Wanted: A New National Anthem

The New National Anthem Committee is accepting applications. The current anthem has several flaws that must be addressed.

First, it is very difficult to sing. Second, the only verse that is usually sung is far too long. This becomes obvious by the fact the fans at sporting events get bored and restless, unable to maintain an attitude of respect and reverence toward the flag and country all the way to the end, whooping and hollering well before the last note has sounded. Starting criteria will be: easier to sing and shorter.

The current anthem is also objectionable for other reasons. One passage in the third verse, a verse most Americans didn’t even know existed until a controversy arose a few years ago, is by one interpretation objectionable and does not reflect twenty-first century values. (Note that this interpretation did not reflect twentieth century values when the anthem was adopted either, but general ignorance of its existence rendered the issue moot for over 80 years.)

The lyrics are about a war, sometimes called the second war for American independence. But the subject of war, any war, can be offensive to some.

Furthermore, the author, also a lawyer, had a mixed background. Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, but freed some of his slaves in the 1830s, paying one ex-slave as his farm foreman. He publicly criticized slavery and gave free legal representation to some slaves seeking freedom, but he also represented owners of runaway slaves.

When submitting a possible replacement anthem, this is important to remember. It is no longer acceptable to have wrong values and reform or to make a mistake and apologize. Every accusation of wrongdoing is tantamount to guilt in the court of public opinion with no statute of limitations. Mistakes or misstatements 30, 50 or 200 years ago have the same force as if they had happened yesterday. There is no forgiveness, so the work of any author submitted will be judged first by the purity of the author’s actions and reputation.

Finally and needless to say, the inclusion of the word “God” will lead to objections and immediate disqualification. Also, the use of words like “Free” and “Brave” are discouraged, as they are anathema to a society nearly devoid of responsibility, where the first instinct is to “sue the bastards,” or at least find someone else to blame for the slightest problem. Offense, supposed injury and victimhood get attention and sympathy; whereas personal responsibility, which used to be considered heroic based on previous American values and culture, is discouraged. Free and brave don't reflect the ethos of the time.

In short, avoid trying to be aspirational lest it be branded as being unrealistic and unrepresentative.

Send submissions to the New National Anthem Committee. Include email address and street address, the latter in case the Committee finds anything in the submission offensive or  objectionable in any way so that next time we are in your neighborhood we can vandalize your property and call it exercising our free-speech rights to protest.

Searching for (More) Ways to be Offended

On the day before last Halloween I wrote about how careful everyone must be in the choice of theme or costume so as not to offend.  Some schools and universities were cancelling events or changing them to exclude costumes to accommodate the hypersensitive.  It has come to the point where people are searching for ways to be offended, and everyone else must be constantly vigilant.  If they don’t already have some kind of celebrity or platform, they can always turn to social media to air their complaints and blast the offending party.  I noticed further examples in the following weeks.

The third stanza of the national anthem is offensive.  “California's NAACP is pushing for state lawmakers to support a campaign to remove ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ as the country's national anthem.”  According to the state NAACP president, it’s racist, and kneeling or sitting is an appropriate protest.  But it happened the other way around.  The real news was that the protests actually “led her to look at the lyrics of the anthem - finding a little-noticed third stanza.”  No one cited that as a reason until this woman dug deep to search out offensive matter with a reference to slaves and hirelings.

Was it the intention of the poet to demean or degrade anyone?  I looked it up.  “It doesn’t appear that Francis Scott Key ever specified what he did mean by the phrase [about slaves and hirelings], nor does its context point to a single, definitive interpretation.”  It’s offensive only if you take the initiative to look it up and decide to interpret that way.

On the other hand, some choose to be offended by those who kneel during the playing of the anthem.

Then there is the Washington Post headline from May 2016: “Some in the news media are still offended by Redskins name, even if Indians aren’t.”  They continue to take it personally despite findings from a “Washington Post poll indicating that the vast majority of American Indians aren’t offended by it.”  This probably applies to many non-Native Americans not in the media as well.  It’s really cool to be offended on behalf of someone else even if they are willing to let it drop.  It is the sign of a truly caring person – moral superiority rules!

From there we turn to Chicago where instead of the news media being offended, the shoe is on the other foot.  “Now in her eighth month of pregnancy, Kristen Nicole, co-anchor of Good Day Chicago on FOX32, says that three women sent her emails complaining that the sight of her baby bump was ‘offensive.’”  Wow, don’t be pregnant on TV, you might offend someone.  Apparently fat-shaming is forbidden, but pregnancy-shaming is fair game!

Finally we turn to news out of Boston where a mother is “furious” that a New Hampshire mall Santa refused to accommodate her daughter because he was allergic to her service dog.  She went home and took to Facebook complaining that her daughter’s visit with Santa was ruined, saying of the experience, “It was horrible” and “It was awful.”  Local news picked it up, because a story like this brings tears to the eyes of viewers.

When the mother finds out that it was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act that states “allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals,” she’ll probably sue Santa and the mall for “damages.”  (Her daughter might sue her later when she finds out the truth about Santa.)

Has the perspective of Americans, their ability to differentiate between the trivial and substantial, gone bonkers?