https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting



The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members. Before driving to the school, he shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived at the school, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

The incident remains the deadliest mass shooting at either a primary or secondary school in U.S. history, the second-deadliest U.S. school shooting overall, and the fourth-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals to make the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state gun legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.

A November 2013 report issued by the Connecticut State Attorney's office concluded that Lanza acted alone and planned his actions, but provided no indication why he did so, or why he targeted the school. A report issued by the Office of the Child Advocate in November 2014 said that Lanza had Asperger syndrome and as a teenager suffered from depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder, but concluded that they had "neither caused nor led to his murderous acts." The report went on to say, "his severe and deteriorating internalized mental health problems ... combined with an atypical preoccupation with violence ... (and) access to deadly weapons ... proved a recipe for mass murder".

https://twitter.com/sassyjustice/status/1337759611219111936
Sassy Justice @sassyjustice

Cheyenne 9’s coverage of the official White House address

Embedded video

9:02 AM · Dec 12, 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17


Eugene Cernan aboard the Lunar Roving Vehicle during the first EVA of Apollo 17

Apollo 17 (December 7–19, 1972) was the final mission of NASA's Apollo program; it remains the most recent time humans have travelled beyond low Earth orbit. Its crew consisted of Commander Eugene Cernan, Lunar Module Pilot Harrison Schmitt, and Command Module Pilot Ronald Evans, and it carried a biological experiment containing five mice.

Launched at 12:33 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on December 7, 1972, Apollo 17 was a "J-type mission" that included three days on the lunar surface, extended scientific capability, and the use of the third Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV).

Cernan and Schmitt landed in the Taurus–Littrow valley and completed three moonwalks, taking lunar samples and deploying scientific instruments. The landing site had been chosen to further the mission's main goals: to sample lunar highland material older than Mare Imbrium, and to investigate the possibility of relatively recent volcanic activity. Evans remained in lunar orbit in the command and service module (CSM), taking scientific measurements and photographs.

Cernan, Evans, Schmitt, and the mice returned to Earth on December 19.

Apollo 17 was the first mission to have no one on board who had been a test pilot; X-15 test pilot Joe Engle lost the lunar module pilot assignment to Schmitt, a geologist. The mission included the first night launch of a U.S. human spaceflight and the final crewed launch of a Saturn V rocket. It was also the final use of Apollo hardware for its original purpose (extra Apollo spacecraft were later used in the Skylab and Apollo–Soyuz programs).

The mission broke several crewed spaceflight records: the longest Moon landing, longest total extravehicular activities (moonwalks), largest lunar sample, longest time in lunar orbit, and, at 75, most lunar orbits.



Lunar surface


Eugene Cernan on the lunar surface, December 13, 1972

Over three moonwalks (EVAs), Cernan and Schmitt deployed the LRV, the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) and seismic explosive charges. They parked the LRV at nine planned geological survey stations to collect samples and make observations. Additionally, twelve short sampling stops were made at Schmitt's discretion while riding the LRV, during which the astronauts rapidly collected lunar material without dismounting.

The first lunar excursion began four hours after landing, at 6:54 p.m. EST on December 11. The first task was to offload the rover and other equipment from the LM. While working near the rover, Cernan caught his hammer under the right-rear fender extension, accidentally breaking it off. A similar incident occurred on Apollo 16 as John Young maneuvered around the rover. Although this was not a mission-critical issue, the loss of the part caused Cernan and Schmitt to be covered with dust thrown up when the rover was in motion. The crew attempted a short-lived fix using duct tape, attaching a map to the damaged fender. However lunar dust stuck to the tape's surface, preventing it from adhering properly. The crew deployed the ALSEP just west of the landing site. This task done, they departed for the first geological survey station: Steno crater to the south of the landing site. The astronauts gathered 14 kilograms (31 lb) of samples, took seven gravimeter measurements, and deployed two explosive packages. The latter were detonated remotely to test geophones placed by the astronauts, and also seismometers left during previous missions. The EVA ended after seven hours and twelve minutes.


