Okay, follow the bouncing ball here.....

That job, the one in which the agency putzed around and couldn't get me in for an interview? Well, funny thing about that. They finally heard back from the HR person about me coming in for an interview and it turned out that they did such a good job of playing me up that the company didn't want me to come in because they thought I was too experienced (which is probably true, but what of it?).

Which is bad.

Except for the fact another agency, one that just throws resumes out there without putting much work into it sent my resume in too. Without hyping me. So guess who has an interview next Tuesday?

But yeah, I'm probably overqualified and the pay isn't as good as before, but it's always nice to feel wanted.

I sent an email to that place I've interviewed twice at asking where they are in the process as supposedly they'd let me know be now. Below is the email I got in response. So, for the fun of it, and because this is how my brain works, let's break this sucker down on a semiotics/neurotic level.

Thanks for your note.

Okay, their being polite, that's good, right? Or does it just mean their being polite?

We are in the process of getting resumes from internal candidates and should start interviewing soon. I will keep you posted!

On the one hand, they're still interviewing people which is a bad sign because if they wanted to hire me, they wouldn't be collecting more resumes for people to interview. That's not a good sign. On the other hand, they haven't hired anybody yet so I'm still in the running. If they didn't really like me, they might have said something about "hiring people internally" or some such nonsense to tell me to forget about it.

Also, she mentioned earlier that they wanted to interview people internally and since they brought me back for the 2nd interview so quickly (based on a thank you note I sent in) maybe it just means that they like me enough to bring me in faster than they planned and they're still going through the process? Or maybe they have to interview internal people because it's company policy and it's just like a box they have to check? That's good.

But on the other hand, companies like to hire people internally. Or maybe they really liked me before but not enough to interview people? She also said they were trying to hire somebody fast and if they're collecting resumes, that means they're not going to hire somebody really fast and they didn't like me enough to hire me. That's bad.

But, she did use an exclamation point at the end so, once again, she's being really polite so it's not like she doesn't like me.

Or maybe it is what it is and I should just calm the fuck down. And not drink so much coffee.

Now here's what I mean about cats. Whenever the cat decides that Harlan and I should wake up and spend time paying attention to him, I try and get back him the next day by trying to wake his ass up everytime he falls asleep. So everytime I go into the bedroom and he's lying on the bed, I make it a point to either meow at him, make some sort of loud noise at him, or just pet him.

This morning, I did as I always did and tried to wake his ass up and as a result of said action, I got a little love bite from him letting me know it was not appreciated. But here's the thing-- he wakes our ass up and we have nothing we can do about it other than telling him he's a bad kitty, something that not only doesn't work with cats but usually only encourages them. So, to sum up: him waking us up is cool. Us waking him up is not cool. And in the realm of things, telling someone "bad kitty" does not work as entirely well as trying to bite someone.

I have a cat now, another sign of my turn into domesticity and adulthood. The cat, officially named Charlie McLovin Harlan, went sort of nuts on us last night and around 4:30 in the morning decided he wanted us to wake up and pay attention to him. So he did a lot of meowing, scratched at the bed, and occasionally leaped up on his hindlegs and with his forepaws, swatted Harlan while she was trying to sleep.

Last night was not a fun night, the kind of night that I'm pretty sure would be something akin to having a new-borne baby.

The thing I've noticed about cats is that I'm not all together sure they're supposed to be domestic animals. Now maybe I'm saying this because I am a full-fledged dog person, but dogs definitely act like a domestic animal should be-- happy to see you, easy to play with, and fully capable of giving affection back. Cats, on the other hand, seem ambivalent about all such things. In a way, cats often come off either like moving furniture or like roommates you live with whom you kind of like to hang out with but also leaves the dishes out too long and invites friends over at all hours of the night and sometimes you'd like to strangle them.

What I mean is that unlike dogs, cats seem to be completely content with living in their cat bubble world and do nothing but sleep, eat and chase imaginary mice. That's all they want to do and come off like that's all they really want out of life. Oh sometimes they'll hop on your lap or curl up with you, but it's always on their terms, never really on yours. When you want to pet them or play with them, they usually tolerate it more than anything else. Charlie will give us a roll of the eyes and let us pet with him or give us a really annoyed look, like "Jesus, people not again-- can't you seem I'm trying to sleep?"

