The poisonous brown recluse spider is a very rare sight in New York City. So imagine one woman’s surprise upon finding the venomous creature in her sink.
Gail Ingram claims she found the first recluse spider in the sink of her apartment on Gramercy Park in Manhattan. And despite the wave of bedbugs sweeping through the city — the latest such infestation was discovered in shock jock Howard Stern’s office — poisonous spiders are a different story entirely.
Yet there it was.
“I discovered a brown recluse spider in my kitchen sink,” Imgram told MyFoxNY. “It got stuck in pesto oil.” Ingram, who works as a nurse, alerted the building’s management company, which contacted a pest control company. They told her it was an isolated incident.
“My neighbors don’t know the difference between garden spiders and brown recluse spiders,” she said. “I fear for their safety.”
Ingram saved a voice mail message, which she claims came from Siren Management, the building’s management company, which gave her the results from the exterminator: “Basically, he said it was a brown recluse spider, but he doesn’t think it’s from our area, he thinks you brought it back from Illinois or wherever you went to.”
Ingram says that’s impossible: She didn’t travel to the Midwest or Southeast, where brown recluse spiders are found. She put out sticky traps and quickly trapped two more in her apartment — and nine more in the basement and apartment next door.
The New York City Department of Housing Preservation cited the building for vermin spiders. In the end, Ingram sued the landlord, settled, and was able to break her lease. She moved out and just wants people to be aware of the possible dangers.
“I lost a lot of work moving, lost sleep, couch surfing,” she said.
Hairy Spider-Look closely at this image and you can see the beady eyes of this critter, probably a hairy jumping spider. These spiders like sunshine and do their hunting during the day. Source: LiveScience/Lisa Williams
Hairy Spider-Bob Brazington captured this skin-crawlingly close view of a spider.
* New standards for commercial and industrial boilers: up to 798,250 jobs at risk;
* New standards for Portland Cement plants: up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs;
* The Endangerment Finding/Tailoring Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: higher energy costs; jobs moving overseas; severe economic impacts on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those on fixed incomes; 6.1 million sources subject to EPA control and regulation; and
* The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone: severe restrictions on job creation and business expansion in hundreds of counties nationwide.
~Our country doesn’t even have 800,000 manufacturing jobs left! This would collapse us!
The top Republican on a Senate environmental panel released a scathing report Tuesday that he contends shows that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed rule on cleaning up boilers nationwide could devastate America’s manufacturing base and imperil hundreds of thousands of jobs without providing any real public health or environmental benefits.
In June, the EPA issued a proposal that would force industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and heaters to use “maximum achievable control technology” to reduce harmful emissions that erode air quality and pose a public health risk.
The proposed rule covers industrial boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining and commercial boilers used in malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants and hotels, the report from Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma reads.
The agency, which is required to finalize the proposal by Dec. 16, has argued that implementing the rule would prevent 1,900 to 4,800 premature deaths in 2013 by reducing pollutants like dioxin, mercury and carbon monoxide, which are known or suspected to cause cancer and other serious health and environmental effects.
The EPA also lists a series of other benefits, including a reduction in asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks, hospital visits and lost work days. The agency says the value of the benefits ranges from $17 billion to $41 billion in 2013 alone — outweighing the costs of implementing the new rule by at least $14 billion.
But the Inhofe report — written by the Senate Environment and Public Works minority staff titled and titled “EPA’s Anti-Industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America’s Manufacturing Base,” — found that the proposed rule, known as “Boiler MACT,” could put nearly 800,000 jobs at risk over requirements on commercial and industrial boilers, cement plans and ozone standards.
Reducing emissions of mercury, hydrogen chloride and other hazardous air pollutants from commercial and industrial boilers is good policy,” the report reads. “But the manner in which EPA set standards to reduce those emissions is impracticable and costly.”
That’s because the proposed standards are so stringent that not even the best performing sources can meet them, according to the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, (IECA), an industry group that represents companies with 750,000 employees and $800 billion in sales and is cited in the report.
The IECA is “enormously concerned that the high costs of this proposed rule will leave companies no recourse but to shut down the entire facility, not just the boiler,” the report reads.
The report also warned that the agency in the coming months is expected to propose, and in some cases finalize, job-killing standards for cooling water intake structures at power plants; national ambient air quality for dust and particulate matter; and maximum achievable control technologies for coal-fired power plants.
