'Tweaking' (aka lying) on your resume

It's a tough world out there, but someone's got to live in it. Like alive people. And lots of us have to work in it, or try to. But sometimes it's not that easy to find a job, or get into an industry we like, or some people just hate the job we're doing but can't think of a way out. Or some people are just plain lazy. Whatever it is, we have a system where for the most part a resume is a big slice of how to get a job, or even just to get an interview, but is it ever ok to lie on your resume?

Here's a discussion of that very topic.

Some people would say you have to be totally upfront on your resume, some would say it's ok to lie on your resume, and others would point to a middle ground - it's ok to tell white lies, to exaggerate, to 'tweak' a resume, but telling outright lies is just wrong. The problem with this is that where exactly do you draw the line on tweaking? And won't you be mad if you draw the line differently from someone else and that other person gets the job!

In the link above, many of the objections come from someone who wants to outright lie on their resume, and also because the motivation seems to be because he's bludged around a bit, and has decided he wants to lie because he knows a bit about some things, but doesn't have the certificates, and he wants to get a job that "doesn't totally suck" without doing the hard menial yards that most people have to do to get there. His idea is that he will try to walk straight in to a more comfortable position.

Whereas most people either have to do the hard yards either in a university/TAFE, or spend a few years doing low-level crappy work to get their foot in the door. I remember some producer at Channel Nine telling me she got there by taking on a crummy job filing tapes in the library for less than $18 000 a year in order to become a TV producer. And she had to badger them like crazy to get that job.

But is it EVER ok to lie on your resume? The arguments on the forum are that if you lie on your resume, it helps you not because you wouldn't have the skills if you didn't have the qualifications/experience. Others say that if you weren't prepared to work hard to get the qualifications and experience, then you cannot be the kind of person who would work hard to learn on the job, so the "I would work hard to learn on the job" argument is invalid.

But there are certain arguments for tweaking your resume.

Employers are notorious for skimming resumes and jumping to conclusions based on them, and key words leap out at them. What if the job you did recently, if you were to honestly describe it, would not really contain any of those key words, yet you know you gained the requisite skills. It might be easier to use the vague and industry accepted terms just to get your foot in the door, rather than be very honest.

What if an unusual situation occurred on your job that did not majorly affect your career progression, that could either be glossed over or covered up by a white lie, or look awkward on a resume that could put you slightly behind someone who had a more 'conventional' career path, or would take a 500 word exposition to explain that no one would bother to read? Many would choose the 'white lie'.

The trouble is, at what point do you distinguish between the white lie and the dirty big fat black lie? Everyone has their own standard.

If you say you have "lots of customer experience" and you really worked for two weeks in a boring old quirky shop where you might have been lucky to serve one person every two days, and simply took their money and gave them a receipt, is that just "slight embellishment" or a lie?

If you are misleading - for instance - write that you "attended" a course but don't point out that you mean that you turned up for the first half of the first class, but never studied the subject and certainly never passed any of the tests or assignments ... is that a lie?

And what about lies by omission? What if you omit that you have certain qualifications because you don't wish to look overqualified for a position, or interested in other areas of study which may make them think you are a less stable employee?

My resume is edited, embellished and tweaked, I must admit. It is not a bland setting out of my educational and work history to date. But I regard that as a necessity - I just don't know whether my own version is anyone else's "too far".

A Man's Head on a Woman's Shoulders

Recently I had a rant a bit about racial discrimination, so now I'll switch to the old one, gender discrimination.

I was reading an article in a print newspaper which I unfortunately can't put a link to because they don't seem to have published it online. That's why they make you get the print copy, for gems of 300 words like that.

Anyhow, the writer was telling of how insurance premiums were higher on his car than they were for his wife, even though they both have a clean driving record and are both the same age, and the reason was because he's male. He asked the insurance company and they said this was because men made more claims than women. He asked if they discriminated based on race too, and they said no, because they didn't collect any data on that.

