The worst person in sports, and perhaps in a whole realm of endeavors, is Dick Pound, the autocrat charged with running the World Anti-Doping Agency. Case in point: yesterday's one-year suspension of American medal hopeful in the skeleton, Zach Lund. Mr. Lund was booted out of the Olympics following detection of the anti-baldness medication, Propecia, after a blood test last November. Propecia has an ingredient that can be used to mask steroid use, although it would take an intake of massive proportions for it to have that intended effect.

And Lund, 26, is clearly an individual who has reason to take the drug, a conclusion reflected in the Court for the Arbitration of Sports, which upheld the penalty in spite of issuing a finding Lund to "be an honest athlete, who was open and frank about his failures", and ruling that "it was entirely satisfied that Mr Lund was not a cheat". In fact, Lund had disclosed his use of the drug for some five years before the hammed came down this time, and it took more than a year for the drug screeners to even find the trace amounts of the masking ingredient in his system.

Enter Mr. Pound, whose previous notoriety on this site came last summer, in his role in backing a fraudulent attempt to "test" Lance Armstrong, as well as his frequent attacks on the sports of baseball, soccer, and ice hockey for not dishing out lifetime bans to first-offenders. Pound, exulting over his ability to crush the dreams of an athlete over a technicality, stated that whether or not Lund was a cheat was beside the point:

There have to be other treatments for hair loss, for hair replacement, than stuff that is a masking agent — that are on the prohibited list. I think he was lucky to get one year, frankly. (emphasis mine)

Damned lucky, I'd say; now he won't miss any big competitions in 2007.

In addition to being a clueless asshole, Pound may have done more than anyone to completely discredit his movement for the public to take performance-enhancing drugs in sports seriously. If Lund is not a cheat, if he's taking Propecia to stop male-pattern baldness, without the high blood pressure side effects that other drugs (like Rogaine) have, and not to mask the use of anabolic steroids, which is what the regulation is designed to stop, he shouldn't receive any suspension, much less one that will take him out of a competition he's spent his lifetime gearing for. And he shouldn't have some smug little hitler suggesting that he should have gotten a hair transplant instead.

Reading between the lines of this story, I'd say that the police are looking into The Great One's role in the Tochet Ring, not whether his wife (ie., "actress" Janet Jones) was a degenerate gambler. That is to say, was Gretzky using his spouse to place his action the same way Pete Rose used various sleezeball friends to do the same. If that turns out to be the case, Gretzky's role as Canadian sporting icon and current head coach of an NHL team would take this story out of the curiosity file and into another galaxy altogether.

BTW, it's just a hunch, but what sort of odds do you think we might have a gambling ring, started by and including past members of the Philadelphia Flyers, and not hear the name of John LeClair coming up at some point? Interesting story, that....

LIBRARY TOWER "PLOT" FOILED !!! Or so you might believe if you've been asleep during the last four years. This sounds like more bullshit from the White House, like the use of illegal wiretaps to stop the Brooklyn Bridge "plot". If this is what the Bushies really fear, then they learned nothing from 9/11.

Is there anyone on this planet, with, let us say, an I.Q. over 80, who cares about who wins the Grammy Awards? Can anyone name who won "Best Song" last year? Who won "Best Record" (which, believe it or not, is a different category) two years ago? Is anyone's opinion of Neal Young going to change because he got his gold watch this year, rather than being honored back when he still made music people listened to?

Everyone has fun mocking some of the jokes that were declared the Best New Group (ie., the Milli Vanilli Award), but an even better exercise is to figure out who was sweeping the Grammys the year some seminal band or album broke through. 1956? Wasn't Elvis. 1964? Tain't the Beatles. Never Mind the Bullocks? In Utero? Forget it. But Christopher Cross cleaned up one year....

I suppose the most interesting thing about this story isn't that another celebrity couple has called it splitsville, but that, until recently, Ralph Fiennes was shacking up with a 61-year old woman. [link via Defamer]

Hero of the Day: Bankruptcy Judge Frank Monroe.

We're All Good Germans Now: This is the type of thing that makes me want to surrender my U.S. Passport. It's not that we have a government that would do such things, it's that most of the American public clearly doesn't give a damn. We're going to get blowback from Guantanamo and our other torture camps that would defy the imagination of Noam Chomsky.

UPDATE: A statistical breakdown of who is being held at G-mo, here. [link via TalkLeft]

Within the margin of error? According to the Cook Report, that's the likelihood of the Democrats retaking control of the House in November....

Mickey Kaus points to some interesting focus group data, which seems to suggest that Americans have returned to the historic fallback position of blaming black people for everything, this time concerning the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Kaus puts his annoying Lord Haw-Haw spin on the topic, but his underlying point is true: that no American political party can win at the ballot box if it relies on the compassion of the American public for the downtrodden. Ours is a selfish nation.

