text:
In which issues concerning the profession of philosophy are
bitched griped about
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Brooks Advice on Publishing in Philosophy
40 comments:
Wow. This is really good. Thanks for posting this.
- September 22, 2011 at 8:47 AM
Brooks is good!
And although I was rejected too, JMP is speedy!
(If only my recovery of self-confidence went as quickly as their review process.)
WV: galor -- I picture a gator gripped with gales of laughter.
- September 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM
- The Brooks Blog said...
This is so very kind of everyone. I'm delighted to hear the publishing advice essay has been helpful to so many. More such essays on the way...but what topics would be most helpful?
- September 25, 2011 at 7:59 AM
Thom, an essay on how to approach book publishers would be fantastic!
- September 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM
- The Brooks Blog said...
- September 26, 2011 at 12:13 AM
I'm not so sure about some of this advice. I would think that spending your time working up papers from courses you took into pubs might be more efficient time-wise than spending time reading books and writing reviews on them (assuming you have someone more senior to read drafts and whatnot). Conferences are good. The problem with them is that you have to write papers that are not the same length as you would for a pub -- another time sink. Anything I've published though has been conferenced before publication, and they are great for getting to know people.
ps: I too would like to know how to approach publishers about a book as a junior professor.
- September 28, 2011 at 2:58 AM
- The Brooks Blog said...
Anonymous -
1. I disagree. Book reviews, etc. are a great low cost (in terms of time, etc.) to begin the practice of writing for a general audience. The better you can communicate with a general audience, the better your overall success. Conferences are also helpful (as I note), but lack the free books...
2. It depends on what conferences you target. Most of my talks have permitted more time/words than APA division meetings and have suited publication plans particularly well. Perhaps you should look to new venues that will allow you to discuss your work at greater length?
3. Many thanks (in addition to your other helpful comments) for the approaching book publishers suggestion. I will probably do something on this soon. Watch this space...
- September 29, 2011 at 8:26 AM
- The Brooks Blog said...
PS I should add that I don't think that writing up course papers a better use of time. These papers are often about a particular course and ill-suited for mainstream philosophy journals in my experience. They also often fail to address an audience beyond their fellow classmates.
- September 29, 2011 at 8:27 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
The problem with them [conferences] is that you have to write papers that are not the same length as you would for a pub -- another time sink.
I don't get it. Don't you just take a regular, hope-to-publish-it paper and trim it to fit the conference guidelines? How is that a waste of time?
- September 29, 2011 at 8:38 AM
Yes, exactly. Trimming a paper for a conference instead of grooming it more for publication is a time sink. How could it not be? I can see getting an idea for a conference topic and writing up something short and then expanding it. That wouldn't be a time sink, but the reverse?
I also disagree about the course paper thing. If you have good profs and you are writing good papers for your courses, then you should be writing them as if they were potential publications. At least that was the expectations our profs put on us at my grad school, and they were commented on with that in mind. If that is not what is going in a grad program, then I think that should be changed, or you should change grad programs. I have two different papers myself that are now in publishable form that I wrote for course papers.
And I really do honestly think book reviews are a bit of a waste of time. They don't do much for your CV. In fact, at a certain point, they can be viewed as a negative. I mean maybe if you're a first year you might try it, but I would only do it once.
- September 29, 2011 at 1:56 PM
- Mr. Zero said...
Yes, exactly. Trimming a paper for a conference instead of grooming it more for publication is a time sink. How could it not be?
Several ways. For one thing, you're editing for concision, which is a virtue even if you're eye is on publication. Many times I have rewritten a paragraph in order to get the word-count down and then replaced the paragraph in the "for publication" version.
For another thing, you're getting something out of it: a conference presentation is a line on your CV, which is often worth the investment of time (depending on the conference).
For another thing, the conference presentation is likely to result in valuable discussion and feedback, which is also worth the time.
I guess it's possible that you find it more difficult to pare your papers down than I do. I usually start by hacking entire sections out--for example, depending on the context, I might delete sections where I canvas the alternatives to my proposal, or where I discuss the history of the idea, or where I relate my proposal to the recent literature in the area. I try to get to the most central part of the paper with a minimum of stage setting. Then I try to eliminate paragraphs or smaller units until I'm under the limit.
I often find this process extremely helpful. It helps me to get clear on what the most interesting or central idea really is and how best to express it, to understand how the auxiliary portions of the paper are related to the main part, to see ways of organizing the paper that I hadn't thought of before, and to state things more clearly using fewer words. It would never have occurred to me to characterize it as a waste of time. I see it as an important part of the editing process.
And I really do honestly think book reviews are a bit of a waste of time. They don't do much for your CV. In fact, at a certain point, they can be viewed as a negative.
I'm really not sure that you're responding to Prof. Brooks's advice. Brooks doesn't say, write a bunch of book reviews. He doesn't say that writing book reviews is an essential step. He says, writing one or two is a good way of ramping yourself into writing publishable work and learning about the editorial process. He says this in part because it is so easy to get a book review published, which any thoughtful person will realize is a strike against writing lots of them or focusing on them to the exclusion of regular articles.
I mean, if any number of book reviews looked bad on your CV, or book reviews were a bad way of ramping yourself into writing publishable work, I'd say you had a point. But I don't see where anything you've said here contradicts the advice in the Brooks piece.
- September 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM
I do think book reviews kind of look bad. It looks like you're not good enough to publish anything but a book review (of course, there are book reviews that are more like critical discussion pieces). It's what you do when either (a) you are offered it as a first year in virtue of your advisor snagging you a request or (b) you have tried publishing your own work and can't or (c) you're already very famous and people are interested in what your pronouncements on the latest in x might be. Either way, I don't see how any search committee will be wowed by a book review. Better to spend your time working up papers to publish. This all depends of course on what you're shooting for I guess in a job. But I wouldn't do a book review if my life depended on it. I barely have enough time to work on my own stuff. If I were to do a book review it would require putting all my own original work on hold and dedicating myself to something that won't impress people very much. That makes no sense. Also, I don't see how writing a book review will help your publishing skills much except in learning how to polish prose, which you can learn by submitting your own original work and then some. All of the benefits you claim to get from conferencing are benefits you could get just by digging in and editing your own work. I do think feedback from some source or other though is most of the time required and conferences are a way to do that (as well as get your face around).
I suppose though doing a book review *might* be OK if you are a first year PhD, but being someone who is trying to get a lot of original work out in order to get a tt job, a book review sounds like a death knell to me.
- September 30, 2011 at 3:57 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
I do think book reviews kind of look bad. It looks like you're not good enough to publish anything but a book review
I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Someone who has no publications other than a book review looks like someone who is getting started, not like someone who sucks. I agree that you can't tell that she's awesome based on the book review, but neither can you tell that she sucks.
Someone who has other publications in addition to a book review looks like someone who wrote a book review in addition to her other stuff, not like someone who sucks. And someone who has only one book review from 1999 and nothing else looks like someone whose work wasn't good enough to be published, but in that case it's the lack of other publications over a long period of time that is indicative, not the presence of the book review.
If I were to do a book review it would require putting all my own original work on hold and dedicating myself to something that won't impress people very much. That makes no sense.
There are, of course, reasons not to do a book review. Some of these reasons might very well outweigh whatever benefits there might be. But you're just ignoring the stuff Brooks says about book reviews, substituting your own non-Brooks reasons in favor of doing book reviews, and then arguing against these new reasons. Brooks doesn't say, Do a book review; search committees will be wowed! He says, Do a book review; it's a good way to ramp up into publishing.
Also, I don't see how writing a book review will help your publishing skills much except in learning how to polish prose, which you can learn by submitting your own original work and then some.
When you submit work to journals, do the referees and editors typically help you polish your prose? I didn't think so. Does Brooks mention the ability to polish ones prose as a benefit of easing into publishing by doing a book review? I didn't think so. He mentions things such as learning to deal with editors and gearing your writing for a different kind of audience.
All of the benefits you claim to get from conferencing are benefits you could get just by digging in and editing your own work.
This is actually good to know. I didn't realize I could list times I dug in and edited my work on my CV. I guess I should emend the section heading: "Conferences, Presentations, and TImes I Dug In and Edited My Work."
But seriously. One time I went to a conference and this guy I didn't know had prepared comments on my paper. They were very helpful, and it would never have happened if I had stayed home, dug in, and edited instead of spending that weekend at the conference.
Now I'm friends with this person and I send him a lot of my work. He's nice and smart and always gets back to me with helpful comments. It's pretty great, and it would never have happened if I had stayed home, dug in, and edited instead of spending that weekend at the conference.
Then, after the commenter guy read his thing, the audience asked me questions. Their questions and comments were helpful, and it would never have happened if I had stayed home, dug in, and edited instead of spending that weekend at the conference. Now I'm friends with some of those people, too.
This sort of thing happens whenever I go to a conference.
So anyways, the claim that all of the benefits of conferencing can be had just by editing your work yourself is true only if you can say on your CV that you edited your work; you will always think of everything yourself when you edit and so there is no point in getting fresh sets of eyes and ears; and there is no point in making friends. But, of course, you can't; you won't; and there is.
- September 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM
Look, I didn't say there were no benefits to conferencing, unless of course you completely ignored my earlier post and took my comments completely out of context. Fuck me. A good way to "ramp" up into publishing is to do your own work, not waste time reviewing a book review for the sake of learning how to publish. If you have an interest in that topic: go for it, but otherwise, I stick by my opinion that it's a waste of time. Sorry, Zero. I remain non-plussed.
- September 30, 2011 at 5:51 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Look, I didn't say there were no benefits to conferencing, unless of course you completely ignored my earlier post and took my comments completely out of context.
I didn't say you said that. If you think I did, you misunderstood. What happened was, on September 30, 2011 at 3:57 AM, you said, "All of the benefits you claim to get from conferencing are benefits you could get just by digging in and editing your own work." I pointed out that this is false by reiterating several such benefits.
- September 30, 2011 at 6:26 AM
OK HOLY FUCK. I forgot to stop assuming that philosophers subscribed to the principle of charity and should have been more explicit. The benefits I was referring to were those you cited as helping to clarify your position, etc. Can we put this rest now ZERO?
- September 30, 2011 at 6:48 AM
ps: Zero, you must have a tt job, otherwise you would understand why I have the opinion I do about book reviews. Maybe if you are first year in a PhD program you might want to write a book review, but book reviews on a person's CV who is applying for a job? Not the best foot Zero, not the best foot.
- September 30, 2011 at 6:52 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Hi YFNA,
I am copying this from the other thread. YOu wrote:
Maybe if you are first year in a PhD program you might want to write a book review, but book reviews on a person's CV who is applying for a job? Not the best foot Zero, not the best foot.
I didn't say it was the best foot, and neither did Brooks. He's not saying that book reviews will cause search committees to go weak in the knees from desire. He's not saying search committees will swoon. He's saying it's a good way to ramp up into publishing by learning how to deal with editors and gearing your writing towards an audience other than your professors and fellow seminarians.
Now look. Maybe you don't need this ramp. Maybe your professors grade you down when your seminar papers look like seminar papers instead of publishable journal articles. If so, good for you. Don't write a book review. Publish your publishable seminar papers, which will look better on your CV, impress the search committees, and help your career more. That's fine, and I haven't disputed that point, and as far as I can see, neither has Brooks. I didn't write a book review, either. And I definitely wouldn't consider taking the time to write one now, at this point in my career.
But the idea that book reviews look bad on your CV, that writing one is an intrinsically bad idea, that search committees will hold it against you if you do, is pure bullshit.
- September 30, 2011 at 7:00 AM
ps: I posted on the wrong thread again. Anyway, my point is that none of us have time for ramps. We have to get in there yesterday. If that's right, then the only reason to write a book review is if you're not ready to publish your own work yet and if you're not ready to do that, you will be fucked on the job market.
- September 30, 2011 at 7:05 AM
Thom Brooks,
Thanks for writing that! It's super helpful, and I'm glad you were thoughtful enough to spend time writing it. Along with the question of how to approach book publishers, I wonder whether you might include other steps in the process: (1) how long before you expect to hear back from a publisher; (2) how likely a revise and resubmit is to turn into a book; (3) how long before you expect to hear back on a revise and resubmit; (4) whether you can simultaneously submit parts of the book manuscript as articles elsewhere.
Thanks for all your work!
- September 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
@ 6:48,
The benefits I was referring to were those you cited as helping to clarify your position, etc.
I know that. The thing is that the benefits I cited as helping clarify my position really are benefits that cannot be had by simply digging in and editing. In my comment at 6:26, I am defending this claim against your assertion that, "All of the benefits you claim to get from conferencing are benefits you could get just by digging in and editing your own work." Which, again, you wrote on September 30, 2011 at 3:57 AM. I'm not saying you said there's no point in conferencing, I'm saying I have pointed to several benefits to conferencing that cannot be had simply by digging in. Which you have disputed, and about which you are wrong.
@ 7:05,
ps: I posted on the wrong thread again.
That's too bad. You should really try to keep these threads straight.
Anyway, my point is that none of us have time for ramps. We have to get in there yesterday.
What do you mean, none of us? I mean, I don't have the time to ramp up. And I guess you don't, either. But I am already publishing my own work, so I also don't have the need to ramp up. I'm already ramped.
The Brooks piece is not addressed to someone like that. It is not addressed to someone who is anxiously waiting for the JFP to drop. It is not addressed to someone who has any rational hope of success on the job market this year.
The Brooks piece is address to someone who has not published her own work yet, and does not feel ready to do that, and is in need of advice as to how to go about getting ready.
If that's right, then the only reason to write a book review is if you're not ready to publish your own work yet and if you're not ready to do that, you will be fucked on the job market.
Brooks is talking to people who aren't ready to publish their own work yet, and he is saying to them here is how you get ready. Are you that fucking dense? Did you read the section entitled "Publishing 101: Book reviews as an introduction to publishing" and think it would contain practical advice on how to prepare for a job market season that starts in two weeks?
If you don't have any publications as of right now, there is an excellent chance that you are not ready for the job market. If that's you, you are fucked on this year's job market. But that's not because you followed the advice offered in the Brooks piece; it's because your file is the file of someone who is not ready to be on the job market. There is no advice that will change that in time for this year.
If that's your situation right now, you are fucked on the job market whether you follow Brooks's advice or not; whether you have publishable work sitting in your documents folder or not. You are fucked because you're not ready, not because you have written a book review.
And there just isn't any viable short-term advice about how to get ready for the job market, because the events that make your file strong have long lead-in times. It takes a long time to write a publishable paper even if you're capable of it. It takes a long time to get that paper refereed. And with almost all top journals having acceptance rates of under 10%, even the most eminently publishable paper might be rejected several times before being accepted. This could take years.
But maybe that's not your situation. Maybe your situation is that you've got some published or publishable work and you're wondering what you can do between now and October 12 to make yourself a better candidate this year. If that's your situation, Brooks is not talking to you. Brooks is talking to people who are not ready, and he's saying, Ok, so you're not ready. Here's what I think is a good way to get ready. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
- September 30, 2011 at 8:46 AM
HOLY FUCK. Have you heard of the problem of scarcity? Yeah Marxism would work too if there was a never ending supply of fucking resources. And if grad school lasted an infinitely long time, then go ahead and stick your head up your ass and write book reviews, what the fuck? People who enter grad school should be, right away, starting to think about publishing their own ideas. As you note, it takes a long fucking time. Yes, I have publications. Do I need more? Who doesn't? I took Brooks's advice to apply more widely than just to those who have nothing better they can spend their time doing than writing a book review, but I guess if you're right, then I am wrong. But if that is all he is saying, if all he is saying is if you cannot publish your own work, then at least you can try writing a book review, sure I can agree with that!
- September 30, 2011 at 9:10 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
Have you heard of the problem of scarcity? Yeah Marxism would work too if there was a never ending supply of fucking resources. And if grad school lasted an infinitely long time, then go ahead and stick your head up your ass and write book reviews, what the fuck?
Yeah. I get it. You don't like the advice because you don't feel like you have time to do waste on publications that are of little intrinsic value with respect to the job market. I understand that this is your view, and I am inclined to agree (with the narrow point about the intrinsic value of BRs). No search committee is going to look at a book review and be impressed. Nobody cares about book reviews in themselves. I acknowledged this point back on September 29 at 3:59 PM.
And now you're saying that the all-things-considered value of book reviews is so small that in order for it to make sense to devote time in grad school to writing even one of them, you would need an infinite quantity of available time in grad school. On your view, book reviews are of extremely little intrinsic "job market" value, and whatever extrinsic "job market" value they may have is not enough to generate even a small-but-finite amount of all-things-considered "job market" value. Although this latest point is obviously somewhat hyperbolic, it is clear what your view is: any way you slice it, on your view, book reviews are as good as worthless.
And I understand your argument for this view about the extrinsic value of BRs, too. On your view, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Although you could use the BR to ramp into writing for publication instead of for your seminars, your view is that seminars themselves do this, and so you would be better served focusing on your already basically publishable seminar papers than getting sidetracked writing a review of someone else's work (or even editing those papers so as to be suitable for sending to conferences).
But look. Thom Brooks is the editor of a good journal. He gets lots of submissions. Some of these submissions no doubt come from graduate students who are submitting (direct descendants of) seminar papers, who no doubt regard these papers as publishable, and who no doubt think that their seminars have prepared them for writing publishable papers. This journal editor has also very generously written a document containing advice to graduate students who would like to publish their work.
