Goodbye Joe.

Posted on by
Reply

Today Joe Paterno will be laid to rest.  Over the past two days thousands have stood in line for hours to honor Joe.  This afternoon Joe’s processional will take him across campus, past the football stadium, and through the town one last time, flanked by thousands who mourn our loss and celebrate his life and legacy.

There has been a lot of commentary by pundits on Joe, his legacy, and how we should remember him.  Most have been fair, many have not.  A lot of the commentaries are obsessed with pointing out that Joe was just another flawed human being like the rest of us.

They just don’t get it, and they never will.

Yes, Joe could be stubborn, conservative, belligerent, self-serving, sanctimonious and all the other things he has been accused by lesser people, including myself.  In the epic of his life those flaws are trivialities.

For all his flaws, for all his warts, for what may be a colossal mistake at the end of his glorious career, Joe was most decidedly not like the rest of us.  He inspired generations to pursue excellence and to be eternally loyal to Penn State and each other.  He was the navigational star by which the Penn State community made its way, and though he is departed, the star will continue to shine brightly.

That our heroes are not infallible nor free from fault does not make them any less worthy of being our heroes.

That is why we love him.  That is why we keep the faith.

 

The world is emptier for his absence.

Posted on by
Reply

Joseph Vincent Paterno, former head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lion football team died today at the age of 85. He was an icon and an everyman, a football coach and an educator, a source of pride and frustration, he was the face of Penn State for 61 years and he will be sorely missed.

ESPN is doing their very best to make this about the alleged crimes against Jerry Sandusky, but generally failing miserably. For everyone who knew Joe Paterno, even members of the ESPN broadcasting team, know that he was a man of honor and integrity and someone whose accomplishments and contributions to not just college football – but our world – will be missed.

Joe Paterno was not a saint. He could be brash, vindictive, and stubborn. He, like all who reach his level of success, had a colossal ego, was incredibly driven and willing to hurt feelings if it meant achieving his goals.

The simple truth is, if Joe Paterno impacted no one else but his football players his positive contribution to this world is almost beyond comprehension. Most of his players have gone on to be come successful contributing members of society. Some became surgeons, others award winning musicians, others activists, and others entrepreneurs. The values they learned from Joe and instill in their children will persist long after this sad day is but a memory.

But Joe did so much more than that.  He inspired generations of Penn Staters to pursue excellence and do it with honor.  He donated millions of his own wealth to endowing the library and opportunities for students.  He championed civil rights.

The talking heads at ESPN can continue all they want to try and stain Joe Paterno’s legacy with Sandusky’s crimes. They’ll ultimately fail. Joe Paterno made more of a lasting positive contribution to our world then all those who condemn him combined.

Godspeed Joe. Our world is the emptier for your absence.

3 types of manuscript reviews to dread getting.

Posted on by
Reply

Peer-review can be an incredibly frustrating process.  A big part of the frustration comes from the generally low quality of reviews often gets.  By ‘low quality’ I dot mean ‘negative,’ but rather unsubstantial and not useful.  With that in mind I offer the three types of peer reviews you should dread getting and desperately try to avoid giving:

1.  The Out-of-Hand Review

Here the reviewer simply rejects your submission in its entirety but offers no argument or evidence for why he or she has done so beyond a barely more polite version of “This sucks.”  The problem here is not that the reviewer thinks the manuscript sucks, many of them do.  The problem is that simply saying “this sucks,” without any further explanation does not help the writer get any better or understand the weaknesses of their research.  Nor does it give the writer any specific points to counter-argue which is hugely problematic because peer review is, after all, a negotiation.

Reviewers who think a manuscript is beyond-the-pale in its low quality are still obligated, perhaps more than those who just give negative reviews, to justify their views; and if they’re not going to do so, then they should simply not do the review.  The exception to this rule is if the manuscript is so replete with spelling, grammatical, and formatting errors that it is unreadable.  In that case, it’s perfectly legitimate to reject out-of-hand for its unreadable state.

2.  The “I don’t know this area but will pretend I do anyway” review

Nobody can know all the research literature, be expert in every field, etc.  Yet it seems that in every manuscript I’ve ever submitted I’ve had at least one reviewer who did not know the research area in the manuscript but charged right ahead and pretended like he did anyway.  The ‘I don’t know’ review is a huge drag for the author because it requires authors to spend significant time refuting criticism that are invalid or inapplicable.

It’s perfectly reasonable to admit, as a reviewer, that you do not have expertise in a particular area and so will defer comment to the other reviewers.  Better yet, rather than simply defer, go do a brief survey of the literature and familiarize yourself with the material.  And if that’s not an option, simply qualifying your criticisms with “This area is not my area of expertise but…”  It will go a long way towards helping the author and keeping the dialogue collegial.

3.  The Bobby McFerrin

Bobby McFerrin had a huge hit in the 1980′s called Don’t Worry, Be Happy.  The song was awful, the video was worse, and getting a Bobby McFerrin (BM) review is only slightly better than getting an ‘out-of-hand’ in that at least it’s positive.  Reviewers who give a BM review are completely uncritical.  Everything is great!   This is revolutionary work!  Give the author the Nobel already!  Just as negative reviews with no substance are not useful to authors, neither are positive reviews with no substance.  No paper is perfect and even the best can always be improved.

4.  The Fashion Police

No, I’m not talking about Joan Rivers and crew calling some starlet a ‘fashole’ for wearing last year’s outfit.  The fashion police reviewers rarely critique the substance of a manuscript intead choosing to spend their time obsessing about minutiae like  word choice, document structure, and other copy-editing concerns.  It doesn’t help, particularly when there are more substantial concerns to be addressed.

 

 

Hockey and fighting.

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times has an excellent expose on Derek Boogaard a former enforcer in the NHL who was found dead earlier this year from a drug and alcohol overdose.  The expose does an excellent job of detailing the physical and mental toll the enforcer role takes on the men who fulfill it.

There is always a lot of chatter from professional hockey executives and the hockey media about the need for fighting in hockey and how it is inherent to the sport.  But whats clear from the Boogaard exposed, particularly the first part that discusses is career in the Canadian junior leagues, is that fighting between enforcers is a side show deliberately orchestrated to appeal to ‘fans’ bloodlust.

Spontaneous fighting is one thing, and likely to never go away in hockey.  The enforcer element in hockey, where young men are deliberately schooled for one purpose only – to barenuckle brawl in staged fights – should go the way of maskless goalies.

Jerry Sandusky & Penn State

Posted on by
Reply

The morons in the
media and those that envy Penn State will continue to try and paint this
as PSU being corrupt at its very core. That’s bullshit.  This is
about one man who was a sexual predator, his victims, and three or four men who
didn’t exercise the judgment we expected from them. That’s it.

I
am still Penn State proud. While blowhards condemn us, sorority women are in the HUB today ginning up support for THON – a charitable activity that has helped thousands of kids and saved the lives of many.  Professors are still doing important research that will benefit the world. Our graduates are still making a difference in the world through their hard work at their jobs and in the armed services. And our athletes continue to demonstrate excellence, integrity, and class.

While I am saddened that this scandal has tarnished PSU’s sterling reputation and damaged Joe Paterno’s legacy – man whose positive impact on society will go on long after this scandal disappears into history; and while I mourn the damaged lives of the victims; I refuse to bow to those who say the entire Penn State community is at fault and that the entire community needs to prostrate themselves before the public and beg for atonement.

Fuck that self-righteous bullshit.

We are Penn State!