The individualism that fuels the American Dream requires some segment of the public to be exploited. Historically, that role has fallen upon African-Americans, although immigrant groups have also filled the role nicely, and it has been a cornerstone of conservative/libertarian political thought that they deserve their exploitation and poverty (nowadays, of course, it is spoken more in terms of code than in any explicit manner). The shocking scenes and wrenching poverty we witnessed from New Orleans last September temporarily jolted the public, but it takes a lot more than levees collapsing to change ingrained habits of many decades; urban slums, redlining, and "benign neglect" didn't go away just because of temporary outrage over Selma or Birmingham.

Poor people don't vote, at least not in numbers large enough to matter, and they don't otherwise impose their political will upon the rest of society. Their interests don't count, their voices are silent, and the liberal Democrats who represent them tend to do so as a matter of public charity, rather than as the type of constituent service most politicians perform. Events like the '92 riots in Los Angeles initially raise questions about what type of people we are to tolerate such poverty, but inevitably shift over time to what savages "those people" are. It's easier, and cheaper on the wallet, to dehumanize others, rather than actually doing something worthwhile on their behalf. It's the American Way, and liberals better understand that if they want to win elections in the Red States.

Eunochrats: The ever-excellent Digby, on the ruling party:

I've watched this invertebrate GOP caucus since 2000 as they submitted themselves to this lawless administration again and again, shredding every bit of self respect, every figment of institutional pride, every duty to the constitution. The look in their eyes, which is somehow interpreted as strong and defiant by the equally servile media, is actually a window to empty little men who have given up their manhood to oblige their master. The only reward they seek is unfettered access to the taxpayers money for their own use.

We are looking at fifty-five of the most powerful people in the country. Collectively the Republican Senators represent almost a hundred and fifty million citizens. And they have allowed a callow little boy like George W. Bush along with his grey eminineces Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to strip them of their consciences, their principles and their constitutional obligations. What sad little creatures, cowardly and subservient, unctuously bowing and scraping before Karl Rove the man who holds their (purse) strings and dances them around the halls of congress singing tributes to their own irrelevance at the top of their lungs. How pathetic they are.

Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.

Read the whole thing. Unfortunately, there are 19 or so Democrats in the Senate who belie the notion that spinelessness in the face of power is a partisan affliction.

Free Press Kicks Ass: More Muhammed cartoons, here.

With the Rolling Stones scheduled to perform at halftime Sunday, the New York Times notes an earlier, infamous performance by the band, on the same night as the first Super Bowl:

When the first Super Bowl was played on Jan. 15, 1967, it was called the world championship game and the halftime music was performed by the marching bands from the universities of Michigan and Arizona.

But the Stones were also on TV that day, a few hours later, on "The Ed Sullivan Show." They wanted to sing "Let's Spend the Night Together," but Sullivan insisted they change the lyrics to "Let's Spend Some Time Together."

Jagger consented, reluctantly, but rolled his eyes while he sang. A videotape of the telecast seems to reveal him mumbling one chorus as "Let's Spend Some Night Together." At the end of the sloppy performance, the tape shows Jagger and Sullivan solemnly shaking hands and exchanging what can be best described as cold smiles.

The Times also trots out the inevitable interviews with the actual participants for Sunday, many of whom are young enough to be the grandchildren of the Glimmer Twins, who claim never to have heard of the group.

Just the thought that John Kerry apparently pissed off so many of his comrades in the party caucus, by leading a filibuster that was fated not to succeed, is reason enough to take him seriously in 2008. I mean, really, who cares what Chuck Schumer or Barbara Mikulski, or that matter, any of the other careerists that have put the party in the situation it finds itself in today, think about what is politically opportune?

The filibuster not only exposed what an empty shell the lefty blogosphere is when it comes to mobilizing and effecting political change (snark and mau-mauing the media is easy; politics is hard), but it also proved an eye-opener for revealing what a worthless political vehicle the Democratic Party has become. A party that won't stand and fight in opposition has nothing to offer the public in the unlikely event it ever gains a majority. For all the slams Kerry took after the last election, it should be noted that at least he came within an eyelash of winning, while Reid, Schumer and their compatriots were cratering, losing four seats.

Kerry has learned, a year too late, to fight back, even if it is ineffectual. Too bad the rest of the Party in D.C. hasn't.

OIL FOR FOOD!!! OIL FOR FOOD!!! OIL FOR FOOD!!!: I wonder how much play this story is going to get from our Brethren on the Right:

In the United States, a former official has admitted stealing millions of dollars meant for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Robert Stein held a senior position in the Coalition Provisional Authority, which administered Iraq after American and allied forces invaded in 2003. In a Washington court, he admitted to stealing more than $2m (£1.12m) and taking bribes in return for contracts. He faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.

Robert Stein's story is one of extraordinary corruption and excess amid the ruins of Iraq. He was in charge of overseeing money for the rebuilding of shattered infrastructure in south-central Iraq in 2003 and 2004.

Mr Stein admitted in court to conspiring to give out contracts worth $8m to a certain company in return for bribes. He also received gifts and sexual favours lavished on him at a special villa in Baghdad.

But it didn't stop there. Robert Stein admitted to stealing $2m from reconstruction funds. Some of that money, the court heard, was smuggled onto aircraft and flown back to the United States in suitcases.