If a journal editor like that thinks that graduate students would be well-advised to spend some time on a BR project that will be easy to get published, will help the student get acquainted with dealing with editors and editorial procedures, and will help her to write for a wider philosophical audience than just her professors and fellow seminarians, I would be prima facieinclined to accept this idea.
Now, I'm not 100% on this, and I can imagine circumstances that would cause me to change my mind. And I realize that you disagree, my friendly neighborhood asshole, and I think I understand why: you think that it is a general rule that high-quality seminar papers are very close to publishable journal articles, and so taking any time at all away from one's own research to focus on a low-intrinsic-value project whose purpose is to develop certain skills does not possess enough extrinsic value to make it worth the time investment.
However, in this environment, in which Thom Brooks, ed. Journal of Moral Philosophy thinks that it would be worth it to do that and my friendly neighborhood asshole doesn't, I accord your view no weight whatsoever.
- September 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM
I am two-years out of grad school at the beginning of a two-year position and I'm writing a book review. Am I crazy? Stupid? I don't think so. And I think my reasons for deciding to write this book review can serve as an example as to why writing a book review may be worthwhile to someone, even if one is not just starting one's career.
I was asked to write a book review for a top journal in my field about a book that is on a similar topic to the book manuscript that I'm working on. I need to carefully read and consider the arguments in this book anyway (so that I can intelligently and charitably discuss said arguments in my own book). Writing a review of this book will help me accomplish this, while giving me the added benefits of writing a book review for the first time (I like to try new things), performing a service to my community, and further developing my relationship with the journal and editors I'm working with. Given all of these benefits, I do not see this as a waste of my time at all.
True, this review won't count for much on my CV, BUT, call me crazy, I DON'T DO EVERYTHING FOR THE SAKE OF IMPROVING MY CV! I consider writing this book review to be a fun philosophical exercise on a topic I am very interested in. It is therefore a worthwhile use of my time. This attitude - and the encyclopedia entries, response papers, many conference presentations, and even this book review - happens to, I believe, serve me well. It has lead to my continued philosophical development. And this DOES improve my chances of getting a job. From what I can tell, departments want to hire people who love philosophy and pursue it for its own sake, especially when this correlates with a strong publication record. The fact that I've had a half dozen publications come out in the past two years (while completing a postdoc) shows that I am a productive scholar, even though some (but not all) of these publications "don't count" (e.g., an encyclopedia entry). Productivity does matter. Showing that I can write a book review (for fun!) while also publishing in peer-review journals, edited volumes, and while working on my own book manuscript helps make my case that I'm a productive and engaged scholar.
So, no, I do not think that writing this book review is a waste of my time. And while it isn't going to cinch a tenure track job for me, I do think that it will help show my ability to multi-task and be productive and THAT will help me on the job market next year.
- September 30, 2011 at 11:54 AM
@ZERO: Not upset. Amazed at the vitriol. Anyway, I guess you're right ZERO, and since Bas van Fraassen believes in god, I guess I should too. Christ. Get a grip. I know that journal editors don't want to encourage early publication because usually, in fact, we aren't ready to publish at that stage. And the editors have to deal with this crap. I personally disagree with the pressure to publish early. But it's a coordination problem, and I'm sure as hell not going to be the one taking the risk.
@bookreviewer or whatever: Good for you. I did say that doing a book review on a topic of interest might help. I also anonymously posted previously about being sure you look productive on your CV as well. So yes, book reviews can be good for that too.
Back to ZERO: I never said reviews are useless, and you know that I don't really think that they're useful only if we have infinite time in grad school. It's nice to know that there are still some straw men and people of authority in philosophy. Damn! I really am in Wonderland.
- September 30, 2011 at 1:12 PM
- Mr. Zero said...
@ZERO: Not upset. Amazed at the vitriol.
Not sure where you're seeing amazing vitriol. You do occasionally YELL OBSCENITIES, though, which is why I thought you were upset. If I misinterpreted, I am sorry.
and since Bas van Fraassen believes in god, I guess I should too.
I could be dense, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I had to guess it would be that you're comparing van Fraassen's expertise about the existence of a deity with Brooks's expertise about trends in the quality and characteristics of the papers graduate students submit to the journal he edits. But I'm skeptical of this interpretation because it makes no sense.
I never said reviews are useless,
Ok. But you have repeatedly and strenuously emphasized that they are a bit of a waste of time; they could have a potentially negative impact on your CV; they are a death knell after your first year of grad school though they are possibly worthwhile in that first year; a waste of time again; "not the best foot" for the CV of a job candidate--which suggests that one should leave one's BRs off one's application CV; something that would be sensible only if one had an infinite supply of time; and something one would have to stick one's head up one's ass to be willing to do. So maybe it's not accurate to say you find them to be useless. It's not too wildly inaccurate, either.
and you know that I don't really think that they're useful only if we have infinite time in grad school.
And you know I know that, because I acknowledged the hyperbolic nature of that remark when I addressed it. However, if this remark means anything at all, it must mean that the value of book reviews falls in the "extremely low" to "negligible" range. This remark, "...if grad school lasted an infinitely long time, then go ahead and stick your head up your ass and write book reviews, what the fuck?", does not express the idea that book reviews are a potentially sensible way to spend one's time. (It's also obscenity-laden enough that I was surprised when you subsequently expressed amazement at the vitriol.)
It's nice to know that there are still some straw men and people of authority in philosophy.
I see what you're saying about the "straw man," but I'm a little confused about the suggestion that I am the one doing it. I have acknowledged that your "infinite time" remark was meant to be taken figuratively, whereas the entirety of your reply here is to falsely indicate that I insisted on a literal interpretation.
So anyways, I know you didn't mean the remark literally. But I figured you meant it somehow, or else you wouldn't have said it. If you didn't mean to be interpreted as saying that book reviews are almost worthless, I suggest you take it up with yourself.
- September 30, 2011 at 2:29 PM
Uh. I notice your comments are frequently laced with "obscenities" as well. Who cares? Aren't we all adults here? And, well, I realize this is partly your blog, ZERO, but it is after all, merely a blog. I do think that given that there is a limited amount of time to get ready for the job market and that committees require, let's say, an INFINITE number of pubs before they hire you, that book reviews are not the best use of your time. PERIOD. That is my considered opinion having been a job candidate and on a committee. Oh right, and since you're too dense to get it, the reference to van Fraassen was intended to implicate that you were appealing to authority to justify your views. I thought you might not get that, so I tried to make it more explicit in my later comments, but apparently that failed too. So sorry.
- September 30, 2011 at 2:41 PM
- Mr. Zero said...
Uh. I notice your comments are frequently laced with "obscenities" as well. Who cares?
What the fuck do you mean, "who cares"? You fucking care, because you're the motherfucker who fucking complained about the amazing fucking vitriol. I didn't fucking complain about the fucking obscenities; I fucking pointed out that they are fucking there. And shit.
I do think that given that there is a limited amount of time to get ready for the job market and that committees require, let's say, an INFINITE number of pubs before they hire you, that book reviews are not the best use of your time.
Do you know what the word 'infinite' means?
Oh right, and since you're too dense to get it, the reference to van Fraassen was intended to implicate that you were appealing to authority to justify your views.
Go back. Reread. I suspected that this is what you were saying. I was unsure because I doubted that you were stupid enough to have made such a dumb comparison. Thanks for confirming that you are, though. It helps me to know what I'm dealing with.
The reason for my skepticism is this: although I definitely appealed to Thom Brooks's authority in my comment from September 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM, there was nothing fallacious about it. The appeal to authority concerned information that he is in a position to have.
I did not say, e.g. Brooks is right about a lot of stuff, therefore he is right about P. I said, Brooks is in a position to know whether P, so the fact that Brooks seems to believe that P is a prima facie case in favor of P, and the fact that you disagree with him about P does not affect this prima facie case at all. That is a textbook legitimate appeal to authority.
I mean, what you're saying here is really interesting. I've not seen it before. It's almost as though you're saying people should side with you against Brooks, and that we should do this because there is no reason to suspect that you know what you're taking about.
I thought you might not get that, so I tried to make it more explicit in my later comments, but apparently that failed too. So sorry.
I don't know what you mean. I looked for these later comments of yours, between the one containing the "van Fraassen" passage and this one containing the claim of subsequent attempts to clarify, but I couldn't find any. You make this "van Fraassen comparison," and then in your very next comment you say you subsequently attempted to be more explicit.
I considered the possibility that you meant that you did this before the "van Fraassen" passage (but, obviously, after the allegedly fallacious appeal to authority), but I couldn't find any of those, either. I appealed to Brooks's authority concerning the journal he edits, and then in your very next comment you make this ridiculous "van Fraassen" comparison. The "later comments" you mention simply don't exist.
So I guess I think you're just sort of lying about this, though I have no idea why, since it is so easy to look and see that your claim is false.
- September 30, 2011 at 3:36 PM
You bite every single time. Hilarious. Take a pill and relax, or go do something else. But man, you are A LOT of fun ZERO. I bet your wife enjoys dinner conversation with you very much.
- October 1, 2011 at 5:13 AM
ps: here's your clue that I wasn't lying...
It's nice to know that there are still some straw men and people of authority in philosophy.
Now go back to intellectually beating up on something with some real philosophical content. Seriously man. I knew you would take me to task on the vF comment. You're very predictable.
I did make a reasonable statement about what I really think about writing book reviews, however, which you perversely chose to ignore.
Hey, let's play chess sometime, bud. For real. I think it would be fun.
Oh, but for the long gone days of PGOAT: a world in which people understood that hyperbole is sometimes used to make a more reasonable and subtle point, a world in which Literalism was banished and Charity reigned, a world in which the word "fuck" was a casual emphatic, but calling someone "dense" was vitriolic, a good world, a fun world...
- October 1, 2011 at 5:35 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
You bite every single time. Hilarious.
Oh man, do I feel dumb. You have clearly tricked me into responding to your comments. Very clever.
But, aren't you responding to my comments just as much as I'm responding to yours? The only difference, as far as I can see, is that I attend to, acknowledge, and allow my remarks to be affected by what you have actually said.
I bet your wife enjoys dinner conversation with you very much.
I asked her, and she says she does.
here's your clue that I wasn't lying...
["]It's nice to know that there are still some straw men and people of authority in philosophy.["]
You said that in the "van Fraassen" comment, not a later one.
And anyways, the problem wasn't that I didn't understand that you were accusing me of making a fallacious appeal to authority. More lying. it's that you apparently don't know how to distinguish between fallacious appeals to authority and inductively strong ones.
I did make a reasonable statement about what I really think about writing book reviews, however, which you perversely chose to ignore.
You did occasionally indicate that you thought that it would sometimes be okay for some people in some situations to do book reviews. But then you would immediately reverse course and call writing a book review a "death knell" or some such thing. You can't have it both ways.
Hey, let's play chess sometime, bud. For real. I think it would be fun.
I don't agree.
Oh, but for the long gone days of PGOAT: a world in which people understood that hyperbole is sometimes used to make a more reasonable and subtle point...
The problem I had with your "infinite time" point was not that it was expressed hyperbolically. More lying. The problem I had with it was that the point you used hyperbole to express was wrong.
...a world in which Literalism was banished and Charity reigned...
I don't see where I took your point literally. I clearly took it figuratively. More lying. It's just that understanding the point in a figurative manner didn't make it any less incorrect.
...a world in which the word "fuck" was a casual emphatic...
We still use 'fuck' pretty casually around here.
...but calling someone "dense" was vitriolic...
Calling someone "dense" is not vitriol.
- October 1, 2011 at 9:47 AM
- Ben said...
I've enjoyed the discussion but I'm inclined to think, however little book reviews are worth, they're worth more than posting comments on philosophy blogs. So, if you have time to do that, I'd have thought you also have time to write a book review. It doesn't require you to have infinite time, merely to make time for it on top of your research.
- October 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM
YFNA here. This is a comment on a post from the Hitchcock thread. It says:
My claim that book reviews are little extra work over and above reading the damn thing entails 9:53's (2): given that they are little extra work, SCs shouldn't put much weight on them. But there need not be a tradeoff between reviewing and writing substantive papers, as 9:53 suggests. First, knowing that you are writing for publication may motivate you to read more carefully, think more deeply and develop your ideas better. I have written several papers that used ideas that I generated through reviewing. Second, book reviewing cultivates useful skills: you need to be able to summarize other people's research, situate their work in the literature, and so on. You need to learn to write clearly and concisely (several people have said that 2-3 hours extra over and above reading is 'virtually impossible'. Perhaps it is for them: they might be the people who most need to practice these skills). Beyond a certain point, the returns will be negative, but up to that point, reviewing should be useful for your research even though it isn't going to contribute useful lines for the CV.
I don't think that whether book reviews are useful or good for *something* is what is at issue and I feel like people have been talking past each other a lot on this issue, including myself (YFNA) and ZERO.
Let me clarify my position on book reviews: if you really want the best shot you can get at getting a job in this market, assuming it continues to be harsh for the next few years, then it behooves you to learn how to publish your own work as efficiently as possible, assuming that search committees are primarily interested in your original work. Assuming this is the case, if there is any way for you to get the skills you need to publish your own work in some way more efficient than writing a book review, you should do that instead of writing a book review.
Call me "dense," but I personally think that the most efficient way to learn how to publish your own work is to come at it directly right away. That may be wrong. I don't have the time to do an empirical study. It's a hunch. Do with it what you will. I think it's a hunch of the kind that acting upon it is less risky than acting upon others. At least, for myself, I feel safer puttin' my eggs in that basket than in the book review basket.
However, in some cases, say, if doing a book review is part and parcel of what you need to know to develop your own original views, then there is no net loss in doing so. So why not?
I do maintain though that if the choice truly is between doing a book review or working on your own publications, you should, in this market, assuming you are "careerist" in the sense of not wanting to be a Nomad, or live in debt anymore, do your own work.
This was all I ever meant to be defending.
@Ben: yes, I do have time to spend on blogging, since there are only so many brain cells a day I can commit to doing straight up hard-core philosophy? Is this a surprise. Again, this misunderstands me. I am saying that I should spend the time that I can on phil on doing my own research, not on book reviews. And I do that. That is perfectly consistent with my thinking that I shouldn't spend such time on book reviews, and that I should take some down time to write what I guess are inflammatory comments on this blog :)
- October 2, 2011 at 9:43 AM
I'm amazed at how much comment this has generated.
I don't think it's been emphasised enough how incredibly easy writing a review of a book that you're familiar with is. And if you're not familiar with the book, or should be because it's relevant to your research, you shouldn't be reviewing it. I think that everything else I list on my CV took me longer.
I'm not entirely sure how much organising a graduate conference will help me on the job market (well, I am, it doesn't, much) but it takes a hell of a lot more time than a review does. Of course, it's more rewarding, both personally and professionally, but the ratio of effort put in to reward is probably roughly comparable.
So, my question is, if you have enough time to sleep at night (8 hours on a good day) or go out and get drunk, then presumably you have 2 hours you can spend writing a review of a book you've just read and thought about because it's your job?
- October 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM
YFNA: Book reviews take up too much of my precious time that I could otherwise use for the job market. Anyone who wastes time writing a book review to put on your C.V. is an idiot.
See the funny? I do.
- October 2, 2011 at 11:25 AM
I am a recently tenured prof. In my personal experience writing book reviews and commentating on papers at conferences early in my career have been invaluable for my own publishing success. The great thing about book reviews is that I got to read important books in my area (given to me for free), I made invaluable contacts with the authors of those books and I also learned how to pitch a bit of philosophy to a more general audience. I also found being a frequent commentator very helpful. It keeps me up to date in what what is going in my area of specialty, I meet others working in my area and I find it excellent practice for my own writing to summarize another person's view and develop a response to that view in a concise manner. I should add I have had quite a few published papers inspired by the work I had done in book reviews and commentaries.
- October 2, 2011 at 2:32 PM
- The Brooks Blog said...
I am grateful to Mr Zero for the remarks below. Book reviews offer a relatively cost-free opportunity to *do* publishing in your research area and begin writing for an audience beyond your graduate programme (plus, you get a free book).
I don't understand how writing one book review could so derail trying to publish articles, etc. 500-1000 words that hard to write...?
- October 3, 2011 at 8:36 AM
YNFA claims to be a junior faculty member in philosophy, but given his (I feel reasonably sure about that pronoun) contributions to this thread, I think there's little reason to take that claim seriously. & his views about the advisability of reviewing are likewise discountable.
- October 3, 2011 at 4:23 PM
My god, did anyone read my considered opinion about book reviews and why I think time is better spent elsewhere given certain assumptions? We are talking past each other. I never meant to imply that book reviews are not good for anything. Assume what you will about pronouns. I'm not sure why you would assume I am a he except for your own sexist beliefs about how a he supposedly acts and writes. Yes, I am a junior faculty member. I have plenty of experience with on campus and APA interviews, as well as having published in a top ten journal, and I also have some experience sitting on search committees. Believe that or not. That's your call, I guess. Sorry for having an opinion that goes against the grain. I can't believe that leads you to surmise that I have no credentials, but alright.
- October 4, 2011 at 2:44 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
I continue to be mystified by the vociferous opposition to book reviews. Although I didn't take the specific route Brooks advises, I do recall thinking that, late in my graduate course-work, I had sort of gotten pretty good at writing seminar papers, that I wanted to quit doing that and start writing for publication, and that I wasn't entirely sure how to go about it. I figured it out, but I doubt a book review would have been harmful at that point in my career. I don't see why you'd think writing a book review at that point, when I was about to finish my coursework and was transitioning to the dissertation stage, would have been a bad idea.
And it's not as though this business about book reviews is the lynchpin of Brooks's whole strategy. If you don't think you need this practice--and whenever I first read the Brooks piece, I thought I was past the point where it would have been helpful to write a book review in the manner he describes--it would be easy to just skip ahead to step 2.
I realize I could be wrong, so I checked it out a little. This isn't science, but I looked at the five or six most successful people to have come out of my graduate program in the ten-year period that ended 5 years or so ago, plus a couple of pretty influential philosophers who earned their Ph.D.s elsewhere in approximately the same time period. Almost all of them had at least one book review dating from when they were first starting to publish, and one person, a legitimate superstar, has like six of them. So I think this idea that book reviews will hurt your career does not seem to be borne out by the evidence.
- October 4, 2011 at 7:59 AM


