Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[kalm]

He’s an empty suit.

The road safety issues might be legit in some places but I’d assume it’s an economic issue rather than design flaw.

Engineers are still weirdos though.

The only reason he exists is to keep plants happy (photosynthesis)..... In fact he is so incompetent that the only "job" he can hold down is being a politician.

But employees are a window into a business and how it is run. What does it say about a boss that not only supports a individual like him for a role, but keeps him there even when it is shown that he cannot handle that role? What does it say about that organization that allows that?

Buttigieg's also has another use. He gives a interesting look at the talking points and thoughts that are being emphasized by the organization. Which tells us what about that organization?


And those weird engineers are involved in every single product we use today.

By “empty suit” I was referring to his 3 years at McKinsey.

He’s one reflection of corporate America and the dominant power culture.

Edit: Engineers are highly skilled, smart, and very important weirdos.

[GannonFan]

Three recent shootings in the US - the black kid in Kansas City who go shot through the door by an old white guy when the kid went to the wrong house and rung the doorbell, the white woman in NY state who was killed by a white homeowner (somewhat old, 65) who didn't like that they pulled into his driveway to turn around and stormed out and shot at their car, and then the shooting in Alabama at a birthday party and we still haven't identified the shooter. We've taken the stand your ground viewpoint way too far in the first two cases - someone ringing your doorbell is not a threat, nor is a car using your driveway for a three point turn. And we have a massive issue with people scared to tell authorities who's to blame when there's gun violence. I remember the Philly DA saying that something like only 30-40% of shootings ever actually have a perpetuator identified in the city. We don't talk about these issues enough, or even at all, when we yell back and forth about guns.

[UNI88]

The only reason he exists is to keep plants happy (photosynthesis)..... In fact he is so incompetent that the only "job" he can hold down is being a politician.

But employees are a window into a business and how it is run. What does it say about a boss that not only supports a individual like him for a role, but keeps him there even when it is shown that he cannot handle that role? What does it say about that organization that allows that?

Buttigieg's also has another use. He gives a interesting look at the talking points and thoughts that are being emphasized by the organization. Which tells us what about that organization?


And those weird engineers are involved in every single product we use today.

By “empty suit” I was referring to his 3 years at McKinsey.

He’s a one reflection of corporate America and the dominant power culture.

We know, we know - corporate experience bad, government experience good.

How do you know this statement and Pete aren't a reflection of the arrogance of government?

[Winterborn]

Since we don't have a "Why are all Politicians so stupid thread", I put this here.

I know a few road builders and civil engineers and they would fall out of their office chairs if somebody mentioned the roads they designed are racist. Now their maybe infrastructure problems in some areas, but that isn't because of racism.

What Pete said was stupid and reflects poorly on him and the administration but I not sure you could argue that racism didn’t drive some planners/politicians in determining where to place roads in the past.

The design and materials might not have been racist but using a road to isolate a black neighborhood, obstruct minority access to a desired amenity, or wantonly splitting a black neighborhood and displacing its residents when they wouldn’t do the to a white neighborhood is racist. There are plenty examples of those things happening.

We can be ostriches like desantis and pretend the unpleasant aspects of our history didn’t happen or we can admit and address them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But is that the fault of the roads or part of the planning or just a factor of property values and directing traffic to specific spots?

I am not denying that racists people do racist things, but to say roads are built or not built because of black people doesn't make much sense. Now if somebody wants to claim black neighborhoods are treated differently (and Pete did touch on that with his crosswalk comment), I think that would be a much stronger argument but more so because of property values/location not just because it is a black neighborhood. To address his crosswalk comment, those have a pretty defined set of rules when they should be installed and what type and it is based on foot traffic/housing in the area. There are both federal and local regulations that cover that, and in at least the ones around here there isn't much leeway the city has if they area meets a very specific set of conditions. The neighborhood itself is more of the factor, then who lives in it. Road planners do not have a whole lot of leeway where they put a road (at least since the 60's), before that sure it could be possible, that a road was placed to inconvenience a particular ethnic group but then the Irish/Jews/etc would have the same claim that Pete was trying to make on behalf of blacks.

[kalm]

By “empty suit” I was referring to his 3 years at McKinsey.

He’s a one reflection of corporate America and the dominant power culture.

We know, we know - corporate experience bad, government experience good.