He said this was annoying as gender was one of the things you can't change. Age relates to experience. But you could get older, in fact you usually did. Or you could move to a different geographic region. But you didn't change gender.

Obviously he hasn't investigated certain operations you can do, but never mind.

Anyway, the poor bloke seemed put upon, and this was one of the terrible things about being a bloke. That and I just don't know how men live with a bobbing Adam's Apple. Doesn't it ever feel weird having a round thing bobbing at your neck? It looks weird on some of you. If I had one I would be thinking it was very strange. Especially since I'm a girl.

But I don't think it is all one way. For instance, in some cases, women pay more for just being a woman. For instance, I passed the hairdresser's and a Lady's Basic Cut, the cheapest was, more expensive than the most expensive Men's Basic Cut (they have a slight range based, I think, on length of hair).

Now that is outrageous. I have seen men with tangly long mullets and women with little bob cuts and still the women are probably paying more. Grrr!

In fact it annoys me more than the car premium thing, because I've got hair. I don't have a car. Your hair grows on you, man. You need to CUT IT to get rid of it, ok some people's just falls out. Whereas if you don't want to pay for insurance on a car you can choose to not buy one in the first place. Easy peasy. So in that way I think it is even WORSE.

I have thought sometimes that I should go into a hairdresser dressed in a suit and tie with a m moustache drawn on my face and talk in a deep voice and despite having past-the-shoulder length hair and wanting a side part with it nicely layered etc, I would demand bravely to have a men's cut! See if they would dare question my ... errrh ... balls!

They've changed it now - And now it is happily gender-unbiased - but they used to have two different specials at the Belgian Beer Cafe - one was half-price mussels for males on Wednesdays, and for ladies it was a free beer if you wore red. (They've changed it now so the mussels deal applies to everyone and the beer special has disappeared.)

But at the time it annoyed me because I don't drink beer and I like mussels! And dammit ... What do I have in my wardrobe that's red? Too much planning!

On the other time of course one uses the feminine advantage to every extent they can when the guys who are selling fruit at Paddy's Markets make their comments about throwing in an extra few apples into your basket "for the lady".

I'm not sure if we should jump up and scream about all this disgusting, awful, gender discrimination, or accept it will balance out in the end, and/or accept which gender we are and what tricks and advantages it gives us and use them to gain the best advantages where! It sounds pathetic and very cliche but I do think some people might help me more because I'm a pint-sized female, if something falls, if a stupid ticket machine won't work and I start growling at it I think there is someone who is male/taller/wider/more authoritarian looking who delights in coming up and trying to help out, more so than if I were a big tall, large male with tattoos all over me.

Of course there are some areas in which gender discrimination/abuse/unfairness is quite serious; on the other hand when it comes to a little freebie given or not given here or there, a small slant in prices, a slightly different treatment, should it be something we worry about overly?

Or is not worrying about them being lazy, and silently condoning or making way for the bigger abuses, or contributing to them? Is that person whom you let get away with dividing man's chores and girl's chores and you don't mind her emphasising it because you'd really rather not clean the car or put the mulch on the garden or re-tile the roof ... is she the next one who'll be giving disgustingly different pay to males from females or refusing to employ certain people based on gender and part of that is your fault?

And you could be one of those victims!

Hmmmm.

Quitisms

This was my word verification a few days ago and I thought it was such a cool word I'd try to figure out what it meant.

A quick Google search gives the meaning for QUIETISM

1. A form of Christian mysticism enjoining passive contemplation and the beatific annihilation of the will.
2. A state of quietness and passivity.

While there seem to be some references to quitism on the web, I can't find a definition of one so ...

The first thing that popped into my mind was:

QUITISM - a pithy phrase or set of phrases used by someone who claims they are trying to quit a habit. Usually lame and reassuring.

