There are key questions mainstream journalists have yet to ask. They probably should before Prop 47 is repealed and more faceless Black and Brown kids are thrown in prison.
I almost didn't read this article. Then I was prepared to feel my normal rage against the left. Instead, I stuck it out. Thank you for painting a picture of another side of the story I find compelling.
Why is this almost never asked of Walgreens or CVS by any reporter?
I watched the movie <i>Once a Thief</i> the other night. Alain Delon's character is trying to collect unemployment after being laid off. The caseworker says that his employer said he quit so he can't collect. He replies " But why do you believe them and not me?". That one little sentence summed up media bias.
You argue multiple times that Walgreens is being "self-serving" by pushing this narrative — but how? If it's not true that shoplifting is a big deal to Walgreens in SF, then what does the company gain by claiming that it is? You seem to argue that this is a way to deflect from the bad p.r. of closing stores for economic reasons — but if that's true, why isn't Walgreens blaming shoplifting for closing its NYC stores also? Why is it willing to take the p.r. hit there but not in SF? (And why do you think there would be a p.r. hit anyway, except with customers who can no longer shop at the stores anyway because the stores are closed?)
You are a total moron. Keep pushing your BS leftist garbage agenda. Yes, because groups of people walking out with thousands in merchandise daily would certainly have no effect on Walgreens deciding (even if it were planning to close a certain number of stores) to close the stores with the most theft in a decrepit city with leaders who are just as dumb as the writer of this article.
The hope is that one of these days the roughly 45% of this country that continues to have their head up their a%$ will wake up before its too late....but articles like this only serve to bolster my view that we are too far gone. F-ing moron.
1) The main point of the article, one that I think the author successfully defended, is that shoplifting is not likely the primary factor in Walgreens closing down stores in SF. I agree on this point.
2) Corollary to that, he also illuminated how the mainstream and right-wing media are seizing on the made-up casual relationship between shoplifting and store closures and covering the hell out of it. Again, agreed.
3) What he does not address adequately is how to feel about rampant property crime in SF and Chelsea Boudin’s role in it. There’s some liberal guilt along the lines of (paraphrasing) ‘if you support the repeal of Bouldin and Prop 47 you want black and brown people to go to jail and are, in fact, a racist'. Car break-ins, burglaries, shoplifting, open air drug use and sales, public intoxication, defecation, urination. All non-violent and now decriminalized. Is there a way to not be racist and want a civil, ordered society? Is it wrong to want to feel safe when walking the streets at night? To want your property protected from theft? This is not a theoretical question, and I would love to see the answer.
5) Also absent is any commentary on the actual people doing the actual crimes. Does he believe that these petty criminals lack agency and the only option for them is to commit crimes? He offered up scathing criticism of corporate America as is fashionable right now. But none whatsoever for the loosely organized groups committing these property crimes. What about them? Do they bear some burden or share some blame? Should a thief be incarcerated? Or if not, what to do about thieves?
"Listen to me," proclaimed the piper, "and I will show you how to fit this terrible message to you biases."
So they listened, and while they knew Walgreens had told the truth about closing their stores for financial reasons many times before, this time the story, well, it made the townspeople angry. About these 5 stores, they must be lying.
"This can't be crime," sang the piper, "for corporations are evil."
"This can't be crime," sang the piper, "because the results hurt people of color."
"Examine not my motives," sang the piper, "for they are simply the same as yours, and could you be wrong?"
Whomever Adam Johnson is , he must not be from SF. Walgreens is just the poster child because of the shocking video. Let's take them out of the equation. Property crimes have skyrocketed in the City , thousands of cars are broken into (I'm sure Hertz and Avis are just posturing racists right?) because these crimes are not prosecuted. Once the most beautiful city in America, SF has become a cesspool. I invite Johnson to come walk the 6 blocks surrounding City Hall with me to see firsthand if it's Walgreens that is the problem.