How do you know this statement and Pete aren't a reflection of the arrogance of government?

They are. Do you think I’m happy with government? Nobody is.

Government capture has been advancing for decades. Thank you for the campaign check. Now…here’s a pen. Write your own regulations and tax code.

[Winterborn]

We know, we know - corporate experience bad, government experience good.

How do you know this statement and Pete aren't a reflection of the arrogance of government?

They are. Do you think I’m happy with government? Nobody is.

Government capture has been advancing for decades. Thank you for the campaign check. Now…here’s a pen. Write your own regulations and tax code.

I agree but I find it a interesting take from somebody who advocates policies that will expand Governments reach into all aspects of our society.

[kalm]

They are. Do you think I’m happy with government? Nobody is.

Government capture has been advancing for decades. Thank you for the campaign check. Now…here’s a pen. Write your own regulations and tax code.

I agree but I find it a interesting take from somebody who advocates policies that will expand Governments reach into all aspects of our society.

That’s fair but the contradiction also applies to small government types. Loads of examples but an easy one is minimum wage. Most small government types are opposed to increases. Large employers (Think Starbucks or McDonald's) might be as the numbers drive up their costs more. But with every minimum wage increase, there dies another indie burger stand or coffee shop.

Limited but effective government is what we all want. And when public spending like reduced or free education creates a serious ROI (as Ganny has pointed out) it makes sense.

[Winterborn]

The only reason he exists is to keep plants happy (photosynthesis)..... In fact he is so incompetent that the only "job" he can hold down is being a politician.

But employees are a window into a business and how it is run. What does it say about a boss that not only supports a individual like him for a role, but keeps him there even when it is shown that he cannot handle that role? What does it say about that organization that allows that?

Buttigieg's also has another use. He gives a interesting look at the talking points and thoughts that are being emphasized by the organization. Which tells us what about that organization?


And those weird engineers are involved in every single product we use today.

By “empty suit” I was referring to his 3 years at McKinsey.

He’s one reflection of corporate America and the dominant power culture.

Edit: Engineers are highly skilled, smart, and very important weirdos.

Ah, yes, stepping foot in the door at a corporation starts a person on the path of evil.

Well since he was only a consultant there and worked on "grocery pricing" and "climate change" (from a early interview he had) he sure picked up the lingo quick, considering he spent 8 years in the Navy and now politics (from when he left MicKinsey in 2010 till now) for the last 13 years. Calling him an empty corporate suit is slightly a stretch considering he has spent 10 years more in politics than as a consultant.

I like the empty suit label but not because he worked at McKinsey but because Politics is the longest career he has held in his life.

Edit to your Edit: Engineers are highly skilled, smart, funny, and very important weirdos.

[kalm]

By “empty suit” I was referring to his 3 years at McKinsey.

He’s one reflection of corporate America and the dominant power culture.

Edit: Engineers are highly skilled, smart, and very important weirdos.

Ah, yes, stepping foot in the door at a corporation starts a person on the path of evil.

Well since he was only a consultant there and worked on "grocery pricing" and "climate change" (from a early interview he had) he sure picked up the lingo quick, considering he spent 8 years in the Navy and now politics (from when he left MicKinsey in 2010 till now) for the last 13 years. Calling him an empty corporate suit is slightly a stretch considering he has spent 10 years more in politics than as a consultant.

I like the empty suit label but not because he worked at McKinsey but because Politics is the longest career he has held in his life.

Edit to your Edit: Engineers are highly skilled, smart, funny, and very important weirdos.

I would hope he’s a consultant considering that’s what McKinsey does.

If you’re going to appease large corporations and donors as a politician you won’t forget the lingo and likely adapt the newest lingo. He’s basically a PR rep for the administration.

[Winterborn]

Ah, yes, stepping foot in the door at a corporation starts a person on the path of evil.

Well since he was only a consultant there and worked on "grocery pricing" and "climate change" (from a early interview he had) he sure picked up the lingo quick, considering he spent 8 years in the Navy and now politics (from when he left MicKinsey in 2010 till now) for the last 13 years. Calling him an empty corporate suit is slightly a stretch considering he has spent 10 years more in politics than as a consultant.

I like the empty suit label but not because he worked at McKinsey but because Politics is the longest career he has held in his life.