"It's ok to have one of these chocolate biscuits because they're small. After I've had three I'll stop. Actually they were very small, weren't they, make that four."
"If I walk the long way to the kitchen from this dining table I can have extra ice-cream."
"It's bad for me to give up cigarettes all at once. I could die. Anyone got another pack?"
"I know shopping this much is bad for you. I have to buy some equipment to help me stop the cravings."
"I will stop tomorrow ... tomorrow is another day."
"I will give this up when all the people on this Earth have the right to free health care and transport ... umm because that's being principled as well as quitting."
"I have tried quitting many times but I quit quitting."

Review: The Infinite Wisdom of Harriet Rose

Harriet Rose is no ordinary teenager. In fact, she doesn't even go to an ordinary school. I don't know of many high schools that have taught philosophy for three years, but then, I'm from Australia and this was set in England. The culture is different. I guess we do something like economic studies or drama or something instead.

This book has been compared to The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 3/4 and Bridget Jones' Diary. I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, except that the lead character is English and annoying. As the book opens, Harriet is a somewhat arrogant 14 year old whose father has died, and she has a claim on philosophical thought. She wants to give money to charity for her birthday, and she bounces around words like "metaphysical" and "epistemological".

Her Nana and mother decide to give her a special present - they publish for her a book of her philosophical thoughts in memory of her father, and suddenly she's a superstar author. There's also a subplot involving a romance with a cute French student, first year philosophy.

Now, the book wouldn't be so bad if Harriet wasn't so annoying. There are moments of humour but too many seem forced and Harriet can make you feel like you're being forced through them.

Why, then, do characters like Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones work so well, and they're equally if not more annoying? Adrian is more blinded, more arrogant and less personable than Harriet. Yet I laughed out loud with him and wanted more.

During the whole of Harriet's experience, I felt that the author, though pointing out Harriet's foibles, desperately wanted us to take Harriet's side. Despite the fact that Harriet was an idiot, she deserved the best, and we were urged to love her and feel sorry for her when things went wrong. One obvious device used here was Harriet's father's death. Others were her 'horrible' friend, and her 'mean' headmistress, and the unfailingly supportive family, but of course Harriet really deserves to get the guy, to win in the end. Doesn't she? Yet I felt like bashing her head in, often. And I didn't really think her philosophical ravings were that interesting.

The ending of the book is not bad, and I think is much better than what I expected. It lifts it up a few points. If you get a fair way in, even if it dulls off, i would suggest hanging in for the ending.

As many pointed out, this book is not well-placed as to what it wants to be. It is not like a Harry Potter or the Simpsons where people say it can be enjoyed on many levels. Instead, I think adults interested in philosophy will be sadly disappointed, adults who will understand the broad jokes will find the school references and adolescent humour difficult to relate to, and children may find the philosophical meditations a bit boring, and not quite get all those references. Perhaps for some older teenagers or some adults indulging in a bit of nostalgic teen reading. very much a book for the females.

If you aren't particularly sure and want a very good laugh, and characters blinded to their own foibles appeal to you, I would suggest reading any and all of Sue Townsend's Adrian Mole series rather than Harriet Rose. They are far superior in style and content, and commentary.

This all sounds pretty harsh on the author, Diana Janney, and in fairness, there are some nice bits of dialogue and some cute bits of humour, but altogether they didn't come together as smoothly as I like. There were some lively character depictions, especially that of Nana whom I felt I knew better than Harriet by the time the book was done. I felt that it was a good attempt but could have been put together better; I wouldn't dismiss this author at all. But i would not be rereading this book.

Harriet may be a philosopher, but she doesn't really open a window on the soul nor does she find much time for contemplation, and her book doesn't really make you care to contemplate either. She walks about with a T-shirt saying "Why?" but when I finished the book, I was not asking about the life, the Universe and everything.

I was wondering "why?" this book did I really pick up, and what will I pick up next.

I chose "The Harp in the South" by Ruth Park. I'm preferring it.