Now none of these things are wrong, in fact it's why some people like cats, especially since it makes them low maintenance. It also makes people think cats are smarter which always struck me as retarded (the argument always boils down to how people say that, yes, dogs can do tricks but that's because they're dumb. Cats are smarter because while they could do tricks, they choose not too because they're too smart to play silly little pet games. Which is akin to me saying I could do physics if I wanted to, but I'm too smart to apply myself to something as silly as physics).

On the other hand, cats are awfully cute and sometimes you just want to pick them up and squeeze them like they're nothing but a live stuffed teddy bear. Which is probably why they always look so irritated when you do pick them up.

None of this, however applies to Charlie. Because Charlie is the most wonderful, loving, handsomest cat EVER.

So I'm waiting to hear back from that place I had a second interview with last week. And yeah, it's been a week since I interviewed there (gulp). The way I figure it is if I got the job, I'd get a phone call. If I didn't, I'd get an email. So right now, everytime I check my email, I'm saying a little silent prayer that I don't get an email from my contact at the job. And everytime the phone rings....

Anyways, last night I watched "the Incredibles" on the Disney Channel. Love that movie. But in watching it on the Disney Channel, I was subjected to a lot of commercials about shows on the Disney Channel. While watching them, I couldn't help notice that most of the shows, primarily the one's aimed at "tweens" were mainly about being rich (that Zack and Cody show), being famous (Hannah Montana), shopping and fashion (pretty much everything).

As I was watching all this I thought back way back when and wondered what kind of shows I was subjected to back then and what they were about. Other than that show "You Can't Do That on Television " (the show where people got slimed) I couldn't really remember any show which was geared towards my being a tween or a teenager. I guess that's what happens when you're just old enough to live at the start of the cable era. I did have, however, MTV but back then MTV actually played videos and didn't focus on shallow people doing shallow things. Mainly, all that we had to watch were the Brady Bunch and Gilligan's Island.

Which brings us back to the point I was trying to make, about the fact that most of the shows aimed at kids today focus on nothing but materialistic things whose emphasis is somehow related to having money and spending. And fame. Oh, I'm sure that each show, many of which are sitcoms, all end with some sort of lesson being learned but what sort of lesson can be learned if the whole point of the show is that you suck if you're not rich and can't go shopping for fashionable items.

Now I'm not saying that Hannah Montana should be a show about a teenager who volunteers to save refugees in Darfur or "the Green Life of Zach and Cody" but one still has to wonder just how more and more fucked each upcoming generation will be.

And, yes, get off my lawn you damn kids.

Yay, it's job stuff!

-I got a call from a recruiter about one job with a big company that I interviewed with way back when, a place that caused all sorts of problems (I think I mentioned this earlier, no?). Anyways, instead of just sending my resume over, the agency asked me to come down to their office and sign a few papers and meet with them. Then they wanted to check my reference meaning nothing happened for a few days as they and my old boss played phone tag. After that, they wanted me to do what basically was a cover letter that they could also send to the company. All of which meant that it took them about a week after contacting me to send over my resume. Not so surprisingly, they never heard back from the company and no interview for me. Now, part of me makes me wonder if I would have gotten a foot in the door if the company DIDN'T FUCKING DAWDLE IN SENDING OVER MY RESUME.

Ahem.

-I also got a call from another agency saying that lo and behold, the place that had recently let me go was looking for the same sort of position I did. Something happened over there and they needed somebody to help them out for awhile (I found out from a little birdie there that somebody just up and left due to a family emergency). The recruiter saw my resume, thought I'd be a good fit, and called me. I, of course, was a little stunned (especially after I had told everybody to give me a call if they need me) and told the guy what happened. Both of us felt that since I was let go because the project I was working on got cut, that it would make pretty darn good sense to bring me back on board, me knowing the job and all.

Naturally, the place said they didn't want to bring me back. So, instead of bringing on board somebody who they liked and did a good job (I had weekly one-on-one's and never heard a discouraging word) and who also knows how the place works, they decided they'd rather go ahead, bring in a few people to interview, and then spend a month or two to train them.

Which means
1) They still think that I can only do the project they hired me for and still think I'm overqualified to do anything else and so would be bored and unfulfilled. If so, gosh, once again thanks for thinking of me.
2)There was a little more going on both when I left and while I was gone than I knew. Which makes me a little paranoid.
3)They're really stupid.

Any of these three could possibly be the reasons why. From what I've heard, they actually are pretty stupid.