text:
Prescription drug costs make up nearly 10 percent of US healthcare spending. Much of that spending is allocated to Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)—the behind-the-scenes companies that administer prescription drug benefits for 266 million consumers.
While PBMs have played a critical—and profitable—role in the healthcare industry for decades, their relevance is now at risk. That's because most PBMs haven't kept pace with the changing healthcare ecosystem of which they are a part. If they don't change their operating models, they won't be positioned to claim their share of what will soon be a $283 billion market.
Despite the changes that have taken place in the US healthcare market in recent years, PBMs have retained a status quo approach to service delivery. Their failure to adapt to industry trends raises the likelihood of their disintermediation.
Two market shifts pose a significant risk:
Growing demand for digital experiences. Insurers rely on personalized technologies to monitor drug adherence and improve patient health. The use of personalized health apps and wearables has doubled in just the past two years. Seventy percent of health executives are investing more in embedded artificial intelligence solutions. Yet, for PBMs, it is largely "business as usual."
The industry's focus on quality outcomes. PBM constituents want more than a cost-focused intermediary. They want a partner to help them deliver better outcomes. Yet, PBMs aren't meeting expectations. Patient satisfaction across the PBM experience ranges from 65 to 75 percent. That's hardly a ringing endorsement.
To survive, PBMs must establish a differentiated operating model that will enable them to deliver services in a differentiated way. To that end, PBMs should embrace five imperatives.
Become outcome champions by building capabilities that allow them to contribute to positive patient outcomes.
Redefine their worth by launching value-based reimbursement strategies.
Be disruptive by getting closer to employees and consumers. Loyalty programs may help.
Architect more valuable experiences by embracing digital opportunities to deliver experiences that their constituents want and expect.
Form unconventional partnerships with others in "ecosystems" to drive operational efficiencies and provide more or differentiated constituent experiences.
Milind Pawar
Managing Director – Accenture Strategy, Health
Milind works closely with payer, provider and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) organizations to design and implement large-scale performance improvement strategies. For more than a decade, Milind has served as a value architect for a number of operational improvement initiatives that, collectively, produce more than $1 billion in annual value for his clients. Milind is based in San Francisco.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Do Coconut Shells Make Towels Less Germy?
Consumers are scooping up bedding, towels and even socks infused with naturally "antimicrobial" plants that companies say kill germs and resist dust mites. WSJ Personal Journal editor Leslie Yazel puts these claims to the test on Lunch Break. Photo: Corbis Images.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.
... I ... I think the story it ... down on health and marketing claims the profits made from ... natural sources think like ... bamboo were coconut ... or eucalyptus now Arianna make sense of the selling of INXS that tells you next set of sheets that Leslie nasal she's dead inner Pursell Journal ... section explores all the stuff she's right here with me he lets lately have I so let's ... break this down but is now what are some of the health and advocacy claims can be made by manufacturers in the national average ... of products like Pam boom with disco night ... it seemed and taking in town ... the twenty year at perhaps expecting that there didn't have the anti bacterial politics when reason of bond well that sounds great except that really ... what were talking bout with a lot of the BM veils is actually a ring on average a ... chance and ... the FTC is saying we shouldn't be complaining that this is bamboo ... when it's not that I treasure so similar to cellulose fibers from other plants and and so you may not be getting like a German finding experience so they're saying maybe when the man who is using the com xray on thick and loses some of those properties it might've had in its natural state exactly your today have the same properties as the embryo which is well documented ... but it loses that in the process of turning into a cloth that coconut eucalyptus these are also in the spotlight as well things again like seats in Intel's and so forth ... aam but the Hindu studies call into question some these claims on ... and also that the government tracking down the MTC is actually asking to dial back some of the language that they've been using ... promoting this very recently very recently that tracked in fact the FTC and ... that apps for companies to pay a penalty of one point two six million dollars sound for making a nice things about the embryo ... and and so they had sued to dial Back Irina Tanti about the things ... you're excited about the promise because for example with coconut shell think the mayor says activated ... carbon which is going to reduce this now so ... you know you when the deal the towel cannot be seen he ... added and we have them ... Bryson doesn't stop the silly that ... chance ... that we leave even though a focus group one company that sells this and that's you know it really reduce the esoteric ... and their descendants ... and so it's a low fat stated that it can still has seen the exciting things out there like eucalyptus is well write is another one that that we with that with just us to have played in ... antimicrobial I'm property to do it I'm but really ... what they're saying it's ... a lot of these just drive better slice that and this is the link with is something that is what what's your read germs and bacteria as the venom Pursell Journal ... drying your hands can be as important as watching them because bacteria loves and points if they if so if you die and ... Neal Bates Howell were still looking for something they can to Friday's batter ... I'm that's still then it ... protects you more from germs can buy it doesn't have to German finding properties that you might get the sense of the market ... so why line is not the Mississauga these independent studies are looking at these things are the FTC I'm saying is a sainted maybe they don't work at all it's just maybe St in some of the day the claims by people grandiose in some cases exactly and it uses or take that you know with a grain of salt and a lot of people use these products on bail to like this with eco friendly properties to the many people haven't worried about green washing just in in sort of in the marketing sense and I wonder if it discusses her to play into that you know it into consumers' appetite for space ... because they found some natural and authentic the wonderful things to be in a line using something leaving and I meant that the eucalyptus cannot town is really flat ... in the day in and we think they take fifty lbs has and does this feel like something this and write quickly is experience when it comes out of the washing machines slot in its ... disc has tons of what Accrington is having to think about ... products that dry quickly and you can it be partly care yep it's a very good points on expected in Europe the product ... however we never ... bought in America probably would tend to generate ... enough Pursell show every week is more that today thanks to my when we you for being with us


