NYC doesn’t have safety agents at more than half its pre-K centers

 Despite the city Department of Education’s mantra that “safety is our highest priority,” the city fails to provide safety officers to guard all the youngsters in its pre-K programs, The Post has learned.

The city contracts with some 1,300 community-based organizations, or CBOs, to run classes for roughly 63,000 three- and 4-year-olds — about 60% of all preschoolers in the DOE.

But the city does not assign NYPD school safety agents to those contracted programs, leaving its littlest and most vulnerable students unprotected.

5

“I feel that regardless of the location, they should all be protected,” pre-K mom Wanda Shiver said.J.C. Rice

“There’s a bunch of babies – and nobody at the door,” Brieann Duberry, a pre-K staffer and mom, told The Post. 

00:00

03:25

The city’s funding of CBO 3-K and pre-K centers, which is based on enrollment, does not cover security. Some Pre-K directors use part of their city funding to hire private security guards, but that cuts into their budgets for teachers and classroom supplies. 

“At the end of the day, we’re not important to the higher-ups,” said Wanda Shiver, whose son Dedjima-Yaw, 4, attends a Bronx CBO pre-K.

5

Parents like Shiver rely on group chats and the Citizen app for alerts about crime near their kids’ schools.J.C. Rice

“We’re talking about children, so I feel that regardless of the location, they should all be protected.”

In addition, the DOE’s $42.6 million plan to install remote door-locking systems in all schools does not cover the CBO pre-Ks.

“We don’t get as many services as the regular DOE schools, but we deserve the same level of security,” said pre-K mom Angelie Capestany, whose child attends a Bronx CBO preschool in a NYCHA complex.

Without a safety officer tuned into the NYPD, staffers and parents rely on group chats and the Citizen neighborhood-watch app for crime alerts. 

5

Pre-Ks and 3-Ks located in DOE buildings like this one automatically get staffed with NYPD school safety agents.Obtained by The New York Post

“If something happens in the surrounding NYCHA buildings, we are the last to know,” Capestany said. “We don’t have a direct connection to our local police precinct.”

Chloe Pashman, a Bronx pre-K director, recalls a frantic phone call from a nearby NYCHA employee who heard gunshots.

The school staff quickly corralled the kids and moved them indoors.

“These are young children’s lives and the lives of already underpaid staff members and teachers,” Pashman said in disgust. “They don’t care if we live or die.”

5

DOE pre-Ks in city-owned buildings are staffed with one or more safety agents, but none guard CBO centers.Lev Radin/Pacific Press/Shutterstock

All DOE schools are staffed with one or more safety agents — though the force has shrunk by more than 25% since the pandemic.

The unarmed officers, hired and trained by the NYPD, patrol a school’s surroundings, operate metal detectors, screen visitors and keep out intruders.

They have direct communication with the cops.

“School safety agents are not deployed to buildings that are not located on, owned or managed Department of Education property,” an NYPD spokesman confirmed, citing an agreement between the police department and the DOE.

NYPD Inspector Tracy Mulet, chief of the school safety division, was not made available for an interview.

5

CBO early childhood centers create their own safety plans, and require staff to double as guards.Paul Martinka

A DOE insider blasted the school system’s top safety chief Mark Rampersant for a failure to fix the problem.

“There is nothing that has stopped Rampersant and his team from developing a plan to bring safety personnel to all the early childhood education sites, including charter schools — other than the fact that they just don’t care.”

DOE spokesman Nathaniel Styer said, “We support our CBO partners at every step of this work, including providing large-scale safety trainings for CBOs” and “by putting them in touch with Borough Safety Directors…at the behest of” the deputy chancellor for early childhood education, Kara Ahmed.

Multiple CBO directors disputed the DOE statement.

“We don’t have access to borough safety directors. Nobody knows who they are,” Pashman said.

Others said, “Never heard of such a person” and “Never knew they existed.”

In a recent text message to Pashman, Craig Goldsberry, a director of safety and security in the chancellor’s office, confirmed that CBOs don’t have borough safety directors.

Pashman has asked the DOE for on-site assistance with evacuation plans and active shooter drills but hasn’t gotten the help, she said.

CBO early childhood centers create their own safety plans, and require staff to double as guards.

“They want us to do the job of safety officers,” the Brooklyn director said.

Worsening the pre-K inequities, most of the CBO programs are located in low-income neighborhoods.