Astronauts Cernan and Schmitt singing "I Was Strolling on the Moon One Day" to the words and tune of "While Strolling Through the Park One Day"

On December 12, awakened by "Ride of the Valkyries", Cernan and Schmitt began their second lunar excursion. First, the rover's fender needed a better fix. Overnight, the flight controllers devised a procedure communicated by John Young: taping four cronopaque maps together and clamping the "replacement fender extension" onto the fender. The astronauts carried out the new fix which did its job, lasting the remainder of the exploration. Cernan and Schmitt then departed for station 2—Nansen Crater, at the foot of the South Massif. Upon arrival, Cernan reported their range as 7.6 km (4.7 mi, 25,029 ft[33]) away from the lunar module; it was the furthest distance traveled away from a spacecraft during the Apollo program. The astronauts were at the extremity of their "walkback limit", a safety constraint meant to ensure that they could walk back to the LM if for whatever reason the rover failed. They began a return trip, traveling northeast. Stopping at station 4—Shorty crater—the astronauts discovered orange soil, which proved to be very small beads of volcanic glass formed over 3.5 billion years ago. The final stop before returning to the LM was Camelot crater; throughout the sojourn, the astronauts collected 34 kilograms (75 lb) of samples, took another seven gravimeter measurements, and deployed three more explosive packages. Concluding the EVA at seven hours and thirty-seven minutes, Cernan and Schmitt had completed the longest-duration EVA in history to-date, traveling further away from a spacecraft and covering more ground on a planetary body during a single EVA than any other spacefarers. Once the LM was repressurized, CAPCOM Bob Parker was particularly impressed, saying: "Absolutely outstanding. I can't say more than that. And I mean it from the bottom of my heart or the bottom of my soul or something, my conscience."

The third moonwalk, the last of the Apollo program, began at 5:25 pm EST on December 13. Cernan and Schmitt rode the rover northeast of the landing site, exploring the base of the North Massif and the Sculptured Hills. Stopping at station 6, they examined a house-sized split boulder dubbed Tracy's Rock (or Split Rock), after Cernan's daughter. The ninth and final planned station was conducted at Van Serg crater. The crew collected 66 kilograms (146 lb) of lunar samples and took another nine gravimeter measurements. Before concluding the moonwalk, the crew collected a breccia rock, dedicating it to the nations of Earth, several of which were represented in Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas, at the time. A plaque located on the LM, commemorating the achievements made during the Apollo program, was then unveiled. Before reentering the LM for the final time, Gene Cernan expressed his thoughts:

... I'm on the surface; and, as I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to come - but we believe not too long into the future - I'd like to just [say] what I believe history will record. That America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind. "Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17."

Cernan then followed Schmitt into the LM; the final lunar excursion had a duration of seven hours and fifteen minutes.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/12/us/covid-19-joy-sorry-keenes/index.html

By Angela Barajas and Martin Savidge, CNN

Updated 7:24 AM ET, Sat December 12, 2020



(CNN)Jeffery Michael Keene was a devoted husband, father and an Army combat veteran. He had served four tours in Afghanistan and Iraq during his 12 years of service. Despite being in the front lines of war, he would face his deadliest challenge at home.

In the years since leaving the military, he and his wife, Nicole, welcomed their first child, Adalyn, and moved to Lexington, Kentucky, from Texas. He found a job as a service specialist at a local car dealership, making him the sole breadwinner. The Keenes were expecting their second child, a boy, in December.

Instead, the baby was born prematurely on October 26. But Michael, 39, would never know. Struggling with Covid-19 symptoms, he died two days later, in the same hospital where his son was receiving emergency care.

The joy and sorrow of those traumatic days tested Nicole Keene's faith. "I don't know why He answered my prayers for Wesson and not for Michael," she told CNN. "It makes me very angry. But I keep praying because He gave me a miracle."

-/snip-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore



Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 13, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election.

In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause, and ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors" ), which was December 12.] The vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause was 7–2, and regarding the lack of an alternative method was 5–4. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification to stand, as made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, for George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 to win the Electoral College, and the defeat of Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a "faithless elector" from the District of Columbia abstained).

Media organizations subsequently analyzed the ballots and found that the originally proposed county-based recounts would have resulted in a different outcome (Bush victory) than a full statewide recount (Gore victory). Florida subsequently changed to new voting machines to avoid punch cards which had allowed dimpled cards or hanging chad.

A number of subsequent articles have characterized the decision as damaging the reputation of the court, increasing the view of judges as partisan, and decreasing Americans' trust in the integrity of elections.