text: Shop for Men's Ryan Hunter-Reay IndyCar Fan Gear at lids.ca! Browse a great selection of athletic & dress IndyCar clothing for men & guys. Choose from men's apparel styles to Ryan Hunter-Reay sportswear for guys. IndyCar sportswear makes a great gift for any sports fan, so pick up sports fan gear at Lids to rep your Ryan Hunter-Reay team pride.


text:
Monday, February 20, 2012
A Rundown of the Catchers
Jason Castro (24 years old) - 2011: N/A, Injuries
Chris Snyder (31) - .271/.376/.396 in 119 PAs for Pittsburgh
Humberto Quintero (32) - .240/.258/.317 in 272 PAs for Houston
Carlos Corporan (28) - .188/.253/.253 in 173 PAs for Houston
Chris Wallace (23) - .271/.343/.507 in 411 PAs for Lexington/Corpus
Mike Kvasnicka (23) - .260/.328/.368 in 536 PAs for Lexington
Rene Garcia (21) - .242/.288/.303 in 326 PAs for Lancaster
Ben Heath (23) - .252/.310/.408 in 365 PAs for Lexington/Lancaster
Jordan Comadena (26) - .295/.389/.432 in 115 PAs for Lancaster
Roberto Pena (19) - .217/.266/.310 in 308 PAs for Lexington
Miles Hamblin (23) - .264/.346/.398 in 229 PAs for Tri-City
Ryan McCurdy (24) - .320/.385/.379 in 119 PAs for Tri-City (and 1PA in Lexington)
Bubby Williams (22) - .206/.223/.397 in 139 PAs for Tri-City
Luis Alvarez (21) - .271/.353/.376 in 151 PAs for Greeneville
Ernesto Genoves (20) - .280/.375/.464 in 144 PAs for Greeneville
Cristian Moronta (22) - .242/.242/.303 in 33 PAs for Greeneville
That's about as far as we need to go right now. If I were to eyeball the rankings of the Top 5 catchers (after we get through Castro, Snyder, and Quintero), it would probably be as follows:
1. Chris Wallace
2. Ben Heath
3. Mike Kvasnicka
4. Mikes Hamblin
5. Ryan McCurdy
What say you?
11 comments:
- Brian West said...
Kvasnicka needs to have a decent year before you can rate him. Another meh year and the Astros might even set him free.
Jordan Comadena, Miles Hamblin, Luis Alvarez and Ernesto Genoves look like they know how to take a walk.
- February 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Hamblin and McCurdy are awfully old for their level. Based on age, I would put Genoves ahead of those two.
- February 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM
- Reuben said...
Roberto Pena was young for his level. I've heard good things about him; has a good glove and the bat may come around.
- February 20, 2012 at 11:24 AM
I'd put Kvasnicka ahead of Heath, barely.
I agree with Reuben - Pena should be in the mix, even though he is several years away.
- February 20, 2012 at 11:41 AM
- Astros County said...
I think you're all seeing why I shy away from prospect rankings.
- February 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM
- Steve Duer said...
Look at baseball reference for Caught Stealing % and pass ball for 2011 for those guys and see if your rankings change any.
I put Pena #1 right now.
- February 20, 2012 at 3:53 PM
- Juvenile Court Clerk - Bryan Trostel said...
Wow, I go offline for a couple days and I see The Constable trying to rank prospects? Here's how I've got them:
1. Wallace
2. Heath
3. Kvasnicka (assuming he gets his footwork straightened out)
4. Genoves/Alvarez
5. Hamblin/Pena
Obviously these rankings can change dramatically over the course of the 2012 season. Someone may break out and someone else may break his leg.
Kvasnicka has the arm and athleticism to play behind the dish, but he's raw as he only has essentially one college season of experience.
The Greeneville Venezuelan Duo both show promise but it's hard to really gauge either off a couple hundred plate appearances state-side.
Hamblin wasn't really heralded coming out of college, but he had a good debut. He's the most likely to make a strong move this season, but his age means he's got to move quick to catch up.
Pena looks outstanding from a defensive standpoint and was younger than most of his Sally League opponents. There's a lot to work on offensively, though.
Comadena had a nice small sample size jump in 2011, but overall he's only caught 15% of attempted steals and over 300 PA only has a line of .221/.320/.308. And he's 26 and has never played about high A. He's a great guy, but I don't see a future at catcher.
Funky, if you're reading this, we still love ya.
- February 20, 2012 at 4:34 PM
People seem to be discounting Garcia. I think there is a reason that those who see him most (the Astros mgmt), keep pushing him at a rapid pace. I have more faith in their opinion than of those just perusing slash lines.
- February 20, 2012 at 7:52 PM
I go with Pena. Just 19 and catchers coach said he is the best right now and the team know he has some pop at the plate. I go with him
- February 22, 2012 at 10:42 PM
4- Tha's All
Kvasnicka is A Big ? If He Can Catch.
Heath Can't Catch
Comadena Is 26 Class A Filler
Mcurdy is 24 and short on tools.
alvarez has had injurys
genoves still young but not much there.
- February 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM
Thats true. Heath cant get no outs. I might crawl an still make it. I would say 1. Pena 2. Garcia 3. Wallace Wallace can flatout hit. Theres no doubt bout that but he couldnt get runners at AA. I still think he will be a good first baseman even DH cus they will join the american league next year i guess.
- February 27, 2012 at 11:13 PM