P.S. Before reading The Infinite Wisdom of Harriet Rose by Diana Janney, I read a debut children's book called Time Stops for No Mouse by Michael Hoeye. A very different book. it was an adventure fantasy involving talking mice. However all up I preferred Ms Janney's book.

Picking and Choosing

Here's a story about a 22 year old man who was an alcoholic, and was refused a liver transplant because the doctors thought he would ruin it.

Now the story highlights some issues, obviously the shortage of organs and therefore, who should get them and then, how do we pick and who to choose to refuse? On what grounds?

I read some people discussing this on a blog, and some saying this was pretty unfair because what about, say, fat people with heart problems, do they get refused heart transplants. In fact, lots of medical problems are self-induced so do we all get refused help if it's self-induced?

One person said that she thought the refusal was disgusting because she hated it when doctors 'played God'.

(Actually, I thought doctors played God all the time by treating patients, or that's one way of seeing it. Leaving them to whatever nature and God intends happen to them instead of giving them medicine, hooking them up to machines and cutting them up and and replacing organs would be more in line with not playing God, once you've taken a person off where they've fallen off a cliff and started to patch up their bones and pump them full of chemicals and fought against Death, that sounds very much like playing God to me. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that. If I fell over and broke my leg I'd want a doctor to play God with my leg and patch it up, pronto!)

Anyhow, it does raise a difficulty of ethics, how to make such a decision, after all the decision has to be made somehow, whether it is a first in first served, or by the highest bidder, or assessed most critically, or whatever. You can't blame doctors for having to refuse someone, what are they meant to be, magicians who can yell a multiplying spell for livers?

Anyhow, I leave the thought with you and perhaps you can munch on a liver sandwich and think about it.

Odd Spot #123

Sigmund Freud had a morbid fear of ferns.

So ... errh ... what are ferns a symbol of?

I don't know exactly what the Freudian theory is of ferns but ...

Review: Doubt

I just last night watched the movie, Doubt. It was excellent.

I'm surprised it didn't win any Oscars. In my opinion Meryl Streep did a whole lot more with this role (and it was far meatier) than Kate Winslet's character in The Reader, who spent most of her time stripping and rolling about in bed. Of course, I'm not that interested in seeing Meryl Streep strip and role about in bed, so I'm very glad that in this role she played a nun who kept her clothes tightly on.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman was excellent as Father Flynn, but I can't compare him to Sean Penn who won the Oscar that year as I haven't seen Milk, and the supporting cast was great too.

For those who haven't seen Doubt, this is a movie which leaves you to think for yourself, which is rare in movies these days. It isn't about flashy effects either, but I remained engrossed the whole movie. It's about the goings on in a Catholic Church where a strict old-timer nun comes into conflict with a more liberal priest (Father Flynn), whom she suspects of misconduct, and the sweet and younger nun (Sister James) who is at her beck and call. Doesn't sound like a lot but it's absolutely mesmerising.

A lot of bloggers have asked what is the moral of this story, and some have talked about how it may be about how things can happen when you act and you are not certain, you have doubts. On the other hand, it also can make you think about what might happen if you were uncertain, and if you didn't act, but waited until you had that certainty before acting. Would you never act and what would the consequences be?

In the end it does show the consequences of 'certainty' or moral superiority and the importance of doubt, but should we not act simply because we have doubts?

I really thought this was one of the best-acted movies I've seen in a long time, and had a powerful theme to it.

Different Shades of Racism

OK, now my last post on Sol Trujillo went on for a bit so now I just want to move on and not move on at the same time.

Mainly (sorry amigo - hehehe) I'm not exactly that interested in Mr Trujillo right at the moment. I don't think I ever was or ever will be. I don't even have a Sol Trujillo label.

However, the real reason I brought up Sol's comment was to discuss racism, not to discuss whether Sol was being a whiney ass or not.

One interesting thing did come up when my Dad mentioned it over the table, and that was that there was no racism, yes he got called names but you just had to laugh at it.

