He threatened police by cutting his wrists? The Iran Press TV speak the good English, yes?
Close. He was found by the police by his parents' graves with his wrists slit (presumably he didn't do it quite right), then was arrested after firing a .38 caliber at the police. It's understandable that the Iranians are confused. See here for all the details about the cad.
The Lexington-Harold leader reported that Nunn has been held under police guard after exposing a 38-caliber hand gun at six policemen at a cemetery where his mother and father were buried.
Amanda Ross's body was found with a gunshot wound at a parking lot. Screams and gunshots had been heard, a neighbor said. She was pronounced dead at University of Kentucky Hospital at 7:09 a.m., Police found Nunn at 10:30 a.m. at the cemetery, 100 miles away from Lexington.
Nunn was ordered to stay away from Ross for a year after a domestic violence incident ruled by Fayette county judge.
Once Nunn is in fair condition, he will be transferred to the Hart County Jail, from the hospital.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
his wrists slit (presumably he didn't do it quite right)
Probably used a cross cut (as seen on TV and in movies) rather than an inline cut. Those who use the cross cut usually see the police, those who use the inline are seen by CSI.
The Bloomberg administration has moved decisively to deal with a burgeoning scandal in the industry that tests the strength and durability of concrete used in public and private construction projects in New York City.
The city's decision to create a laboratory to evaluate concrete for city building projects will help to fend off shoddy building materials that could shorten the lives of public structures and that could potentially leave them vulnerable to catastrophic failure. Beyond that, a new unit in the Buildings Department will audit the work of the three dozen or so companies that the department licenses to evaluate concrete used in construction.
These changes come in the wake of a widening investigation by the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Robert Morgenthau, which has already charged two testing companies as well as some executives with fraud for allegedly falsifying concrete testing results for both public and private structures. Investigators have also uncovered documents that suggest possible collusion between a tester and contractors, who are said to have ordered overnight delivery of test reports that are supposed to take 28 days to complete.
The investigation is still in the early stages and could yet uncover pervasive fraud in this crucial industry.
The city testing laboratory will be located in the Bronx and operated by the city's Department of Design and Construction. In addition to testing concrete for a wide range of city agencies and projects, the lab will also help the Buildings Department audit concrete tests performed by private companies.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The shoddy materials are the ones we call politicians and bureaucrats.
#2
And he thinks his gummint bureaucracy won't be open to fraud and corruption because....?
For a rich guy, Bloomberg's remarkably clueless.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/13/2009 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
we test all our asphalt, concrete, aggregate, rebar. If San Diego can do it, why can't NYC? Ohhhhh ....could it be corruption?
/cynic
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/13/2009 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Test me you fool!
The Flyash Liberation Army sez whooopie it's movin!
Posted by: The FLA ||
09/13/2009 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Corruption in Concrete? Without a weak bag mix, where would the road construction industry be in Chicago and Cook County?
They make it sound like advanced astropartical physics. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe concrete testing is a rather simple, straight forward process.
#6
very simple - you make a cylinder, you crack it. All the time.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/13/2009 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
In Chicago/Cook County, only the 'special' cylinders get tested for proper PSI rating, based on what I'm told.
The 'normal' cylinders (if they ever were made) might have had a tad too much 'slump' in them (water added for transport time or something) so they're probably not the ones they really want tested. I'm an 'electrical guy' and know about concrete only through 'osmosis', though.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/13/2009 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Commodore Frank---you left one thing out. You do the 28 day strength test on the 28th day after the pour.
And do not forget to leave a concrete truck washout area, or the EPA will fine your a$$, big time.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/13/2009 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#9
actually, AP - Caltrans/ACI spec allows 42-day tests for >4,000 psi :-)
We test all concrete, even curb/gutter 2500 psi, and trench cap. Slump limits are met by not allowing truck drivers or pump operators to add water without Engineer's approval. If they do, we reject, at their expense. Seeing as a 9.5 yd truck is $1,000-$1,500 depending on the mix, they learn quickly. We don't f*ck around, but then, we also don't take bribes
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/13/2009 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"We don't f*ck around, but then, we also don't take bribes."
Sorry, Frank - you have no future in politics.
Congratulations.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/13/2009 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I'm putting that on my resume
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/13/2009 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Chicago, concrete, corruption and bribes, politicians, f*ck'n around, trucks. I think we may be having a Jimmy Hoffa moment here very soon.
