Why You Should Be Patriotic

As an American, yesterday the 4th of July was a big day for me. Independence Day is a time of family, parades, cookouts, fireworks, and just general celebration. We celebrate our country, and we pride ourselves in its values of liberty and freedom. And that's great. But this post does not intend to celebrate the United States per se.

Rather, I want to briefly muse on the subject of patriotism. Sadly, this concept seems to have fallen off in recent years and been dismissed as naive. In modern times, patriotism seems to be associated with nationalism, with an obsession over the supposed superiority of one's country and an ignorant dismissal of other nations. In a global world, this attitude helps no one, and causes more harm than good. I agree with that. But nationalism is not patriotism.

The Merriam-Webster English dictionary defines nationalism as "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups." On the other hand, the definition of patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country." Much more simple; much more desirable.

However, this will go beyond defining terms. I want to make a case for why YOU, wherever you are from, should be patriotic. I have shown that being patriotic does not mean you are nationalistic; you do not need to think "my country art better than thine," nor do you need to advocate turning other countries into your own. To be a patriot, all one needs is a love of country. Perhaps you do not agree with everything your government protects, or maybe you are ashamed of the attitudes your fellow citizens exude. Maybe you simply think your country is not that great. Should this keep you from patriotism? My answer is no.

Consider your family. Most of you who read this probably have a family that you love. We all have to admit that our families are not perfect; you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually believes their family is objectively better than all other families on this planet. Yet we love them anyway. Why? Because they are our family. We were born into them; we were raised by them; and for those reasons alone, we owe them our loyalty. Simply put, devotion to family is our duty. There are always exceptions, yes, but those situations are not what I am talking about. 

Like we were with our families, we were also born into a country not of our choice, and this country had some part in forming us, making us who we are. We are all products of it, just as we are a product of our parents and our siblings, and the rest of our relatives. For this reason, we must admit that our country is more than simply a government that protects our rights. Our country is part of us. In this same manner, our countrymen are a part of us. We Americans are all in this together, and I would dare say that Canadians are in it together, as are Kenyans, Iranians, and Russians. So, even if you do not agree with everything your country does, loyalty to it is indeed your duty. Like with your family, there are exceptions, but I truly feel these only occur when the government of your country prevents you from doing your own duty to God and to your family. But that's a talk for another day.

As an American, I am lucky. My country treats me well, and for this reason, loving it is not difficult. I do not doubt that citizens of North Korea might have a hard time agreeing with me, for it seems that their government is not so kind. I do not know what that is like, so I can only wish I could sympathize. But love of country does not have to equal love of government, and so despite the misgivings of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, I am confident that there are those who live in North Korea who do love their country. I recall speaking with a young woman from China who was in the US on an exchange program. She told me something interesting, something that showed me that love of country does not need to be based on objective quality. Out of all the conversations I had with this student, about half ended up discussing the government of China, which she felt was in many ways oppressive and harmful to its people. But this did not affect her loyalty to her country. "I don't like our government," she said, "but of course I love China!” She explained that despite its current plight, it is where she was born. China is still her country; its citizens, her countrymen, and for that reason alone, she owed China her allegiance.

I am an American. I love my country, and wherever you are, I hope you love yours.

Cliches: The H-Word

In the discussion of ideas, there exist certain rhetorical "trump-cards," that is, certain concepts that are unquestionable in their meaning and importance, and that usually halt the discussion, make the person against whom they are deployed unable to proceed. It seems that in the modern day, these are rarely used fairly. In this short post, I would like to discuss the much-dreaded and all-poweful word "hate."

Hate is bad, and if you are hatemonger you might as well never open your mouth again. I'm not trying to be sarcastic in saying that; I really do think hate is something that no person should allow themselves to fall into. That said I am convinced that the word is overused to the rhetor's detriment in the modern age, and since we are so terrified of being called haters the idea is used to unfairly shut down reasonable arguments. In looking at criticisms of the politically and morally conservative, it is difficult to avoid the "hate" mantra. "Republicans hate poor people," "Conservatives hate immigrants," and so on. And what about Christians? How often do you hear "Christians hate gay people," or "Christians hate women"? For me, I find that these types of statements are far too common, and this can most prominently be seen in the gay marriage controversy.