“In short, the cumulative effect of EPA’s air rules will negatively affect growth energy prices, jobs, innovation and domestic manufacturing competitiveness,” the report reads.
A spokesman for the EPA told FoxNews.com that the agency had not seen the report yet. ~well you jerks, READ the report to see what’s in it!
“But the doomsday predictions we hear now are the same sort we have heard every time EPA has taken any step to implement the laws that Congress wrote to protect Americans from pollution in the air we breathe and the water we drink,” EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said in a written statement. “Experience has consistently proved those doomsday predictions wrong for the past 40 years.”
President Obama repeated in an interview released Tuesday that energy policy remains one of his top priorities, and he will throw the weight of his office behind energy policy regulations in the same way he did for the new health care law.
“We’re going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it’s good for our national security and, ultimately, it’s good for our environment,” the president is quoted saying in the Rolling Stone magazine interview.
The report comes one day after a bipartisan group of 41 senators and a month after a group of a 100 bipartisan House members wrote a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson strongly condemning the agency’s proposed rule to clean up industrial boilers.
The lawmakers said the rule could wreak havoc on U.S. manufacturing.
“As our nation struggles to recover from the current recession, we are deeply concerned that the potential impact of pending Clean Air Act regulations could be unsustainable for U.S. manufacturing and the high-paying jobs it provides,” reads the letter written by Reps. Walter Minnick, D-Idaho; Robert Aderholt, R-Ala.; G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C.; John Shimkus, R-Ill.
“The EPA’s regulatory analysis understates the significant economic impacts of the proposed rule,” reads the letter written by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.
The lawmakers urged the EPA to consider a flexible approach that allows companies to show that emissions of certain pollutants do not pose a public health threat.
“While we support efforts to address serious health threats from air emissions, we also believe that regulations can be crafted in a balanced way that sustains both the environment and jobs,” both letters read.
Among the lawmakers who signed the letter were several endangered House and Senate Democrats from manufacturing states.
FACTCHECK.ORG: Rep. Grayson Lowers the Bar; September 27, 2010
We thought Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida reached a low point when he falsely accused his opponent of being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, and of not loving his country. But now Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said.
Talk about things being ‘swept under the prayer rug’.
A fellow radio host of mine emailed me a story on Thursday night that I thought was a bit interesting, interesting because I had not seen or heard about it anywhere.
WCSH NBC Channel 6 out of Portland, Maine had posted the following story on their website Wednesday, September 22:
PORTLAND, ME (NEWS CENTER) — Police say there were no injuries or damage caused by a chemical bomb that went off in a parking lot near the Islamic Society of Portland.
The bomb went off in the lot between the Islamic Society and Back Bay Grill around 8:00 PM Tuesday night. Portland Police say Islamic elders came forward to tell them that a 13 year old from the Society was experimenting and was responsible for the bomb. Another bomb was also found undetonated.
Police say it’s unclear if charges will be filed against the teenagers.
That’s it? That was the whole story? A 13 year old sets off a bomb, police even state “another bomb was found undetonated.” It happened near the Islamic Society, the Islamic elders admitted the 13 year old was from the society and “it’s unclear if charges will be filed against the teenager?”
I’m sorry but I for one don’t want some ‘Junior Jihadi’ running around making chemical bombs anywhere and getting away with it by saying it was some “experiment” gone wrong.
I needed to find out what had happened to this ‘Junior Jihadi’ so I contacted the District Attorney’s office in Portland, Maine and what I found out scared me more than a teacher with a twitch in a suicide bomber class.
Friday morning I spoke to the head of the Juvenile Justice Division, Prosecution Team Leader, Assistant District Attorney, Christine Thibeault.
I asked Asst. D.A. Thibeault what was happening with the case of the bomb that went off outside the Islamic Society of Portland. Her answer was “what bomb?” My reaction, of course, was to repeat the question and her answer was “I have not even heard about it.”
What? Could this be real? How has the District Attorney’s office not yet even heard about it? So, I read the story to her right off the WCHS website. I asked her if it didn’t concern her that an Islamic teenager had set off a bomb and told her that the police even found a second bomb. She replied that “it concerns me anytime anyone sets off a bomb regardless of their ethnicity.”