“In my daughter’s school, there many Hispanic and black people. We work, but we don’t make a lot of money, and not everyone speaks English,” said Vania Perez, a Bronx mom of two.

“They don’t listen to us.”

https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/us-news/city-pre-ks-beg-for-safety-guards-they-dont-care-if-we-live-or-die/

New Era? 'Double Selective' Antibiotic Spares the Microbiome

 A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome.

"The biggest takeaway is the double-selective component," said co-lead author Kristen A. Muñoz, PhD, who performed the research as a doctoral student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). "We were able to develop a drug that not only targets problematic pathogens, but because it is selective for these pathogens only, we can spare the good bacteria and preserve the integrity of the microbiome."

The drug goes after Gram-negative bacteria — pathogens responsible for debilitating and even fatal infections like gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and cholera. The arsenal of antibiotics against them is old, with no new classes specifically targeting these bacteria coming on the market since 1968.

Many of these bugs have become resistant to one or more antibiotics, with deadly consequences. And antibiotics against them can also wipe out beneficial gut bacteria, allowing serious secondary infections to flare up.

In a study published on May 29 in Nature, the drug lolamicin knocked out or reduced 130 strains of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in cell cultures. It also successfully treated drug-resistant bloodstream infections and pneumonia in mice while sparing their gut microbiome.

With their microbiomes intact, the mice then fought off secondary infection with Clostridioides difficile (a leading cause of opportunistic and sometimes fatal infections in US healthcare facilities), while mice treated with other compounds that damaged their microbiome succumbed.

How It Works

Like a well-built medieval castle, Gram-negative bacteria are encased in two protective walls, or membranes. Muñoz and her team at UIUC set out to breach this defense by finding compounds that hinder the "Lol system," which ferries lipoproteins between them. 

From one compound they constructed lolamicin, which can stop Gram-negative pathogens — with little effect on Gram-negative beneficial bacteria and no effect on Gram-positive bacteria. 

"Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane, so they do not possess the Lol system," Muñoz said. "When we compared the sequences of the Lol system in certain Gram-negative pathogens to Gram-negative commensal [beneficial] gut bacteria, we saw that the Lol systems were pretty different."

Tossing a monkey wrench into the Lol system may be the study's biggest contribution to future antibiotic development, said Kim Lewis, PhD, Professor of Biology and director of Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, who has discovered several antibiotics now in preclinical research. One, darobactin, targets Gram-negative bugs without affecting the gut microbiome. Another, teixobactin, takes down Gram-positive bacteria without causing drug resistance. 

"Lolamicin hits a novel target. I would say that's the most significant study finding," said Lewis, who was not involved in the study. "That is rare. If you look at antibiotics introduced since 1968, they have been modifications of existing antibiotics or, rarely, new chemically but hitting the same proven targets. This one hits something properly new, and [that's] what I found perhaps the most original and interesting."

Kirk E. Hevener, PharmD, PhD, Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, agreed. (Hevener also was not involved in the study.) "Lolamicin works by targeting a unique Gram-negative transport system. No currently approved antibacterials work in this way, meaning it potentially represents the first of a new class of antibacterials with narrow-spectrum Gram-negative activity and low gastrointestinal disturbance," said Hevener, whose research looks at new antimicrobial drug targets.

The UIUC researchers noted that lolamicin has one drawback: Bacteria frequently developed resistance to it. But in future work, it could be tweaked, combined with other antibiotics, or used as a template for finding other Lol system attackers, they said.

"There is still a good amount of work cut out for us in terms of assessing the clinical translatability of lolamicin, but we are hopeful for the future of this drug," Muñoz said.

Addressing a Dire Need

Bringing such a drug to market — from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval — could take more than a decade, said Hevener. And new agents, especially for Gram-negative bugs, are sorely needed.

Not only do these bacteria shield themselves with a double membrane but they also "have more complex resistance mechanisms including special pumps that can remove antibacterial drugs from the cell before they can be effective," Hevener said.

As a result, drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are making treatment of severe infections such as sepsis and pneumonia in healthcare settings difficult. 

Bloodstream infections with drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae have a 40% mortality rate, Lewis said. And microbiome damage caused by antibiotics is also widespread and deadly, wiping out communities of helpful, protective gut bacteria. That contributes to over half of the C difficile infections that affect 500,000 people and kill 30,000 a year in the United States. 