I am not going to extensively defend the Church's position on marriage or on sexuality in this post; I am not yet qualified for that endeavor. Rather, I simply want to point out a rhetorical problem with the opposition. Many of those who attack Christianity's belief on marriage make it out to be a hate-mongering and seering dogma which specifically seeks to exclude homosexuals. But this is not the case. No Christian should hate a homosexual, just as he should not hate any other person. Do some Christians hate others? Certainly, but they are themselves in sin by doing so. Painfully, the cliché of "hate the sin not the sinner" is extremely applicable, though perhaps "hate" should be replaced with "disapprove of." A Christian who follows the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's  2000-year old understanding of the Sacred Scripture should consider homosexual acts to be sinful and worthy of rebuke, but this does not entitle anyone to hate. Many Christians tolerate those who partake of other sexual sins such as fornication to the point of implying that they accept the behavior through their silence on it. This passive tolerance of sin is wrong as well, but the principle that they do not hate the individual but disapprove of their actions is the correct way to think of it.

All that to say that being opposed to conduct does not equal hate, and neither does all opposition to gay marriage. If a person's reasons for being opposed are something like "homosexuals don't deserve marriage," then indeed, that is suggestive of hate. But this is not the Church's position. Rather, the Church seeks that the Sacred definition of this ancient human institution be preserved so that it may serve its Divine (and also quite practical) Life-Bearing purpose. This is not hateful, because the opposition is not centered around the individual homosexual or even his sin, but rather on a greater purpose for marriage; for Holy Matrimony.

A shorter, non-religious example: "Republicans oppose government welfare programs; therefore, Republicans hate poor people." The argument of course creates a false dichotomy: one must either support the government paying to support the poor, and therefore love them; or, one must oppose any and all care for the poor and allow them to starve, and therefore hate them. This completely ignores the concept of private charity, and the possibility that some people might in fact care deeply for the poor, but oppose the government caring for them because they believe that dependency on the government is a harmful state of being, and that charity should never be forced by law.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read - what the internet calls a summary): Being opposed to an idea doesn't mean you hate the people associate with it, especially when the opposition is grounded in a higher purpose.

Thanks to my lovely girlfriend for proof-reading and editing.

My Modest Defense to /r/atheism

Sometimes browsing the internet can make you angry. In reading that statement, more than a few of you have certainly thought of the user-submitted content site Reddit. On Reddit, one of the many topics that tends to make it far up the karma list and onto the front page daily is that of atheism. But this aint your friendly neighborhood atheism. The stereotype of the posts in /r/atheism tends to be that of self-congratulation, intolerance, and militancy. And honestly, from what I have seen, almost everything that makes it to the first ten or so pages is just that. In addition to the stereotype, I have also noticed a trend of general ignorance about religion. The criticism I see is rarely insightful, oftentimes based on stereotypes and misconceptions. Of course, I acknowledge that many atheists on Reddit are reasonable and do not share in this intolerance and ignorance. But, the fact that the most prominent posts, and therefore the posts most approved of by the community, are those that meet the stereotype causes one to think.  

/r/atheism does not seem to spread its criticism evenly. Out of all the atheistic posts that reach the first few pages, one will notice that nearly every one of them targets Christianity. Perhaps this is because most Redditors live in the United States and in Europe, where the Christian faith is most prominent. Or perhaps it is because Western culture and civilization has been rooted in Christianity for the past 1500 years or so. Whatever the case, those who make the Sign of the Cross don't seem to be much approved of by the mainstream atheist redditor crowd. The fact that anti-Christian posts tend to make it to the front page testifies to this.