JERSEY CITY, N.J. - Mayor Jerramiah Healy, whose administration has been tainted by a federal corruption sting that's netted seven city employees, disclosed Friday that he's been questioned by FBI agents who have visited his vacation home and City Hall.
However, Healy said he was not among the city employees federal investigators interviewed at City Hall on Thursday.
"They went to the house in Bradley Beach," said Healy, head of the state's second-largest city. "They never searched it."
In an interview earlier Friday, Healy had said: "I didn't speak with (the FBI), and they did not search my office. They did search my home in Bradley Beach three weeks ago."
But he contacted The Associated Press a few hours later and said the FBI didn't search the house. His spokeswoman called the confusion an "apparent miscommunication."
FBI spokesman Bryan Travers confirmed Friday that agents "went to Mr. Healy's home in Bradley Beach to interview him as part of our ongoing investigation."
Healy's comments come two days after two members of his administration pleaded guilty to charges connected to the corruption probe. Healy has acknowledged meeting twice with the cooperating witness and former developer at the center of the sting but has repeatedly said he's done nothing wrong.
Former Jersey City zoning official Maher Khalil and former city planning aide Guy Catrillo pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges Wednesday. They are the first of 44 suspects arrested in the sting to do so.
Prosecutors have accused the government officials of trading the promise of special treatment in development matters for cash and political contributions. The developer at the center of the sting started cooperating with the FBI after his 2006 arrest for bank fraud.
Healy, 58, commented Friday about his FBI dealings before and after a memorial for the victims of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
There are political ramifications surrounding the federal corruption investigation. Incumbent Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, who trails Republican Chris Christie in polls, asked for and got the resignation of state Community Affairs Commissioner Joseph Doria Jr. after his home and offices were raided by the FBI.
Doria, the former mayor of Bayonne, has not been charged.
And, while Corzine has said all elected officials implicated in the federal sting should resign, Republicans have accused him of political gamesmanship for not targeting Healy in Jersey City, a city with 162,000 registered Democrats and 25,000 registered Republicans.
Corzine's office declined to comment Friday.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They could if they were there and listening, and they are not. I wonder how many were even in town. They won't attend their district meetings, why should they go to national ones???
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/13/2009 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Thanks, lotp. That last scene on the youtube is amazing.
#3
My thanks as well. Too bad we have to rely on the UK's Daily Mail for accurate photo coverage. Unfortunately the message is totally lost on Barry and his cadre. It has only stiffened his elitist resolve.
At a time when congressional travel is coming under new scrutiny, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) has the distinction of taking more trips at taxpayer expense than anyone else in the California delegation.
In the last 3 1/2 years, she visited the South Pole, snorkeled at Australia's Great Barrier Reef and joined world leaders at a security conference in Munich, Germany. She met with Darfur refugees in Sudan, attended a "legislators' dialogue" with European Parliament members in Slovenia, delivered a speech on transportation security in France and inspected anti-terrorism defenses in Genoa, Italy, and Mombasa, Kenya.
All told, she has made 20 overseas trips since the start of 2006, touching down on every continent. Last year, she went abroad seven times. Many times she used military flights, but one commercial flight from Australia to Britain cost $8,383.
Sanchez, a congresswoman since 1997, said the travel was important to her work as the ranking female lawmaker on the House Armed Services Committee and as vice chairwoman of the Homeland Security Committee.
"I am a much more effective legislator when I am better educated on the issues," she said.
Congressional travel is in the spotlight again because of increased spending for government-sponsored trips. Critics, though acknowledging that some trips serve valid public purposes, contend that the system needs clearer, more complete reporting of the details.
"There simply has to be more transparency and more scrutiny of these trips," said Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (R-Ill.), who is cosponsoring legislation to require the Pentagon to disclose the cost of flying lawmakers on military aircraft. Currently, lawmakers report only the expense of commercial flights and per diems for meals and lodging.
Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, said: "If these fact-finding missions are so important, and I'm not saying they aren't, lawmakers should be fine with sharing all the facts of their trip."
The scrutiny of taxpayer-funded trips comes after lawmakers cracked down on privately funded travel in response to scandals such as lobbyist-arranged golf outings to Scotland. The attention also comes as lawmakers return to Washington after taxpayer-funded excursions during their summer recess. One group took a 10-day trip to American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and Palau; another group spent 13 days visiting Germany, Switzerland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China and Canada.