Oh, there's one little thing I can also think of. See, there was about 11 people who worked in the department I worked in. I was the only guy. While it's not true of everybody who worked there, the vibe of the department was definitely married suburban moms who love cats a little too much. And Disney. I, on the other hand, am a sports-loving, ex-Mission dwelling, snark infested, Y chromosome carrier. Every once in awhile I think that I got let go primarily because if one were to do a "one of these things is not like the other," I'd definitely be "the one"

So I just watched Obama's speech in Berlin. It was, as always, lyrical, passionate, intelligent, inspiring and sophisticated showing a world view that completely depicts the way the world is now. In other words, I'm getting more and more sure by the day that McCain's going to win.

I had an interview this morning so to prepare for it, I read a bunch of sites on how what types of questions are usually asked and how to respond to them. For every major question, there is a pat response that not only are you supposed to know, but have memorized to the point that, as one site said, you could recite if awoken at 2 in the morning. The point of some of these questions is to sound as confident as possible and the point of some of them is to not actually answer the question asked. One of the pat responses, in fact-- the one about the always tricky "what would you consider one of your weaknesses", became so well known that it doesn't work anymore and so lately another pat response is being suggested, one that says the same thing as the previous pat response but in a different way.

The result of this is that in a way, an interview is just a verbal test, like the kind you had in history or math class. Your asked a question and your supposed to answer with the correct answer. Answer correctly, you get a point. Answer incorrectly, you lose a point. It's just yet another hoop that you're supposed to jump through. You could also say that it's like running for politics in that every politician is told to give the campaign talking points no matter what the question is. This keeps them from saying something they shouldn't (like their own opinion or reality) and keep them out of trouble. It's no surprise that most winners in an election are the one's who stick to the script. It's also no surprise that people are completely turned off by it because everybody sees right through it.

Now while this makes senses to the interviewee, it doesn't seem quite right for the interviewer because they know for whatever question they ask, the response they get is primarily a bunch of BS some book told them to say. None of this is in any way helpful to the interviewee because they never really get a true perspective of that person. Like say somebody's main weakness is they have a short temper and have a tendency to yell at people for no reason. Now this would be something a potential employer would want to know but since nobody is going to answer the question "what would you say is your weakest skill" by saying "I tend to yell at people all the time," the employers would never know that until they hire that person and watch them yell at people all day.

So how'd I do today? B+ at best. I just have to hope somebody doesn't get an A.

Oh, I talked to about three people (two of them via conference call) and everybody ended the conversation by saying "good luck." Now does that mean "we really liked you so good luck in the interviewing process because we're rooting for you" or does it mean "there's no way we're going to hire you so good luck out there." Or does it mean nothing at all?

Nah....nothing in job interviews mean nothing at all.

I guess the big pop culture thing right now is the trailer for a new Disney flick called "Beverly Hills Chihuahua." And yes, that could potentially be the dumbest idea for a movie in the history of moviedom. The trailer in question is....well..... You know the line about how there's a fine line between clever and stupid. The trailer happens to be both at the same time. It's both amazingly awful and amazingly brilliant all at the same time and it's impossible not to watch it over and over again mainly to figure out what exactly which one is it. The song in the trailer is also amazingly and cruelly catchy as all hell and sticks in your brain and won't let go.

Anyways, check the trailer out:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/beverlyhillschihuahua/trailer_large.html

Here's something you don't want to hear a few days before a big, second round with a major financial institution, that despite the fact said financial institution has yet to be affected by the things that have caused parts of it's industry to collapse, the collapse is dragging down it's stock to the point that everyone who works there is afraid of layoffs.

And I know certain people might consider it "whining" but I had trouble with getting unemployment mainly because I recently moved. I tried calling Unemployment to figure it out so I could start getting put on the dole but I couldn't get through to anybody. I didn't even get a "your wait will be two hours" message, it was basically like "yeah, your call ain't happenin'" So, in order to get through to somebody, I went to the unemployment office where I was told that the only thing I could do was to use one of their phones because apparently the only way to get through to the call center is to use the unemployment office phones. And despite all that, I still had to wait ten minutes before I could get somebody on line. I know, it's all in my head, but shouldn't it say something that people who are unemployed can't get through to unemployment because there's too many people who are unemployed trying to get through to unemployment?

You know, I don't know why they hire all these fancy-pants economists to analyze the economy. All they have to do is ask me.

We step away from the usual daily blather to talk politics. Why? 'Cause I got nothing today.