Now, I have to say that my Dad does have certain beliefs about racial differences - that is, he comes right out and says things like he doesn't think Aborigines aren't as good as other people. But then he believes it's based in fact, so that isn't racist.

What I want to throw out here is - what really counts as racist? Is racism distinguishing between race? Is it believing in racial superiority/inferiority? Is it making assumptions based on race? Are there some assumptions that are acceptable to make based on race? Is it ok to be racist if it's a joke - and does it count as a joke if the other person doesn't get it?

For instance, if a person is Chinese, certain people might say it is more acceptable to assume that they will have dark coloured hair and skin. And that's not racist. But is it racist to also assume that they don't speak English and that they eat only with chopsticks?

I was at a TAFE class once and we went to a photo gallery. I liked a photo that was predominantly red in colour so I stopped to look at it, and my teacher came up to me and said "Do you like that photo because you're Chinese?" I said, "No, I like it because I like it. It's got a very vibrant, striking colour." She started going on about how she was sure it was because I was Chinese, and red was a very Chinese colour, and it was the colour of the Chinese flag and it was very symbolic. (I would like to point out that red is only one of the colours on the Chinese flag and red is also the colour most common on all of the flags of all the countries in the world. It's not very particular to the Chinese.)

I'm not sure if someone else would consider this singling out 'racism'. I didn't think it was a major attack, but I did feel she had made me feel awkward, and yes, she'd made a racist assumption and treated me according to my racial group rather than either treating me like everyone else or listening to me individually.

Are racist remarks and opinions based on so-called 'facts' still racist - and then who decides what 'facts' are valid? That is, many tests, surveys, and stats have been done testing racial groups and they have come up with certain results. Physical, social, intelligence, health etc related stats could lead someone to use a taunt and then claim that they backed it up with a stat.

"This guy's a black - more likely to have AIDS and do drugs," or something similar.

I remember a poster that was considered racist that was put up on campus that said "Don't have sex with blacks - Avoid AIDS". It was also backed up with stats that said more black men had AIDS than white men.

Do racial jokes count, and what's funny? And what's not? I don't want to live in a country where you can't tell a joke, but on the other hand, basically other people determine the funniness of any joke.

In my opinion, when you tell a joke you take a risk, but people take the risk because it's well worth the laugh! And you build up enough of a connection with the people you tell jokes to that it is not a big enough deal that you will end up being killed because you told a crummy one. Most likely if it's terrible you will just get some glares or blank looks.

Anyhow, I don't believe I've even touched the tip of the iceberg as to how racial tension, harassment, bullying and discrimination can be expressed, but I'm sure it can express itself in many ways. By omission as well as action. By making assumptions, by delegating work and roles of certain types to certain people.

The trouble is it's almost impossible to be colour blind, and in many ways we wouldn't want people to be because many of us are very proud of the racial backgrounds we embrace; what we don't want is for people to make us suffer because of them, and often it is difficult to know when what we may think is a friendly gesture could be interpreted as a racist or demeaning one that is singling them out, not as one celebrating race, or being curious about individuality or making a friendly joke. It isn't always easy to figure out how the other person takes it, and saying "they shouldn't be so sensitive" or "They should have a better sense of humour" or whatever ... well it doesn't really change the fact that they could be hurt or bemused at the time now, does it?

Trains don't respect the veterans!

I bring to you this shocking story.

The Daily Telegraph recently polled several ordinary Australians and asked them whether people should be allowed to trade on ANZAC Day.

"Of course not," was the response of one codger. "People died to save shops on that day! They died so that people would be able to work for our country on that day. We should show our respect for their deaths, show we understand why they made those sacrifices and learnt from history, and sit on our bums on that day!"

"We're celebrating Australian-ness on ANZAC Day, and it's plain un-Australian to go to work and make an honest buck," added another. "We shouldn't forget where we came from."

However, in alarming news, the train and bus services decided to rebel against the butt-sitting rules and will not only be out there pre-dawn ferrying people around, but will revel in - gasp - collecting money for tickets.