"Our arsenal of antibacterials that can be used to treat Gram-negative infections is dangerously low," Hevener said. "Research will always be needed to develop new antibacterials with novel mechanisms of activity that can bypass bacterial resistance mechanisms."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/new-era-double-selective-antibiotic-spares-microbiome-2024a1000apx

The Speech That Military Recruiters Don't Want You To Hear

 by Casey Carlisle via AntiWar.com,

Before we get into this, let’s discuss what most would label “a hypothetical.” Tonight, I’m going to break into your home, point a gun at you, and rob you – all the while claiming that I’m not your enemy. Your enemy, I’ll say, is elsewhere, and I don’t mean across the street but in a different country. What will you do? By a show of hands, will you fight back and protect those in your home by evicting me or even by killing me? By a show of hands, who will thank me and travel to said country in search of the enemy, leaving those in your home vulnerable to me? Anyone? Nobody? It sounds absurd, but for reasons that I’ll soon explain, you’ll understand that it’s more real than hypothetical.

Hello, I’m Casey Carlisle. I’m a West Point graduate, and I spent five years in the Army, including 11 months in Afghanistan. Some of you are thinking about serving your country, and most of you are asking yourselves, “Why am I listening to this guy?” I’m glad that both of these groups are here, and I promise that my remarks will cause both groups to think differently about military service.

I was a high-school senior on September 11^th, 2001, sitting in class and stunned after hearing the principal announce that our country had just been attacked. Why would someone want to do this to the greatest country on Earth? I was also livid, and I wanted revenge. I wanted to kill the people responsible for this atrocity, and my dilemma then was between enlisting in the military to exact revenge now or first spending years at a military academy before helping to rid the world of terrorists. I chose the latter, so I didn’t deploy to Afghanistan until 2009. My time there radically changed my views, which was uncomfortable, but, as with failure, discomfort breeds learning.

I learned that not only were we not keeping our fellow Americans safe or protecting their liberty, we were further impoverishing one of the poorest countries in the world. I watched in disgust my alleged allies – the Afghan police – rob their neighbors while on patrol and in broad daylight via traffic stops. Imagine getting pulled over, not for speeding, but because the cop hopes to rob you. My enemy – the Taliban – didn’t do such things, which is why I ended up having more respect for them than for my mission or for those who were allegedly helping us accomplish it. “Oh, but they’re horrible in other ways,” you might argue, and I’d agree; however, it’s much harder to kill an idea than it is to kill a person. Killing someone who holds an idea that you find distasteful only helps that person’s loved ones accept that idea. It turns out that killing someone for their ideas is a great way to spread those ideas.

Instead of dismissing me as an anti-American lunatic, consider the following. In the year 2000, the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan, and today, they control all of it. This is just one of the reasons why I feel contempt for those who thank me for my alleged service. Our ‘service’ was worse than worthless, and the people thanking me were forced to pay for it. All of those who died there did so for nothing. And the innocent Afghans who were displaced, injured, or killed during our attempt to bring democracy to a country that didn’t want it were far better off in 2000 than they are now.

To be clear, the desire to serve one’s country is noble, but we must first define “country.” Serving one’s country is entirely different from serving one’s government. They are not the same. Serving one’s country is serving one’s family, friends, neighbors, and the land that they’ve made home. Serving one’s country is serving one’s community. Serving one’s government, however, is ultimately what everyone does when they enlist or when they take my path as an officer. Who are these people in government that you’ll end up serving? Are they your family, friends, or neighbors? For the most part, they are not, yet, they are ultimately who will decide your fate while in uniform. Whether they’re politicians or bureaucrats, they decide what serving one’s country entails, and, naturally, they’ll subordinate our country’s prosperity to their job security. If given the opportunity, these people will not hesitate to send you to your death if it means scoring a measly political point against their ideological foes. Serving one’s country in this context – reality – means serving these parasites.

Here’s something else to consider.  When you tell the military recruiter that you want to enlist, what are you implying? You’re telling the recruiter – a government agent – that not only do you want to serve your government but that you’re willing to kill for it. Tell any other recruiter in the real economy of that proclivity, and, at the very least, you won’t be getting that job.  Seems obvious enough, but have you heard of Operation Vigilant Eagle? This operation, headed by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, tracks veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and characterizes them as extremists and potential domestic terrorists. Why?  Because these veterans might be disgruntled or suffering from the psychological effects of war. Yes, you heard that correctly.