text:
The husband of a friend of mine came home from work one day to eat lunch with my friend and their daughters. As he prepared to return to work, his four-year-old daughter said, "You have to go back to work to make money?"
He said, "Yes."
She replied, "Remember to come back home when you are done…and remember to be a good boy."
I tell this story because January is a time for resolutions, and from the e-mails that I have received from members in the past year, I wonder whether more people in our industry need to resolve to be good boys and girls. I receive at least one e-mail every other week from a facility member either chastising me for running an article mentioning something positive about their fitness facility or for listing their club in our annual Top 100 list. The members generally detail their dissatisfaction with their fitness facility, sometimes soliciting my help to resolve the situation. That says to me that these members feel their complaints are not being taken seriously by management, or they feel the situation at their club is so egregious that the press must be notified.
Their complaints vary — some have been unable to cancel their memberships, some are concerned about lack of adult supervision of children's programs, some complain about equipment placed too close together, and others are disturbed that their complaints about illicit locker room activities have been ignored. I'm surprised I don't hear from more members whose clubs have closed unexpectedly. I have a folder filled with news articles about these types of occurrences, which leave a bad taste in many members' mouths that reputable clubs find difficult to wash away.
The most disturbing report came from the same husband mentioned in the opening story. He belongs to a chain whose cheap rates he couldn't pass up. However, he soon found out why the rates were so low. His early morning visits to the locker room are akin to running an obstacle course as he must maneuver around the towels left on the floor by the late night workout crowd and not picked up by the cleaning staff until that morning. He has witnessed the cleaning staff using those dirty towels to wipe up the water on the locker room floor and throwing the towels into the laundry basket, apparently to be laundered and then set out for members to use again. The whirlpool has had a leak since the day he started several months ago. Most frightening is that the pool floor is littered with razor blades (yes, razor blades!). He has complained to management several times about the problems, but so far, to no avail.
I know things aren't as bad as they were in the 1970s and 1980s when the industry suffered from a rotten reputation. Plenty of good, reputable facilities now exist, but even well-run clubs can run afoul of members at times. Studies have shown that customers who have had a complaint successfully and quickly resolved by a company are even more loyal to that company than customers who never had a complaint. How you as a reputable facility owner handle member complaints reflects not just on you and your club, but it also reflects on the entire industry.
Unfortunately, we can't tell a disreputable club owner, "Remember to be a good boy" and expect him or her to follow through. Their motivation for getting into this business is obviously different from yours, but you can resolve to "be a good boy" (or girl) and handle member complaints promptly and thoroughly as they come in. As unfair as it may seem, reputable facilities must make up for the bad that disreputable clubs inflict daily on our industry's reputation.