Iraq and Afghanistan have become frequent destinations for lawmakers. But they also have traveled to more hospitable places including the Galapagos Islands and the Paris Air Show.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has taken two taxpayer-funded trips abroad, both in 2007. She led a group of senators to Greenland and later traveled to Iceland, Britain and France -- in both cases to view the effects of global warming and explore how other countries were responding to climate change. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last took a taxpayer-funded trip abroad in 2004, to Iraq.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has taken 10 trips overseas at taxpayer expense, including two trips each to Afghanistan and Iraq, since she assumed the House leadership post in 2007. She took one other trip in 2006.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, hasn't taken a taxpayer-funded overseas trip since he visited refugees of the Kosovo war in the Balkans a decade ago.
"Usually, I can learn more if I devote the same number of hours studying, discussing issues with foreign policy experts, and meeting with foreign leaders when they come to Washington," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2009 09:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Virtually every day when Congress is in session, I get a press release or two from each of Montana's representatives explaining how they are looking out for our state.
Usually, those press releases are proud announcements of how the senator or representative wants credit for the U.S. government agreeing to spend millions more of taxpayer money in Montana. For some reason, these announcements never seem to reference the national debt that they are expanding.
Occasionally, there are also press releases from our senators taking credit for confirmation votes such as when the Senate approved the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court.
I've been checking my e-mail frequently today waiting for that kind of note from Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester proudly proclaiming that they have just voted to confirm the nomination of Cass Sunstein as the nation's regulatory czar.
So far I have been disappointed. Not a word has arrived from Max and Jon, as they like to be known in our 'small-town" state.
Maybe that's because, in order to be honest, the press release would have to read something like this one which I just made up:
"Sen. Max Baucus announced today that he voted to approve President Obama's nomination of Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, despite Sunstein's apparent antipathy to many beliefs held dear by Montanans.
"Baucus said he was joined in this "rally round the president" partisan vote by his fellow Montana Democrat Jon Tester. Sunstein was approved on a 57-40 vote.
Sunstein, who is a prolific author and law professor, holds many views that are the opposite of common thinking in Montana, most notably on animal rights and gun rights.
"Sunstein is widely noted for his animal-rights philosophy and for his belief that animals should be able to bring lawsuits against humans to protect their rights. An attorney for Americans for Limited Government said that, if confirmed, Sunstein 'could plunge the livestock industry into a litigation abyss from which it may never emerge.'
"Sunstein is also on record as favoring an end to hunting as a recreational sport, which -- let's face it -- the less said about that the better.
"In addition to his radical views on animal rights, Sunstein holds questionable beliefs about the Second Amendment rights which most Montanans cherish. In 2007, he said, 'The individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments that [it] appears.'
"Although Jon and I recognize that we were elected by Montanans to protect their traditional values, we thought we could vote for Sunstein and his extreme left-wing views without anyone noticing because the Mainstream Media has not paid any attention to this nomination and because neither of us is up for re-election for at least three more years anyway."
Please remember, that this is a FICTIONAL press release. But it reflects accurately the beliefs of Mr. Sunstein, and frames the question I think Montanans ought to be asking themselves:
Just who do Max Baucus and Jon Tester think they are? And this goes for Rep. Denny Rehberg and anyone else you voted for. Don't let their votes go unquestioned -- or unpunished! -- if they appear to be voting against your interest.
We call them our elected 'representatives' -- after all, they vote on our behalf in Congress and state legislatures -- but more and more you have to wonder, just who do they represent?
Is it you the voter? Or is it the political party whose initial (usually R or D) hangs off their last name like a brand on a beast of burden?
The blatant disregard of Baucus and Tester for the concerns of Montana in their vote to approve Cass Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is a good place to start for Montanans who wonder if they just got sucker-punched.
You can bet one thing. Baucus and Tester know exactly what they did. Sunstein is not exactly a shrinking violet. He is a constitutional scholar, a University of Chicago and Harvard law school professor, a prolific author, and moreover a frequent witness before congressional committees. He also happens to be a close personal friend of President Barack Obama, and that apparently was all that mattered to most Democratic senators, even the ones who represent states where Sunstein could not be elected dog-catcher (Oops! sorry, but that human-centric position will be banned if Sunstein has his way!)