The government that bribed the graduating senior into joining the military now views that same patriot as its enemy. You might protest, thinking that getting put on a list isn’t all that bad, but I’d argue that lists are never created as an end; they’re always a means, and in this case, too, they’re diabolical. Not only were these veterans put on a list for the ‘crime’ of justifiably feeling disillusioned, when a veteran was explicitly critical of the regime, these veterans were labeled “mentally unfit” and forced into psychiatric facilities where they’d receive treatment for whatever illness the regime deemed appropriate, indefinitely. I don’t know if this program continues today, but if the regime were to tell us, “We’re not doing that anymore,” would you believe it?

I know you weren’t around for 9/11, but I’m sure you recall March of 2020. I bet you were almost as angry then as I was. We all witnessed a very sad truth: the “home of the brave” is devoid of the brave, and the “land of the free” hasn’t been free for quite some time. Most Americans not only take their liberty for granted, they readily reject it. They’re terrified of it, which is why they hate it. What we all witnessed then undermines the tired slogan – the blatant lie – that those who join the military are “fighting for our freedom.” This is no theory; it’s why, to this day, the military is struggling like hell to recruit people like you. They think you’re stupid.

But you might’ve realized that serving one’s country necessarily implies staying in one’s country. You might be thinking that when one joins the military, he swears to defend the Constitution against all enemies – foreign and domestic; however, the regime would like you to combat only the foreign enemies that it tells you to hate. Who kicked you out of school in 2020? Who cancelled your games, meets, matches, and races? Who prevented you from traveling freely?  Who thought it best that you not embrace your loved ones?  Who masked you? Our own government is our greatest threat, and it has proven to be so scared of those it duped into ‘serving’ that it’ll send you to some other country or to a mental hospital in order to protect itself.

I’m not telling you what to do. I’m making sure that you’re fully aware of what you’re getting into if you decide to join the military, as I’m sure the recruiter didn’t tell you about Operation Vigilant Eagle. He probably didn’t tell you that 18 veterans kill themselves every day, and he probably didn’t tell you that the military is the final political option. But does it seem like the regime waits until all else fails before getting involved, or is it easier to count the countries that do not have U.S. military personnel stationed in them? Did the recruiter tell you that those who don’t ‘serve’ pay the salaries of those who do? Seems a bit backward – to be forced to pay those who allegedly serve you.

Most of the millionaires and billionaires in this country got rich by actually serving their fellow man via voluntary exchange, not by living off of their neighbors. I encourage you to consider taking that route – enriching yourself by enriching your community, not by parasitizing it. And no need to fixate on getting rich. If your interactions with your community are voluntary – no matter how lousy the pay – they’re likely honorable, no killing required. In closing, take a deep breath, and look around. Your country is here. We are your country, and when things get bad, we will need you here, not fighting those in a different country who pose no threat to us while leaving us vulnerable to our greatest threat. Thank you for listening.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/speech-military-recruiters-dont-want-you-hear

26 percent of Gen Z applicants bringing parent to job interview: Survey

 Some Gen Z respondents need help from their parents during a job interview, according to a new survey.

Resume Templates survey found that 26 percent of the Gen Z respondents actually involve their parents in the interview process; 31 percent of those respondents had a parent accompany them to an in-person interview and 29 percent had them join a virtual interview.

For those that said they had a parent come with them to an in-person interview, 37 percent of respondents said they had their mom or dad come into the office, and 26 percent of respondents said one of their parents physically sat in the room while the interview took place. 

For those that said they had a parent near them during a virtual interview, 71 percent said their parent was off camera, while 29 percent said their parent was visible on camera.

The majority of on-camera parents spoke directly to the hiring manager, according to the survey.

“It’s understandable, parents wanting to ensure that their child does well in an interview or that an employer is reputable. Conversely, it’s hard to see where a parent being directly involved in an interview is appropriate,” executive resume writer Andrew Stoner told Resume Templates. “It does not signal confidence to a hiring company on behalf of the child. I recommend a ‘help at a distance’ approach of being available and advising the child during the recruiting process.”

https://thehill.com/business/4711312-26-percent-of-gen-z-applicants-bringing-parent-to-job-interview-survey/

What if it’s Biden who refuses to leave the White House?

