Biblical Logic and (Not) Proving God Exists

Author's note: holy crap this ended up being long. I was tempted to break it up into two posts, like I usually do when I try to get smart, but decided not to. I will put some pictures in to make it prettier. Also, you are now able to leave comments below if you so choose. Thanks for reading.


     I hold an opinion that a lot of people don't agree with. I think the Bible is a very logical piece of work, and that my Christian faith is a logical exercise as well. People take issue with this notion because they believe the Bible is contradictory, or don't see how a position of faith and belief can be defended or pursued in a logical fashion. But, if I accept the following things to be true:
     a) Jesus was who He said He was (God in human form)
     b) Jesus was raised from death after being crucified
then pretty much everything else falls into place. I am not a philosopher, and never took any sort of a "logic" class at any point in my education. But I majored in mathematics, which means that I essentially majored in logic, so here are some thoughts.

     I think a lot of people hear the word "logic" and think "scientific." These are two very different things, that I am going to attempt to define without looking up actual definitions. "Science" is a method of testing something that we think is or is not accurate. Isolate a variable, test the variable, interpret the results. This scientific method is applied to all kinds of areas of life and nature. So, based on my limited understanding, something being "scientific" doesn't necessarily mean it's based in physics or chemistry, it just means it was tested using some form of that method. I think most people know this, but the term "scientific" tends to get thrown around a lot these days and is losing its true meaning.
     "Logic," on the other hand, is applying a previously agreed upon or accepted system of rules to any desired presupposition. ("Presupposition" basically means "let's pretend this is true and see what follows." It's the starting point.) A presupposition doesn't have to be true, or even reasonable, for logic to be applied to it.

This picture is not just filler.

     (For what it's worth, Mr. CS Lewis himself first exposed me to this idea. In The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe the professor explains to Peter the following: It's not illogical for a fantastic wonderland to exist in the wardrobe if Lucy says one does, because Lucy isn't prone to lying or confusing fantasy with reality. Instead of starting with the presupposition "fantasy lands don't exist," he starts with "Lucy doesn't lie," and goes from there. It might not be probable, or even believable that Narnia exists, but that doesn't make it illogical.)
     If I start with the above presuppositions (that Jesus was who He said He was (God in human form) and that Jesus was raised from death after being crucified), most of the rest of the Bible makes sense. To me, it's very logical, and I am a pretty decent logician.

     What I don't try and do, ever, is prove that God exists. I can't. I don't think anyone can. Well, obviously no one can or else someone would have done so and this wouldn't be an issue. The fact that I can't prove His existence doesn't bother me, because I find His existence to be logically consistent with what I know and understand about the world, my life, and other presuppositions I have chosen to accept.
     A lot of people take issue with the fact that God's existence can't be proven. They point to "science." (Remember that science really means "a system for testing variables," but I am going to its more common definition which is "stuff we know.") "Science" has done a lot for humanity. Pretty much everything I interact with on a daily basis that is man-made has its root in science at some level. Science put a man on the moon, science puts probes on the ocean floor, and science gives us medicine and healthcare. Since science has done so much for us, a lot of people (understandably) put more stock in it than they do in the notion of a God or one of His potentially holy books. So, it's fairly logical to assume that if science, which has done all of these fantastic things in a fairly short period of time, can't prove God's existence, He probably doesn't exist. Couple that with all of the disease, disaster and death in the world, and people don't want a part of Him.

On a fairly unrelated note: who would make
their children watch this? I am terrified already!

     I differ in my presuppositions. If someone states "science can't prove God exists, so I doubt He exists" they are at some level assuming science has been trying to prove He exists. I don't think that's the case. (From what I understand, early scientists believed He existed and either used that knowledge to assume there was order in the universe, or try to prove His existence through order in the universe. Some of this was misguided: People believed that the Earth was the center of the universe because that's where God put it. So when that was proven wrong, it was interpreted as an assault on God's existence or creation, but in hindsight that's really not the case.)
     All that to say: just because we can't prove God exists doesn't make me question His existence any more than anything else might make me question His existence. (In fact, often in mathematics proofs aren't accomplished by proving something MUST be true, but by proving that it can't NOT be true. I can't prove God exists, but I can easily accept that He can't NOT exist). For me, it's a logical pursuit. I am just starting at a point that atheists don't tend to start at. I readily accept that if Jesus wasn't who he said he was, and if he didn't resurrect himself from death, then my Christian faith is pretty damn empty.

