This wonderful group is so hysterically, old-fashionedly conservative that they still probably think Jew Mason Communists are working out that New World Order thing. They have basically been banned from serious participation in the Conservative Movement since the '60s, when William F. Buckley decided their insanity and paranoia reflected poorly on the movement.

And they have not gotten any less insane and paranoid, since then! But Buckley has gotten much more dead, so, welcome back, John Birch Society! Welcome back to the big tent of constant fear of everything. (This is all thanks to proud Bircher Ron Paul, of course—hey, internet glibertarians, yr girlfriend is an old crazy person.) This JBS sponsorship displeases some. (Not us! We think it's wonderful, that they are not letting the damn international Jewish one world currency conspirators keep them from setting up a little booth at a hotel in DC, to raise fiat money.)

CPAC is traditionally about as big a tent as the modern movement can handle, but typically the attendees and organizers come more from the business-friendly side of the modern movement than the "we hate gay people" side. But this year, the insane "Liberty Council" (a sort of anti-ACLU, the Liberty Council defends the rights of Christians to put Ten Commandments wherever the hell they want forever, and they also fight against Gay Marriage) is threatening to boycott CPAC if CPAC allows some sad "gay conservative" group to be involved, in any capacity.

Here is a sentence about this whole thing that you will enjoy:

It boils down to this: there is nothing "conservative" about - as Barber inimitably puts it - "one man violently cramming his penis into another man's lower intestine and calling it ‘love.'"

Right. Ok.

Anyway, this year's CPAC is gearing up to be the best ever! We can't wait for Ann Coulter's millionth identical standup routine about which Democrats are fags this year.

His name is Jason Chaffetz, and he is pledging to use his (nonexistent) power on the House Subcommittee for DC to overturn the gay marriage ordinance, in the name of Mormon values.

Here are some amazing fun facts about Chaffetz that Ken Layne taught us:

• He is from San Francisco.
• He is/was Jewish.
• He is the son of Kitty Dukakis.
• He apparently decided to rebel again his liberal Jewish San Francisco family by going to Bringham Young on a football scholarship and converting to Mormonism.
• His father, John Chaffetz, wrote book in support of Gay Marriage.

This fucking guy. If he wasn't a vile wingnut Congressman bigot we would almost feel bad for Michael Dukakis' idiot stepson, having all these weird issues all out in public like this.

Yes, 9/11! And also this epic financial crisis thing. There has been a drop in immigration in this country, lately, because we strengthened some of our immigration policies, and also fewer people actually want to move here, because have you seen how miserable and fat and lazy most of us are? And also we complain so much!

You may think this is wonderful new for racists, but it's actually something of a mixed bag. 2050 seems like a long time from now, right? Why bother being scared of Mexicans forcing your grandchildren to pledge allegiance to Selena's Ghost "en espanolo" when by the time it is supposed to happen, the Socialist Obama Americorps ACORN shock troops will have already relocated you to your FEMA death camp? The whole "in a dozen years there will be more Hispanic babies than adorable perfect white babies named Jaden" thing has always been a great way for crypto-racists to awaken the latent racism of potential voters, because it just sounds bad, like someone is going to beat up your baby or something, but now that will not even happen until 2031.

So thanks, terrorists and the financial sector, for saving white people, from themselves (and from Mexicans).

We also hope some of the people at Peretz's magazine, the people who've been doing wonderful work covering the political debate over health care reform and advocating for good health care policy, explain to Mr. Peretz that Lieberman did not have a minor political disagreement over some "shaky provisions scripted by Harry Reid," but, in fact, Lieberman did a complete 180 on a fairly uncontroversial (and good) piece of policy that he'd supported, openly and vocally, for literally years. And he did so in an attempt to hijack and perhaps kill a bill that every principled Democrat supports because they actually believe it will save tens of thousands of lives (people who cover politics tend to forget that this is supposed to be the point of politics, actually providing real life people with tangible benefits, like saving their lives), and he did this in a childish fit of pique that has now lasted three years.

Also Marty Peretz is a racist embarrassment to a magazine that is constantly trying to redeem itself for its various ridiculous crimes against journalism and basic human decency.

First the state government "miscalculated" how much revenue the MTA would get from a payroll tax, to the tune of $200 million. And then the state government slashed the MTA budget by $143 million. That adds up to $343 million that the MTA doesn't have, that they really, really need.

Now, dozens of bus lines will be eliminated, a bunch of stations in Lower Manhattan will close overnight (those stations are all too close together anyway), and subways will run on a reduced schedule during off-peak hours, which means if you miss the G train early Sunday morning you should probably just find somewhere to crash in Greenpoint. Oh, and no more free Metrocards for students.

(Unless the state government intervenes, of course! Like most MTA announcements it is half plea and half threat.)