 Ever since Donald Trump rode down the escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015 to announce his run for president, certain Democrats and “Never Trumpers” have been inventing and rolling out one fabricated, dangerous and divisive charge after another.

One of the latest they have been running up the flagpole is that Trump will become a dictator who would refuse to leave the White House once his next term is up. It is all the rage among multiple liberal media outlets, while the main talking point of the Biden campaign seems to have morphed into “democracy is at stake” if Trump wins in November

Really? I am old enough to remember that when the election was called for Joe Biden back in November 2020, then-President Trump exited the White House peacefully as he returned to private life.

And yet, in a post on X to “celebrate” the anniversary of D-Day, Hillary Clinton cravenly wrote this: “Eighty years ago today, thousands of brave Americans fought to protect democracy on the shores of Normandy. This November, all we have to do is vote.” A message many are interpreting as a not-so-veiled blending by Clinton of Trump, Hitler and the Third Reich. It is wrong for Clinton to soil the memories of those World War II heroes with crass, bitter and hate-filled vitriol.

It was reported that one Democratic consultant went so far as to say: “The Republican Party is basically a domestic terrorist cell at this point, and they should be treated as such.” Honestly, is that the type of threatening rhetoric some in the Democratic Party want to sanction?

Such language and speculation are, of course, irresponsible and potentially dangerous. But it is language and speculation with a purpose: to frighten enough gullible or ill-informed Americans into voting for Biden in November to “save America.”

However, while speaking with some Democratic friends, a reverse scenario was brought up, albeit mostly tongue-in-cheek. That scenario being that what if, quite ironically, it was Biden who either postponed the election out of fear of “MAGA unrest and rebellion” or simply refused to leave the White House upon losing in November?

“Outrageous,” some on the left might state. “How dare you spout such inflammatory, reckless nonsense,” liberal pundits might add. Objections they never raise when they are saying the exact same things about Trump. Interesting how that works.

The scenarios regarding Biden either postponing the election or refusing to leave the White House centered on two main areas. The first is that some in the media — with a wink from the Biden White House — seem to be purposely fanning the winds of civil war in the nation. That theory being that as the millions of Trump supporters become more and more enraged by his conviction in the Manhattan trial or the prospect of him being imprisoned, they will take to the streets in mass anarchy, forcing Biden to postpone the election.

While that might be acceptable fiction for a woke Hollywood movie, it bears no resemblance to reality. Maybe the liberal activists pushing that theory were thinking instead about the far-left anarchists who rioted and vandalized for weeks without accountability after the death of George Floyd, causing billions of dollars in damage.

As it turns out, what those “crazed” MAGA supporters did immediately after Trump was found guilty — in what many believed was a sham trial meant to keep him off the ballot in November by weaponizing the law — was to peacefully help raise a record-breaking $53 million in 24 hours. No rioting. No vandalizing. No marching in the streets with pitchforks and torches.

Next, we come to a more worrisome scenario. That being the concerns about President Biden’s cognitive abilities. An issue the Wall Street Journal just highlighted in an article titled “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.”

As the Journal reported: “The 81-year-old Biden is the oldest person to hold the presidency. His age and cognitive fitness have become major issues in his campaign for a second term. … Some who have worked with him, however, including Democrats and some who have known him back to his time as vice president, described a president who appears slower now.”

As if to confirm the suspicions of a coverup, the Journal reported that the White House kept close tabs on some its interviews with Democratic lawmakers. “They just, you know, said that I should give you a call back,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), referring to the White House

Seemingly as in “forget what I said. This is what they told me to say.” Or, for the rest of us: “Are you going to believe your lying eyes or what the Biden White House is telling you?”

In speaking with my Democratic friends regarding Biden’s cognitive abilities, a question was raised: What if he loses to Trump in November but can’t process that he lost and refuses to concede? Again, based upon the poisonous “what ifs” being directed at Trump by many on the left, Biden is also fair game for such speculation.

But … he should not be.

How much better if the fearmongering stops and we all agree that neither Trump nor Biden will ever become a dictator and that neither Trump nor Biden will ever refuse to leave the White House when their term is up.

As fictional President Andrew Shepherd stressed in the movie “The American President”: “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship … We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.”

Agreed. Let’s get serious.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4711299-what-if-its-biden-who-refuses-to-leave-the-white-house/