The otherwise-excellent article does have one glaring error - it says you can recharge the card at night, when electric rates are low. Does anyone know of a location in the US where ordinary retail consumers are offered time-sensitive electric rates? It’s not on offer in Silicon Valley.

Cheers!
Oliver

The plain truth is, we usually get paid more for doing things we’re modestly good at, compared to what I’d get paid for, say, playing the guitar.

And how does one get good at something? Practice, aka repetition. One should logically expect to do more-or-less the same work over and over again. It’s what you’re good at.

Want some variety? Teach yourself to be good at something else. On your dime, on your time.

Cheers!
Oliver

It’s interesting tha you presume an unemployed person is powerless to contribute to my financial gain. Quite the contrary. While there can be some rivalry, I know from my own experience and that of others that there’s much to be gained by both parties in trading leads, tips, ideas, resources, etc. You have info which may not be useful to you but is to him, and vice versa. Why not share?

Broadly speaking, one has “friends” - people one knows well and chooses to spend time with; “acquaintances” - people you know but aren’t especially close to (perhaps a neighbor); and “business associates” who may be colleageus, co-workers, vendors, customers, or any of the legion of folks we encounter in our work lives.

I would agree that pestering acquaintances is an area that requires the most thought and care as to social appropriateness. As for friends, if one’s friends won’t help you in a job search, get new friends.

This leaves business associates. By definition, these are the folks with whom we buy, sell, exchange, and trade. When a sales person calls you - or you call him - the presumption of business intent is assumed. Suppose you leave your job, or it leaves you, and you call a former vendor. Would he be upset that you called? It’s unlikely. He has every reason to assist you in your job search. Not only does it give him the enormous emotional satisfaction of helping a fellow human being in his hour of need (which we shall assume is his primary motivation) but he is aware that you are unlikely to buy any more product until you are once again employed.

Ringo, you need not engage in social networking as part of your next job search. It isn’t required by law. If you dislike it, by all means don’t do it. But don’t presume that other who do engage in it are insufferable rude or busy annoying each other. It’s possible they’re engaging in a collective exercise in mutual co-operation and benefit.

As for your view of hiring via networking, I agree that it biases the pool. Thus, when I call friends and ask who’s _really, really_ good at the skill I need. I bias the pool toward RR good people. I can live with this. Furthermore, it’s often the case that the best people are currently employed and not necessarily looking. One doesn’t find them without networking.

Cheers!
Oliver

Yes, calling people you don’t know to ask for favors is aggressive. Suggesting a lunch meeting with a former colleague varies. Would you do so even if you knew they were unemployed and powerless to contribute to your financial gain? If the answer is yes, then there’s nothing wrong with it… unless the answer is “yes, you never know when some schmuck might hit the lottery or get promoted to CEO.” (In which case it’s not so much aggressive as cynical.)

I would also dispute the point that the other person knows exactly what one is doing (when networking) and is “doing it too”. To the extent that may be true, I say let the “consenting adults” principal rule, but it seems to me it calls for disclosure. Perhaps one could say, “I’m feigning a social interest in you for business purposes; if you’d like to reciprocate by pretending to tolerate me for potential financial gain, please do.”

In regards to your remark about sincerity, I think you’ve become confused in a way which is somewhat ironic for this venue. Sincerity doesn’t depend upon whether you wish someone well or ill. The crux of it is lack of pretense or affectation. One could sincerely “wish [someone] great evil.”

Here’s the bottom line: In so far as I know, there is no final arbiter for rudeness, nor for the kind of world we all want to live in. That means I can’t prove my assertion that career networking is rude. I also can’t prove that the social and business environment to which it leads is undesirable. I can, and have, and might again, point out and illustrate how rude and undesirable it is to me.

I say calling people one doesn’t know, pestering people at social functions to sell them something or ask for a job, pretending a personal interest in people in order to advance one’s career, and begging favors at every turn is rude. When that crosses the barrier between work/business and home/social life, the rudeness is extreme. I don’t want a world that works that way, but clearly some people do.