As I mentioned before, I notice a general trend of misunderstanding in the most popular anti-Christian posts. And, as a partial student of theology, I would like to use this blog to offer my response to these threads; to both correct the misconception and to muse on the worldview that it stems from.

And to start, we have the following post:

The picture presents us with two ways of living: the idealistic and the realistic. The idealistic and naive theists only pray for those who are hurting and in need of help, while the realistic and sensible atheist will actually give you the help you need. The creator of this image likely does not really think that theists pray instead of calling a doctor to help sick people, but rather, he or she probably feels that by getting a physician to aid those in need, the theists are negating prayer and being hypocritical by implying that their god cannot save the injured person. The underlying belief here seems to be that the spiritual and physical realms, and conversely religion and science, are so seperate, that they can never be together.

But of course this is not the case. Christians believe that God works through people, and this includes those who save lives. We pray for God's Blessing and Salvation, but we also know that we have a human duty to help our fellow man, and that God honors those who perform their duty, whatever it is. The Christian lawyer does not serve God by only prayer during a trial, for this in doing this he would be neglecting the talents God gave him. Rather, he serves God by fulfilling his duty to represent his client's interest the very best he can, and he prays for wisdom while doing so, not rather than doing so. No tradition of the Church nor passage of Sacred Scripture gives us license to neglect our earthly physical duties in the expectation that God will provide anyway. This is not to limit God; He can and does provide not only to those who accept their calling but also to those who have fallen away. Still, God has given each of us a role, and we are expected to obediently fulfill it.

Furthermore, a Christian knows that God has imprinted His Law on our hearts, and that we show our faith through our works. Therefore, serving people should be what we primarily strive for, only second to serving God. And given this, I can respond to the above picture with the Christian version, which is not so catchy, but I think it gets the point across to Christians and the rest:

"Christians will pray for you...but they will not delay in calling you a doctor as well, for their duty is to Human life."


Let's Define Terms

Since this blog is now about culture, I figure it would be a good idea to define it. What is culture? First, the obligatory dictionary definition: "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively" (Oxford English Dictionary)

In other words, everything human knowledge has produced.

Valid definition, but for the purposes of my blog, I would like to go further in describing culture. I had a teacher in high school who gave a definition which seemed curious to me at the time, but to my present self now seems quite apparent.

I choose to describe culture as "how the religion of a society manifests itself in the lives and works of its people."

I already hear an objection. "Not everyone has a religion," you might say, and you'd be right by the traditional idea of religion. Not every person believes in a deity nor does every person believe in the spiritual realm. But everyone does have a worldview, a framework for understanding existance. Two examples of this are Christianity, which is traditionally called a religion, and humanism, which is typically thought of more as a philosophy. But both have the same effects on a person's life, and demand some kind of behavior based on the ideas of the belief. Because of this, and for the purposes of The New Pinstripes, I choose to equate worldview to religion.

Another objection: societies are so varied that no individual "religion" can be pinpointed, and therefore my description of culture is unrealistic. I disagree. It is true that many people believe many different things. But we find that at any given time, one belief will be prevalent. This prevailing belief tends to create what we generally call "American culture" (or fill in the blank with your own nationality.) And of course, there is not one single culture. We live among a multitude of sub-cultures, and many of these appear very different from the prevailing culture. In my desription, I refer to all of these. Culture can be as narrow or broad as necessary.

It is through this description of culture that I will comment on what I see. We can see the character of a society through what it produces, and society's character determines its future.

The Shift

Things have changed. If you've seen this page before, you will notice that it looks different. But more importantly, and outside the context of this blog, things have changed. In my limited perspective I look at the culture of the past and compare it to the culture of today, and I see that change is in the air.

Well, duh, right? Things always change. That's how culture evolves, becomes better, gains new things and casts off old ideas. This is all true. But change is not universally good or bad. Some change is for the better, some to our detriment.

I see our culture changing, and it seems to be in my nature to have an opinion on it. My thoughts are probably under-informed and hindered by inexperience most of the time. But they are mine, and I would like the opportunity to share them.

