Harold died alone. Clay has nothing left of their possessions except a scrapbook of photos Harold assembled during his last three months of life. After 20 years of life together, these men were separated, their home torn asunder, their possessions auctioned off, and their lives ruined.

Much as I would like to sit in the TBogg Cave and be all broody and shit, Gotham City needs me and the TBogg Signal in the sky alerts me to the fact that someone said something stupid on the internet and how often does that happen? Like, always.

Some airlines are crying to re-start flights in Europe already, never mind that pesky problem of air safety.

Albert Einstein once said, “A problem cannot be solved from the same state of consciousness which created it.” I offer an addendum: a problem may not be seen by the same state of consciousness which created it. Let’s ensure the Supreme Court can actually see the problems which are presented before it.

While the timeline prepared here doesn’t show us everything special prosecutor John Durham is looking at (presumably, there are a number of documents that are too sensitive to release), looking at the documents from this perspective gives us a sense of what Durham is investigating with regard to the destruction of videotapes believed to document torture.

Now, the empirical evidence is mounting that, at the very least, there is a strong correlation between family type and political identity. In Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture, law professors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone makes a very compelling, research-tested case for the idea that the kind of family you’re in is tightly linked to where you live, how much education you have, what you do for work, how much money you make–and how you vote come election time.

According to Cahn and Carbone, the “Red Family Paradigm” emphasizes “the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation” and is defined by early marriage and parenthood (not necessarily in that order, as shotgun marriages are more commons in red states), less education, and more hierarchical family relationships. The first chapters of the book are dedicated to showing how this way of family is rooted in states and areas that voted Republican in recent elections—and how the states that voted Democratic are defined by another, newer family model “geared for the post-industrial economy.” This “Blue Family Paradigm” is urban, educated, and egalitarian. Crucially, Cahn and Carbone find both men and women will tend to delay parenthood until they both feel a degree of emotional and financial independence, which in the twenty-first century has translated in more income and wealth as well as better outcomes for children.

I don’t understand it. Why would they do it? Oh, I know that Goldman Sachs made a lot of money working both sides of the deal selling short on a synthetic CDO that it created with direct input of the customer who wanted to take the short position (bet against the CDO).

Just before Scott Brown won election to be my Senator, political pundits praised Brown for running a smart, effective campaign. It’s now clear that what they meant was that the man could talk effectively out of both sides of his mouth and bamboozle your typical Talking Heads interviewer.

It’s impossible to have a meaningful, productive debate between two parties if they first can’t agree on a basic framework of facts. For instance, if you think the US already has The Greatest Health Care System in the World, it’s unlikely that you will offer too many helpful ideas that address the question, “How do we reform health care?” That’s why when you read this Newsweek interview with the Secessionist, you realize that there’s simply no such thing as a “bipartisan compromise” possible with the current Republican Party.

Lloyd Blankfein says that Goldman Sachs was just a market maker, trying to accommodate its customers. The SEC says it tried to accommodate some more than others.