Okay, good answer. I followed up with “given the current situation with the Ground Zero mosque and homegrown terror in this country does is not concern you that a teenager who is Muslim set off a bomb outside the Islamic Society and you have yet to hear about it?” Asst. D.A. Thibeault answered that question directly, “Yes it does and soon as we get off the phone I am calling the Portland Police Department to find out about it.”
That still didn’t sit well with me so I asked the Asst. D.A. what the procedure was for cases involving juveniles in Maine. She explained that “if it was the person’s first offense the police could choose to handle it informally with in their own community”. She promised to call me back after contacting the Portland PD and a few hours later she did.
When Thibeault called me back she informed me that she was now aware of the incident, but that the Detective in charge of the case was off until Monday, so she really could not give me any further information. She did explain to me that she now had the name of the ‘Junior Jihadi’ in question and that she had never heard of him. She also confirmed that it was only one individual that was involved and not “teenagers” as reported in the last line of the WCHS story.
Given the explanation that I received during our first conversation I asked “where do you draw the line of the ‘first offense’? Isn’t it a bit more serious when that first offense involves a bomb that can kill or damage property?” She did agree with that and said that she would contact me as soon as she had spoken with the detective in charge.
This is by no means the fault of Asst. D.A. Christine Thibeault. She sounded as concerned as I was and was as helpful as she could be, given that she was totally unaware of the incident. This all falls directly on the Portland P.D. for not notifying the D.A.’s office to begin with.
This incident took place on Tuesday September 21 and I spoke with the D.A.’s office on Friday the 24th, the Detective in charge is off until Monday the 27th and the D.A. was still unaware of it until my telephone call.
I don’t want to hear the Portland PD say that they were investigating and were planning on telling the D.A.’s office later, blah, blah, blah. Bull! This is something that should the Juvenile Justice Division of the D.A.’s office should have at the very least, been made aware of on Wednesday the 22nd even if an investigation were on going.
Now here’s where I am a bit lost, back in April of 2007 a student was suspended from the Lewiston Maine Middle School for putting a ham sandwich down on a table where a Muslim student was also sitting. It was referred to as a “hate crime”. Part of the story from the Renew America website stated:
The latest incident of “Muslim outrage” involves a middle-school student purportedly placing a ham sandwich wrapped in a baggie on a lunch table where Somali Muslim students sit. One 14 year-old unnamed Somali student is reported to have said: “At the school the next day, I didn’t feel safe. I felt like everybody was against me. Before I felt like I fit in, and everything was normal.” The ham-placing “offending student” has been suspended, the Maine middle school is calling the placing of the ham sandwich a “hate crime” and the local police are investigating the child. More charges against the child may be forthcoming. School Superintendent Leon Levesque said: “The school incident is being treated seriously as a hate incident!”
So, a ham sandwich is considered “a ‘hate Crime’ and the local police are investigating the child. More charges against the child may be forthcoming”, but an Islamic teenager sets off a bomb and “Police say it’s unclear if charges will be filed against the teenager”. Was the sandwich an exploding sandwich?
This is where we have come to in this country. I am tired of screaming about it week after week. Allah forbid we insult the Muslims in any way, shape or form, but charge the non-Muslim with a hate crime.
There is no telling what will happen with this ‘Junior Jihadi’, whether any charges will be filed and if so, if he will even be found guilty is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for sure here, had I not contacted the District Attorney’s office they would not have heard about it.
You can bet your Sharia Compliant local politicians that if that had been a non-Muslim 13 year old setting off a chemical bomb he would have been in cuffs and on every major network that night at 11pm. Oh, and of course, it would have been because his parents were Tea Partiers.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 9PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar” on Windows to Liberty Radio Network. He can be reached through his website
WASHINGTON — The FBI and the U.S. Labor Department are investigating prominent labor leader Andy Stern in their probe of corruption at the Service Employees International Union, according to two people who have been interviewed by federal agents.
The two organized labor officials met with federal agents this summer to answer questions about a six-figure book contract that Stern landed in 2006 and his role in approving money to pay the salary of an SEIU leader in California who allegedly performed no work.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.
The FBI and the Labor Department’s office of inspector general declined to comment for the record.
The disclosure about the federal inquiry of Stern — who abruptly resigned as president of the 2.2-million member SEIU in April — comes just weeks ahead of contentious congressional elections in which the union is spending an estimated $44 million to support its favored Democratic candidates.