Decision
In brief, the breakdown of the decisions was:

Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Souter and Breyer) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties. The per curiam opinion (representing the views of Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) also identified a problem with the fact that the Florida recount was limited to undervotes; the per curiam implied that a constitutionally valid recount would have included not only Florida's undervotes, but also Florida's overvotes and the ballots that were classified by Florida's voting machines as legal votes.[38] The per curiam expressed concern that the limited scope of Florida's recount would mean that some valid votes (among the overvotes) would not be counted as legal votes even though they should have been counted as such and that some ballots would be counted as legal votes even though they should not have been counted as such (as in, if a voter marks two choices on a ballot but a voting machine only reads one of these marks and thus treats this ballot as a valid vote instead of treating it as an invalid ballot like it is supposed to do). Justices Breyer and Souter disagreed with the Bush v. Gore majority in regards to this (in spite of their agreement with the Bush v. Gore majority that different standards for counting ballots in different counties was unconstitutional) and did not see any problem in Florida's decision to limit its recount to undervotes.

Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Rehnquist,[40] O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas in support; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer opposed). Justices Souter and Breyer wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.

Three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) argued that the Florida Supreme Court had acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature. Four justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) specifically disputed this in their dissenting opinions, and the remaining two Justices (O'Connor and Kennedy) declined to join Rehnquist's concurrence on the matter.

Equal Protection Clause
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7–2 vote, though per curiam opinions are usually issued only for unanimous votes. Kennedy has since been identified as the primary author of the opinion. In addition to writing the opinion, Kennedy also decided to include Souter, Breyer, and Stevens in the majority without consulting them, initially intending the per curiam opinion to have the vote count listed as 8-1 for the Equal Protections Clause issue (though not the remedy), rather than 7-2. Stevens demanded his name be removed from the majority, which Kennedy agreed to only after Stevens pulled his name from Breyer's dissent. Breyer also objected in private, but he was left as part of the majority. Later interviews by Vanity Fair indicated that Breyer and Souter were trying to appeal to Kennedy to join them on the remedy, rather than actually agreeing that an Equal Protections violation had occurred.[43] Jack Balkin, writing in Yale Law Journal, considered this to be a cheap trick to construct the illusion of a larger majority, likening it to "saying that two doctors agree that a patient is sick, but one wants to use leeches, and the other wants to prescribe antibiotics".

The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.

According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'" ) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Critics would later point out that the court had rejected certiorari on Equal Protections grounds when Bush first went to federal court. Law clerks who worked for Kennedy and O'Connor at the time would later state their belief that the judges settled on the Equal Protections as grounds for their decision, rather than Article II, because they thought it would seem more fair.

Remedy
The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. §5."

Four justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer) dissented as to stopping the recount. Two of these, Breyer and Souter, acknowledged that the counting up until December 9 had not conformed with Equal Protection requirements. However, Souter and Breyer favored remanding the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to halt the recount altogether. The actual counting had ended with the December 9 injunction issued by the same five-justice majority, three days before any deadline.

The dissenting opinions strongly criticized the five justice majority for involving the Court in state-level affairs. Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) concluded as follows:

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead "remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Gore's attorneys therefore understood that they could fight on, and could petition the Florida Supreme Court to repudiate the notion that December 12 was final under Florida law.

However, Gore dropped the case, reportedly because he was not optimistic about how the Florida justices would react to further arguments and, as one of his advisers put it, "the best Gore could hope for was a slate of disputed electors." In addition, Gore campaign chairman Bill Daley argued that fighting on was futile because even if the Florida Supreme Court defied the U.S. Supreme Court and ordered a new recount, "[t]he GOP would take them straight back to Washington, where the [U.S.] Supreme Court would repeat: 'You ain't going to count, okay? So quit bothering us.'"

On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000, that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law, although this was disputed in a concurring opinion by Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw who nevertheless expressed deference to the U.S. Supreme Court's view on this issue and who also argued that, in any case, the Florida Supreme Court would (in his opinion) be unable to craft a remedy which would satisfy all of the U.S. Supreme Court's equal protection, due process, and other concerns.

Article II
Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, began by emphasizing that this was an unusual case in which the Constitution requires federal courts to assess whether a state supreme court has properly interpreted the will of the state legislature. Usually, federal courts do not make that type of assessment, and indeed the per curiam opinion in this case did not do so. After addressing this aspect of the case, Rehnquist examined and agreed with arguments that had been made by the dissenting justices of the Florida Supreme Court.

In his concurring opinion, Rehnquist also mentioned that he and Justices Scalia and Thomas all join the Supreme Court's per curiam opinion in the Bush v. Gore case and agree with the legal analysis that was presented there.

https://twitter.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1337424248260993024
Mary @BocaChicaGal

Unfortunately, Starship SN9 is leaning in the high bay. @elonmusk will it buff right out?
@NASASpaceflight



10:49 AM · Dec 11, 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/white-house-clean-trump-biden/index.html

By Kate Bennett, CNN

Updated 1:17 PM ET, Thu December 10, 2020


A member of the White House cleaning staff sprays a disinfectant in the James Brady Press Briefing room in Washington in October 2020.