You might well ask, "What is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' anyway? Created in 1980 by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the federal office carries out economic analysis, sets policy on information technology, and generally oversees implementation and reform of federal regulations -- all those administrative rules which the bureaucracy develops in order to carry out the laws passed by Congress and the wishes of the president.
Thus the 'regulatory czar" might or might not be an important office, depending on how it is used, but it should be noted that the Wall Street Journal reported that "although obscure, the post wields outsize power."
The Journal's Jan. 8 story also noted that, "Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."
Sounds important to me, but you can decide for yourself.
The question persists, however, just what kind of person do you want to oversee this office, or for that matter serve the public interest in any kind of office? The Senate has the responsibility of offering its advice and providing its consent to all presidential appointees unless the Congress exempts them from such scrutiny (Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution). And that means senators are the gatekeepers of government, the ones who can protect "we the people" from the whims of presidents and the personal agendas of presidential nominees.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2009 09:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama's slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year's congressional races and may even threaten their House control.
Fifty-four new Democrats were swept into the House in 2006 and 2008, helping the party claim a decisive majority as voters soured on a Republican president and embraced Obama's message of hope and change. Many of the new Democrats are in districts carried by Republican John McCain in last year's presidential contest; others are in traditional swing districts that have proved tough for either party to hold.
From New Hampshire to Nevada, House Democrats also will be forced to defend votes on Obama's $757 billion economic recovery package and on energy legislation viewed by many as a job killer in an already weak economy.
Add to that the absence of Obama from the top of the ticket, which could reduce turnout among blacks, liberals and young people, and the likelihood of a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president's proposed health care plan and angry at what they consider reckless spending and high debt.
Taken together, it could be the most toxic environment for Democrats since 1994, when the party lost 34 House incumbents and 54 seats altogether. Democrats currently have a 256-178 edge in the House, with one vacancy. Republicans would have to pick up 40 seats to regain control.
"When you have big sweeps as Democrats did in 2006 and 2008, inevitably some weak candidates get elected. And when the environment gets even moderately challenging, a number of them are going to lose," said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.
Since the mid-19th century, the party that controls the White House has lost seats in virtually every midterm election. The exceptions were in 1934, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt navigated the Great Depression, and in 2002, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, strengthened George W. Bush's image as a leader.
With history as a guide, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who heads the party's House campaign committee, said he has warned colleagues to be prepared for an exceptionally challenging environment going into 2010.
But Van Hollen said voters will make their choices on the strength of the national economy and will reward Democrats for working aggressively to improve it.
"We passed an economic recovery bill with zero help from Republican colleagues," he said. "I think voters will see that and will ask themselves, 'Who was there to get the economy moving again, and who was standing in the way?'"
Posted by: Fred ||
09/13/2009 09:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...inevitably some weak candidates get elected.
SOME? SOME??? SOME WEAK CANDIDATE?????
Can anyone name more than 2 good reps? I can't name any, but then, I'm from Massaholia.
#2
"We passed an economic recovery destruction bill with zero help from Republican colleagues," he said. "I think voters will see that and will ask themselves, 'Who was there to get the economy moving again, and who was standing in the way?'"
Probably, but I don't think they'll get the same answer you seem to think they will, Bub.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/13/2009 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Does anyone remember what the Congressional approval ratings were back at this time in 2008? Well? Do you? Oh yeah, they were as high as a Rasta in a drunk tank after 48 hours. Yet, somehow, most of the Dems got reelected, and then some. Why? "I hate Congress, but my guy is OK." It's the same damn thing. Troubles brewing for the Dems like my coffee pot is, and that's how much it means to everyone who isn't a news junkie. Thanks the Holy G' we all bought bullets.
#4
This is not about Donks or Trunks. It's about the legitimacy of government. Rituals and institutions do not make a government. They found that out in Moscow.
Yet, somehow, most of the Dems got reelected, and then some.
The Dems took control of Congress in 2006, but managed to keep blaming the Reps for things that Congress was doing. A remarkable feat. Now the Dems control everything and can't pass the blame onto anyone else, so they'll take the hit themselves.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
At a time when congressional travel is coming under new scrutiny, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) has the distinction of taking more trips at taxpayer expense than anyone else in the California delegation. 
Virtually every day when Congress is in session, I get a press release or two from each of Montana's representatives explaining how they are looking out for our state.
Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama's slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year's congressional races and may even threaten their House control.
