight you with his friends but back down when you meet him at Dairy Queen on a warm summer’s night, which doesn’t bode well for a Romney Presidency as it implies that he’d be the type of President who’d make a lot of enemies but find himself incapable of fighting them off or winning over enough supporters to defeat them as he’d spent so much time making enemies. People don’t generally associate James Earl Carter with this type of President, but he was, as has been relayed by Tip O’Neill in his autobiography, and that is the vibe I receive from Mitt Romney, a vibe reinforced by his willingness to take a picture with a woman waving a sign that reads “No to Obama Osama and Chelsea’s Moma”. And then, after he’s shown meandering with the worst of the Republican Party, his campaign takes shots at his fellow Republicans and rival Democrats by calling his wife a “starter wife and trophy wife” all in one.

Let me tell you — if Romney got elected, he’d fall into quite the world of pain because nobody wants to work with someone as arrogant and brash as he is unless he’s from someplace Western, because then they have a valid excuse (see: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada). Romney, of course, is nothing of the sort, despite his taste for varmint, and he is, in fact, a lilly man from Massachusetts.

Recently, I’ve spoken to a variety of Democratic Party officials, grassroot volunteers, consultants and observers and have asked them all, “Who do you believe to be our biggest threat on the Republican side? I can’t figure it out. They are all terrible — all of them, and not necessarily from a policy standpoint, but I can’t figure out which of them is electable. Hell, I don’t think any of them can win a national election unless we run, oh, Michael Dukakis.” But then I think, “Well, the Republicans have got to nominate someone, so let’s think — who will be the nominee?” and I can’t figure that out, either. Romney’s a Mormon from Massachusetts, and that’s quite the handicap in the Republican field; Giuliani’s a Liberal and a hack, which surely won’t appeal to Republicans, and he’s bound to be destroyed by the Firefighter’s Unions; Fred Thompson is a bad actor and he’s old, but we’ve definitely been down that road before; John McCain is effectively out of the race, but his issues are: he’s crazy, grassroot and Conservative Republicans hate his guts, and he’s old; Tommy Thompson, Brownback and Huckabee are unknowns with little money, but they are interesting darkhorses, at least, but there’s a reason they’re darkhorses and not serious Presidential candidates at this moment and that’s due to a lack of internal support.

They’ve got to nominate someone, right? Hard to choose who. Hard to see, too, how we can possibly lose the next election, but I assure you it can be done.

I’ve tried to find this article on a more credible website but haven’t been able to. The man himself, however, is a very credible source, even if he does have a history of crazy thought. He was, after all, one of Ronald Reagan’s lead economic advisors!

No, seriously, he’s been a well-known “9/11 Truth” advocate since September eleventh occurred and he’s also been critical of George W. Bush and the media, arguing that the Republican Party has established a Ministry of Propaganda, which isn’t entirely true but I’m not sure I agree with his conclusions. Now, today,

A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: “When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there’s no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule.” “The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face,” Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values. According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.

“The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists … are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events,” he said. “You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated.” Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush’s current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.

“They may have had enough. They may not go along with it,” he said. The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert’s latest column, in which he warned that “unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.” Roberts, who has been dubbed the “Father of Reaganomics” and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.

Makes me wonder where he’s been since he left government, what’s happened to him and what he knows. Is he just a kook? Does he know things we don’t? Is it a combination? I truly doubt what he’s saying, but I wonder what would make a well-known former government official speak out in such a manner. Attention? That’s all?

It’s such a confusing situation. I hope and think he’s wrong, though.

Bill Clinton proves today that, even after all these years, he’s still got his fingers on America’s pulse.

Former President Bill Clinton on Thursday criticized President George W. Bush’s administration for failing in Iraq, saying their was no evidence of much-needed political or diplomatic progress. “The point is, that there is no military victory here,” he said in an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America. Clinton’s wife Hillary is running for the Democratic nomination for president and she has been calling on Bush to pull troops out of Iraq.

“There is no evidence that, whether we have a good day in a particular community or region in Iraq, that we have either the political reconciliation process within the country working or any diplomatic process that’s got a chance to help with the neighbors,” the former Democratic president said. Washington has been urging Iraq for months to pass important laws aimed at reconciling majority Shi’ites and minority Sunni Arabs. So far only one of the draft laws aimed at drawing Sunnis more firmly into the political process has reached the Iraqi parliament.

Bush, who has been under pressure to change the course of the increasingly unpopular war, has said he is waiting for a September progress report from his U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. “I believe that Gen. Petraeus is a very able man and I don’t have any doubts that they’ll win some battles,” Clinton said. “I hope this works. I think every American hopes this works. But it can’t work beyond winning a few battles. It has to be accompanied by … progress on the political front.”

It’s absolutely perfect rhetoric from the former President: consistent with his past support of the war, critical of the President without seeming traiterous or gleeful, and he appears credible as a leader. You know, Clinton was the perfect man to lead the Democrats in 1992: he’s white, he’s southern, he isn’t wishy washy or weak. If he were a bit better advised and a bit bolder — as well as a bit smarter, with Paula Jones and all she begat — he’d have been a great President and the Democratic Party would rule for twenty years.