Edit to your Edit: Engineers are highly skilled, smart, funny, and very important weirdos.

I would hope he’s a consultant considering that’s what McKinsey does.

If you’re going to appease large corporations and donors as a politician you won’t forget the lingo and likely adapt the newest lingo. He’s basically a PR rep for the administration.

I know that is what he was doing. Consultants are paid to tell their clients what they want to hear. So a shoe in for being a Politician.

And he is most definitely a PR rep for the administration but not in the area he was given a job for.

[kalm]

I would hope he’s a consultant considering that’s what McKinsey does.

If you’re going to appease large corporations and donors as a politician you won’t forget the lingo and likely adapt the newest lingo. He’s basically a PR rep for the administration.

I know that is what he was doing. Consultants are paid to tell their clients what they want to hear. So a shoe in for being a Politician.

And he is most definitely a PR rep for the administration but not in the area he was given a job for.

No disagreement here.

[UNI88]

What Pete said was stupid and reflects poorly on him and the administration but I not sure you could argue that racism didn’t drive some planners/politicians in determining where to place roads in the past.

The design and materials might not have been racist but using a road to isolate a black neighborhood, obstruct minority access to a desired amenity, or wantonly splitting a black neighborhood and displacing its residents when they wouldn’t do the to a white neighborhood is racist. There are plenty examples of those things happening.

We can be ostriches like desantis and pretend the unpleasant aspects of our history didn’t happen or we can admit and address them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But is that the fault of the roads or part of the planning or just a factor of property values and directing traffic to specific spots?

I am not denying that racists people do racist things, but to say roads are built or not built because of black people doesn't make much sense. Now if somebody wants to claim black neighborhoods are treated differently (and Pete did touch on that with his crosswalk comment), I think that would be a much stronger argument but more so because of property values/location not just because it is a black neighborhood. To address his crosswalk comment, those have a pretty defined set of rules when they should be installed and what type and it is based on foot traffic/housing in the area. There are both federal and local regulations that cover that, and in at least the ones around here there isn't much leeway the city has if they area meets a very specific set of conditions. The neighborhood itself is more of the factor, then who lives in it. Road planners do not have a whole lot of leeway where they put a road (at least since the 60's), before that sure it could be possible, that a road was placed to inconvenience a particular ethnic group but then the Irish/Jews/etc would have the same claim that Pete was trying to make on behalf of blacks.

Is it the fault of the roads? No.

Do I think that it was done intentionally? Yes. Maybe not every time but enough.

If a road's location is a part of that road and the location was decided based on racial prejudices, isn't the road racist?

There are expressways in Portland that go right through what used to be black neighborhoods, tearing the neighborhood apart. There are also expressways that bend around what were white neighborhoods to leave them intact. In other parts of the country, there are examples of expressways that were put in between black and white neighborhoods with no or few ramps in the black neighborhood, effectively "protecting" the white neighborhood from the black neighborhood while denying the residents of the black neighborhood access to the amenities in and near the white neighborhood. Is the argument that those roads are racist, not valid?

I don't remember the book(s) that I read about these in so I can't provide a link. I can recommend reading The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein to read about how minorities were discriminated against in housing up to the late 60's and how it impacted their ability to build wealth, get an education, etc.

[BDKJMU]

But is that the fault of the roads or part of the planning or just a factor of property values and directing traffic to specific spots?

I am not denying that racists people do racist things, but to say roads are built or not built because of black people doesn't make much sense. Now if somebody wants to claim black neighborhoods are treated differently (and Pete did touch on that with his crosswalk comment), I think that would be a much stronger argument but more so because of property values/location not just because it is a black neighborhood. To address his crosswalk comment, those have a pretty defined set of rules when they should be installed and what type and it is based on foot traffic/housing in the area. There are both federal and local regulations that cover that, and in at least the ones around here there isn't much leeway the city has if they area meets a very specific set of conditions. The neighborhood itself is more of the factor, then who lives in it. Road planners do not have a whole lot of leeway where they put a road (at least since the 60's), before that sure it could be possible, that a road was placed to inconvenience a particular ethnic group but then the Irish/Jews/etc would have the same claim that Pete was trying to make on behalf of blacks.

Is it the fault of the roads? No.

Do I think that it was done intentionally? Yes. Maybe not every time but enough.