     Another presupposition of mine (I use that word to sound smart), and this one is going to be tough for me to articulate: I've stated before

            "Science is man attempting to figure out how God does what He does." -Grant Gilchrist 

which is really a pretty brilliant quote that should go on my tombstone if I ever die. Well, if I am assuming God exists, can I test the existence of the Thing that created my ability to test? Or, can I test the existence of the Thing that created the other things I test? I honestly don't know. It seems like I should be able to, but it seems pretty impossible at the same time. Can science test the existence of God? I don't think anyone is trying, and maybe they should?
     Jesus famously quoted Deuteronomy when he said "Do not put the Lord your God to the test," but I've always interpreted that to mean "don't push Him." Like when a bratty kid challenges his and mom is trying to convince the kid not to get a spanking. Don't test her, she will spank you. I don't think that's the same kind of "test" as trying to see if God exists.
     Testing God's existence happened throughout the Old Testament. People walked in ovens, seas were parted, armies went blind, etc. But the most "scientific" of all the tests, at least that I know of, came from Gideon. He basically said "God if you want me to do something, I want my jacket, which I will leave out overnight, to get wet but the ground around it to stay dry." Then that happened. Then he said "God, just to make sure, tonight I don't want my jacket to get wet and I want the ground around it wet." And it happened. He essentially isolated a variable (the jacket) and ran a couple tests on it. (He even used the word "test" in my translation).

     So, why isn't anyone testing to see if there is a God?
     Here's the obvious, main problem: Testing God (or any human) isn't a hard science. To test the existence of God, you'd have to play by that existing God's rules. We play by God's rules when we test matter and chemicals, because we are working within his system of nature. But testing God relies on an understanding of His system of Himself (if that makes any sense at all). He's a being, so He probably won't respond the same way to every test. It would take a supreme understanding of how He works and why He acts in the ways that He does. And this knowledge could really only be gained by a) assuming he exists, and b) assuming one of those holy books floating around there is actually Holy. You'd essentially have to be a believer.
     One might argue that point. That believing something, as opposed to accepting results of experiments, taints the scientific process. Ultimately, this is no different from any other aspect of the scientific method. Take Euclidean geometry, in my opinion the most basic and accessible forms of all the sciences. Euclidean geometry has a thousand proofs and theorems and laws that everyone accepts and trusts. But Euclidean geometry is based on 5 key axioms. An axiom is basically something everyone agrees is true. Something everyone believes is true. From wikipedia, the 5 Euclidean axioms (with my additions in bold):

1. "To draw a straight line from any point to any point."    (meaning one line connects two points)
2. "To produce [extend] a finite straight line continuously in a straight line."     (a line segment can be extended into an infinite line)
3. "To describe a circle with any centre and distance [radius]."     (a circle is what a circle is)
4. "That all right angles are equal to one another."     (all right angles are equal to one another)
5. The parallel postulate: "That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."

     Look at that 5th one. It's not at all obvious. The first four make pretty good sense. The fifth one isn't obvious when you read it, but if you look into it just a bit it also is very sensible. The point being, none of those 5 things can be proved. They have to be accepted. Starting from a point of belief is necessary for any sort of proof or demonstration. This is no different with my faith in God. Well, the difference is that everyone accepts the definition of a circle, not everyone accepts the existence of a God.
     The point I am trying to make is that accepting the existence of a God would not negate any evidence that might suggest the existence of a God, it is in fact how any evidence is ever gathered.

The Five Stages of Housewifery

(Seen Through Facebook)

   I am a man and I work hard and have a job, but I imagine it's hard for a woman to stay home with the baby all day long. Women that sacrifice careers and self-fulfillment to raise a baby are heroes, which is better than being a heroine. Recently I experienced first-hand the struggles of being a housewife: The five stages of housewifery. The stages are well documented of course: excitement, fear, sharing, emptiness and other pursuits, exhaustion - all of them are ultimately cries for help, and they are common among stay-at-home moms, and need to be addressed. I recently experienced all six of the stages of housewifery in a very public manner: The Facebook. I've taken my housewife life and pulled it from the pages of The Facebook, then break it down below, trying to raise awareness for this important issue.

(In order to protect other people that commented on my The Facebook posts, pictures were copied and cropped. Please bear with the blurry, raw, startling images that follow. Also, all comments come in a third-person form to make it seem more real or something.)