Anyways, with the big election coming up, I am even more of a political junkie than usual. And, yes, being a political junkie kinda isn't a very healthy thing to be. The thing is that with the election coming up and with my guy being the candidate, it's really hard to resist paying attention despite the fact I should know by now that it's time like this that create more teeth gnashing and blood pressure rising than anything.

For instance, there's the fact that polls are showing that while most people think the Iraq war is a mistake and want us to leave, polls show that people think John McCain will do a better job in doing so. This despite the fact he's been a major supporter of the war and his belief that we should stay in Iraq forever and ever and ever. This also despite the fact McCain comes off a bit trigger-happy and is a diplomatic crisis waiting to happen for his predilection to make jokes about killing Iranians. Then there's the old perennial, how a huge whopping amount of people keep on saying the economy is the biggest issue and that they really need health care yet prefer the one candidate from the one party that has absolutely no fucking clue as to how to do either. Or has shown any interest in doing so.

Which is kinda why I wish a candidate, upon hearing from somebody in South Carolina or Indiana complain about how they lost their health care when they lost their jobs would tell them "well, you maybe if you weren't so fucking stupid and voted Republican, you'd have health care and a job right now."

So I'm in the jacuzzi at the gym and in the jacuzzi with me is some crone-ish like old lady wearing a bathing suit that crone-like women should not be wearing. Like, if you have liver spots up and down your back, do not wear something without a back. Or, if you're somewhere in your 60's or 70's, do not wear a bathing suits that puts manuevers your breasts into some sort of seductive position.

After a few minutes, she gets up and I kinda watch her get out of the jacuzzi in that some way that you can't turn away from road kill on the street. When she fully gets out and grabs her towel, I notice that one of her arms ends in a stump.

Now, two thoughts

1) I feel really awful for thinking up all that stuff about somebody who is, in effect, handless
2)On the other hand, double ick.

One more thing about the gym, recently I turned 40 (yikes) and while I had a hard time of it when I was 39, now that I'm actually the number, I'm okay about it. Well, as long as I don't think about it. Which is why the only time I really cringe about it is whenever I get into one of those cardio machines and have to plug the number 40 in when it asks me my age.

At what point are you allowed to tell a kid shut up in a children's movie? On the one hand, a kid could be totally obnoxious but on the other hand, it is a kids movie. Why I bring this up is because I saw Wall-E last week (just a phenomenal movie) and there was this kid sitting behind me who had to be around 4 who spent the whole movie blabbering away, kicking my chair, poking her head over hear seat and at one point ran up and down and up and down the completely empty aisle for which she sat. Her mother, as far as I could tell, did nothing much in the way of stopping her. Again, I could have said something, but on the other hand I'm watching a cartoon about one robot falling in love with another robot.

The other thing about all of this is that telling people responsible for making a lot of noise in places they shouldn't be rarely goes smoothly. Whenever you let the person know that they are in effect being obnoxious, you never hear "gosh, you are right. I'll try and be more quiet and I apologize to you and yours for ruining your experience." Instead, what you usually hear is a bunch of curses and invective thrown your way.

A friend of mine told me a story about having seats at a Shins concert. In front of her and her friends sent this dad who was there with his two teenage sons. The dad was obviously not into the music and so spent the entire concert on the phone with friends, blabbing away. When one of my friends' friends asked him, politely, to get off the phone and shut the fuck up, he got cursed at and then spent the next few minutes yelling back and forth with the dad.

Which brings up my situation because there is nothing-- nothing-- that is prone to explosion like a mother called on her parenting skills. You just do not go there. What I mean is by turning around and asking her to control her kid, you are, in effect, calling her a lousy parent who can't control her kid. And what mother wants to hear that? And it's not just on a personal level, but you are never supposed to question anybody about their parenting skills (unless their child happens to be a celebrity). It's just not allowed to say anything bad about a child and the child's mother

So I did nothing.

Now you might be wondering, Hooray, just what are you doing with yourself while you're unemployed yet again (for those keeping track, this will be unemployment #4). Well, in unemployment #1, I watched a lot of Read World marathons. In unemployment #2 I watched a lot of Buffy. And in unemployment #3, I watched a lot of Charmed.

So what am I doing right now? Veronica Mars.

Now you might be seeing a recurring theme here, mainly that it's three shows involving women with some sort of secret identity/power who uses their power to help save the world. Or there High School reputation as there's no supernatural aspect to VMars at all. That, of course, would be true.