The cuts, obviously, would adversely affect people who work nights and weekends, and kids who might not be able to afford a commute to a school that might be superior to one in their neighborhood. But that is just a coincidence, not the direct result of a series of policy decisions made at every level of government dating back to the Reagan administration. Also the cuts sound suspiciously like just a codification of the current ridiculously terrible level of service we are already receiving. (Seriously, trains are running late because of leaves, now? Fuck you, MTA!)

Hah, it was two short years ago that we bitched about the last fare hike, when the pay-per-ride bonus was reduced to 15%, which was bad enough before they added the 25 fucking cents to the fare. Ugh! (Also that day I think every headline was in all-caps Post-ese.) (And it was last year that the MTA straight-up stole $80 dollars, from me.)

Here is a fun graphic from the Times in 2008 about how in New York subway system, the most heavily-utilized mass transit system in the nation, fares account for the vast majority of the system's revenue, which is insane and not sustainable. (Oh, but we don't pay that much, if you count discounts, and also if you count each leg of one trip—i.e. each time you change trains—as a separate trip, which is INSANE.) And don't listen to the MTA lies: adjusting for inflation we are paying more than we ever have in the history of the subway system, and significantly more than was paid in the golden era of mass ridership in the '50s and '60s.

Fuck the MTA, right, but fuck the New York State Senate more. This is all Pedro Espada, Carl Kruger, and Hiram "Lady-Slasher" Monserrate's fault, of course. Kruger, in particular, is just a tremendous asshole. (And hey, Mayor Bloomberg, how is that third-term "free buses" campaign promise coming? You working on that?)

Once again: the federal government needs to contribute to operating costs for mass transit. This is ridiculous. You know what you do, as the federal government, when you really don't give a shit about a group but don't want to held responsible for hurting them? You require that states take care of them. Old people get federally funded Medicare, poor people get a federal/state partnership called Medicaid that ensures constant underfunding. The feds maintain highways for, you know, people who live outside of the city who use their cars to get to work. The states can take care of mass transit, right? What could possibly be the problem with having state governments that aren't allowed to run budget deficits fund programs and services designed to aid the economically disadvantaged? That'll work out fine, unless there's some sort of economic crisis! In the event of an economic crisis, of course, states would have to cut these services and programs at precisely the time when the largest number of people need them the most, and that would be hilarious!

Tomorrow better be the best fucking Surplus Tuesday ever.

[Photo: City Hall station, 1978. Library of Congress.]

It is kind of wonderful, actually, to see The New Republic—a supposedly "liberal" magazine whose fanatical racist publisher forced them to actually endorse Lieberman for president five short years ago—outright calling the Senator who most resembles Marty Peretz (in philosophy if not tone) stupid.

I think one answer here is that Lieberman isn't actually all that smart. He speaks, and seems to think, exclusively in terms of generalities and broad statements of principle. But there's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform.

And Chait also says that he gets away with being stupid because he's a Jew.

I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary, or possibly the victim, of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, it's not true.

Oh, they are calling him stupid because he is threatening to filibuster the health care bill because it now tentatively includes a policy that he supported three months ago.

(Marty, meanwhile, is just babbling about how pleased he is that liberals are mad that the President wants to bomb Muslims etc etc.)

Correction: We've been told that it was not Marty's fault that The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman in 2004. It was, in fact, entirely the fault of then-editor Peter Beinart, a guy who decided Democrats would start winning elections once they all announced that they just really, really loved war, a lot, even more than Republicans. He is a complete tool and we are pretty sure he writes for The Daily Beast now or something. Who knows. Anyway, we apologize for the error, and please consider this a personal apology to Marty Peretz, for implying that he likes Joe Lieberman. (Oh, hah, Peter is now "a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC," because he was wrong about every single important foreign policy issue of his generation, which makes him very Serious and Respected. DC IS THE WORST PLACE.)

No one seems to know who was behind the hoax—or what the point was, except to embarrass Canada?—but it involved emailed press releases, a fake website for Canada's Environment Department, and and even a (really well done) spoof Wall Street Journal story.

The release claimed Canada was going to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and it went on to claim that Canada was going to send Africa $13 billion in aid next year for development and as "reparations" for climate change caused by developed nations. The people behind the hoax sent out not only the initial email announcing the fake new Canadian policy, but also a follow-up claiming the office had been spoofed and linking to the false Journal story.

And, wow, is this a spoof UN Climate Change Conference website too? Looks just like the real thing!

So. No one is sure where this came from and Canada does not find it very funny.

The Yes Men tend to perform their stunts in person, and they'd be more likely to pretend to be American than Canadian. Right? (They already did a climate hoax involving the US Chamber of Commerce.) Maybe Canada has its own Yes Men! But who would want to pick on the Canadian government? (Presumably lots of people, because Canada does not want to do much about emissions at all, and they're trying to back out of Kyoto.)

