well, i’m done with one paper, not titled (couldn’t do it) ‘doin it dogme-style,’ tho that is how i will forever think of it (assuming i will forever think of it, which is a silly notion.) my next is due thursday and i should get cracking. however, after a luxurious macro-biotic (or is it micro? can, as in econ, there be both?) dinner enjoyed in the 6D kitchen, where i hadn’t been or cooked in a while, and a half-decent, if i may say so myself, phone-interview, i had to come downstairs to clear my head. the issue on the table is Job. do i take job a: interesting, worthwhile, research-focused, an opportunity to earn some cash ($500 – $750 per month) while working to bring down w’s evil faith-based initiative and similar programs? or job b: ridiculously ideal (see below) but unpaid?
i’m hoping for c: perhaps a combination of the two. 30 hrs/week for one and 20 for the other? i don’t see how i could in good conscience turn down the documentary. then again, how could i have gone nearly-20 years without regularly drawing a salary? granted, a paltry $1000 or so over the course of two months ain’t exactly a living wage but it’s more the getting-off-the-dole principle of the thing.
i’ve been straightforward with both potential-employers thus far. my interviewer asked about other possibilities and i told him. sounding dubious, he said he’d envisioned 40 hrs/week but perhaps 30 — certainly no less than 20 — would suffice. he said he’d check with his higher up. determinedly focusing on Potential for Good, i posed the same question to the film folk and asked for particulars. now i’m crossing finger, toes; mine, other people’s; whatever’s handy.