If a road's location is a part of that road and the location was decided based on racial prejudices, isn't the road racist?

There are expressways in Portland that go right through what used to be black neighborhoods, tearing the neighborhood apart. There are also expressways that bend around what were white neighborhoods to leave them intact. In other parts of the country, there are examples of expressways that were put in between black and white neighborhoods with no or few ramps in the black neighborhood, effectively "protecting" the white neighborhood from the black neighborhood while denying the residents of the black neighborhood access to the amenities in and near the white neighborhood. Is the argument that those roads are racist, not valid?

I don't remember the book(s) that I read about these in so I can't provide a link. I can recommend reading The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein to read about how minorities were discriminated against in housing up to the late 60's and how it impacted their ability to build wealth, get an education, etc.

If those Portland expressways had been placed where they were based 100% on avoiding neighborhoods with the highest property values, and going through those with the lowest, and 0% on race, would the expressways’ routes be any different?

[UNI88]

Is it the fault of the roads? No.

Do I think that it was done intentionally? Yes. Maybe not every time but enough.

If a road's location is a part of that road and the location was decided based on racial prejudices, isn't the road racist?

There are expressways in Portland that go right through what used to be black neighborhoods, tearing the neighborhood apart. There are also expressways that bend around what were white neighborhoods to leave them intact. In other parts of the country, there are examples of expressways that were put in between black and white neighborhoods with no or few ramps in the black neighborhood, effectively "protecting" the white neighborhood from the black neighborhood while denying the residents of the black neighborhood access to the amenities in and near the white neighborhood. Is the argument that those roads are racist, not valid?

I don't remember the book(s) that I read about these in so I can't provide a link. I can recommend reading The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein to read about how minorities were discriminated against in housing up to the late 60's and how it impacted their ability to build wealth, get an education, etc.

If those Portland expressways had been placed where they were based 100% on avoiding neighborhoods with the highest property values, and going through those with the lowest, and 0% on race, would the expressways’ routes be any different?

I don't know. Why should poor neighborhoods have been torn apart while wealthy neighborhoods were protected?

Maybe you should read The Color of Law to help you understand how racism was a major factor in black neighborhoods having lower property values.

[BDKJMU]

If those Portland expressways had been placed where they were based 100% on avoiding neighborhoods with the highest property values, and going through those with the lowest, and 0% on race, would the expressways’ routes be any different?

I don't know. Why should poor neighborhoods have been torn apart while wealthy neighborhoods were protected?

If you ran the expressways equally through the high cost neighborhoods and the low cost ones, would cause the eminent domain costs to be exponentially higher, causing the taxpayers to have to fund it. As expensive as highways are to build now, not routing them based on property values would make them even more costly, with some delayed or not even able to be built period.

Sure ideally you build where there’s no neighborhoods, but when it can’t be avoided routing through one, you have to go through the lowest cost one to be financially feasible.

[Winterborn]

But is that the fault of the roads or part of the planning or just a factor of property values and directing traffic to specific spots?

I am not denying that racists people do racist things, but to say roads are built or not built because of black people doesn't make much sense. Now if somebody wants to claim black neighborhoods are treated differently (and Pete did touch on that with his crosswalk comment), I think that would be a much stronger argument but more so because of property values/location not just because it is a black neighborhood. To address his crosswalk comment, those have a pretty defined set of rules when they should be installed and what type and it is based on foot traffic/housing in the area. There are both federal and local regulations that cover that, and in at least the ones around here there isn't much leeway the city has if they area meets a very specific set of conditions. The neighborhood itself is more of the factor, then who lives in it. Road planners do not have a whole lot of leeway where they put a road (at least since the 60's), before that sure it could be possible, that a road was placed to inconvenience a particular ethnic group but then the Irish/Jews/etc would have the same claim that Pete was trying to make on behalf of blacks.

Is it the fault of the roads? No.

Do I think that it was done intentionally? Yes. Maybe not every time but enough.

If a road's location is a part of that road and the location was decided based on racial prejudices, isn't the road racist?

There are expressways in Portland that go right through what used to be black neighborhoods, tearing the neighborhood apart. There are also expressways that bend around what were white neighborhoods to leave them intact. In other parts of the country, there are examples of expressways that were put in between black and white neighborhoods with no or few ramps in the black neighborhood, effectively "protecting" the white neighborhood from the black neighborhood while denying the residents of the black neighborhood access to the amenities in and near the white neighborhood. Is the argument that those roads are racist, not valid?