Recently, Fox has begun actually acknowledging mistakes, responding to satirical criticism, apologizing for errors,, and even promising to stop lying all the time. It's weird! We're a little worried about them!

Beck's gold scam—he constantly tells his audience to invest in gold because America is going to collapse and he is also coincidentally a paid spokesman for a company that sells gold at massively inflated prices— was revealed in a surprisingly journalismy story in Politico that led to a Daily Show segment (and, yes, a Gawker post; that was most likely the difference-maker here).

Then the network's legal department sent Beck a letter asking him just what he does for Goldline, exactly. Because technically, on-air talent at Fox is prohibited from "endorsing products or serving as a product spokesperson."

But don't worry! If it sounds like Fox is going to crack down on an obvious violation of their own crippled ethics policies, they are actually just covering their asses and then telling the Times that they'd covered their asses. Because while Beck was named as a "paid spokesman" of Goldline on their website just last week, which would violate Fox's policy, they hastily renamed Beck a "radio sponsor" instead, so everything is fine.

"They sent back word that he is not a paid spokesman," [Fox exec Joel] Cheatwood said, adding that it would be "problematic without question" if Mr. Beck did have a position as a paid spokesman for a product.

So they are aware of his unethical behavior, and they sent him a letter about it, but no one is asking anyone to do anything differently, the end.

Op-ed editor Autumn Brewington (who is presumably taking the flak for her boss, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt) seemed to be missing the point a bit in an interview with the soon-to-be-defunct Editor & Publisher.

Brewington did not regret giving Palin space, noting, "She is someone who stirs discussion and we are in the business of putting out opinion. She reached out to us."

Ah, yes, the traditional factors taken into consideration when accepting editorials. "Will this bring us attention? Good. Run it."

The fact that no one does or should take Sarah Palin, or her ghostwriter, seriously on any policy issue, let alone global fucking warming, and the fact that her op-ed was patent bullshit, and the fact that it was not even interesting or original bullshit and it never would've been published if the author hadn't been named "Sarah Palin" (or "George Will"), none of that is important. It made the most-emailed list, after all.

And that is why starting next week please enjoy the Washington Post's Editorial Roundtable on monetary policy, hosted by The Various Women Tiger Woods Has Fucked.

We spend a lot of time criticizing the North Dakota Senator, mostly for seeming to believe that "Federalism" means "the entire nation must pay fealty to a state the size of Milwaukee (not incl. metro area, obv) if it wants to get anything done." But is it possible he is actually just stupid?

That is the only explanation, really, for his brilliant new plan to create a "bipartisan fiscal task force" to address the federal deficit. First of all, Kent Conrad opposes any and all money-saving measures that would adversely affect North Dakota's status as America's sixth-most successful welfare state. Second of all, obsessively carping on the deficit in the middle of a massive recession and record joblessness is an incredibly bizarre thing for a Democratic Senator to do (or it would've been considered incredibly bizarre back before Democrats acquiesced to the Serious Reaganomists who dismantled the social safety net).

But most importantly, he has engineered this task force in such a way that we don't think he has been paying a whit of attention to anything Congress has been doing (or not doing) for the last 20 years:

Importantly, the task force would ensure a bipartisan outcome. Broad bipartisan agreement would be required to move anything forward. Fourteen of the 18 Task Force members would have to agree to report the recommendations. And final passage would require supermajorities in both the Senate and House.

Hah. HAH. Yes, that would ensure a bipartisan outcome, wouldn't it! In the sense that the Senate's complete inaction on every single pressing issue of the day is broadly "bipartisan." And by all means, let's export those absurd anti-majoritarian abuses of parliamentary procedure to the other legislative body, the one with a nasty tendency to actually vote on major legislation!

But this does not go far enough to achieve broad bipartisan support! Conrad should propose to solve every American crisis by commissioning a bipartisan task force that will only issue recommendations that 67 of its 74 members agree on, and all 74 members have to be individually approved by 80% majorities in the House and Senate, and by supermajorities in 3/4ths of the nation's State Legislatures. He will get so much done, then.

If American conservatives want to know what a real War on Christmas might look like, they should probably visit the Holy Land. Something called the "Lobby for Jewish Values" is actually, for real, campaigning against restaurants that display Christmas trees and wreaths. And it is just not just the nuts! Every year, the Jerusalem Rabbinate threatens to revoke the kosher certification of restaurants that display "Christian symbols."

And they have kick-ass fliers:

According to the lobby's Chairman, Ofer Cohen, they have received backing by the rabbis, "and we are even considering publishing the names of the businesses that put up Christian symbols ahead of the Christian holiday and call for a boycott against them."

Fliers and ads distributed among the public read, "The people of Israel have given their soul over the years in order to maintain the values of the Torah of Israel and the Jewish identity.