So why VMars?

Well, when it was on, everyone praised it as the new Buffy, including Joss himself. The show was so trying to be the new Buffy that at various points Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) and Allyson Hannigan (Willow) were characters on the show. And Joss himself had a cameo. The show also received plaudits from Kevin Smith who also had a cameo. So, in other words, it had good rep. And it's true-- the show features snappy dialogue and a kick-ass heroine. In fact, the show is a combination of things that make Hooray applaud, a combination of John Hughes and Buffy with a little Twin Peaks thrown in for good measure (the first season involved a season-long story arc about the death of Veronica's best friend and High School Princess). Plus, there's a not so subtle subtext of class issues throughout the show and we like shows that point out that rich people get away with a lot more crap than the poor and minorities.

Good VMars.

I could also make a statement about how I prefer female heroes to mail because in being female heroines, it makes them seem even more of an underdog than a male hero (males are supposed to kick ass, after all) but I won't. Instead, I'll just point something else out.

There's a video game I used to play with friends called Soul Caliber. In the game, you get to choose a character and your opponent chooses another character and you battle to the death. Love the game. Anyways, most of the guys I played with took male characters. Because they're males. I always choose the female characters. Why? Because I'd much rather watch a cartoon woman than a cartoon male.

I was just reading through my old blog posts, especially the Unemployment Years and remembering the good old days. Since I'm only in Month 1 of unemployment, I don't have that feeling of my soul being crushed on a daily basis and the bile spewing from deep down in the belly but it's early. Anyways, just to kick it old school, here's a whine about a job...

I interviewed at some big-ass agency last week (see previous post). It was last Wednesday, the one right before July 4th meaning there was only one day left before the holiday weekend started. Now, according to the dude I met with, he was going to report back to HR, interview a few more people, then start interviewing other people in a week or so. Today I got an email from my connection letting me know that they already hired somebody. Which means said timeline was totally BS. And that either they went through that entire process weeks earlier and were about to hire somebody already or they just met somebody in those few days who so blew them away that they said "screw process, let's just hire SOB." Of course, all that stuff the guy told me could have been BS because he didn't want to hire me (remember what he said about the HR person being called into a meeting?) so nevermind. Still....

Here's why politics suck in this country, or at least the coverage on it. CNN had a brief segment on the economic polices of Obama vs. McCain. Yay, actual substantive news stories. It lasted about a minute.

Afterwards, they turned to their panel of experts and instead of debating the merits of each proposal, they instead debated about which candidate is doing a better job of conveying their economic policies to the public. So instead of a substantive debate on the issues, one which should hopefully show that McCain has no friggin clue, they had a debate about stage managing and polls and who connects better with blue collar rednecks. In other words, about nothing in particularly useful.

And I'm sure people at CNN were really proud of themselves for the coverage.

Jesus, it's harder to log onto blogger these days than Bank of America.

Anyhoo, I have Blue Cross. I don't like Blue Cross mainly because they send me a lot of paperwork, most of which I don't understand. Apparently, anytime I see a doctor, they have to send me about three notices to let me know that the visit will be paid, is going to be paid and has been paid. All in confusing manner.

For one doctor, they've decided to send me the check instead of sending it to the doctor. The problem is that the paperwork is so confusing it's hard to tell it's an actual check and I'm pretty sure I've thrown out a check or two by accident. The problem is that the thing looks like a check and even has "Pay to" followed by name next to it but on the right-side of the "check", next to the amount of money the check is, it says "PAY THIS AMOUNT." Now shouldn't they not put "Pay to blah blah blah " And "Pay this Amount" on the same slip of paper? couldn't they just write on it "here's the check to pay for doctor visits to...."? Or does that make too much sense?

Here's one of the things that I had forgotten about unemployment, the level of paranoia that comes with it. Take a job I suddenly threw my hat into the ring for at Super Mondo. In just a matter of a few days I went from the manager saying "give me a call and let's discuss the position" to phone tag to "we're going to offer the job to somebody else-- it's been in the pipeline for awhile, actually."

Now, what happened over those past few days (four in total). Did they really offer the job before I talked to the manager about it? Did it take so long for us to reach each other that he decided in those four days to just offer the other person? Or was there something going on at Super Mondo that I didn't know about. Like people not backing me up or did he not like me or did he not think I did a good on his projects?

Could be nothing, could be something.

