Bobby Cutts Jr. Charged with Two Murders – Girlfriend and Unborn Child

Bobby Cutts Jr. Charged with Two Murders – Girlfriend and Unborn Child

A Canton policeman, 30-year old Bobby Cutts Jr., was charged today with the murder of his girlfriend, Jessie Davis. He was also separately charged with a second murder—that of Jessie’s unborn child. Davis was nearly nine months pregnant with a baby girl, due on July 3.

This only makes sense; after all, two people did die as a result of this violence. In the past, abortion supporters have objected to this formulation, denying that the death of the unborn child was a murder. (Apparently, “Every child a wanted child” really is just a slogan, since this wanted child doesn’t count as a life in some eyes.)

This incident brings to life another factor: abortion may help create an environment what encourages violence against pregnant women. With Bobby Cutts, Jessie Davis’ boyfriend and rpesumed father of the child, being charged with the murders, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Cutts didn’t want this child and when she refused to have an abortion, perhaps he ought to induce an abortion on his own. (Obviously, should Cutts turn out to be not guilty this speculative motive does not apply in this case, but there have been a number of cases where boyfriends attacked the mothers of their unborn children hoping to induce an abortion.) When the child is seen as disposable, men might seek to dispose of the child on their own.

Abortion doesn’t just hurt the child, it hurts their mothers. Women deserve better.

The Downsize of the Fairness Doctrine (for the liberal point of view)

It really does appear that liberal Democrats are planning an attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine as a way of curbing conservative talk radio. They may even have some quiet Republican allies in their effort.

Twenty years ago, the Reagan Administration scrapped the Federal Communications Commission rule that mandated broadcast licensees “afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.” Last week, Oklahoma GOP Senator Jim Inhofe reported that both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer had talked of the need for a “legislative fix” to rein in talk radio hosts, although he acknowledged the conversation he had overheard was three years old. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ms. Boxer’s Senate colleague, was asked by Fox News yesterday if she wanted the Fairness Doctrine restored, she acknowledged she was “looking at it” and asserted that in the halcyon days when the Doctrine was in force there was “much more careful and correct reporting to people.”

In reality, the Fairness Doctrine stifled discussion of controversial issues and was used as a political billy club by both parties against critics. Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under John F. Kennedy, admitted to CBS News producer Fred Friendly that “our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

Richard Nixon didn’t require much incentive to follow in those footsteps. Jesse Walker of Reason magazine reports that the Republican National Committee routinely filed challenges against stations whose reporting upset the White House. During the antiwar demonstrations of October 1969, a paranoid Mr. Nixon issued orders 21 times to aides to take “specific action relating to what he considered unfair network news coverage.” Luckily, most of his rantings were ignored by aides who believed he was just blowing off steam. But other efforts at intimidation of journalists — including the famous “enemies list” — proceeded.

Even without overt government hostility, the Fairness Doctrine proved a nightmare of compliance. Liberal journalist Nat Hentoff recalls that when he worked at a Boston radio station, “the front office panicked” whenever a complaint was filed. “The brass summoned all of us and commanded that from then on, we ourselves would engage in no controversy at the station.”

Given that the Democratic Congress now boasts approval ratings even below those of President Bush, I can understand the interest of some of its leaders to quell controversy. But for the rest of us, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would lead to a more homogenous and timid media culture. In other words, exactly the kind of climate that incumbents of both parties find congenial and easy to live with.

Source: Political Diary

The restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, despite its blatant disregard for free speech, might make some political sense for liberals in the short run. In the longer term, though, stories like those above show how it could be used to shut down their point of view as well. They should err on the side of freedom. After all, do they want every broadcast of a Michael Moore propaganda film balanced by a pro-conservative film? Do they want every Keith Olbermann diatribe responded to on MSNBC by a conservative? They might find they like the situation they’ve created even less than the current environment. If they believe so much in “choice,” as they often tell us, why must they take away our choice when it comes to the airwaves?


