Star spangled banner still waving?
As a I was singing The Star Spangled Banner in the car the other day, as I am wont to do, I was halted by a new thought concerning the last two lines of that famous song. For those of you who need to review, the last lines are:
Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave
Usually, in my mind's eye, I imagine whether the flag is still waving. Wait for it .... Could it be that the real question is not whether it is waving but is it waving over the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we, as Americans, still the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Compared to when the song was written, have individual freedoms for Americans changed? In my opinion, I say yes. Take as examples drinking, smoking and drugs. In 1814, there were no laws saying that I had to be 18 before I could legally drink or smoke. Were there laws indicating that certain substances, let us call them "drugs", were considered more "dangerous" and hence illegal? That I don't know but I doubt it. By my definition of freedom (not stated), the government should not have the ability to tell me what substances I can or cannot eat, smoke, drink or, in any other way, consume. Why should my neighbour (read government) care if I smoke or drink? In what way is my smoking or drinking harming him? When my actions (whether influenced by smoke or drink not) do impact him then the government must intervene otherwise the government leave me the h*** alone.
Is there a way to quantify freedom? The scale probably ranges from complete anarchy to one large prison. I would probably start by listing ALL of the interactions that an individual has. How to categorize it? Perhaps by human action? I can speak, move, see and hear. Is there a common denominator in all human existence by which we can define the limits of speech? I would say that "moving" is the most important one. By movement, I mean not only where can I walk and run and so on but movement also implies interaction with another person, hugging or kicking. I'm going to be expending a serious amount of mental cycles examining this model.
Should the law be a perfect model for human society? A model that defines the protocol of living with other humans? I could see that it could define how to interact with people of different cultures and religions. It could describe how to interact with people with different physical characteristics.
Back to the main subject, I would define bravery as doing the right (or best) thing in light of difficult circumstances. As for bravery, I propose that the proportion, or percentage if you want to get technical, of all individual Americans that are brave enough to lay down their lives for others is the same as it was then.
Let me know what you think about the law as the model for human society.
Burning the candle at both ends!
Worthless
Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave
Usually, in my mind's eye, I imagine whether the flag is still waving. Wait for it .... Could it be that the real question is not whether it is waving but is it waving over the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we, as Americans, still the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Compared to when the song was written, have individual freedoms for Americans changed? In my opinion, I say yes. Take as examples drinking, smoking and drugs. In 1814, there were no laws saying that I had to be 18 before I could legally drink or smoke. Were there laws indicating that certain substances, let us call them "drugs", were considered more "dangerous" and hence illegal? That I don't know but I doubt it. By my definition of freedom (not stated), the government should not have the ability to tell me what substances I can or cannot eat, smoke, drink or, in any other way, consume. Why should my neighbour (read government) care if I smoke or drink? In what way is my smoking or drinking harming him? When my actions (whether influenced by smoke or drink not) do impact him then the government must intervene otherwise the government leave me the h*** alone.
Is there a way to quantify freedom? The scale probably ranges from complete anarchy to one large prison. I would probably start by listing ALL of the interactions that an individual has. How to categorize it? Perhaps by human action? I can speak, move, see and hear. Is there a common denominator in all human existence by which we can define the limits of speech? I would say that "moving" is the most important one. By movement, I mean not only where can I walk and run and so on but movement also implies interaction with another person, hugging or kicking. I'm going to be expending a serious amount of mental cycles examining this model.
Should the law be a perfect model for human society? A model that defines the protocol of living with other humans? I could see that it could define how to interact with people of different cultures and religions. It could describe how to interact with people with different physical characteristics.
Back to the main subject, I would define bravery as doing the right (or best) thing in light of difficult circumstances. As for bravery, I propose that the proportion, or percentage if you want to get technical, of all individual Americans that are brave enough to lay down their lives for others is the same as it was then.
Let me know what you think about the law as the model for human society.
Burning the candle at both ends!
Worthless
posted by jprg4evr at 12:50
1 comments