Stage 1: Excitement

     As you can see, at around 12:00 noon at the start of this day, the housewife is excited to spend time with his baby. This is common and usually lasts for several weeks. Changing diapers is a joy. Every new look, smile and accomplishment is a treasure. Experiences are happening daily. It is truly a wonderful time that should be treasured. Still, it is plain to see in Grant that he has some fear setting in already (cluing us in to his accelerated rate of progression through these stages).

Stage 2: Fear

     It is natural for any new mother to question his ability to raise a child. There is a lot of pressure and a life is at stake. Additionally, this man is burdened by the legitimate fear that from a physical standpoint he might not be able to fully nurture his child. The fear stage tends to pass quickly, as the baby continues to grow and doesn't die. (What isn't shown here, due to the need for protecting other's privacy, is Grant later asks how to tell if a baby is full. He'll get there! Be patient!)

Stage 3: Sharing

 

     These are four of the pictures he added to The Facebook, each with increasingly worse captions (the one in the top right said "look what Santa left under the tree!" for crying out loud). It's natural for the housewife to want to share the cute, fun, memorable moments of his child's life, but he fails to realize that not everyone on his The Facebook feed cares. It becomes a bit much (and when he realizes he is overwhelming his friends, another solution is found, as we will see). This stage has no clear beginning or ending time, and can last FOREVER.

Stage 4: Emptiness and Other Pursuits

     How can the desperate housemom occupy his time? Facebook, feeding, cooking and cleaning aren't fulfilling. The man feels that there needs to be some real accomplishment in his personal life. He will become a "gardener," "chef," "photographer," (a natural extension from the "sharing" phase he may still be in), some sort of an interior or exterior designer. He might try to do some research or reading to keep the mind sharp. Maybe watch some documentaries to stay informed. Whatever it may be, his Other Pursuits culminate in a blog.

     The blog. This is the time when loved ones should become concerned. A truly worthwhile and important endeavor - raising a child - can be supplanted by a trivial, waste-of-time, never-going-to-profit, no-one-cares blog. It is a cry for help. "Please! Give me attention! Let me know I am loved for something more than storytime and milk! Why am I so alone!?" It is a sad and challenging time for all involved.

     Notice that middle post above, the blog that our hero (remember, that's inarguably better than "heroine") has started. He goes to the point of writing My Kid Is Special!! and posts incredibly embarassing pictures. He intends to continue updating this blog with the pathetic, depressing events of a housewife's life. Tragic.

Stage 5: Exhaustion

     The exhaustion phase is less obvious. Cracks start to show. Patience declines. Less effort is given to be polite, or to keep up appearances. He is just tired. A girls night out is a welcome break, but he feels guilty for leaving his son (and wants the world to know he's still a good, loved mom). He expresses his insecurities as a mother to the whole world. Maybe tomorrow will  be better? The hope he shows towards the end feels empty - as empty as taking up cross stitching. He's just flat tired.

     If you read through his posts quickly, you can see the decline of his temperament. He moves from happy, energetic and hopeful, to ultimately stressed, unhappy and probably on some sort of FBI lists. Usually this decline takes years and several children. Today it took ten hours. Truly an interesting case.

     Being a mom is a tough job. Again, I don't know that first hand, as I personally fulfill all of my manly duties as a manly husband. But I am trying to relate here. Those poor women. Do what you can to help any you might know. Heed their cries for help. A friend, a night out, a funny video with cats, anything. Be aware of the five stages of housewifery.

Not Healthy Egg Nog French Toast

     I've decided to change the focus of this blog. It will no longer be on my random thoughts of late. I am doing this because a) I haven't made a penny on it so far (nor have I been offered a book deal), and b) I am pretty much out of things to say. So, I've scoured the internet and found that there are virtually no websites that deal with food in any form. So I am here to fill that void with my new cooking blog. 

     I make a lot of food really well: grilled cheese sandwiches, not grilled cheese sandwiches, a pineapple-teriyaki chicken thing, and milkshakes. Here's another one:

Not Healthy Egg Nog French Toast

     This is a recipe I made up when I had egg nog and stale bread. It turned out to be delicious. If you follow my steps precisely, yours might turn out almost as good.

You will need:

• Bread (I prefer artisan bread, preferably stale, and I recommend avoiding sourdough). This bread will eventually turn into toast.
• Cinnamon
• Your favorite egg nog
• One (1) avocado
• Apricot preserves
• Your least favorite cereal (not pictured)
• A cutting board
• A knife
• A stovetop
• A power source for your stovetop
• um... a mousepad, apparently?
• and, orange peels? I should have cleaned off the counter before I took pictures.
• A treadmill

Steps:

      1.  Turn on your stovetop (make sure it is connected to a power source!)

      2. Slice the bread into thin pieces. You want them thin enough so that when it's dipped in the egg nog it touches on both sides.