Therefore I am changing the purpose of this blog; shifting it to become more broad. I now intend to muse on our culture; what I see it producing, and my theories on how we produced it. I hope you like it. If not, well, the comment section is fully available for your use, as is the "back" button. Maybe this time around I will keep this blog updated. Or maybe this post will be at the top of the page for months. I hope for the former.

Until then,

Matt

Undemocratic America

On “Democracy”
How many of us during junior high government class innocently referred to the government of the United States as a “democracy”, only to be instantly corrected – informed that the United States is in fact a “Democratic Republic?” I do not doubt that a vast majority of us experienced this or a situation similar at some point in our lives, thinking that we live in a democracy. To us, democracy in general is a good thing – the people get to rule, but the impracticalities of a pure democracy make our system more appealing by allowing us to delegate our decisions to a representative all while choosing our own executive and leader. But what if I were to tell you that this notion that democracy is an important American value is in fact a myth? The United States is not a democracy, nor is it a “Democratic Republic.” And in light of history, it certainly should not be either of these. 


 Let us first consider the notion of democracy, be it direct or representative – this distinction is not important to our investigation. The philosophy behind democracy must that either 1) the people have a natural right to rule themselves, or 2) that the best leadership will come from a majority decision of the people, so natural rights are irrelevant. Inherent in both of these philosophies is the assumption that the people, the majority, are suited to rule themselves. In an atypical strategy, we should first consider this assumption using our own experience and common sense. Imagine, if you will, a classroom of seventh-grade students. Charging headfirst into adolescence, these young men and women surely have many ideas and opinions about life. Indeed, if enough discussion is held amongst them, a majority consensus can almost certainly be reached on nearly every issue. But on issues of their own wellbeing, would even a majority of these consensuses be considered “good decisions?” Would long-term benefit be found by even some of the decisions made by these seventh graders? In nearly every case, the answer would be a resounding “no.” Experience and common sense tells us that children may be able to agree on ideas, but they are usually unable to make good decisions for themselves. This is often because the right decisions are unpopular and may have little immediate payoff. Two-hour long recesses seem much more preferable to more time spent learning about the commutative property of equality. The children’s inability to make good decisions at this level is simply the result of their natural level of maturity.


Or, for another brief comparison: how many corporations would rise to a successful status if they managed themselves by majority vote of all the employees? How many effective CEOs would this produce? Or how many of the employee-elected executives would be nothing more than charismatic celebrities? What about company policy – would democratically-created policy benefit the company as a whole or would it provide large sums of benefit to the immediate employees for perhaps a year or two and then leave the corporation crippled after the money has run out? 


Now consider the general populace in the question of government. Is the average citizen educated in laws or enforcement of policy? Is the average citizen able to make a responsible decision about who is really the better choice to lead the government? Even when candidates fully disclose their beliefs on issues, what is to say that the people even know what is essential in these matters? Indeed government does affect everyone…but so does corporate policy affect all employees of any particular corporation. Simply because we are all affected by the state does not mean that we are all qualified to make decisions for it. 


The “mobocracy” is a commonly-cited reason for the avoidance of democratic philosophy. If the majority opinion is what governs, again be it directly determined or delegated to representatives, then the majority will always be able to rule over the minority. In a theoretical democracy, this can even include the scenario in which the 51% vote to take away the rights of the 49%. Now, proponents of democracy will tell us that this is why we have a bill of rights, and that the bill of rights is what protects the 49% from the 51%. This is true, but even the bill of rights cannot stand up to a true democracy, because all the 51% needs to do is vote to repeal the bill of rights, and their only obstacle has been eliminated. This is not possible in the United States. More on that later. The point is, when “the people rule”, no minority is safe. Period.