(CNN)When the White House welcomes a new first family it gets a thorough cleaning in the five hours allotted for the turnover. But with a global pandemic raging -- and an outgoing President whose orbit is rife with people shunning public health guidelines and coming down with Covid-19, this January 20 is expected to include a deeper, more exhaustive cleaning, according to a White House official.

It's one of many changes expected around how the White House operates when President-elect Joe Biden takes over. His campaign has diligently modeled public health guidelines with mask wearing and social distancing even as he campaigned against outgoing President Donald Trump, who instead held large rallies packed with people, many of whom did not wear masks.

While there are not "firm plans" for execution, the agency in charge of things, the General Services Administration, is handling what will be a "thorough disinfecting and cleansing" of every surface in the 55,000 square foot mansion.

Rugs and window treatments, if kept, will also be deep-cleaned, according to the official. The executive residence will be deep-cleaned and likely sprayed "in the same manner as the West Wing and the rest of the White House has been since Covid regulations and guidelines were implemented months ago."

-/snip-

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/dianne-feinsteins-missteps-raise-a-painful-age-question-among-senate-democrats

By Jane Mayer

December 10, 2020

In a hearing on November 17th, Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, at eighty-seven, is the oldest member of the Senate, grilled a witness. Reading from a sheath of prepared papers, she asked Jack Dorsey, the C.E.O. of Twitter, whether his company was doing enough to stem the spread of disinformation. Elaborating, she read in full a tweet that President Trump had disseminated on November 7th, falsely claiming to have won the Presidential election. She then asked Dorsey if Twitter’s labelling of the tweet as disputed had adequately alerted readers that it was a bald lie.

It was a good question. Feinstein seemed sharp and focussed. For decades, she has been the epitome of a female trailblazer in Washington, always hyper-prepared. But this time, after Dorsey responded, Feinstein asked him the same question again, reading it word for word, along with the Trump tweet. Her inflection was eerily identical. Feinstein looked and sounded just as authoritative, seemingly registering no awareness that she was repeating herself verbatim. Dorsey graciously answered the question all over again.

Social media was less polite. A conservative Web site soon posted a clip of the humiliating moment on YouTube, under the headline “Senator Feinstein just asked the same question twice and didn’t realize she did it,” adding an emoji of someone covering his face with his hand in shame, along with bright red type proclaiming “Time to Retire!!” Six days later, under growing pressure from progressive groups who were already outraged by her faltering management of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Feinstein released a statement announcing that she would step down from the Democrats’ senior position, while continuing as a non-ranking member of the committee. Feinstein’s office declined to comment for this article.

Feinstein first became nationally known for the grit she showed in 1978, when her fellow San Francisco city officials Harvey Milk and George Moscone were shot dead. She has had a distinguished twenty-eight-year tenure in the Senate, taking on a range of powerful interests, from gun-rights groups to the C.I.A. The moment marked a sad turning point for Feinstein and a reckoning for the Senate, which runs on the seniority system. The presumption has been that it’s up to voters to fire aging senators who can no longer effectively serve. But voters rarely do. As Paul Kane, who covers Congress for the Washington Post, wrote in 2017, the Senate was then the oldest in history. Its eight octogenarians were almost twice the number that had simultaneously served before. According to the Senate Historical Office, all of them held positions of vital importance to the country. And while several were regarded as wise and effective, others had disruptive health problems that clearly undermined the Senate’s ability to function.

-/snip-

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rep-louie-gohmerts-tooth-appears-to-fall-out-during-press-conference

Rep. Louie Gohmert’s Tooth Appears to Fall Out During Press Conference
MOUTHING OFF

Arya Hodjat

Published Dec. 08, 2020 5:56PM ET

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) had some sort of dental malfunction during his Tuesday press conference. In a video first posted by The Recount, what appears to be a tooth falls out of Gohmert’s gums mid-speech. Gohmert, to his credit, carries on speaking as if nothing is happening. Gohmert, 67, was treated for COVID-19 earlier this year. Last month, The New York Times reported that survivors of the disease had reported dental issues—including teeth falling out—but there is no concrete scientific evidence that the two are directly linked. Representatives from Gohmert’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment by The Daily Beast.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1336427393272176647

-/snip-