From my point of view networking, line (queue) cutting, and telemarketing are of a piece and more or less equally rude. However, when it comes to sheer damage to quality of life I’ll take the line cutters and the telemarketers every time, they do less damage.

Ringo

ps. Oh, in regard to using networking for hiring decisions, that dog won’t hunt. If you bias the applicant pool you bias the outcome. –r

I think you have missed the thrust of my commentary. I have no dispute with the facts you bring to bear. It is clear that Merck engaged in shady and underhanded practices; but this is hardly unusual behavior for Big Pharma.

The problem is that, at least as far as I can tell, nothing that they did was actually illegal. Also, as best as I can tell, they even had made note of potential cardiovascular effects in their original monograph (the link is to an early Canadian version; I wasn’t able to locate an initial U.S. copy).

In 2002, they revised their Canadian monograph in response to the Canadian health authorities. But in the U.S., they did nothing. Why? Because, as you indicate, the FDA used lots of harsh language but no legal force.

It is this lack of any actual illegal activity that makes the lawsuit specious, and grounds for dismissal. The indication, however insufficient in light of later facts, in the earlier monograph of potential cardiovascular problems also stands sufficiently as a disclosure to throw reasonable doubt on the plaintiff’s case. Now, you can argue that Merck’s behavior is so unconscionable that they should be tried anyway for their dirty deeds, regardless of their legal compliance, regardless of pre-existing disclosure. I wouldn’t agree, but it’s a valid argument all the same.

But that’s the whole problem, and the entire point of my original post: They weren’t tried for any of their actual underhanded behavior. You mention that every single fact was presented to this jury. Well, based on every account that I’ve seen, the jury didn’t pay one whit of attention to those facts. They preferred to make their decisions based on irrelvant, emotional, and self-aggrandizing criteria (like getting on Oprah). This is a travesty; it is cargo cult justice.

And that was the focus (or, at least, intended focus) of my initial post. I didn’t address Merck’s villainy simply because it’s off-topic for our site; we focus on appearance-over-reality, not unconscionable corporate behavior per se (we could never remotely hope to cover all that effectively). I did try to note it in passing (”This doesn’t excuse Big Pharma, or any other medical institution, from proper and forthright risk disclosure.”), but apparently not explictly enough.

As I am oft want to say, “the only conscience of a corporation is the limits set by law”. Should the FDA have forced Merck to revise the monograph, and conduct further CV studies? Absolutely. Should Merck have acted in the cause of virtue and proactively updated the U.S. monograph as well? Absolutely, as far as ethical behavior is concerned.

But unless it’s illegal to not do those things, it is wrong- and unethical for the judiciary- to try a corporation when they are complying with prevailing law. I’m the first to argue for judicial and legislative reform in eliminating (not merely reducing) the ability of corporations to subvert government processes. But a principled stand requires that I also recognize the real deficiencies in this situation, and here that lies with the FDA (and, further up, Congress) for letting Merck get away without revising the Vioxx monograph, and the judiciary for allowing suit to be brought against a legally compliant firm.

My previous post on the vaccination debacle shows what I think of collusion between Big Pharma and Government. But the Vioxx trial and subsequent verdict were a drumhead, a kangaroo court at its best. Invective and polemic, not justice and reason, carried the day. Had the FDA stepped in when they should have, the U.S. monograph would have been revised, the plaintiff would have had no case, and Vioxx would still be on the market. As it was, the lack of action by Congress and the FDA, and the fact they did indicate a potential cardiovascular risk, left Merck legally in the clear, however black their ethical position.

And, in point of fact, I think Vioxx should still be made available, just with the updated monograph and attendant risk disclosures. Instead, because a jury (and, by extension, the larger populace) are willing to act on emotion and not on reason, I and millions of others, who did not and would not experience any untoward effects of the drug, are now unable to obtain it, regardless of our willingness to assume risk. And barring some miraculous intervention on the part of the FDA, I don’t think that likely to change.

Regardless of any differences in our views, many thanks for your insightful and very relevant contribution to the discussion. You illuminate key issues that need to be, indeed must be, addressed within our medical industry. And I think getting them sorted out, and sorted out in favor of the patients, is all the more important in the wake of the Vioxx case.

Paul