text:
Somers says state should keep giving cities support
Republican lieutenant governor candidate Heather Somers said Wednesday that the state program that helped to grow her Willimantic company, Hydrofera LLC, more than a decade ago is exactly the kind of support that the state should continue to provide to Connecticut's depressed cities.
"These kinds of investments in those types of cities is exactly what we have to do to change the course of our cities," said Somers, in an editorial board meeting at The Day where she defended the state's investment in Hydrofera and her profit when the company was sold in 2012.
At issue was the state's equity stake in Hydrofera - $1 million invested in 2001 - and the $475,000 it collected when the company was sold two years ago.
Somers has been criticized for not disclosing what she made on the deal, amid speculation that she and her partners got the better advantage in the transaction.
But Somers flatly denied that Wednesday, saying she put 18 years into the company and was paid $100,000 upfront when Hydrofera was sold to Hollister Inc. of Libertyville, Ill., two years ago. She is collecting another $100,000 in payments over four years, she said.
When Hydrofera approached the state looking for a loan to grow its business around 2001, the state Community Development Authority offered to invest in the business instead. The state offered $1.5 million, but Hydrofera agreed to take just $1 million in two $500,000 allotments, one to support its medical technology unit and another for its semiconductor business. In return, the state got an equity stake in each company.
Somers and two partners had started the business in 1997, and she said a few years later, when they approached the state, it was because they needed an infusion of cash for the company to grow. The partners purposely avoided looking to a venture capitalist, Somers said, because they wanted to keep the business in the state and feared a venture capitalist would move it to the South.
Today, Hydrofera employs 43 people in Willimantic and pays about $200,000 annually in rent, Somers said. Under terms of the 2012 sales contract to Hollister, Somers said, the new owners agreed to keep the company in the state for at least four years.
While Somers did not disclose the sales price of the company, she did say that the state development authority (now Connecticut Innovations) signed off on the agreement. At the time of the sale, the state recouped its 3.8 percent stake, or $475,000, in the medical technology portion of the company. In addition to the $475,000, Somers said the state was paid a $10,000 penalty since only 43 of 100 promised jobs were created. The goal of 100 was set when the state invested.
The semiconductor business failed to prosper, and all the investors, including the state, took a loss on that deal. But the medical product, a dressing for wounds called Hydrofera Blue, has been successful and Hollister is continuing that product.
Because Hydrofera's patent on the wound dressing is close to expiring, the value of the investments has dropped. But Somers said the state prospered in all kinds of ways since investing in Hydrofera. In addition to the jobs created and the benefits of spending by those employees, the firm has paid considerable taxes and rent, and has hired other businesses or bought services leading to growth in the state and local economies.
Somers said it would not be up to her in the role of lieutenant governor to continue the Connecticut Innovations program that helped Hydrofera to prosper and grow, but that she personally supports it and would advocate for similar programs.
"Something like this that helps small businesses to create good, highly skilled jobs ... it's what we need to turn our cities around," she said.
Somers, a Groton town councilor who is now the running mate of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley, said she does not support multi-million-dollar grants or loans to highly capitalized firms like those that have benefited through incumbent Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's First Five program.
Foley agrees.
On Aug. 14, at a joint press appearance for Foley and Somers, Foley was asked whether he considered the state investment in Hydrofera to hurt the credibility of his criticism of the Malloy administration's "affinity for corporate welfare."
"I don't think so," said Foley. "I'm not against incentives for businesses that are properly conceived and administered. Many of the incentive programs the government has offered, long before Gov. Malloy, I support. But the First Five program and what I call corporate welfare is when you are merely bribing businesses to stay here who are being driven out because you are anti-business, that I'm against."
Somers, who initially worked in medical sales and later moved to the product development side of the business, said Hydrofera Blue has saved lives and been heartily welcomed by the medical community.
"This is the one thing in my life that I am super proud of," she said, adding that success for her is not about money.
She remarked that she's been involved in Groton politics for 11 years as mayor and a councilor, without any compensation at all.
"This is not about fancy titles or big financial gains," she said.
The state audited Hydrofera in all the years it had an equity stake in the company and was a partner at the table when Hydrofera was sold, said Somers. And, she added, the state has called the firm and its investment in it a success.
Twitter: @TheDay_Ann
Notre Dame to cover up murals of Columbus over depiction of Native Americans
President Pelosi? Will Trump defect? Where will the Connecticut GOP hide?


text:
You are hereHome ›
Narrow Search
Now showing results 1-2 of 2
This collection of activities is based on a weekly series of space science mathematics problems distributed during the 2012-2013 school year. They were intended for students looking for additional challenges in the math and physical science... (View More) curriculum in grades 5 through 12. The problems were created to be authentic glimpses of modern science and engineering issues, often involving actual research data. The problems were designed to be one-pagers with a Teacher's Guide and Answer Key as a second page. (View Less)
This is an activity about using models to solve a problem. Learners will use a previously constructed model of the MMS satellite to determine if the centrifugal force of the rotating MMS model is sufficient to push the satellite's antennae outward,... (View More) simulating the deployment of the satellites after launch. Then, learners will determine the minimum rotational speed needed for the satellite to successfully deploy the antennae. This is the seventh activity as part of the iMAGiNETICspace: Where Imagination, Magnetism, and Space Collide educator's guide. Instructions for downloading the iBook educator's guide and the associated Transmedia book student guide are available at the resource link. (View Less)


text:
arachni 0.4.6
Arachni is an Open Source, feature-full, modular, high-performance Ruby framework aimed towards helping penetration testers and administrators evaluate the security of web applications. It is smart, it trains itself by learning from the HTTP responses it receives during the audit process and is able to perform meta-analysis using a number of factors in order to correctly assess the trustworthiness of results and intelligently identify false-positives. Unlike other scanners, it takes into account the dynamic nature of web applications, can detect changes caused while travelling through the paths of a web application's cyclomatic complexity and is able to adjust itself accordingly. This way attack/input vectors that would otherwise be undetectable by non-humans are seamlessly handled by Arachni. Moreover, Arachni yields great performance due to its asynchronous HTTP model (courtesy of Typhoeus) — especially when combined with a High Performance Grid setup which allows you to combine the resources of multiple nodes for lightning fast scans. Thus, you'll only be limited by the responsiveness of the server under audit. Finally, it is versatile enough to cover a great deal of use cases, ranging from a simple command line scanner utility, to a global high performance grid of scanners, to a Ruby library allowing for scripted audits, to a multi-user multi-scan web collaboration platform. **Note**: Despite the fact that Arachni is mostly targeted towards web application security, it can easily be used for general purpose scraping, data-mining, etc with the addition of custom modules.


text:
Many Upset At Miss America Changes
The return of the Miss America pageant to Atlantic City this fall is raising a few concerns among locals.
One has to do with the cost to enter a float in the pageant parade.
It cost $200 in the last parade held in Atlantic City in 2004. This time around it will cost at least $2,000 for a group to build its own float, and as much as $8,000 for professional float designers to build it. Some local businesses that have entered floats in the past tell the Press of Atlantic City they won't attend this year.
Some in South Jersey's Jewish community are concerned that the parade conflicts with the Yom Kippur holiday. The Miss America Organization tells the newspaper they were offered limited television dates by ABC.


