for somebody who got his job through his mommy's influence with hyper-conservative narcissists.

But we in the Los Angeles area are getting to know Goldberg's piddly variations from his weekly appearance in the alleged newspaper, the Times, taking up space consigned to him by the obviously narcissistic new publisher.

Harper represents the neocon right, not the old, courtly crowd. As such, mark my words, he'll now start governing directly opposed to whatever he said to get elected. Off comes the gloves. Hope Canadians like it in Iraq/Iran/wherever, because off you will go. Of course, Canadian business will get everything they want, so the tone in the press will change, and they'll run glowing reassessments. They'll reform Medicare in such a way to make it screw up royally, and then reform it further by abolishing it, all the while telling you how happy you are it's gone. Face it, these guys have no honor and no allegiance to the truth. They're as ideological as Stalinists, and just as truthful. And all the sodomites will land in jail. Anybody old enough to remember Duplessis?

Let's see: what other figure has distinguished himself in public by telling lies? How about Oprah Freying George W. Bush?

Reasons why Bush could nominate his dog and get it past the Senate. Wait a minute. He tried that.

But Alito is a lock to go through.

The Dems could have, if they had a coherent strategy, have had a noble/instructive battle, and either won it or gone down in glorious defeat while fighting for truth, justice and the American Way. But they didn't. A leader could have done it.

Not to be ignored, however, is the compliant Washington media, who just luv the conventional wisdom and the "smart guy" stance. And, of course, nobody bashes the Dems more than journalists like Shapiro. Imagine: Kerry's reaction might have had something to do with 2008. Perhaps Walter thinks that journalists like himself work only for the truth.

You don't always succeed when you rebel, but you learn a lot about your friends and enemies. There is everything to win in terms of public opinion. If not of Alito, then of the Democrats. Letting this go without a fight would have been unforgivable.

He nationalized the 1994 elections by using a whole bunch of keywords that made the opposition look sick. He was exaggerating, but we aren't. And he was ruthless in his own party: he cut the white shoes Republicans off at the knees. Is it not time to take a look at that?

They don't mix. Sociology is an interesting science -- a soft one -- by which you can study things like the incidence of single mothers in various cultures, or the social attitudes on race through history, things like that. It's really quite useful just to see the big cultural machine at work. But it's no substitute for a political analysis, which has to do with analyzing the state of political power at any given time.

However. years before the beginning of the baby boom. Does that mean that when I went to Berkeley grad school in 1966, and sat in in Sproul Hall and demonstrated against the draft at the Oakland draft board, we were of different "generations"? Well, I'm sure we had similar experiences, because we both lived through the era. We both lived through a time of change. Some of them were terrific, and some definitely weren't. George W. Bush was of our generation, too.

The thing is, sociology makes bad politics. It's great material for spin, though. The World War II "generation" are the greatest. No, the Baby Boomers are. What is the point of this? We all owe a debt to the guys who fought Hitler and Tojo, but that doesn't mean that every veteran is a font of wisdom in everything he says. Similarly, the '60s were an era of terrific social ferment. Some of that ferment -- like ending segregation, and ending a pointless war --was a good idea. Communes? They aren't the wave of the future, it turns out. Free sex? Forgotten. LSD for everybody? Along with the "dictatorship of the proletariat," one of the few really, truly dopey ideas. Like, maybe, mandatory school prayer as a dopey idea. Or the unitary powers of the presidency.

The '60s and '70s were a time of very fruitful chaos, when a bunch of new ideas got adopted. Now the so-called pendulum has swung. Let's push back. I don't care if you're 90 or 16, will you help me push this rock?

I guess these moments come for every "ism." Was not feminism created to serve women's needs? Why should women serve feminism?

Remember Sister Souljah? Remember her husband's triangulation? Remember "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Mrs. Clinton is playing it strictly according to game plan. On gay issues, she will seek endorsements from some gays, but she will seek out an "ultra-liberal" group that "goes too far" to make the heartland feel safe.

On the Dubai ports deal, notice here early opposition, going to the right of the GOP on security when she saw the chance. Duh.

Evil, or just winning politics?