Ann Coulter Complaining Again? Shocker..

        Yet again, Ann Coulter is whining about something else. In a blog post of hers, "Hillary's Advantage: The Media; Trump's Advantage: The Issues", Ann Coulter is upset with the media's overlook of real issues, and the constant thrashing of Donald Trump. As issues have seemed more on the back burner, the medias focus away from that has been directed at both candidates, not just Mr, Trump. She claims that "the media's entire campaign against Trump is to prevent him from talking about policy. They would rather talk about fat-shaming than trade, immigration and jobs". Aside from fat shaming, is immigration and jobs not policy? Just because his views on those issues may not seem appealing, it does not mean she gets to sweep them under the rug as well. Furthermore, much of what we have heard about Hillary Clinton has been emails this and emails that, surely Hillary Clinton is very sick, and scandals regarding her husband. Although I do not condone Hillary's actions as well, seems like media distraction to me.
        A huge disgruntlement that Ann Coulter has is the outcry and amount of coverage Donald Trumps recent comments about sexually assaulting women has received. She wonders why the same actions of others in the past, such as Bill Clinton, have been shushed but Donald Trumps comments are everywhere. Does Ann Coulter forget that Bill Clinton's actions eventually led him to being charged for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Bill Clinton's actions have stayed with him even to this day. She also brings up the Duke lacrosse scandal from 2006. Durham has had a racial divide for years and when you mix a predominately white upper class team being accused of raping black females, then you have the making of a national story. Of course this story should have gotten attention. I will agree with Ann Coulter though that the boys were innocent of all accusations. This case did though present many arguments toward media biases.
        Finally, I have a hard time seeing how Ann Coulter does not understand that what Trump said should not be taken lightly, especially from a person running to become president. Let us look at it like this. We have and old man who is a very well known public figure. This man is accused of sexual assaulting women. The American public does not know this to be true or not. Furthermore, overtime numerous women speak out and say that this man has indeed assaulted them. It is hard to judge the truth because there is little actual evidence of these acts, so it just becomes a he said she said argument. Can you differentiate whether this was Donald Trump or Bill Cosby? They both seem pretty close to me. Only in regards to Bill Cosby, Ann Coulter, as well as many white people put all his affairs on blast. Ms. Coulter has called out Bill Cosby's actions numerous times. Let us get one thing straight before moving on though, in no way do I condone Mr. Cosby's actions nor defend him. Ann Coulter has attacked situations, such as Bill Cosby's but then want everybody to move on from Trump's comments. Ann Coulter, you are just as guilty of the media biases that you love to complaining about. You do not get to pick and choose.








     

Who's to Blame?

        In an article from the opinion pages in The New York Times, Matthew Desmond discusses what a community looks like after an incident of police violence. He mentions that "[o]ne well known contribution to this debate has been Heather Mac Donald's notion of the 'Ferguson Effect,' the idea that after an episode of police violence, crime spikes in cities because ensuing protests cause the police to stop proactive tactics, emboldening the bad guys". Essentially the debate is proactive policing's role crime spikes. Desmond disagrees with the Ferguson Effect. He believes that from a study they conducted that once an area experienced police violence the citizens no longer trust the police, resulting in the spike of crime in that area. It has less to do with the proactive policing but more with the lack of 911 calls. He argues, "It is one thing to disparage law enforcement in your thoughts and speech after an instance of police violence...[i]t is quite another to witness a crime, or even be victimized, and decide not to report it". When deciding between the damaged relationship of law enforcement and the people it serves or the lack of proactive policing, I would have to say that the violence in these cities would be more attributed to its broken relations. The downside is that the evidence Desmond has to support his ideal only refers to one city. This is nowhere near a large enough sample size. On the other hand supporters of the Ferguson Effect claim that in Chicago, 911 calls have increased as well as crime, therefore debunking Desmond's argument. Again, this is only one statistic from one city. More research along the entire nation would need to be conducted.  

        Until more evidence supporting either view arises, my opinion is that Mr. Desmond is closer to the reason why crime spikes momentarily in cities that involving police killings, in cases such as Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and most recently Terence Crutcher. I do think the key word is momentarily though. In no way would I say that all hell breaks loose and the city becomes overrun. As humans who have the ability the display great emotion, we tend to invest heavily on the now. Especially when its is our friends and family being killed. This tendency is probably why everyone protests or "riots" when an injustice has been done. As a people, we just want to be heard. How can one expect to call the police in troubling situations when they do not trust them or are afraid of them. This could result in the citizens taking matters into their own hands, which could be even worse. Again, both Desmond and supporters of the Ferguson Effect have not displayed overwhelming evidence to prove their cases, so my siding with Desmond is just my opinion. Check it out for yourself!