text:
"Exapostilarion" is how it is spelled in Bishop Kallistos' texts. It is also spelled this way in the Boston texts, Fr. Ephrem Lash's translations, and in the Menaion and Octoechos by St. John of Kronstadt Press.
Exapostilaria beats Exaposteilaria by 535:340
Wikipedia also has it's article spelled this way:
Both transliterations are defensible, but I think the "exapostilarion" transliteration is the one found in the best examples of Orthodox English translations.
Frjohnwhiteford 15:45, April 15, 2007 (PDT)
- It's of no major importance to me either way, but I am convinced that the ei rendering is preferable here and of course more faithful to the Greek, which uses ει. FWIW, the plural Google ratio comes to 1.57:1 (i to ei), while the singular is 1:3.66 (i to ei), which indicates that the singular is used on the web far more than the plural, and when it's used, it is much more overwhelmingly toward the ei.
- Exaposteilarion is the spelling used by the Nassar "Five Pounder" (and thus pretty much almost everything in the N.A. Antiochian Archdiocese), along with most of the books issued by the GOA. So, in terms of popular use, I would say that exaposteilarion wins out.
- Now, the argument of which is the "best" translation is an interesting debate that is of course subjective in a lot of ways. (I'm of the opinion that "mode" is a better translation than "tone" for the Greek ichos, but "tone" clearly wins in terms of popular use in English.) I am certainly of the opinion that most of the translations you name above are of the highest quality available, though our policy here is most often to use whatever is the most commonly recognized name for something. That's why the Google test helps.
- So, I won't insist on the ei if you are hostile to its use, but I do believe that, based on the evidence and how it matches up with our conventions, the ei is the best choice. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 16:38, April 15, 2007 (PDT)
- I would say "hostile" is a bit too strong a term for my opinion on the matter. However, when it come to having a good feel for English, I trust Bishop Kallistos over Fr. Seraphim Nassar -- with no disrespect to him. There are traditions regarding how Greek words get transliterated into English. For example, we have the word "idol", not "eidol", though "eidol" is literally closer to the spelling in Greek.
- It would probably be best to have both spellings point to the same article. The transliteration into Slavonic, by the way, is "Exapostilari". In modern Greek, there is no distinction between the pronounciation of the dipthong "ei" and "i". Which is probably the origin of the Slavonic and Bishop Kallistos transliterations. Frjohnwhiteford 17:43, April 15, 2007 (PDT)
- I keep my Hapgood book in the trunk of my car, but curiousity finally got the better of me, and I went out and checked. She(Blessed Isabell) has it the same as Bishop Kallistos as well. This is the mother of all English Orthodox translations. :) Frjohnwhiteford 17:49, April 15, 2007 (PDT)
- Yes, I checked Hapgood, too, and noted what you noted. Anyway, our convention here has been to use whatever is most common, which is why my preference here is for the ei. What may be "better" is not really as big of a deal for our articles. (Encyclopedias generally use whatever is the best-known term for something rather than what may be most technically correct by expert standards.)
- Either way, though, a redirect article should be made for the spelling that isn't used in actual article.
- You're right about idol, of course, though idol is not so much a transliterated Greek word any more as it is now an English word, having come to use via the Old French idele, from the Latin idolum. (Idol first shows up as ydele in Middle English in 1250.) But exaposteilarion is a technical term from Greek which is only recently being used by English speakers. In such cases, the usual approach in scholarly English is to follow the standards for Greek transliterations in English which were established in Latin, which would thus use ei for ει. (I'm honestly actually a little surprised that Metr. Kallistos used the i instead of ei.)
- Anyway, I'm not saying that exapostilarion is "wrong," just that I think we should use exaposteilarion on OrthodoxWiki due to its broader use in English and its conformity to standard transliteration conventions for Greek terms. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 18:11, April 15, 2007 (PDT)


text:
Son & Dotter: Bringing Scandinavian Design to North America
- Location: Online
- Specialty: Scandinavian design
- Price range: $$
- Website: sondotter.com
Store History
- Founded: 2012
- Founded by: Sabrina Bello
When Boston native Sabrina Bello went to work in Sweden in 2010, she immediately fell in love with Scandinavian design. Shortly thereafter Sabrina noticed that many of the designs she loved were not available in the US. Intent to make the best of Scandinavian design available to the US market, Sabrina launched Son & Dotter in September 2012.
• Collect 2011 Cabinet $1,840
• Hidden Laptop Desk $1,600
• No.24 Cabinet $1,840
• DLM Table $298
One of the hallmarks of Scandinavian design is quality craftsmanship that will last for the long haul. Many designs from the region also take cues from nature. These qualities are part of what attracted Sabrina to the Scandinavian designs.
Now splitting her time between Boston and Malmö, Sweden, Sabrina focuses her attention on discovering young and independent Scandinavian brands that have not been available in the States. This means that Son & Dotter carries items and brands you won't seen elsewhere. For instance, Son & Dotter is the exclusive US retailer for the A2 range of products. All products are imported in limited quantity.
For more about Son & Dotter, visit their store page over at Marketplace.
(Images: Son & Dotter)
Around the Web
- Websohp to Watch: Son & Dotter[Dwell]
- Son & Dotter[We Are the Market]
- Inspired By: Son & Dotter[Jessica J Packard]


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Lion Brand® Yarn Company
Item # 655-GP
Be the first to review this product
Starting at
Digital Download Only
Lion Brand Knitting Needles- Size 4 [3.5 mm] - 13.5 inches longLightweight, durable, and flexible pair of knitting needles. Plastic.
Stitches stay put until you are ready to pick them up on these easy open, easy close aluminum stitch holders. Small, medium and large holders included in each set.Colored Anodized Aluminum
This color has been discontinued.
The clever split-ring design of these sturdy plastic markers allows for use on the needle or in the work. Six each of 4 sizes for a total of 24 markers.Colored Plastic
Only registered users can write reviews. Please, log in or register
584k likes
62k followers
68k subscribers
141k followers
182k followers
Free patterns, product alerts, and special offers.


text:
Due to vendor restrictions this product does not qualify for this offer.
World's Largest Aftermarket Motorcycle Parts and Accessories Superstore!
Input the part number and quantity to add a part directly to your cart.
Due to vendor restrictions this product does not qualify for this offer.
Continue Shopping
J&P Cycles Part Number: 161-148
Checking availability...
Fits non-ABS models only. This kit is intended for use with Burly Brand Handlebars and stock height risers. It may not fit with other manufacturers' bars and risers due to their different dimensions.
Fits non-ABS models only. This kit is intended for use with Burly Brand Handlebars and stock height risers. It may not fit with other manufacturers' bars and risers due to their different dimensions.
With over 750 years of experience combined, our tech staff has the answers!
4 out of 5 stars (based on 50 reviews)
5 stars (38)
4 stars (5)
3 stars (2)
2 stars (3)
1 star (1)
0 stars (1)
Great kit. The clutch cable is a little long but works.
This complete kit was easy to install with thorough directions. As a first time solder job for me it went perfectly and looks great.
It would be better to have plugs on both sides of the wiring extensions. otherwise all good.
Great product
this was poorest item I have even gotten for my bike clutch cable was so bad I couldnt evven ride till I got another
MADE IN U.S.A quality
Great product made install much easier and cleaner very fast shipping
Crappy cables. Bought service manual just in case so we had that for install. Started installing the clutch cable into the transfer case and the screw head popped in two, no tension on it whatsoever, merely screwing it in. Haven't installed the brake line yet, but hope I don't have poor outcome with it.
I have nothing but great things to say about the kit, except the clutch cable. The screw in part into the primary broke off and left the threads in the primary. Seems like the clutch cable is a trend to be a problem
the perfect kit for your 14" apes. makes for very easy installation has all cabels, brake lines and a pretty simple plug and play wire extension
I am not going to give this much, cause the brake line does not work. The heads on the ends were narrower than the OEM and for some reason it would not bleed out. Bought one from HD and worked fine. The other cables work good.
Exactly what was needed to install my apes. Everything included. Thanks J&P
all you need! perfect
Don't buy these without a service manual, the instructions that come with the kit only tell you to do it as per the manual. Everything works great and looks awesome in all black.
Cables are great! Perfect fit for the 14in bars I ordered. Had a bit of trouble with the wiring but just took time to make sure it was all right.
looks great
great fit
My fault didn't measure as well as I should but seem to run a little long for a 14 inch ape
I was sceptacle about this kit after reading several online reviews but after installing these on my sportster I have no complaints. Very happy.
Easy to install & straight forward kit. Very happy with product, price, and shipping (fast) !!
Needed it for the Ape Hangers! Awesome!
fairly easy to install.just took a little patience.
Fantastic product. My clutch and throttle has never been smoother.
Eveeything but the clutch cable Worked get. Clutch cable thrrads snapped behind the die by cover. We were able to back out the treads. Cheaply made clutch cable I now have to find and buy.
Worked exactly as described.
I bought this kit for my 2002 soft tail springer. This cable kit is great. Not only dose it come with everything you need ( cables- brake line & wires) it was also very easy to install. It took me a few hours one afternoon to install my 14" handle bars and this cable kit. By late afternoon I was back on the road. I would highly recamend this kit to anyone who is installing taller handle bars
Overall it's a nice kit works great very happy
Very easy kit to install.
Nice cables. Nothing particularly exceptional other then they look nice and work well. Have not had any issues. Nothing bad to say about them.
Awesome looking bars made my bike look great
Fitted exactly on my bike! but I recommend that get this done by a professional mechanic. I tried to change the cables myself and it requires a good knowledge of mechanics. Now I just enjoy the bike with the new 14" Ape Hanger.
value for money
it worked great,
Good product
Ordered and shipped super fast as per norm. Everything in the box as advertised took little time to install!
Easy set up, and got my order in quickly
I cant say enough good about this kit. Buying this kit for the wiring alone is worth every penny. I cant wait to get the cables and lines installed on my FXST.
i got this for my 2007 night train and its an awesome kit, even for the money. made the job so much easier and looks great, cables were all just the right length and fit, my only gripe would be the directions that come with it are not the best, but my harley manual helped make things really easy and fast. good product would highly recommend this kit.
This kit doesn't contain the correct brake line for the 2008 FXDF which has a dual disc front brake. Unfortunately for me, I idscovered this mistake after I started the install.
As ordered, fast shipping, look great on my bike... Makes the finishing touch.
Wow fast shipping, east install!
They work, what's not to love?
This kit has everything you need for installation. The rubber sleeves that cover the cable adjusters are a big plus. Highly recommended.
excellant product and easy to use!
Thank you so much looks amazing
Worked just like it said, except for the wiring extensions. There is not enough to properly stagger the connections. Your better off using new wire from connector to connector.
Everything needed to install aftermarket bars in one box. No guess work cause they did it all for you. Good quality products.
The correct part and timely delivery
kit works great. I was hoping it inclused the right wires to extend my internal wiring and was not a problem.
This product will fit your Motorcycle
This product does not fit your Motorcycle.


