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 They probably should before Prop 47 is repealed and more faceless Black and Brown kids are thrown in prison.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?)
If the answer to "why are the stores closing?" Is "Walgreens can make more money by firing you and or reducing your access to needed goods and services and they don't give a shit about you" then people will be mad at Walgreens.
If they can point the finger at some black people to arrest then you won't be mad at Walgreens.
2) Walgreens wants to stop police reform and increase sentences. If the state and city governments spend 5 billion dollars more to deter 1 million dollars of theft and a thousand people have their lives ruined that is bad for those 1k people, state and city budgets. But that is 1million in profits for Walgreens. They are socializing the costs of their business by trying to get state governments to invest in even more police to guard stores when shoplifting is at the lowest level it has been in decades.
Be sure to re-insert your head firmly into your rectum before you speak. Because the inane crap you're spewing out of your deformed rictus belongs in the toilet, not on these pages.
Please 'n' thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
- A proud, gay, 25-year resident of San Francisco who's well-trained in the tactical exercise of his second-amendment rights (BTW, if you think that we limp-wristed liberal pansy snowflakes aren't packing, then think again, you total moron).
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.
You are a miracle of sorts: you're living proof that the human body can continue to live without a brain! Or else proof that billions of monkey-hours spent randomly typing can occasionally produce something semi-coherent.
Come to San Francisco, where I live, and you'll see that the doom & gloom hype you hear is vastly overblown. On second thought, don't come here... just stay holed up in your janky old trailer, gun across your lap, and afraid of everything – in whatever regressive Taliban-ruled red state you happen to live in. We don't need your tourist dollars.
One last thing — don't confuse your ignorance with actual domain knowledge. About anything.
Hugs 'n' kisses,
- An affluent San Francisco radical leftist homosexual second-amendment-loving snowflake who's executing on the gay agenda, whatever that is (LOL)
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?
Your #1 point contradicts your 3 and 4. If you genuinely want answers to those questions don’t pretend like they are inaccessible to you except through this article. “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-ism at its finest. And are you so out of touch that you forgot the media spent the last 60 years offering up scathing criticism and punishment for those that commit property crime?
I don't think you understand when to use the term "whataboutism". I'm not accusing him of hypocrisy. Nor am I attempting to refute him. I'm saying that he never addressed the the (I think valid) concern about what is to be done about property crime. I'm not even suggesting an answer to that question. I'm suggesting that I'd love to see him tackle what he thinks the solution to the problem (of rampant property crime) is.
Me: I also see another important component to this discussion that you never commented on.
That's not a whataboutism. If you wanted to accuse me of a fallacy I'd recommend the non-sequitur as a reasonable one. But I don't think it is a non-sequitur, I think what he's talking about and what I think is missing are reasonable parts of the same discussion.
I don’t believe it’s a non sequitor. I believe it’s a related topic certainly. But again, the answers to your abundance of questions are well covered and if you were honestly interested in that conversations you wouldn’t expect this article to answer them. That, and the overall tone and slant of your questions leads me more towards whataboutism than non-sequitor.
"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?"
Adam: *writes detailed article with evidence of multiple factors going into Walgreens closings, examining SEC filings and board of director minutes, and asking for the same thoroughness that is applied to civil rights protestors to be applied to corporations because of the human cost of believing them without evidence*
You: wow people are just blindly following this guy
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.
Yeah, except the stats are clear a d property crime hasn’t skyrocketed. Maybe instead of spending so much time making unsystematic observations, you should attend a second-grade math class.
exactly....over a ten year period ...no crime has no skyrocketed here. I live in SF., damn people just still trust journalists in MSM to report 'real crime stories'....when those stories barely ever look over long term trends LET ALONE the blowing up of homelessness....and addiction....and evictions...etc....
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?)
1) People are upset about the stores closing.
If the answer to "why are the stores closing?" Is "Walgreens can make more money by firing you and or reducing your access to needed goods and services and they don't give a shit about you" then people will be mad at Walgreens.
If they can point the finger at some black people to arrest then you won't be mad at Walgreens.
2) Walgreens wants to stop police reform and increase sentences. If the state and city governments spend 5 billion dollars more to deter 1 million dollars of theft and a thousand people have their lives ruined that is bad for those 1k people, state and city budgets. But that is 1million in profits for Walgreens. They are socializing the costs of their business by trying to get state governments to invest in even more police to guard stores when shoplifting is at the lowest level it has been in decades.