I almost didn't read this article. Then I was prepared to feel my normal rage against the left. Instead, I stuck it out. Thank you for painting a picture of another side of the story I find compelling.
Why is this almost never asked of Walgreens or CVS by any reporter?
I watched the movie <i>Once a Thief</i> the other night. Alain Delon's character is trying to collect unemployment after being laid off. The caseworker says that his employer said he quit so he can't collect. He replies " But why do you believe them and not me?". That one little sentence summed up media bias.
You argue multiple times that Walgreens is being "self-serving" by pushing this narrative — but how? If it's not true that shoplifting is a big deal to Walgreens in SF, then what does the company gain by claiming that it is? You seem to argue that this is a way to deflect from the bad p.r. of closing stores for economic reasons — but if that's true, why isn't Walgreens blaming shoplifting for closing its NYC stores also? Why is it willing to take the p.r. hit there but not in SF? (And why do you think there would be a p.r. hit anyway, except with customers who can no longer shop at the stores anyway because the stores are closed?)
In San Francisco's politically correct paradigm, property crime is a policy tool toward slavery reparations, and income and wealth redistribution.
You are a total moron. Keep pushing your BS leftist garbage agenda. Yes, because groups of people walking out with thousands in merchandise daily would certainly have no effect on Walgreens deciding (even if it were planning to close a certain number of stores) to close the stores with the most theft in a decrepit city with leaders who are just as dumb as the writer of this article.
The hope is that one of these days the roughly 45% of this country that continues to have their head up their a%$ will wake up before its too late....but articles like this only serve to bolster my view that we are too far gone. F-ing moron.
1) The main point of the article, one that I think the author successfully defended, is that shoplifting is not likely the primary factor in Walgreens closing down stores in SF. I agree on this point.
2) Corollary to that, he also illuminated how the mainstream and right-wing media are seizing on the made-up casual relationship between shoplifting and store closures and covering the hell out of it. Again, agreed.
3) What he does not address adequately is how to feel about rampant property crime in SF and Chelsea Boudin’s role in it. There’s some liberal guilt along the lines of (paraphrasing) ‘if you support the repeal of Bouldin and Prop 47 you want black and brown people to go to jail and are, in fact, a racist'. Car break-ins, burglaries, shoplifting, open air drug use and sales, public intoxication, defecation, urination. All non-violent and now decriminalized. Is there a way to not be racist and want a civil, ordered society? Is it wrong to want to feel safe when walking the streets at night? To want your property protected from theft? This is not a theoretical question, and I would love to see the answer.
5) Also absent is any commentary on the actual people doing the actual crimes. Does he believe that these petty criminals lack agency and the only option for them is to commit crimes? He offered up scathing criticism of corporate America as is fashionable right now. But none whatsoever for the loosely organized groups committing these property crimes. What about them? Do they bear some burden or share some blame? Should a thief be incarcerated? Or if not, what to do about thieves?
"Listen to me," proclaimed the piper, "and I will show you how to fit this terrible message to you biases."
So they listened, and while they knew Walgreens had told the truth about closing their stores for financial reasons many times before, this time the story, well, it made the townspeople angry. About these 5 stores, they must be lying.
"This can't be crime," sang the piper, "for corporations are evil."
"This can't be crime," sang the piper, "because the results hurt people of color."
"Examine not my motives," sang the piper, "for they are simply the same as yours, and could you be wrong?"
And the townspeople followed the piper.
recommend this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/business/target-baltimore-store-closings.html and the associated comments section
Whomever Adam Johnson is , he must not be from SF. Walgreens is just the poster child because of the shocking video. Let's take them out of the equation. Property crimes have skyrocketed in the City , thousands of cars are broken into (I'm sure Hertz and Avis are just posturing racists right?) because these crimes are not prosecuted. Once the most beautiful city in America, SF has become a cesspool. I invite Johnson to come walk the 6 blocks surrounding City Hall with me to see firsthand if it's Walgreens that is the problem.