Were the framers, the founding fathers who created and adopted the United States constitution and therefore the federal government and the model for the State governments to follow, themselves democrats? In short, no. The founders have been attributed to have made many statements against the philosophy. Benjamin Franklin was noted for saying “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" and Thomas Jefferson stated the argument made in the previous paragraph: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” John Adams provided this warning: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”


The Federalist Papers, the principles of which were agreed upon by many of the framers, tells us of the arguments these men used against democracy when crafting the United States Constitutions. James Madison, writing under the pen name “Publius” (which I myself have adopted in several arenas, one of which may or may not be the role-playing video game Skyrim), railed against democracy for its instability and inability to prevent inevitable factions, saying “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Of course, what he refers to is the failed political experiment that was democratic Athens in the ancient times. The founders feared a repeat of the Greek disaster, and sought to keep democracy out of the United States. 


But you say “Aren’t democratic ideals in the constitution?” Once again, the answer is no - sort of. You will find three votes guaranteed to all the people in the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights: a vote for one’s Representative in Congress (Art. 1 Sec. 2), a vote on a grand jury (Ammend. 5), and a vote on a trial jury (Ammend.s 6&7.) In these cases, it is clear that the understanding was that the people would be the ones making the decisions not because they had a right to, but because in these specific circumstances, the people were the best choice. In selecting representatives, it is only logical that those whom the official is representing choose him, and juries by definition are supposed to consist of ordinary citizens. But the words “democracy,” “democratic,” or any other derivative do not appear anywhere in the constitution. The word “republican” appears once, and it does not refer to the political party. 


The Federalist Papers make it clear that the United States is a republic, and the constitution requires that all states are republics as well. A republic is a government which exists solely to protect the pre-existing rights of its citizens. Though citizens may vote on certain matters, the will of the people is not what governs. What governs is the law. We should always remember that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of wills. Because freedom that can be taken away by a simple majority vote is not freedom at all. 

Update

Hello readers! So sorry for the delay in posting. This blog has only existed for about a month, but I'm already suffering some writer's block. I will do my best to update this page as much as possible.

Stands to Reason...

If you have ever watched any television from the fifties or sixties, chances are you have seen a classroom setting depicted. One noticeable feature of these scenes are what children are depicted to do when addressing the teacher. As shown in the television program, when called upon, the particular student stands and addresses the teacher, speaking directly to him or her and always making sure to say "sir" or "ma'am". The part I would like to focus on is the first element - standing to address.

As we have discussed previously, the easiest way to show another person you care and that you respect them is by inconveniencing yourself to make them comfortable. Standing to speak to someone shows that you are willing to put out the effort to rise from your comfortable seated position to address them. This tradition of standing to address someone is timeless, and has many roots in the military, where subordinates are expected to stand at attention while addressing a superior officer. In many of the southern states, attorneys are expected to stand to address the judge while in court. Rising from your chair to address others, especially those senior to you in age or status, is an excellent way to show them that you respect them. Plus, doing this will allow you to get some circulation back into your numbed legs during class! 

Of course, standing to address may not be appropriate in all circumstances, but if the only reason you think you should not stand is because you are comfortable sitting, you are likely in situation in which it would be appropriate. And once again, the person you are speaking to may not expect you to stand; surprise them. Make their day a little better by standing up to recognize them. 

Update - Post Schedule

Alas, it has been over two weeks since my last post. I clearly have failed to deliver on my promise to post something every Tuesday. My apologies to my readers. I will post a new article tomorrow, and you can expect one once a week after that. Just an update - thanks for reading.

Matching Socks

A first date at McDonalds.  For most of us, that idea sounds a bit odd. I myself enjoy the occasional Quarter-Pounder, but would I ever take a young woman to enjoy the fine cuisine of the dollar menu in effort to have a romantic evening? Most likely not; at least, not outside of some unusual circumstances. Staying on the subject of dining, can you imagine a high-priced civil lawyer taking a prospective client on a business lunch by inviting him to the employee break room for some microwave-heated pizza? Unless the client has expressed a desire for a nuked slice of meat-lover's, this certainly would not happen. Or, shifting the example to one closer to today’s topic, can you imagine going to be interviewed for an internship wearing basketball shorts and a wife-beater, and with hair suggesting that you somehow never moved your head from your pillow after getting out of bed? If you actually wanted to be hired, your appearance would never come even close to this. You would at least wear a sleeved undershirt. Jokes aside, the principle remains the same: showing someone that you are willing to be slightly uncomfortable in order to demonstrate that you take them seriously is a habit that will always help you in life as a lady and as a gentleman.