text:
Ice Cream, a magician, face painting and books!
What a great way to kick off the Summer Reading Program at the Kimball Library! On June 3 the Willow Creek Park Shelter in Kimball was bustling with activity as the Summer Reading Program was set to get underway. To kick off the event, attendees were offered ice cream cups donated by Kemps Dairy and handed out by the Stearns County Dairy Princess. Volunteers were also on hand to paint children's faces and hands. In addition, the Kimball Cruisers 4-H club held a book sale in the building which generated much excitement.
At three o'clock, it was time for the main event: magician Jared Sherlock! The 100 plus children and teens who had signed up for the reading program, as well as many of their parents, enjoyed a fast-paced, enthusiastic performance by Jared that had several of the audience members participating. What a great way for young GRRL patrons to start off their summer reading!


text:
Featured News - Current News - Archived News - News Categories
Comptroller's annual report contains information for specific IDAs, including cost per job, total projects and tax exemptions
New York's Industrial Development Agencies supported nearly 4,500 projects and provided $560 million in net tax exemptions in 2011, increasing estimated job gains by almost 36,000 from the previous year, according to a report issued today by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. DiNapoli's sixth annual report examining the performance of the state's IDAs found improved reporting of data, but recommended that IDAs do more to objectively weigh incentives against economic benefits to communities and evaluate projects receiving tax and other breaks.
"At a time when many counties, cities and towns are facing serious fiscal challenges and stagnant economies, the need for IDA projects to generate jobs for New Yorkers and expand the local tax base is especially urgent," DiNapoli said. "IDAs have made modest improvements in terms of job creation and openness, but more accountability is needed to ensure benefits are provided to those projects with the greatest potential to fuel local economies. Tax breaks come at a price, and IDAs need to deliver on their promises to taxpayers."
DiNapoli's report found the state's 113 active IDAs provided $1.5 billion in total tax exemptions in 2011. Local property taxes accounted for $680 million of total IDA tax exemptions while school property tax breaks accounted for $439 million. Other exemptions included state and local sales tax, county property taxes and mortgage recording taxes.
The exemptions were partially offset by $917 million in payments-in-lieu of taxes, leaving the total net exemptions for the year at $560 million - an increase of $77 million, or 16 percent, in net exemptions from 2010.
In 2011, IDA projects reported a total of 701,169 full-time equivalent positions, which reflects an increase of 217,587 jobs over the life of these projects, at an average cost of $2,575 per job gained. In 2010, cumulative job gains stood at 181,712, with an average cost per job of $2,659. Cost per job differed significantly around the state, depending on a number of factors, including the types of projects supported by IDAs.
The report noted IDAs supported more retail projects despite evidence that these types of endeavors generally do not increase economic activity or increase the number of available jobs in a region. IDAs were restricted from supporting retail projects until the provision sunset in 2008. Since then, the number of retail projects increased 191 percent, from 36 projects to 105 projects in 2011, with a total project value of $1.2 billion. The 2013-14 enacted budget reinstates the prior restrictions.
Other findings in the report include:
•According to data from the Department of Taxation and Finance, the total equalized value of property tax exemptions associated with IDA activity was $31.2 billion in 2011, representing nearly 4 percent of the statewide value for the year;
•Operating expenses for IDAs in 2011 totaled $60.4 million, an average of $549,000 per IDA; and
•Of the 113 IDAs operating in New York state in 2011, 111 filed required reports with the Office of the State Comptroller. For the first time in five years, two IDAs - Town of Erwin IDA and City of Newburgh IDA - filed reports and, as a result, regained their ability to grant exemptions from state taxes.
DiNapoli applauded the recent improvement in IDA reporting, but also made a number of recommendations in the report to help assure taxpayers that projects are delivering promised economic benefits. They include:
•Improve accuracy of jobs data by ensuring project agreements contain provisions that compel accurate disclosure of employment information;
•Improve transparency of IDA operations by requiring IDAs to publish an annual report card with detailed information on individual projects;
•Require IDAs to utilize uniform applications for projects and adopt objective project evaluation and selection criteria; and
•Include local "clawback" provisions if project goals are not met.
In addition to reinstating the retail restrictions on IDAs, legislation enacted as a part of state fiscal year 2013-14 requires that IDAs recapture and remit to the Department of Taxation and Finance any state sales tax revenue that projects have received improperly, as well as those received by a project that fails to comply with certain provisions of its IDA agreement.


text:
Scherzer, Davis turned seasons around
Back on June 1, the AP unveiled a list of 10 players who were off to slow starts but were likely to bounce back quickly – some thinly veiled advice for fantasy players, if you will.
In the interest of accountability, now it's time for a look back at how we did:
What We Said: "Pujols' numbers began to slip a bit last year, but his .243 average in his first season with Los Angeles has been a shocker. There's no reason to think the 32-year-old's swing has deserted him for good. He might not reach 32 homers, his previous low for a season, but Pujols is hitting .329 since May 12. The worst seems to be over."
What Happened: It almost felt like cheating to pick Pujols, whose track record made it fairly obvious he wasn't going to keep scuffling for an entire season. His final numbers: .285, 30 homers and 50 doubles. Not bad considering what a nightmare April was.
What We Said: "The two-time Cy Young Award winner has an unsightly 5.82 ERA, but he's struck out 64 hitters in 60 1-3 innings. Lincecum has struggled to avoid the big inning, and he's walking too many hitters, but his performance isn't as bad as it's looked. Opponents are hitting .339 off Lincecum on balls in play. That's a fairly high number, especially for someone who is a bit of a groundball pitcher. Lincecum should improve as more balls start finding the gloves of his fielders."
What Happened: Since June 1, Lincecum is 8-9 with a 4.87 ERA – better but still not very good. Instead of being San Francisco's No. 1 starter in the playoffs, the Giants may simply be hoping he doesn't hurt their chances.
What We Said: "Reynolds is hitting .202 with only two home runs, but Baltimore fans have been through this before with the slugging third baseman. Last year Reynolds was hitting .193 at the end of May, but he finished the year with 37 homers. Low batting averages are the norm for Reynolds, but his power should be there now that's he's back from the rib cage injury that sent him to the disabled list earlier this month."
What Happened: Reynolds finished the season with a .221 average and 23 homers in only 135 games. He turned 29 this year, and his power stroke seems fine if he can stay healthy.
What We Said: "Usually a slow starter anyway, Teixeira has been playing through a terrible cough all season that's sapped his strength and energy at times. In his last five games, Teixeira is 11 for 24 with four homers and nine RBIs. Just like that, the New York star is back on pace for another 30-homer season."
What Happened: Teixeira ended up with only 24 homers thanks to more health problems. He's been out for most of the last month with a left calf injury, and although he returned during the final series against Boston, he has to be considered a question mark going into the postseason.
What We Said: "Scherzer might be the American League's version of Lincecum, although he doesn't have the career track record of the San Francisco ace. Scherzer has a 5.55 ERA this year, but he's striking out an impressive 11.7 hitters per nine innings. Scherzer is clearly still fooling batters with his stuff. He's also shown improved command lately and could be due for a breakout."
What Happened: Lincecum could only wish he enjoyed this type of resurgence. Since June 1, Scherzer went 11-4 with a 2.89 ERA. He finished the year with 231 strikeouts, second in the majors to teammate Justin Verlander.
JOSH JOHNSON, RHP, MARLINS, and ADAM WAINWRIGHT, RHP, CARDINALS
What We Said: "Both pitchers came into the season off injuries to their throwing arms, and both have ERAs well over 4.00. But there are some encouraging signs. Their strikeout and walk rates are reasonably in line with what they were when these two were among the top pitchers in the National League. Wainwright has allowed only one run over 15 innings in his last two starts."
What Happened: Johnson went 5-11 from the beginning of June on, but he was actually pretty good over that span, posting a 3.30 ERA. Wainwright also improved, going 10-8 with a 3.73 ERA since June 1. Perhaps most importantly, Johnson made 31 starts this year and Wainwright made 32.
What We Said: "After missing most of last season with an ankle injury, Davis was diagnosed with a likely case of valley fever in spring training. Now he's hitting .170, one of the worst averages of any regular in baseball. Davis is striking out about once a game, and when he does make contact the ball seems to go right at somebody – witness his .210 average on balls in play. Davis has a long, unorthodox swing that would seem to lend itself to lengthy slumps, but it's too early to write off the 25-year-old after the promising start to his career."
What Happened: Davis finished the year with 32 homers and 90 RBIs, salvaging a decent power-hitting season despite a final average of .227.
What We Said: "Morneau was hitting .345 with 18 homers in July 2010 when a concussion knocked him out for the rest of that season. He hasn't been the same since, hitting .233 in 103 games while battling other injury problems in 2011 and 2012. But he's hit five homers since coming off the disabled list a couple weeks ago – a sore right wrist was keeping him out that time. At 31, Morneau should still have some productive at-bats left if he's finally healthy again."
What Happened: Morneau finished with a .267 average and 19 homers – and he stayed pretty healthy for the rest of the season. He has one year left on his contract, and still a lot to prove in terms of durability and productivity.
What We Said: "The last-place Red Sox could use more from Gonzalez than a .267 average and four homers, but he does have 18 doubles, so there's still plenty of pop in that bat. Last year Gonzalez hit .347 at Fenway Park, but a majority of his homers came on the road. Perhaps that should be the expectation going forward."
What Happened: Gonzalez was traded from Boston to Los Angeles in August, but he picked up the pace with the bat as the season progressed. He hit .314 from June 1 on, finishing the year at .299 with 18 homers and 108 RBIs.


text:
You are hereHome ›
Narrow Search
Filters: Your search found 1 result.
Sort by:
Per page:
Now showing results 1-1 of 1
This paper model of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope includes three pages of parts that can be cut out and assembled using common household items. It also provides a short description of the scientific instruments on board Fermi, as well as links... (View More) to other resources about its instruments. (View Less)
Audience: Informal education
Materials Cost: 1 cent - $1 per student
Materials Cost: 1 cent - $1 per student