December, 2006 and January, 2007 have already presented two instances where, on separate occasions, persons said some things and openly expressed opinions which met with the disapproval of others in authority over them.

1. In one instance, a college basketball coach, openly complained about his team having to play 4 "conference" games in just 7 days. Because the team was invited to play in the NCAA playoffs, last year, his remarks were publicized in the local newspaper. On the front pages of both the "News" and "Sports" sections. Conference officials cited him with violating one or more of the rules of the conference contract, to which he agreed and signed, prior to his employment.

The coach was brought in "on the carpet" to explain, beg forgiveness, promise to never express his thoughts so freely, in public, again and to "atone". His punishment: Sit out one game (which the team lost) and remain silent when, in his exercise of his right to "free speech", he might actually put his own thoughts into words.

2. In the other instance, an 8th grade middle school student, wore a T-shirt to school and distributed pamphlets to express his opposition to the legalized practice of infant abortion. This was, also, to remind everyone that abortion has been legal in the U.S., since January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of "Roe v Wade", "struck down" all state and federal laws seeking to either prohibit or restrict the practice. Interestingly, the U.S. Constitution does not specify the "Right To An Abortion" among any of it's many rights which it confers upon all Americans. Somehow, the "Right To Privacy" was cited as part of the court's reasoning.

The student was ordered to remove the shirt and, then, was sent home when he refused to do so. After a brief legal skirmish, the school "backed down" and, thereby, agreed to restore the student's right to exercise his freedom of speech. So you see...If you are going to be at all confrontational, in public, it will help if you are "all lawyered up", in advance.

What is also interesting:

Today, Sunday, January 21, 2007, the day before the 34th anniversary of Roe v Wade, a group of "suburbanite" adults gathered at a public intersection to protest the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq as part of the ongoing War-On-Terror. One of the demonstrators held up a sign with the number 4,089 printed on it. This was to signify the number of American servicemen and servicewomen who had lost their live as the result of the hostilities since the U.S. invaded Iraq. A more accurate number would be 3,089. Of course, the number of Iraqi lives lost number in the 10's of thousands. A worthy protest for the right reasons.

On Saturday, January 20, 2007, former 1st Lady and U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced her candidacy for the Office of U.S. President. The election to be held in November, 2008. Her soundbite: "I'm in. And I'm in to win." Words which could have fallen from the mouth of her husband, on multiple occasions, in the past.

These events have captured most of the media's attention. Leaving little time to cover the 33rd annual protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building, by pro-/right-to-life groups, to commemorate the 34th anniversay of Roe v Wade.

U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is in favor of the continued and unretricted availability of and access to legalized abortions. Though she likes to equivicate when discussing the issue. She has, now and finally, decided to openly oppose further U.S. military involvement in Iraq. In fact, she has called for the full withdrawal of these troops at once. Though the current U.S. President, George W. Bush (# 43) will remain in office another 24 months and, seemingly, has no intention of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Ironically, President Bush recognizes the Right-To-Life, for human beings, and seeks to restrict the practice of legalized abortion.

Discussion:

In the U.S., on a average daily basis, roughly 3,425 legal abortions are performed. This number, also, represents a daily loss of American life. Approximately, 1,250,000 a year. This number has been as high as 1,500,00 a year.

In 1973, the U.S. CDC (Centers For Disease Control) reported, 250,000 illegal abortions took place in 1972. The number of legal abortions reported for 1973 were, approximately, the same number.

The total American death toll, in Iraq, for the past 3 years is still less than the daily death toll of Americans who lose their lives to legal abortion.

The number of Americans and others, who lost their lives as the result or the terrorist attack on New York City's World Trade Center, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, is still a lower number than the daily death toll attributable to the practice of legal abortion in the U.S.

For those of my generation, for whom the Vietnam War loomed large, the loss of American life in Vietnam, during a war which lasted, nearly, 12 years is still less than the loss of American life due to legalized abortion during any consecutive 21 day period. And this deals only with the loss of life of the aborted infants and does not deal with what the wretched aftermath has been for many of their mothers.

My point: If the anti-Iraq War protests would also focus themselve on the practice of legal abortion, many more American lives could be saved, as a result. All human death, consciously caused by other human beings, is wrong. When applying a sense of proportion, however, which is the more destructive of human lives and life? War or abortion?

Believe it or not! My submission on the related topics of: Freedom Of Speech vs Freedom Of Thought is related all of the aforementioned. But you can decide. View table of contents...

Submitted: Jan 22, 2007    Reads: 449    Comments: 3    Likes: 1   

The experience of SUNY-Albany basketball coach Will Brown offers us all a perspective on someone to exercise their right of "free-speech" as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

In the exercise of one's right to "free speech", negative consequences may ensue for the speaker who dares to exercise that "right".

Coach Will Brown has a much stronger right to "free thought".  It just doesn't enjoy any constitutional protections.

What, exactly, does this mean?