Book him a slot on "Big Brother"...but wait, there's more:

Robert Stein, 50, was entrusted with the reconstruction of the central city of Hillah despite a fraud conviction that was apparently overlooked in his Pentagon background check. The former contracting official admitted yesterday that he had conspired to steal more than $2 million in reconstruction money and take kickbacks worth more than $1 million in the form of cars, jewellery, cash and sexual favours. Stein used the money to buy a single-engine Cessna aircraft, a Porsche and a Lexus, as well as other cars, grenade launchers, machineguns, jewellery and property. In a plea deal, he agreed to plead guilty to five felony counts: conspiracy, bribery, moneylaundering, possession of a machinegun and being a felon in possession of a handgun.

The case, which was initiated by a US audit of reconstruction spending, provides a stark look at corruption inside the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that governed Iraq after the invasion in March 2003 until June 2004. Five US Army Reserve officers were also allegedly part of the conspiracy. Two have been arrested. An American businessman based in Romania has also been charged.

Stein admitted accepting at least $1 million in cash and cars, jewellery and sexual favours from women, provided by a co-conspirator previously identified as Philip Bloom. Stein said that he helped to steer more than $8.6 million in contracts to companies controlled by Mr Bloom.

The New York Times has even more on Mr. Stein, who apparently was under the impression (accurately, if only for a time) that he didn't have to make any effort to hide what he was doing. Considering that a little under $9 billion disappeared from the control of the CPA, what this guy did was the proverbial drop in the bucket.

Spiteful bastards: At the same time that they were feverishly seeking to discredit Joseph Wilson, the Vice President and Scooter Libby were armed with a report from then-CIA Director George Tenet, stating that Amb. Wilson was correct as to the substance of his report. Rather than humbly acknowledging they were mistaken, they blew the cover of Mrs. Wilson instead. No freaking honor....

Too little, too late: Why is NARAL being taken to task for its endorsement of Lincoln Chafee, but not for its support of the equally-flaccid clockpunchers Daniel Akaka, Maria Cantwell, and Joe Lieberman? There were enough votes to sustain a filibuster against Justice Alito if 1) a groundswell of support had developed weeks ago; 2) the Democratic minority in the Senate had stuck together (even without the four members who ended up voting for the nominee; and 3) fencesitters within the party had realized there would be hell to pay if they didn't take a stand. What the hell does Chafee have to do with this?

UPDATE [2/2]: More post-mortems, here, here, here, here and here, as well as fellative pats-on-the-back and/or whines about NARAL and Senator Chafee, here, here, here, and here.

Is there some rule that requires us to blog about the State of the Union address? Are we even required to watch the damn thing? ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.

Barack Obama (D-IL):

"There's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values. And that's to win elections."

Does anyone honestly believe that the Democrats would have stopped this nomination even if they had a majority in the Senate? When you're a minority party (and remember, Democratic Senators, as a whole, were elected by more people than the GOP "majority"), the filibuster is one of the few tactics that allow you to have any influence. If you're not willing to use it now, then what difference does it make how many Senators you elect? Unless, like the junior Senator from Illinois, you intend to make a career of it in the Senate, and kissing ass and going along with the program becomes more important than, say, defending a woman's right to privacy, or preventing a President from abrogating the Fourth Amendment.

There were nineteen Democrats who voted to end debate this afternoon, who weren't even prepared, like Obama, Biden, Mikulski, et al., to go through the motions of opposing Alito. Five (Lieberman, Akaka, Cantwell, Carper, and Kohl) face the voters in Blue States this year, (btw, all four are pretending to "oppose" the nomination) and both Lieberman and Akaka have strong primary challenges. Support the challengers, and/or encourage said opponents to run as independents in the fall. There should never be a tent large enough to include a Vichy Wing in any political movement.

As a real Democrat once said, I wouldn't piss down their throats if their hearts were on fire.

The time to have mobilized support for a filibuster of Samuel Alito was in early-January, not the final weekend before the vote. If lefty bloggers seem ineffectual and whiny right now, it's their own fault for being more concerned last week with hurt feelings caused by Beltway pundits, rather than the pending approval of the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Setting priorities, then sticking to them, matter.

Filibusters aren't won by convincing a bunch of people to jam the phonelines of Senators at the last second; careerists like Landrieu and Salazar need to be shown that a political price would be paid, that putting a unreconstructed Princeton bigot like Alito on the Supreme Court would not be forgotten, just like Al "The Pal" Dixon's vote for Clarence Thomas wasn't forgotten when he lost his Senate seat in 1992. An angry fax by a non-constituent just doesn't work.

Abramoff is trivial, another D.C. crook in a town notorious for bipartisan corruption. Alito isn't trivial.

UPDATE: Filibuster quashed, 72-25.

Going where the traditional media refuses, Kevin Drum asks, "Is Charles Logan a Republican?" I would guess that it's his deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression and his substitution of bluster and arrogance to mask his inadequacies that give the strongest hint....