I don't remember the book(s) that I read about these in so I can't provide a link. I can recommend reading The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein to read about how minorities were discriminated against in housing up to the late 60's and how it impacted their ability to build wealth, get an education, etc.

I will check the book out.

And I am sure there are spots where it did happen (I am very well aware of went down in the 60's and how blacks were treated), I am not trying to deny it, but when one is in charge of all the transportation nation wide one should offer a bit more clarification on what they mean. Because the impression he gave is that it is still happening. Which to the best of my knowledge it isn't.

I have no issue addressing the topic from back then but that should have been stated in his remarks (and I know I am asking too much again). In fact I wouldn't mind if they rip up a good chunk of what we do here in the states as city planning and re-do it all. U.S. city planning is atrocious and wasteful.

[UNI88]

I don't know. Why should poor neighborhoods have been torn apart while wealthy neighborhoods were protected?

If you ran the expressways equally through the high cost neighborhoods and the low cost ones, would cause the eminent domain costs to be exponentially higher, causing the taxpayers to have to fund it. As expensive as highways are to build now, not routing them based on property values would make them even more costly, with some delayed or not even able to be built period.

Sure ideally you build where there’s no neighborhoods, but when it can’t be avoided routing through one, you have to go through the lowest cost one to be financially feasible.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? They still build near wealthier neighborhoods just not through them. If they can bend expressways around and between wealthier neighborhoods then they can do the same for poorer neighborhoods.

Past racism was and still is a major factor in black neighborhoods having lower property values.

[UNI88]

Is it the fault of the roads? No.

Do I think that it was done intentionally? Yes. Maybe not every time but enough.

If a road's location is a part of that road and the location was decided based on racial prejudices, isn't the road racist?

There are expressways in Portland that go right through what used to be black neighborhoods, tearing the neighborhood apart. There are also expressways that bend around what were white neighborhoods to leave them intact. In other parts of the country, there are examples of expressways that were put in between black and white neighborhoods with no or few ramps in the black neighborhood, effectively "protecting" the white neighborhood from the black neighborhood while denying the residents of the black neighborhood access to the amenities in and near the white neighborhood. Is the argument that those roads are racist, not valid?

I don't remember the book(s) that I read about these in so I can't provide a link. I can recommend reading The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein to read about how minorities were discriminated against in housing up to the late 60's and how it impacted their ability to build wealth, get an education, etc.

I will check the book out.

And I am sure there are spots where it did happen (I am very well aware of went down in the 60's and how blacks were treated), I am not trying to deny it, but when one is in charge of all the transportation nation wide one should offer a bit more clarification on what they mean. Because the impression he gave is that it is still happening. Which to the best of my knowledge it isn't.

I have no issue addressing the topic from back then but that should have been stated in his remarks (and I know I am asking too much again). In fact I wouldn't mind if they rip up a good chunk of what we do here in the states as city planning and re-do it all. U.S. city planning is atrocious and wasteful.

Pete definitely handled it poorly. He and Democrats. like trump and Republicans, like to blow things out of proportion so that they can get as much publicity out of them as possible.

This irritates rational people like you and me but is chum in the water for partisan hacks like BDK and kalm.

[BDKJMU]

Three recent shootings in the US - the black kid in Kansas City who go shot through the door by an old white guy when the kid went to the wrong house and rung the doorbell, the white woman in NY state who was killed by a white homeowner (somewhat old, 65) who didn't like that they pulled into his driveway to turn around and stormed out and shot at their car, and then the shooting in Alabama at a birthday party and we still haven't identified the shooter. We've taken the stand your ground viewpoint way too far in the first two cases - someone ringing your doorbell is not a threat, nor is a car using your driveway for a three point turn. And we have a massive issue with people scared to tell authorities who's to blame when there's gun violence. I remember the Philly DA saying that something like only 30-40% of shootings ever actually have a perpetuator identified in the city. We don't talk about these issues enough, or even at all, when we yell back and forth about guns.

Similar situations, yet the one who was wounded/apparently going to make a full recovery/halfway across the country from NYC was front page NYT today, and the one who was from NY state and killed wasn’t. Gee, I wonder why.