Now, he has to be careful not to overshadow his wife. See, Bill can say things Hillary just can’t get away with, right or wrong, because he is a white southern man and Hillary isn’t. When this campaign truly gets underway and the dogfights begin, the Clinton Dynamic will be one of the most interesting ones in American political history. You thought Al Gore trying to keep Bill Clinton close but oh-so-far away was interesting (or embarrassing — infuriating, perhaps)? You haven’t seen anything.

All said, though, I’m still rooting for Clinton, of the candidates in the field, because Hillary’s smart and she’s got Bill. I’ve got questions, like with any candidate, but I like her enough to be a supporter. I will be watching with a lot of interest, though.

And in other news, although it might be related (I assure you I didn’t decide long ago to run this piece with that piece — they both came out today), “survey shows that men are happiest with educated wives.” Now listen: I know everyone’s fantasy when they’re ten is a woman who makes them sandwiches, changes the cartoons when you ask her to and makes sure you’re warm at night, but anybody who believes that once they’ve gotten older is an idiot. The best woman is the one who can keep you honest, sharp and happy, which don’t sound like the effects of a dumb woman to me, and I could’ve told you that without doing a study!

You know, you hear that Russia’s a chilly place with leaders whose blood runs cold with ice, but who would’ve imagined them so frozen inside that they’d evict Santa Claus?

President Vladimir Putin has long promised to restore Russian greatness and build an “energy empire.” But until now, his empire-building had been confined to taking control of corporations operating on his turf, buying into businesses abroad, and blackmailing former Soviet Republics who dared vote against Moscow-backed candidates, moved to join NATO or acted in otherwise uppity ways. But Putin’s imperial ambitions have recently added an element of classic 19th century-style territorial expansion: Late last month, Moscow signaled its intentions to annex the entire North Pole, an area twice the size of France with Belgium and Switzerland thrown in — except all of it under water.

The ice-frozen North Pole is currently a no man’s land supervised by a U.N. Commission. The five Polar countries — Russia, the U.S., Canada, Norway and Denmark — each control only a 200-mile economic zone along their coasts. And none of these economic zones reach the North Pole. Under the current U.N. Maritime convention, one country’s zone can be extended only if it can prove that the continental shelf into which it wishes to expand is a natural extension of its own territory, by showing that it shares a similar geological structure. So, the Russians claimed a great scientific discovery late last month. An expedition of 50 scientists that spent 45 days aboard the Rossia nuclear ice-breaker found that an underwater ridge (the Lomonosov ridge) directly links Russia’s Arctic coast to the North Pole. This, they insist, surely guarantees Russia’s rights over a vast Polar territory that also happens to contain some 10 billion tons of oil and natural gas deposits.

Russia’s first attempt to expand beyond its Arctic zone was rebuffed by the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, but Moscow hopes that its “latest scientific findings” will produce a different outcome when the Commission next meets, in 2009. Besides risking the defacing of the pristine beauty of the North Polar cap by oil rigs and pipelines, some believe Russia’s planned expansion will threaten their own interests. In May, U.S. Senator Richard Lugar told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Russia claiming the hydrocarbon-rich area would be to the detriment of U.S. interests. Unless Washington ratifies the U.N. Maritime Convention, pending since 1982, the Senator explained, the U.S. will have no say whatsoever in the dispute — it won’t even have a seat on the International Seabed Authority that monitors nations’ compliance with the U.N. Maritime convention, controls activities beyond the national jurisdiction limits and currently administers the area around the pole.

The North Pole isn’t the only prize in the eyes of the resurgent Russian empire — Moscow is also looking to restore control over a 47,000 sq. km (18,000 sq. mile) piece of the Bering Sea separating Alaska from Russian Chukotka. The territory was ceded to the U.S. in 1990 under the U.S.-Soviet Maritime Boundary Agreement signed by Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. While the deal may have helped ease Cold War tensions, anti-reform Soviet hard-liners always opposed giving up a piece of territory rich in sea life and hydrocarbon deposits, and they and their nationalist successors prevented the agreement’s ratification. Today, the Agreement still operates on a provisional basis, pending its ratification by the Russian parliament.

But what had once been a battle cry of the nationalist opposition has now become the official line. In recent weeks, Kremlin-controlled media have berated the Agreement as a treasonous act by Shervardnadze (who later became the pro-NATO President of Georgia). Now, leading pro-Kremlin members of the Russian legislature are publicly demanding that the Agreement be reviewed, with the aim of recovering the country’s riches. Meanwhile, on the morning of January 7 this year, the rotor blades of a Russian Mi-8 helicopter shattered the divine silence at the opposite end of the Earth, disgorging a group of top Russian dignitaries led by none other than FSB (the former KGB) Director Nikolai Patrushev, to proudly raised the Russian flag over the South Pole. At the time, it might have looked like a stunt. But back in 2004, Patrushev landed at the North Pole in much the same fashion. Stay tuned.