     3. Pour the egg nog into a bowl (shoot, I forgot to tell you you'll need a bowl, just improvise).

4. Dip one side of the bread into the nog.

5. Dip the other side of the bread into the nog

6. Place the soon-to-be-toast on the stovetop (have something between the bread and the heat, preferably metal)

7. Sprinkle cinnamon over the bread (still not toast yet!!)

8. Flip the bread. (Sorry, I've never done this before, do you need all of these steps? Really it's a pretty self-explanatory process. Dip bread, heat bread, eat bread. It could have been three steps I suppose.)

9. Sprinkle cinnamon over the almost toast (no, that's not the same picture as step 7)

10. Grab your now-toast, your avocado, and the leftover bowl of egg nog.

11. Skip step 11.

12. Eat the food before your spouse wakes up! He/she always wants some of that!

12. AND, you can drink the left over egg nog from the bowl! Like a cat! Or pour it into a cup. Or pour it back into the carton it came from. These are all legitimate options that are not gross, and now the egg nog is peppered with stale bread crumbs!

13. When you finish eating, put the avocado back where it came from. It wouldn't go well with this meal, now that I think about it. 

14. When you are done eating, get on the treadmill for a while, or else you might gain six pounds.

     Sure is delicious, huh!? Thanks for reading!

Tutoring Terrifying Children

Do girls really like this show? Do they want to talk
about it? I have no idea.

     I am tutoring quite a few students in math right now. Most of them are in pre-calculus or calculus, but I cover pretty much anything. I've been tutoring high school students for a few years and am getting a pretty good system going. What I'm doing now for the first time is tutoring an elementary school student. It's a totally different ballgame, and what that I am not really trained for. What's more, it's with a fifth-grade, ten-year-old girl.

     I used to be really good with kids. I counseled at Camp Harlow for years and worked at an elementary school when I was a senior in high school. Every high schooler is good with kids if they want to be, because they are already everything a kid wants to be: older. When you are 17, you're already cool. By wearing a hat backwards and driving your own car and talking to other high schoolers, kids love you.

I didn't draw this, but I wish I could

     Beyond that, however, I am essentially a kid myself. I honestly like the cartoons Spongebob Squarepants and Phineas and Ferb. if Power Rangers was on I would probably watch it if they were air-fighting and not trying to develop plot. I know lots about Pokemon. I can talk and play sports with anyone but also like video games and nerdy things. I have a lot of random, probably-true animal facts at my disposal from working at a zoo. (Did you know that a kangaroo's nasal passage runs around it's brain before going to the lungs, in order to ventilate its brain? That might be true.) I think that farts are very funny if timed correctly.
     But my main two tricks with kids are this: 1) talk to them like they are an adult, and 2) call them "dude." I've found that kids really respond to being talked to like adults, because it doesn't happen hardly ever. I don't raise the pitch ofmy voice or talk super slow or generally baby-talk them, and we can have a normal conversation about how awesome the Dragonzord is (answer: super awesome). I don't talk to their parents about them, I talk to them. They appreciate this. And when you call them "dude," they just assume both you and they are cool, and everyone wins.
     As you've probably noticed, all of my strategies for relating to kids really pertain to boy-kids. I always babysat or camp-counselled boys. I don't know what the equivalent show to "Power Rangers" for girls is, and I am not a Bronie who knows about My Little Ponies. I can't talk fashion, don't want to talk about cute boys, and am not crafty. Girls are (still) terrifying.
     (additionally, at "teacher school" when I got my master's degree and teaching license, pretty much every lesson ended the same way: "gentlemen, DON'T EVER BE ALONE WITH A FEMALE STUDENT EVER EVER OR YOU WILL DIE." We could be talking about returning tests promptly and the instructor would have a statement like "when you are grading your tests make sure you are consistent, and guys, if a girl walks into your room while you are grading by yourself make sure you grab someone to join you immediately." You think I'm kidding, but I'm just exaggerating.)

     I was thinking over all of these things before my first session with the totally intimidating fifth-grade girl. Between me no longer being a cool-by-default 17-year-old, her not being a boy, and me not being around kids for about eight years, I was nervous.

I recognize this is my best weapon for
combating little girls.