While the U.S. Constitution offers every American "freedom of speech", it does not extend any protections to "freedom of thought".  Strictly interpreted, this means: "United States citizens are free to say whatever they please so long as they keep their thoughts to themselves.".  To do otherwise may be seen as an abuse of this important "freedom" as it is articulated in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

This is, also, the message of the "Albany, N.Y. Thought-Cops", an affiliate of the national "civil rights" organization better known as the "Jack Acid Society" (ala POGO, the now defunct comic strip of political satire, written by famed newspaper cartoonist, the late Walt Kelly.)

Is it so bad to have to "sit out" just one game?

Coach Will Brown needs to realize:  Corporate, managerial and political incompetence exists everywhere in American society today.  He and the SUNY-Albany Basketball program are just one of the more recent victims of it.  Once someone should invoke the "Peter Principle" and rise to their "level of incompetence", the sky's the limit when it comes to future promotions and the ability to display ever increasing ineptness in the destructively wrongful exercise of authority over the rest of us.  Serving to explain why the SUNY-Albany Basketball team was scheduled to play 4 games in 7 days, with little chance for rest.

Some may lay the blame on corruption, nepotism, cronyism, stupidity, greed and/or sadism.  Or some combination of 2 or more of these things.  And they would be correct in so thinking.  But, again, we must all remind ourselves:  The U.S. Constitution does not protect "freedom of thought".

Serving to explain why the U.S. can no longer; win a war, secure its borders, effectively respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats, ensure the solvency of it's worker's Social Security System, protect its manufacturing base or provide its work force with a livable minimum wage.  Republican and Democrats share equally in the blame.  They just take turns in making things worsen and in different ways.

 

Copyright (C) 2007 Edward J. Bradley

Albany, New York

 

1

Email this story | Print Story | Add to reading list

Comments:

TemplarBard

Very gritty writing here, good none the less, though within the summary, I seemed to figure a direct attack upon abortion, or anyone for abortions, is this too a act of solace?

If I were to say that abortions should be kept legal, because those who were against it wouldn't have an abortion anyway, does this also, let you live in the way you believe to be correct and proper? A tenet of humanity?

TEMPLAR-BARD

Posted: Jan 22, 2007

Author Comment:

TemplarBard:

My intention is try and show the reader a factually accurate picture of certain historical phenomenon and to compare and contrast them. Most importantly, with regard to their, respective, impacts on society, which is to say human life and humankind.

War, by it's very definition, is a divisive topic. Abortion is no less so. Similar, in that, both cause the death and suffering of many who could be called the "innocent bystanders" who have done nothing to bring their afflictions upon themselves. No less important is the loss of life to those who are the adult and conscientious combatants. As life is, most importantly, about life. Like the earth and our environment, we live with and are part of human life. We are it's stewards. Charged, by our Creator, with it's protection, well-being and survival.

My intention is to not argue in favor of either as both cause death and suffering. To argue against either of them would, most probably, be a waste of time as many people have, long since, formed a hard and fast opinion about which they will not want or feel the need to think or argue. Unless they can be persuaded to rethink their opinions, based on information, never before presented to and/or considered by them.

With respect to my writing, foreknowledge of my personal value system, may cause the reader to form their opinion based on that alone and not on the content or reasoning put forth in the writing. So, therefore, I shall not openly share all of my opinions and values with you at this time. At some point, in the next few weeks, my opinion will be more clearly presented in a subsequent posting.

I am willing to say this much: If the number of abortions performed, in the U.S., had not risen significantly since 1973, my concern would not be nearly so great. In fact, under these circumstances and irrespective of my personal moral and ethical opinion, this would be a non-issue for me. At least, I think so. Inasmuch as there would not have been a significant increase in the loss of human life. In terms of the raw numbers or their proportionality, in contrast to the number of actual births

If you were to compare this with the fact that the number of pregnancies (even among the post WW2 baby boomers (born 1946-66)) had also declined there is a newly formed and disturbing ratio to consider. Today between 30% and 33% or more of all pregnancies end in abortion. Evaluation of the numbers alone, when rationally considered, would have to compel someone to rethink the practice and it's impact. Both now and in the future. For good? or For bad?

This is all I am willing to say right now.

Absurdity, by the way, is one of the sub-themes to this posting and needs to be on the list of "tags" for it.

In the west, thanks to TV and films, we are now "conditioned" to view and react to displays of absurdity as though they must be satirical, humorous and/or funny. For something to make us smile or laugh, absurdity is usually the mechanism evoking such a response. The result: We have lost the, once valuable, insight that absurdity can depict situations, real or fictional, which are tragic and cannot, rationally, be considered the basis for mirth or light entertainment.

Happier trails,

Ed Bradley.

glenda vautrin

great writing you really nailed the government.
and we are the ones who keep electing these people.
of course we don't have much choice.

Posted: Jan 22, 2007

Author Comment:

glenda:

Thank you for you supportive response and remarks.

More to follow.

You may, also, want to read my response to TemplarBard.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Vapour

Interesting perspective. Enjoyed the read thanks.

Posted: May 17, 2007

Author Comment:

Vapour:

Thank you for the compliment. Glad you liked it.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Add Your Comments:

Your Name:

Spam protection control::

Verification code:

© Copyright 2008 EdwardJBradleySr All rights reserved. EdwardJBradleySr has granted theNextBigWriter, LLC non-exclusive rights to display this work on Booksie.com.