Today’s fearless probe into the wilds of cause-and-effect reasoning comes from Roxbury, Massachusetts:
As this CBS “journalist” summarizes the issue: “Why do you think Walgreen’s is targeting black and brown neighborhoods?”
She refuses to ask anyone about rampant looting putting this store out of business.
“Predominantly black neighborhood.” Okay, got it. The residents of that neighborhood will now have to travel a bit further to find a Walgreen’s to
loot shop at. And as those residents are “predominantly black,” this constitutes racial discrimination.
But protesting residents exercised a bit of subtlety:
“What happens to our seniors and our single parents that have no way to get to a Walgreen’s or another pharmacy anywhere near their home?”
He managed not to mention either rampant shoplifting or race. And yes, it will certainly inconvenience the locale’s senior citizens, but do they have an enforceable right to a pharmacy within walking distance? But wait: there’s more! Hearken to the Reverend Minard Pepper:
“So we think it’s insensitive, it’s unjust…. Why do you think they target black and brown communities? I think because they get no push back.”
Well, there is the possibility that shoplifting in predominantly white districts is far less: a tolerable degree of what liquor store owners have traditionally called “spillage.” But once again, there’s no mention of either theft or race. One more, from former Boston NAACP president Michael Curry:
“The communities where they’re closing these pharmacies are communities where people are, uh, desperately impacted by disease. You know, two or three times higher rates in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, where life expectancy can be 15, 20 years less.”
Such awareness. Such compassion! I wonder if the thieves who’ve driven Walgreen’s out of this “predominantly black” neighborhood ever stop to think about the burdens they load onto their sick neighbors. My bet is on “no.” Where’s yours?
These black “civil rights activists” are fully aware of why Walgreen’s is closing those stores. They simply don’t want to acknowledge the facts of the matter. That would indict “their people.” It would suggest that if there’s a solution – which is unclear, as battling shoplifting has always been a difficult and expensive undertaking – it would take the form of law enforcement. But no, we can’t have that in “predominantly black” Roxbury! That would be racist.
Such closures are occurring wherever there’s a high enough percentage of blacks. And in every case, “civil rights leaders” – almost always black – step to the microphones and cameras to denounce it. But they seldom mention the plague of shoplifting. Neither do they mention the ceaseless propagandization of young blacks against law enforcement and the rights of property owners, nor the simple cause-and-effect dynamic that makes whites and businesses flee from the blacks who prey on them.
Sadly, it’s fated to continue. I don’t know how it will be resolved, though I have a foreboding.