Then there was a job interview I had yesterday. At the end of the interview, which I thought went well, the guy I met with said "I was supposed to send you down to the HR person but she got called into a meeting and can't meet with you." Did that mean "the HR person but she got called into a meeting and can't meet with you" or did it mean "no, I'm not going to hire you at all and it's not even worth me sending you to the HR person."

Then there's the fact an ex-coworker works there, one who I sometimes didn't have a good relationship with. Some of it was due to personal issues I won't get into and some others because she kinda sucked and took it out on me and blamed me for her occasional bouts of suckitude. Also, she even took me to lunch and told me that I should be on my toes because they were using a recent bout of layoffs to get rid of people who aren't that good and, well, I should worry.

But that could be water under the bridge, right? By the end of her stint, we were in pretty good terms and the last time I saw her, she was really nice to me. So she could help me, right? Except for the fact she didn't respond to my LinkedIn invitation. Or a mutual friend didn't email me back about getting her email address.

Again, could be nothing, could be something.

And if it's something, what does it mean for my chances at the place? I'm sure the guy I met with thought to himself and said "hey, blah blah worked at Super Mondo too, I should go ask her about Hooray." And if he did, did she say nice things that helped me out or did she say not very nice things out that doomed me. Or maybe he didn't even ask? Maybe just the fact I was brought in and there was a connection there was a sign she helped me out. Or maybe nobody thought of it?

Just thinking about it makes me want to drink some more wine.

Jesus, I swear it's harder to log into Blogger these days than Bank of America.

anyways, you know how I was complaining about that lady who was supposed to interview me, got the date wrong, then never called me back? I got a call from the company yesterday and was told that the person in question "is no longer with the company" which, as we all know, is a euphemism for "fired."

Heh.

Alright, so I heard from a company about an interview I can't really do, but whatever. We first schedule an appt for Friday but I ask if we can move it to Monday because the in-law was in town. The person at the company agreed and said no problem. Except she called on Friday anyways and naturally I couldn't do the interview because I was friggin doing something else, like I said I would. So I called her later that afternoon, she said "whoops, my bad" (which it was-- I have the email saying we'd do it on Monday) and we made plans to call at an earlier time that Monday than initially said. Remember, I had family in town so it's not like I could just peel off and do a phone interview, especially when the time the phone interview was supposed to be was when we'd be at the airport.

Naturally, she didn't call. Not at the earlier time we had agreed upon, nor at the first time we had agreed to. She just didn't call at all.

Naturally, I decided to play this all the way through and emailed the person asking what was up. No response. The job, however, has been posted on Craigslist. So, either they somehow decided between that Friday and Monday that I wasn't qualified or I was deemed unreliable because I wasn't around to take a call I wasn't supposed to take. Or because I was too busy dealing with family to do the phone interview.

Whatever-- that person in question just flat out sucks as does the stupid company she works for.

So I got this email in response to my resume posting on Craigslist. Yes, some recruiter actually sent me an email trying to recruit me to join the army.

This, of course, is funny for oh so many reasons. Among other things, me, in the army? And then there's the fact that the army is so desperate that somebody is trolling Craigslist to recruit people. Now, obviously they aren't doing that much research in looking at resumes because they would notice that I am now 40 and probably not exactly of the age that the army would be looking for. Unless they have really lowered their standards and are now taking 40 year olds.

And, you know, I would even consider it. Or, would if it would be a desk job-- the army has to be full of people who do nothing but work at a desk. And I'd do it if I wouldn't have to go anywhere and didn't have to go through basic training. I'd even wear the uniform and get the haircut. Hell, the army is a recession proof gig and I'm sure it comes with good benefits.


>
> My name is SSG George Heath and I am a U.S. Army Solider. I was
> looking at your resume and wondered if you have ever thought about being
> a soldier. As I read your resume, I can see you have the skills
> necessary to be a successful soldier. Motivated, Intelligent, Hard
> Worker, Dependable and Responsible these are all very important skill
> sets.
>
> Now I know your first reaction is going to be Heck no, but
> really have you considered it, ever?
> We have 156 jobs available depending on your scores, but only 19% of
> those are combat related like you might think from the movies. What that
> means to you is that 126 of our jobs are support and customer service
> related.
>
> Plus, we have enlistment bounses as well as full healthcare
> benefits from the day you start. If none of this sounds like it might
> work for you then, I must have been wrong when I read your resume. Have
> a good day.
>