The SEIU has been plagued with several financial scandals since 2008, when the Los Angeles Times reported that Tyrone Freeman, head of the union’s largest California local, misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars from the union. The union ousted Freeman and demanded that he return the money. No federal charges have been filed against him, but SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the union has been cooperating with the FBI.
Stern left his post two years before the end of his term, saying he wanted to focus more on his personal life. He remains a member of President Barack Obama’s deficit commission and a highly influential figure in the White House, where he was one of the most frequent visitors last year. He is also a research fellow at Georgetown University and a paid consultant for the SEIU.
Ringuette said she is unaware of any federal scrutiny of Stern. Ringuette rejected the notion that there was anything improper about the book deal or how the union paid its officials. She said similar unsubstantiated accusations have been floated for years by disgruntled former SEIU leaders and conservative bloggers.
One person who spoke to federal agents twice, in May and June, said they asked about a 2006 contract in which Stern received a $175,000 advance from Simon & Schuster to write the book “A Country That Works.” The SEIU and its locals bought thousands of copies of the book after it was published. The union also paid thousands to fact-check and promote the book, but Stern pocketed the advance.
Ringuette said the SEIU’s executive board fully vetted and approved the project. The board told local unions that purchasing Stern’s book “is a truly voluntary decision on the part of those who make it, and no adverse impact will result for anyone or any entity who refrains from purchasing or promoting the book,” according to documents obtained by the AP. The board also instructed locals to make sure any book purchases were authorized by the local’s constitution and bylaws.
Ringuette said the Simon & Schuster contract “did not require the purchase of a single book by SEIU.” Stern also received no royalties from book sales to the union.
Federal officials are also asking questions about how Stern and union officials approved payments to Alejandro Stephens, former president of the SEIU local that represents Los Angeles County government workers, according to the people who were interviewed.
The FBI has been investigating Stephens for more than a year. Earlier this month, he was sentenced in federal court this month to four months in jail and three months’ home confinement after pleading guilty to stealing $52,000 from a voter outreach program.
Stern has not been linked to any of the charges resulting in Stephens’ guilty plea. But federal agents are seeking details about the time in 2007 when Stephens’ local was merged into a larger SEIU local and he lost his post as president. The SEIU offered Stephens a generous severance package and a new job as a $75,000-a-year consultant to the SEIU California State Council.
Ringuette said the union arranged for Stephens to perform consulting work for the council and agreed to reimburse the council for his annual salary. But she said the union later discovered Stephens wasn’t actually doing any work.
Federal law prohibits labor unions from creating what amounts to “no-show” jobs that pay someone for work they do not perform.
Stephens’ attorney, Roger Rosen, said his client has not cooperated with federal officials and has no plans to in the future.~AP
8 things churches can do to fight religious intolerance and bigotry
While “Burn a Koran day” was canceled, waves of Islamophobia are building to slowly create a tsunami of hate. Consider American public opinion about Islam and Muslims, which has continued to worsen since the 9/11 terror attacks.
In November 2001, the Pew Research Center found that 59 percent of Americans held positive opinions about Islam and Muslims because they knew that American Muslims had nothing to do with a group of terrorists. By August 2010, this number fell to 30 percent.
After the 9/11 attacks, at the request of churches, Sound Vision issued a guide on how they could help their Muslim neighbors during that difficult time. Since then, we have not felt the need to do that again – until now.
The Park 51 community center controversy has unleashed a fury of Islamophobia. While many of our Christian, Jewish, and other interfaith partners have stood by us, for which we are very grateful, more needs to be done.
Churches, in particular, have been targets for Islamophobes. They have been and continue to be sent free, anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim “information”. These books and films are often sent by “non-profit” hate organizations that profit by sowing seeds of fear, mistrust and prejudice against Islam and Muslims in our nation.
One example is how millions of copies of the hateful film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” has been distributed to countless churches and synagogues across the United States along with 28 million homes in swing states during the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
The issue is not about free speech or fear of criticism of Islam and Muslims. Sound Vision, for example, has been critical of Muslims on issues ranging from suicide bombing to racism. Since the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, countless speeches, books, films, websites, and blogs have been critical of various aspects Islam. But the difference between these and the kind of hate speech and literature I’m talking about is that the former use knowledge of Islam’s texts and history, along with dispassionate discourse, to formulate an argument. The latter, on the other hand, base their critique on the kind bigotry and prejudice that no reasoned American would tolerate about any other group of people, be it African-Americans, Jews or Catholics, for example.