Show some respect, will ya, public transport? Taking money tomorrow is just plain wrong. All trains should be sitting around drinking beer and playing two-up in RSLs while people wander around in lots of one-minute sessions of silence, wondering what the heck they're going to do now that everyone shares their attitude. Which they're always whingeing they want, but now that it's happened, somehow it's all wrong.

Judge the Rich

I love reading reviews of stuff I've already seen or read, especially reviews that bash it, and rather perversely, especially reviews that bash or at least criticise films or books or shows that I like.

Anyhow, today I was reading IMDB reviews for a movie I really like, 'The Remains of the Day'.

One comment stuck out to me - it said it was a great film but its "weakness" was that "it didn't judge the rich". (the review seemed to feel that negative judgment ought to have been passed)

Is that a weakness in a film - NOT judging the rich? Would it be a weakness in a film to judge or pass judgment on the poor, and especially to make a negative judgment?

I think a lot of people would say that it would be a weakness to allow such judgment at all - that is their situation could be portrayed but to make an ethical judgment based simply on their economic situation or to generalise about the group would be 'wrong'.

So why should we do any differently for the rich ... just because they are rich and they've had it good enough in other ways we don't feel we have to be fair in terms of 'judging'?

The Philosophy of Shopping: Need not Greed

I have done my Christmas shopping, and I'm kind of proud of myself, but it doesn't stop me shopping, especially when it comes to books.

I once read an old maxim "Need, not Greed" ought to be applied to shopping. Funnily enough, I can apply this to many things, food, clothes, whether to really pay uni fees or not. I manage to go about in unfashionable clothes - or fashionable clothes, so long as I wait 10 or 11 years, and fashion does the full circle, and pyjamas with holes in the knees, convincing myself that it's greed to lash out on more because the legs are still good. Or at least there is still a bit of fabric that covers me, anyhow. Or a bit of me.

However, the same maxim doesn't apply to two things: boooks, and useless odds and ends found in markets and discount shops. If there's a cool ceramic turtle going for a few dollars, certainly, it can be bought. Need? I just do. And besides, it's only a few dollars.

And books. Well, everyone needs three copies of their favourites, and besides, several bookcases of books you haven't read yet just makes you feel smarter.

Isle Of Ignoramus

Recently, the International Committee On Citizens And Immigrants came together to discuss a serious matter seriously, not just swap Iced Vovos and sushi recipes.

Previously, citizenship tests had been discussed. Some countries had them, and some hadn't. But many were thinking of taking them on. These included a test of random questions, which could include anything about the food and sporting history of the country to which were the Prime Minister's underpants of choice that day. Some countries accepted you if you got the latter question right, some expelled you if you did. Others included language proficiency tests, criminal history checks, and tests by large highly trained sniffer dogs. This was a matter for contention, as some countries did not think body odour ought to be a factor taken into account in whether you were a worthy citizen. However, an overwhelmingly number believed in it. "If a person stinks, the country sinks," chanted the supporters.

But this seminar, it was found that not only did many applying immigrants fail basic "sample answer" tests for citizenship, but the ones who had been born in a place failed miserably too.

The Australian representatives put forth their side:
While the committee was forced to accept multiple answers for some questions, ("Who is the Opposition Leader of Australia?" Kevin Rudd, Peter Costello, the ABC; "What does the "W." stand for in "John W. Howard"?" Winston, Wanker, Worst PM, "What is Australia's official language?" English, swearing, texting; were all considered acceptable, were some examples) applicants did terribly, and many citizens even worse.

The panel scratched through a bundle of tests who wrote that the Australian of the Year was "really cool - I watch each week - I will audition next year and make my dreams come true and by the way I love you Marcia and I hate Dicko!!!!!!!! xxxxxooooo!!!"

The International Committee showed several humiliatingly similar stories, such as people who had searched for Condoleeza Rice in the grains section of their supermarket.