"You should also continue to follow this path of the Jewish people's tradition and not give in to the clownish atmosphere of the end of the civil year. And certainly not help those businesses that sell or put up the foolish symbols of Christianity."

The "clownish atmosphere" of Christmas? That is too far. It is time for the United States to invade Israel and topple their tyrannical government, in order to protect the rights of their Christian minority.

No one really remembers Nobel Prize acceptance speeches. Not even King's, which Obama quoted a couple times. And this one probably won't go down in history, but it was terribly smart and occasionally lovely, and we're inclined to agree with James Fallows that it "will probably seem better, on re-reading and with the passage of time...." Reading the transcript is probably more edifying than watching it.

So. The humble bit sounded genuine. The defensive bit was funny.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

"Including Norway" is not quite as bizarrely memorable a piece of odd Presidential justification as "you forgot Poland," but we will make an effort to quote it mockingly in our foreign policy coverage from now on. Even NORWAY, people!

Here is the president laying out the incredibly unrealistic conditions of a "just war":

The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Yeah those are all kinda impossible to meet to everyone's satisfaction.

Because George W. Bush so brazenly co-opted the utopian rhetoric of liberal internationalists, no current politician can speak of the courage and heroism of those who protest oppressive regimes without unintentionally evoking that jackass in all his smirky vainglory. Though Bush only ever talked about the nations he was actively interested in messing around with for strategic reasons. Obama brought up Burma and Somalia and Zimbabwe. (And, look at that, climate change.)

The crazier right-wing critics are basically grasping at straws in their attempts to find fault (it was a "lecture," he didn't count the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR as one of the wars he is waging, actual psychopath John Bolton is mad that he said he "prohibited torture") but that is to be expected.

Not-great video of the speech is on Youtube if you'd like to watch it.

[Pic: Getty]

Yes, this is a tiny Christmas tree in a hallway on the 2nd floor of the Longworth House Office Building, and someone has asked that it be removed.

But John Boehner never thought it was such a bad little tree. It's not bad at all, really. Maybe it just needs a little love?

According to a tipster, members of the Bohemian Club had a secret meeting in the side room of the legendary Upper East Side restaurant that isn't actually that good. No media allowed, of course. And there was a secret code to get in: "the five easy pieces."

Our source bypassed the tight security, and saw a bunch of rich old white dudes from California—none of whom he recognized—dressed for dinner and a show.

Someone get Alex Jones to Manhattan! They may still be in town!

Gelbaum gave the ACLU $20 million, anonymously, every year. But he will be unable to make that donation this year, forcing the organization to scramble to solicit donations that they'll have to share with state chapters.

Gelbaum is an ex-hedge funder who retired a couple years ago to become a reclusive investor in green technology and a full-time anonymous philanthropist. He is the co-trustee of the secretive Quercus Trust, which has invested in a whole ton of green tech concerns. He loves immigrants, the environment, civil liberties, and shiny, shiny fabrics.

What little anyone knows of him comes from a 2004 L.A. Times piece that revealed his charitable donations to environmental and conservation groups.

Gelbaum was born in Minnesota and moved with his math professor father to California at a young age. He now lives in Newport Beach, Orange County, and his money has "preserved hundreds of miles of wildlife corridors across mountains and deserts" in California.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Gelbaum has been donating to Democratic candidates and the Sierra Club since the '90s, with donations to Loretta Sanchez, Barack Obama, Mark Udall (in 1998), the DSCC, DNC, DCCC, Hispanic PAC USA, and a dozen other congress members and candidates. None of which is unusual for a wealthy California liberal.

But the fact that he actively shunned any publicity whatsoever for his frankly staggering donations to the ACLU and the Sierra Club and others? That is a bit unusual! For a liberal philanthropist, anyway!

And with his giant checkbook comes influence: many Sierra Club members wanted the organization to come out against illegal immigration. Gelbaum, whose wife is a Mexican-American, and who bankrolled the court fight against California's Proposition 187, made sure it didn't even get discussed.

So if David Gelbaum has a bad year, the civil rights and environmental movements have a bad year. And it looks like Gelbaum had a bad year.

How did he make his money in the first place? According to the Times, he "was a math prodigy who parlayed his talents into a highly lucrative three-decade career using mathematical formulas to pick stocks and bonds for wealthy investors in hedge funds." They report that he was hired by Edward Thorp to do analysis for Princeton-Newport Partners, until that firm went belly-up in a scandal. According to Fortune:

From 1989 until 2002, Mr. Gelbaum performed quantitative modeling for stock price returns and derivative securities for TGS Management, and from 1972 until 1989 he worked at Oakley & Sutton in a similar capacity.

Oh god, he was a quant! Doesn't that make this whole thing his fault?