You and your date may find McDonalds to be very easy and very convenient, and the lawyer may really like microwaved pizza and knows that his client doesn’t mind spending lunch in a break room. But that is not the point. Everyone is willing to do something that is convenient for someone else. It is those who are willing to do what is inconvenient for another that truly demonstrate that they care about that person, that they take their relationship seriously.

And this brings me to the topic for this week: how you dress shows how much respect you have for others. Different occasions have different attire. Obviously, a sporting event requires little more than a pair of jeans and your team’s t-shirt and perhaps a hat. Conversely, we would probably all agree that a wedding held at a church should cause you to bring out your nicest suit or maybe even a tuxedo depending on the time of day and requested attire. But what about those events that fall in-between these? A church service? What about national holidays such as memorial day or patriot day (September 11^th)? Or even class every day? The truth is, there generally is not a concrete answer. It is safe to say that one should not wear t-shirt and cargo shorts to a five-star restaurant, and it is generally agreed on that a business suit probably is probably overdoing your evening at the cinema. But the advice that my meager nineteen years of life experience allows me to offer is this: you will convey how seriously you are taking something by dressing more seriously; dressing more like an adult. If you think about how you wish to portray your feelings about an event, and you feel that it is very important to you, consider this when you decide how you will dress. And I believe it is important to ask yourself that question, especially in certain events that you may attend weekly. Yes, I am talking about church.

Remember that your personal comfort is not always the most important thing; what should matter is what you will be telling others when they see you dress. Do not use the excuse of wanting to “be humble” in the way you dress; humility comes in actions, not wardrobe. By dressing nicer, you are showing that you care. And everyone appreciates someone who cares. 

-Author's Note: I apologize for the tardiness of this post. My post schedule will remain on a Tuesday once-a-week basis. 

Howdy, mister.

My first post on manners and the ways of a lady and a gentleman actually stems from my experience as a Cadet in the Civil Air Patrol. As a new Cadet, I was taught and expected to adhere to proper military courtesies. The most commonly known military courtesy in is that of the salute; when a lower-ranking person approaches an officer, he salutes him, and the officer returns the salute. This has never been understood as a sign of inferiority or servitude, but as a sign of respect for the higher person’s rank, and for the lower person’s service. As Cadets, in addition to saluting superior officers, I was also taught to give a verbal greeting, such as “good morning, sir” or “good evening, ma’am” as well. This verbal greeting, was even required in situations when I was not supposed to salute them, such as times when I was indoors or in a “no-salute zone”. No matter where I was, officers could always know that I would be acknowledging their presence, and I knew that they would always show the same respect to me in return.

The point I wish to make is that greeting people, no matter if you know them personally or not, makes a huge impact on how you are viewed. Giving a greeting to someone in passing is a simple way you can show respect for that person. By looking them in the eye and saying a friendly “hello” or “good day”, you are in fact acknowledging that they exist and that they deserve a certain degree of respect from you. Doing this makes us all a little less anonymous in this vast sea of faces and name. It helps make the world a little more pleasant, as greeting another person almost always creates a very brief, but nonetheless positive relationship between you and them. Who knows, just by acknowledging someone, you might be making their day a little more bearable against the toils and tragedies of everyday existence. So my challenge is to everyone reading this, whether you are in college or busily working in the “real world,” is for you to make an effort to greet people as you see them. Whether it is the people you pass on the way to class or the cashier working behind the counter at the gas station, everyone appreciates being acknowledged, despite how annoyed or dismissive they may seem. Resist the temptation to look at your phone or pretend you are simply staring into the distance. Make the decision to be courteous and say "hello". In the long run, you will never go wrong by being friendly. Go forth and greet some fellow countrymen!