It was then that it was decided to set up an Isle of Ignoramus. This may take some time as it as realised this may have to be a rather large Isle.

Those who could not show basic knowledge of their homeland would be shipped to Ignoramus - unless they could apply successfully, meeting the standard requirements of a citizenship test, to some other country.

Ignoramians would be supplied with basic water and shelter. It would be a jungle isle, so they could easily pick fruit and hunt for food. There would be some nice yummy cockroaches to eat should they get the urge for something more substantial. They may find nuts and berries, and possibly, if they were lucky, a cocoa bean to sweeten the whole thing up.

Courtesy of the International Committee a library would be set up on Ignoramus. There would be a limited number of books, texts and so forth, on various countries and cultures, but certainly enough information to study and pass a sample answer test, should an Ignoramian wish to improve his or her status in life. It may be necessary to share or fight for such resources, but this would show the will to learn - or the ability for those on Ignoramus to learn civilised ways and negotiate win-win situations.

Twice a year, Ignoramians would be given the opportunity to resit a citizenship test for the country of their choice - if they wish. Should they pass they would be allowed to leave Ignoramus.

The Committee thought the idea a resounding success. Now, the only question remained - where should they put Ignoramus?

The Interview: The Nice Guys Never Go For The Nice Girls

The one lesson I have learnt from my interviews is this:

If you think you liked them, if you think they liked you, if you arrived on time, if the job sounded great and the offices had a water view ... well, you probably won't get it. Ah, yes, I'm talking about rejection, a rebound relationship, a wounded heart ... but also long experience. Listen up.

Damn! (they don't want me ... they don't want me ... but I was so nice to them .. what did I do wrong? why me why me why me when will this nightmare end oh but why don't people like me why do they always pick up other girls what do they have that I don't have I'll never find myself an employer I'll always be unhappy why me nobody wants me no one no one no one I'll always be aloooone ....)

There must be some way to negate this - which must mean, go there loathing the place. No matter how buttery smooth the sweetheart of the interviewer is, be impervious to it. Convince yourself you were terrible. Be rude at every possible turn. Tell him or her exactly why you'd be useless at the job and don't be very interested. The more you love the job, The more you despise it. They'll jump all over you to hire you.

Then you're home and hosed, with that dream job you've always hated. What more could you ask for?

If You Have An Itch, Scratch It ...

Sounds good in theory ...

My last post reminds me of a friend's justification (if he needed one) of flings and casual sex "If you have an itch, scratch it."

While I wiggle uncomfortably in my seat here, feeling the bites of my sunburn - and yes you guessed it, a few mosquitoes caught up with me recently and had a field day - I'm certainly hoping for his sake, that his experience of an itch is qualitatively different from mine ...

And his "scratch" is a lot more satisfying.

The Itchy And Scratchy Show

Out of all the Seven Stages Of Sunburn I neglected to mention the most difficult stage of all - the itch.

I'm going through it now. While the skin peels off, it itches. If it's not one shoulder it's another. Why don't these attention-seekers find something else to do?

This is something like "Pain" only far far worse. Pain is when someone hits you, gauges out your eye, hacks off your head. Itch is when your body teases you malevolently with comparable sensations and makes you want to do it yourself. But when you give in to temptations - the satisfaction lasts for only about three seconds before you start itching all over again.

Ouch!

The other thing about itch on peeling skin is the rule that "if it's itchy, it means delicate skin underneath". For some reason, Nature has given us a body where we have a natural urge to scrape hard nails across the most tender parts of our bodies and expose bleeding flesh, which will heal again in a day or two, leave a scar or scab, and become itchy as hell too. Yes, and there are still people who push the intelligent design theory wagon; personally I think this is proof enough no creator of humans could have been intelligent and certainly not merciful.

In fact the reason I'm typing now is in a vain attempt to give my fingers something to do, otherwise they'd be at my poor, already mutilated skin.

Oww!