“Patience serves as a protection against wrongs as clothes do against cold. For if you put on more clothes as the cold increases, it will have no power to hurt you. So in like manner you must grow in patience when you meet with great wrongs, and they will then be powerless to vex your mind.” – Leonardo Da Vinci

“There was a time when American military leaders worried about whether wobbly allies would rally to us when it came time to stand up to the Soviets. Now it’s our allies who worry about us. After a month in the Western Pacific- most of it spent in Korea and the Philippines…- it appears that some of our closest allies are increasingly anxious about American resolve. While in Manila, an old comrade in arms- we both served in Vietnam- put it succinctly: ‘To your best friends in this part of the world, it looks as though you are tearing yourselves to pieces, repeating what we watched you do over Vietnam. It hurt all of us for 30 years.’ Echoes of this concern were heard repeatedly in off-the-record conversations with active and retired military officers and senior government officials… Here in the Philippines, where U.S. Special Operations troops have been quietly helping the government wage a successful campaign against the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist organizations, there should be no doubt about U.S. resolve. However, as so often happens with sophisticated allies, leaders here are looking beyond the immediate situation- and hedging their bets… [The] concerns of steadfast allies in the global war on terror need to be heeded at home. Since Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. aid, both civil and military, has helped the Filipinos prevent Islamic radicals from turning the southern islands of their archipelago into another Afghanistan. Yet, despite the successes here, many in Asia are worried about waning U.S. resolve.” – Oliver North

“[E]very lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand- the ultimatum. And what then?” – Ronald Reagan

“Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That’s a perverse usage of the term ‘right.’ A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different. It does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn’t produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That’s because, since there’s no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I’d like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.” – Walter Williams

“There’s another, perhaps more important, lesson to be drawn from the Hamas ascendancy. The Bush administration pushed for democracy in the Palestinian territories and got what it wished for- in spades. The assumption behind the push for democracy in Gaza and in Iraq is that Arabs can be trusted to handle political freedom. Even the Democrats demanding an immediate pullout from Iraq hope that with democracy, the Iraqis will be able to sort out their problems themselves via some euphemistic ‘political solution.’ That is unless the antiwar Democrats are really advocating turning all of Mesopotamia into one giant Gaza Strip- the far more likely result of U.S. withdrawal. For many disciples of the ‘international peace process,’ it’s a matter of faith that the Palestinians just have to want peace, because how else can you have a peace process? For many supporters of the Bush Doctrine, Iraqis have to want democracy, because if they don’t, what’s the point of having a freedom agenda? But what if these are just beloved Western fictions? We see a well-lighted path to the good life: democracy, tolerance, rule of law, markets. But what if the Arab world just isn’t interested in our path? As a believer in the freedom agenda, that’s what scares me most.” – Jonah Goldberg

Satan Worshipping Baseball Player Retires

BBTF’s Newsblog Discussion :: Honolulu Star-Bulletin: After 15 seasons, 263 games, Truby done

The origins of the joke about Chris Truby being a Satan worshipper:

Chris Truby really refers to two separate running gags — the Chris Truby Joke, and the Albert Belle Joke — and is one of the Internet baseball community’s longest-lived in-jokes.

The Chris Truby Joke is generally an allusion to Truby being a devil-worshipper, and usually comes up whenever Truby’s name is mentioned.

1. The Albert Belle Joke is a joke of the form: “I’m so sick of people like ________ and Albert Belle who ____________________.” Posters fill in the blanks with whatever ballplayer and subject are at hand.
2. The whole thing originated on April 13, 2001 in the Usenet newsgroup, when poster “Deckard” wrote:

Baseball is losing fans because of players like Sheffield, Belle, and Thomas. And not because of their hitting…

They can no longer relate to assholes who bitch about their $10,000,000 paychecks.

To which r.s.b regular Tom Nawrocki replied:

When did Albert Belle ever complain about how much he was getting paid? Talk about a lightning rod for fans’ complaints.

If somebody like Chris Truby was accused of satanic dismemberment, it would take about a week before people started saying, “I’m so sick of all these ballplayers like Chris Truby and Albert Belle with all their satanic rituals and the dismemberment and everything.”

Nawrocki later maintained he didn’t mean to single out Truby as an example, but rather that he wanted to illustrate his point about Belle by using a generic ballplayer to pair with him. But by then it was too late.

The details of Truby’s background (starred at Damien HS in Honolulu), and the progression of “cursed” teams he has joined since Nawrocki’s post — 2002 Expos, 2002 Tigers, 2003 Devil Rays, 2004 Pirates, 2005 Royals, 2006 Pirates, 2007 Pirates — superficially suggest satanic influence, or at least a propensity to descend into successively lower circles of hell. However, there is no evidence to indicate Truby is anything but a generic journeyman ballplayer.

(Almost no evidence, that is. “Chris Truby” is of course an anagram for “Bury Christ.”)

The Damien High is no doubt a reference to Blessed Damien of Molokai, a Catholic priest who ministered to the residents of a leper colony, ultimately contracting and dying of the disease himself.