Photo credit goes to the Providence Journal in Providence, Rhode Island

Hello World

It was 2003. In an air-conditioned classroom at Hill Country Christian School of Austin in Austin, Texas, I was first introduced to a seemingly mundane concept. As it became a serious fad several years later, I did not make much of an effort to interact with the idea; fads have always made me uncomfortable. But sometimes fads become more than fads, sometimes an idea that appears to be only passing through town becomes a permanent resident. This "fad" I was introduced to, through an in-class newspaper reading assignment, was the concept of the blog, and as we have come to find out, it is certainly here to stay.

I love context. I begin this first post of The Pinstripes by explaining my brief history with blogging for this reason. For me, understanding why something happened and how it was perceived at the time is extremely vital to any attempt at intelligent thought. One cannot read through the Iliad of Homer without any knowledge of Greek tradition and culture and expect to fully understand what the author intended. Similarly, I feel that readers will receive the best experience when they understand some author background. Indeed, my background will influence and affect all of the posts you read on this blog.

My name is Matthew Norman. I come from Houston, Texas, though I currently reside in La Mirada, California at Biola University. I am a freshman Political Science major in the Torrey Honors Institute, and a proud member of the great Vanauken cohort group. I have a sister back home as well as year-old Maltese who never stops barking. I have never blogged before, and my experience with writing is mostly through school papers and some newspaper articles through the Civil Air Patrol. Obviously, my background consists of much more than I just described, but I figure that I've said all that needs to be said right now. The more important topic is the matter of what this blog will be about.

Simply put, this blog is about manners. Before you click the "back" button on your browser and return to Tumblr, allow me to explain the subject further. As a southerner, I am quite accustomed to individual politeness. My parents taught me to call adults "sir" and "ma'am", to make eye contact when speaking to someone, and to always hold the door for others. My father especially focused on the proper way for a man to treat a lady, and I have greatly benefited from this. Many individuals perhaps were not taught in this manner; some of the things I have been taught are culturally specific to the south. But one thing I have noticed is that people seem to appreciate the "southern hospitality" that my parents' lessons have instilled in me. I am in no way perfect, and any ability to be polite and display good manners I have I credit to my parents alone. However, I do feel that perhaps I can help raise awareness of ways we can be more civilized so that we can all enjoy each other's company in the best way possible.

Being from Texas, my only experience with California has been very short trips to the state, where I mostly interacted as a tourist. I really had no expectation for the Los Angeles area, except what I had always been told, that I should not expect the same type of friendliness I can expect in Texas. It was an incredibly pleasant surprise for me to discover that the people at Biola were as friendly as I could ask for. Everywhere I walk on campus, I can always find someone to talk to and a new person to meet. During the first week of classes, I recall sitting down and eating with someone in the Cafe whom I had just met, and we had a very pleasant conversation that showed genuine interest in getting to know the other person. I see such interactions occurring every day at Biola, and it is very encouraging. It seems that what I had been told coming to California was in fact based on inaccurate information, and I have never been happier to be misinformed.

My hope for this blog is that I can point out small courtesies that will help everyone be a better gentleman or lady, both at Biola and everywhere else. I would like to elaborate on small ideas such as greeting people as you pass them and why we should dress nicely for church, and to discuss their importance in an attempt to convince you to adopt such practices. I would especially appreciate feedback; tell me what you despise about my writing and ideas. Give me some suggestions for new topics or improvement to my methods. I need it!

The key to internet writing is conciseness, and I have obviously failed that. Most of my posts will be much, much shorter, but I thought that a greater length was acceptable here. I will try to post at least once a week. Thank you so much for reading. I hope to be able to entertain and engage with you soon! Have a good day.