     So, before our first tutor session, I was running through all of my conversation options. I had to win her over from day one - not so much for my sake, but because she needs a tutor and I want her to enjoy math, which means she needs to enjoy her time with her math tutor. When she walked in I shook her hand and said hello and had her come sit at the table with me while her dad sat in a chair nearby and read. I told her I liked the hat she was wearing, and the sparkles on her jacket (then felt stupid, was "sparkles" the right term to use there?) and I grabbed a bunch of colored pens for us to do our math with. Colors and pens was a big part of my plan. I tried to have some crafty-things that we did, and I complimented her on her handwriting. I even talked about how hard it is for me to make my "twos" look pretty when I write them. She met baby Wyatt and answered my questions about her family and class. She even giggled when I asked towards the end of the session "so, are there any boys in your class you think are cute?" and promptly explained that boys don't get cute for a long, long time. Getting a giggle was huge.
    I pulled out all the stops. I did everything I could. In fact, I used Letterman's go-to questioning when he interviews a kid on the Late Show: "Are you married? Do you have a house? Do you have a car? Can you drive?" When the kid says no to all these things, Letterman says "sounds pretty boring." The first session went well. Now what? I'm out of ideas already. If you have any suggestions, send them my way. We've had a few sessions and we don't have a common ground yet, meaning nothing to have a conversation about, just me asking questions and her answering them. I am working towards conversation, which I know doesn't necessarily happen with grade-school kids. At the same time, when I counselled boys we would talk about things like Charizard and Dragonball (not what it sounds like). I am sure we can get to the point where she and I can talk about things too, I just might need to get invested in Adelle or something, I don't know (seriously, if you haven't gathered, I have no idea).
     In the meantime I am still nervous before she comes over. Here I am, a math teacher that doesn't blink when a student wants to come over and get calculus help on stuff I haven't seen in years, and I am sweating out working with an adorable, sweet little ten-year-old girl on her long division. Some things never change I suppose.


(PS: if you didn't click that "bronie" link above, it's pretty fascinating/sad. There's a whole bunch of 20-30-something aged men who watch and blog about the new My Little Ponies TV show, and the call themselved Bronies. Look into it: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/06/bronies-my-little-ponys/)

This Post Not Written Due to Legend of Zelda

Proof that I have been busy
not playing video games.

... I mean Wyatt. I've been taking such good care of my new son Wyatt that I haven't had time to write a blog post (although I do have a couple drafts that I'm cleaning up, one on aliens and one on variables, so, um, those sound interesting, right?).

     I've also been posting some things prematurely without knowing it, drafts that aren't complete or are in an old state, and that's annoying, so I am going to be more careful. You don't care about any of this.

So I leave you with this: Hugh Laurie (of House fame) singing his song "Mystery" from his British sketch comedy show A Bit of Fry and Laurie back in the day.

I Gotta Feeling That Friday Isn't As Bad As We Thought

     This post is in no way timely or pertinent, but it crossed my mind while driving tonight.


     I first heard about the song Friday, by Rebecca Black, through my brother's facebook post, on March 18 of this year:

Garrett Gilchrist

Yesterday was Thursday, Thursday. Today i-is Friday, Friday (Partyin’). We-we-we so excited. We so excited. We gonna have a ball today

Tomorrow is Saturday
And Sunday comes after...wards

 ·  · Share · March 18 at 9:25am · 

• 
  

  Jordan Egbert likes this.
• • 
    

    Grant Gilchrist is that will.i.am? if it is and I can tell just by those lyrics alone that is sad
    

    March 18 at 1:34pm · 
  • 
    

    Garrett Gilchrist no. far from it
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0
    

    March 18 at 5:20pm · 
  • 
    

    Grant Gilchrist it's not THAT far from it. will.i.am only uses a couple more phrases and has much higher production values. I could totally see him singing that song and it being a fair hit.
    

    March 19 at 11:19am · 

     Garrett loves to just quote random lyrics from songs that either pertain to his life at the moment or are expressing his innermost desires in ways that he himself cannot. I am going to defend my final comment to him, that Friday is really no worse than any recent Black Eyed Peas song, or most of anything on the radio in fact.
     People hate on the song Friday for a few key reasons: it's repetitive, it's boring and dumb, it clearly explains the order of the days of the week, and it's highly produced (meaning we're not convinced Rebecca Black is actually singing it), and there's always that "which seat should I take" dilemma. Beyond the song, the music video has her creepily staring at the camera the whole time, a random rapper who must hate his career, and essentially nothing happening.