Know what I think? It is true what they say about the Russians drinking too much Vodka. I just hope the United Nations tells them No! and we leave the North Pole alone. I can’t believe that the Russians would even attempt such a powerplay but alas, they are. Fortunately, I don’t believe they’ll turn to force to claim the North Pole (Santa’s Reindeer serve as a fine deterrent) but it alarms me to see them attempt such moves because I worry what kind of diplomatic concessions they’re asking for in what realm and why.

Chris Benoit’s toxicology report is out, and with it comes either silence in the media or a renewed wave of nonsense, depending on whether or not the press decides to continue shouting half-truths and lies. Here’s the news, before the commentary, as it should be.

Professional wrestler Chris Benoit had an elevated level of testosterone in his system but no other steroids in his body, and his 7-year-old son was sedated at the time of his death, a Georgia medical examiner said Thursday.

“This level of testosterone indicates that he had been using testosterone at least within some reasonably short period of time prior to the time that he died,” said Dr. Kris Sperry, chief medical examiner for the state with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, as he released the results of the toxicology report for the wrestler; his wife, Nancy; and son, Daniel. “Although testosterone was found in Christopher Benoit’s urine, there is no evidence of any other of the illegal types of steroids, or the whole laundry list of anabolic steroids that are out there to be used,” Sperry said, adding, “the presence of the testosterone alone even could be an indicator that he was being treated for testicular insufficiency.”

Besides steroids, Benoit’s body contained the anti-anxiety drug Xanax and the painkiller hydrocodone, according to a statement from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The GBI said Benoit tested negative for blood alcohol. But Sperry said that they found a drug in the child’s system that surprised them: Xanax. “It is our opinion that Daniel Benoit was sedated by Xanax at the time that he was murdered, so that (means) he was sedated prior to the time that he died,” he said. The GBI said it could not perform tests for steroids or human growth hormones on the son because of a lack of urine.

Benoit’s wife, Nancy, tested positive for Xanax, hydrocodone and the painkiller hydromorphone, but the decomposition process hindered the ability to determine the precise levels of the drugs at the time of her death. An elevated alcohol level found in her system could also be due to the decomposition process, Sperry said. “The decomposition will affect the ability to interpret these drug levels reliably,” Sperry said. “Before she died, they may have been higher. They could have been lower. We just don’t know and we’ll never know.” The test results were expected to shed more light on Benoit’s last moments. Authorities said Benoit killed his wife and son in their suburban Atlanta home, placed Bibles next to their bodies and then hanged himself on the cable of a weight machine.

Anabolic steroids were found in the home, leading officials to wonder if the drugs played a role in the killings. Some experts believe steroids can cause paranoia, depression and violent outbursts known as “roid rage.” “There is no reliable scientific data that conclusively says that elevated levels of administered testosterone lead to excessive rage or behavioral disorders,” Sperry said. “All the testing that’s been done regarding that has been completely inconclusive.” Federal authorities have charged Benoit’s personal physician, Dr. Phil Astin, with improperly prescribing painkillers and other drugs to two patients other than Benoit. He has pleaded not guilty.

Investigators have also raided Astin’s office several times since the deaths, seizing prescription records and other documents. Before he was charged, Astin told the AP he prescribed testosterone for Benoit, a longtime friend, in the past. He would not say what, if any, medications he prescribed when Benoit visited his office June 22, the day authorities believe Benoit killed his wife. “It’s a little unclear to know exactly where this leads us, but you take this piece and you compare it with what a witness said or what was found at the scene and suddenly the picture begins to become more in focus,” said Scott Ballard, district attorney for Fayette County. “And that’s what we’re certainly hoping to do.”

This is somewhat redeeming for WWE: he was on testosterone, which is in its own way a type of steroid, but he wasn’t on any other steroids, and it’s entirely possible that he was taking it for other reasons, so much so that Ballard won’t out-and-out say, “This is steroids,” because it isn’t.

There are two points raised by the toxicology reports that I have comment on: if Nancy was drinking, and Benoit was on drugs, doesn’t that make the likelihood of a big domestic blowup blowing up worse than expected (or wanted) likelier? And if Benoit sedated his son before killing him, does that mean this isn’t what it seems? Like I’ve said for a long time, I believe that there was a domestic dispute, Benoit killed her without meaning to, panicked, and then decided to take his son’s life and his own for reasons I don’t know. (There are a variety of things that could’ve happened. Is it possible that Benoit decided he didn’t want his son to live without his family, or with his father in prison, or in group homes, and decided that he’d take his life as well? It certainly wasn’t a contemptuous murder, if he spared him the pain of asphixiation.)

There’s still more to be wondered about, of course. The Bibles are a very disturbing part of the story that nobody talks about and there’s been no explanation for, particularly since Benoit had contempt for organized religion. But now we know, conclusively, that “roid rage” isn’t responsible, and the rest is up in the air. I’d like to think we now know that prescription medicine needs to be reformed. That the media needs to be reformed. That a wrestler’s schedule needs to be reformed. I think those are things we should now know, but I know better than to think we all know that now.