Pay no attention to Walgreens stealing more than that from their employees.
In San Francisco's politically correct paradigm, property crime is a policy tool toward slavery reparations, and income and wealth redistribution.
Swing and a miss bud
what the hell are you talking about
Walter D-bag:
Be sure to re-insert your head firmly into your rectum before you speak. Because the inane crap you're spewing out of your deformed rictus belongs in the toilet, not on these pages.
Please 'n' thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
- A proud, gay, 25-year resident of San Francisco who's well-trained in the tactical exercise of his second-amendment rights (BTW, if you think that we limp-wristed liberal pansy snowflakes aren't packing, then think again, you total moron).
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.
Wow a deliberate misreading of an article by a self indulgent left basher, and completely devoid of any substantive critique. Who’s the moron again?
Thousands of merchandise daily? That would be an entire clearing out of a Walgreens, which is mostly filled with low-value items.
I've been in Walgreens in SF. The shelves are full.
You clearly didn't read any of this.
Are you fine with the wage theft by Walgreens?
Why isn't CVS closing any stores?
Yes, asking for evidence to support their assertion is "leftist garbage agenda". Certainly, Walgreens could have no agenda.
Beezy,
You are a miracle of sorts: you're living proof that the human body can continue to live without a brain! Or else proof that billions of monkey-hours spent randomly typing can occasionally produce something semi-coherent.
Come to San Francisco, where I live, and you'll see that the doom & gloom hype you hear is vastly overblown. On second thought, don't come here... just stay holed up in your janky old trailer, gun across your lap, and afraid of everything – in whatever regressive Taliban-ruled red state you happen to live in. We don't need your tourist dollars.
One last thing — don't confuse your ignorance with actual domain knowledge. About anything.
Hugs 'n' kisses,
- An affluent San Francisco radical leftist homosexual second-amendment-loving snowflake who's executing on the gay agenda, whatever that is (LOL)
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?
Your #1 point contradicts your 3 and 4. If you genuinely want answers to those questions don’t pretend like they are inaccessible to you except through this article. “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-ism at its finest. And are you so out of touch that you forgot the media spent the last 60 years offering up scathing criticism and punishment for those that commit property crime?
I don't think you understand when to use the term "whataboutism". I'm not accusing him of hypocrisy. Nor am I attempting to refute him. I'm saying that he never addressed the the (I think valid) concern about what is to be done about property crime. I'm not even suggesting an answer to that question. I'm suggesting that I'd love to see him tackle what he thinks the solution to the problem (of rampant property crime) is.
Adam- The media is lying about shop lifting leading to store closures.
You- What about the motivation of the criminals??
That’s literally whataboutism.
Incorrect.
Adam: The media is lying, here's evidence
Me: I agree with your argument.
Me: I also see another important component to this discussion that you never commented on.
That's not a whataboutism. If you wanted to accuse me of a fallacy I'd recommend the non-sequitur as a reasonable one. But I don't think it is a non-sequitur, I think what he's talking about and what I think is missing are reasonable parts of the same discussion.
And if you are confused I called what I put in quotes a whataboutism. Not your entire argument. Although you seem to want to conflate the two.
I don’t believe it’s a non sequitor. I believe it’s a related topic certainly. But again, the answers to your abundance of questions are well covered and if you were honestly interested in that conversations you wouldn’t expect this article to answer them. That, and the overall tone and slant of your questions leads me more towards whataboutism than non-sequitor.
"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.
Adam: *writes detailed article with evidence of multiple factors going into Walgreens closings, examining SEC filings and board of director minutes, and asking for the same thoroughness that is applied to civil rights protestors to be applied to corporations because of the human cost of believing them without evidence*
You: wow people are just blindly following this guy
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.
Yeah, except the stats are clear a d property crime hasn’t skyrocketed. Maybe instead of spending so much time making unsystematic observations, you should attend a second-grade math class.
exactly....over a ten year period ...no crime has no skyrocketed here. I live in SF., damn people just still trust journalists in MSM to report 'real crime stories'....when those stories barely ever look over long term trends LET ALONE the blowing up of homelessness....and addiction....and evictions...etc....