     Compare that with the Black Eyed Peas song/video I Gotta Feeling. The Black Eyed Peas have been spitting out catch-phrases-converted-into-songs for years now, and I Gotta Feeling is actually one of their more catchy/enjoyable songs in a long time, but guess what? It's repetitive (they say "let's do it" maybe 7 thousand times), it's boring and dumb, it clearly explains the order of the days of the week (4 minutes into the song, they actually count out the days!!!), it's extremely highly produced, and there's that "which seat should I take" dilemma.







     Really, Rebecca Black just doesn't have the life experiences to make as compelling a song. She talks about taking the bus (waiting under a clearly labeled "bus stop" sign), or driving with her friends, hanging out, and then driving some more. That's a great party for a 12 year old!! Will.I.Am knows that adult parties are better - with filled bottles and nearly-naked-women, but the two videos are fundamentally the same: Let's show some people having age-appropriate fun!! (Did you know that Will.I.Am and apl.de.ap (another B.E.P. rapper) started making music together in eighth grade?! I'm sure their original stuff was better than Friday, but I doubt it was better by much. It just wasn't there for the whole world to see)

     Part of the hate for Rebecca Black comes from the feeling that her desperate-housewife-suburban mother pretty much made all of this happened (whether or not it's true, it has to be a factor at some level, right?) It's like, what mother on earth would put that video up for the world to see (not knowing, of course, that it would become such a sensation, but probably hoping at some level that it would). Yeah that's all legit hate, keep spewing it.

     So, when I was teaching at South Eugene Highschool and every period some group of students would mock this song, I would try to convince them that Friday isn't as bad as most of the stuff on the radio. They never believed me. They are probably right, I mean did you hear the first 30 seconds of the song, where Rebecca Black sounds like she's trying to sing along with a tuning violin? But the radio plays a lot of Nickelback, Katy Perry, Black Eyed Peas and Britney Spears. This wasn't a huge step down.

Stuff That Happened Today/Recently

     Remember earlier when I said I had a student who was a comedian, and he said he'd written some new jokes that have me in them? He told me that he's doing a show in March in Eugene (and several others around the NW) and that he has all new material, where I am mentioned by name. He's giving me two tickets and holy crap I'm excited. Stay tuned.

     Early in the term at Lane Community College, a student came in to my office hours for some help. After he was done and was walking out, he jokingly said "I'll be back often, you'll probably get sick of me." I chuckled and jokingly replied "yeah, I probably will."
     Fast forward eight weeks and he comes in to my office hours again and says "sorry to bother you, I know you don't like it when people see you in your office" all sheepishly. He took me seriously! He'd been afraid to come to my office all term! I felt awful. But I told him I was joking and that he had been joking and come on!! I'd feel really bad, except he hadn't come to class for like four weeks for various reasons. I guess I come on a little too strong. Another example of me coming on too strong:

     There was a girl at the high school staring at a the wall while I was teaching. There was a poster of the boy's soccer team on the wall. I don't think she was staring directly at the poster, but we had this conversation:
     "Maggie, is your boyfriend on the soccer team?"
     She looks up at me and is a bit confused. "No..."
     "Do you wish you had a boyfriend on the soccer team?"
     She's still confused. "No, why?"
     "Because you've been staring at that poster of the boy's soccer team for like 5 minutes, so I figured you must like one of them."
     She starts blushing and giggling a little "No..."
     "Okay, but if you had to date one of them, which one is it?"
     "No one," laughing pretty hard.
     "Come on, which one is the cutest? If I walk over to your desk will there be a name with a bunch of hearts drawn around it?"
     It went on for a bit longer.

     This happened last year. The girl in the conversation had just switched into my class. Like, a week before this happened, halfway through the year. She looked around at the rest of the class, wondering what was going on. Some students turned to her and said "he's like that, it happens to all of us." Luckily she was a confident girl and we get along great.

     Subbing is really easy the first time. You start class the moment the bell rings, glare at and speak sternly to the first kid that tries to talk over you, and pretend like your the boss for a period. But when you sub for a  teacher over and over the students get used to you, they figure out that you are all bark and no bite, they start to push their limits, and you don't know the classroom norms. Today I subbed for a class for like the 8th time this year, and they are on to me. They try to leave early, turn in late homework, sit with their friends and other sinister activities.
     I used to really enjoy subbing, because you don't have to grade papers, take work home, or see the same kids every day. But as soon as I got my job at LCC I couldn't stand subbing any more. It's so boring. BUT, I am happy to have the work and the opportunity to make more contacts, and I know I am a good math sub, which is hard to find.