[GannonFan]

Three recent shootings in the US - the black kid in Kansas City who go shot through the door by an old white guy when the kid went to the wrong house and rung the doorbell, the white woman in NY state who was killed by a white homeowner (somewhat old, 65) who didn't like that they pulled into his driveway to turn around and stormed out and shot at their car, and then the shooting in Alabama at a birthday party and we still haven't identified the shooter. We've taken the stand your ground viewpoint way too far in the first two cases - someone ringing your doorbell is not a threat, nor is a car using your driveway for a three point turn. And we have a massive issue with people scared to tell authorities who's to blame when there's gun violence. I remember the Philly DA saying that something like only 30-40% of shootings ever actually have a perpetuator identified in the city. We don't talk about these issues enough, or even at all, when we yell back and forth about guns.

Similar situations, yet the one who was wounded/apparently going to make a full recovery/halfway across the country from NYC was front page NYT today, and the one who was from NY state and killed wasn’t. Gee, I wonder why.

Sure, that's true, but in the greater context of the stories (folks just shooting at people even when not threatened - just because they wanted to shoot people) I don't think that's really the important takeaway from these stories. Try not to be fixated with the bark on the tree in front of you and instead take a gander at the whole forest.

[BDKJMU]

Similar situations, yet the one who was wounded/apparently going to make a full recovery/halfway across the country from NYC was front page NYT today, and the one who was from NY state and killed wasn’t. Gee, I wonder why.

Sure, that's true, but in the greater context of the stories (folks just shooting at people even when not threatened - just because they wanted to shoot people) I don't think that's really the important takeaway from these stories. Try not to be fixated with the bark on the tree in front of you and instead take a gander at the whole forest.

The reporting on this is a large chunk of the forest. The NYT stated through their actions that her life isn‘t nearly as important as his..I‘m sure other MSM did similar, but the NYT was the example I heard given today.

[BDKJMU]

Meanwhile in Chicago, Chicago‘s Defund the Police Mayor elect

“it is not constructive to demonize youth who have otherwise been starved of opportunities in their own communities.”

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/202 ... ts-n732514
Yeah, lets not demonize this mob of young thugs who randommly viciously attacked this couple who had just come out of Nordstrom’s (ie not in the hood) & were walking to a nearby restaurant.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mob-rando ... icago-kill

[GannonFan]

Sure, that's true, but in the greater context of the stories (folks just shooting at people even when not threatened - just because they wanted to shoot people) I don't think that's really the important takeaway from these stories. Try not to be fixated with the bark on the tree in front of you and instead take a gander at the whole forest.

The reporting on this is a large chunk of the forest. The NYT stated through their actions that her life isn‘t nearly as important as his..I‘m sure other MSM did similar, but the NYT was the example I heard given today.

How many other people died due to gun violence since then, in just a few days, and 99% of them you and I will never know about. Doesn't mean that we as a society, don't value all of them. Doesn't mean that MSM doesn't think they're all important (or all not important). Just a reality that you can't cover everything everywhere all at once at the same level. And sure, maybe the NYT feels that violence against Blacks is a more important story than violence against Whites. Again, doesn't really take away from the thrust of my post that we have a problem with the wanton disrespect for anyone other than ourselves too many times.

[UNI88]

[BDKJMU]

The reporting on this is a large chunk of the forest. The NYT stated through their actions that her life isn‘t nearly as important as his..I‘m sure other MSM did similar, but the NYT was the example I heard given today.

How many other people died due to gun violence since then, in just a few days, and 99% of them you and I will never know about. Doesn't mean that we as a society, don't value all of them. Doesn't mean that MSM doesn't think they're all important (or all not important). Just a reality that you can't cover everything everywhere all at once at the same level. And sure, maybe the NYT feels that violence against Blacks is a more important story than violence against Whites.
Again, doesn't really take away from the thrust of my post that we have a problem with the wanton disrespect for anyone other than ourselves too many times.

You mean when a white commits violence against a black. The MSM & NYT could care less about black on black violence, which is like 90+% of black deaths. Wrong narrative for the MSM. What happened to this kid in KC was terrible, but he wasn’t killed. How many blacks in NYC alone in the last year have been killed by other blacks in NYC (much less the hundreds or thousands wounded) and its gets nary a peep from the NYT?