This reminded me of my childhood. My father's "weapon of choice" was his slipper. That may sound funny, but he could really whip that thing. Different times.
I swear, one time he made that thing go around two corners.
People of my generation got used to seeing Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer at least a hal-dozen times each holiday season. It was so ubiquitous that asking someone my age "What do bumbles do" would have about an 80% chance of being answered "Bounce".
It was only a matter of time before the PC crowd got a hold of it. Special ed professor George Giuliani claims that St. Nick's behavior in cartoon is tantamount to bullying, and sends the wrong message to children watching the family favorite. In response, he's written a new book, "No More Bullies at the North Pole," which re-tells the story of the triumphant reindeer (I checked - it's not available at Amazon in case you were thinking of getting it).
"Santa has ten policies that are very unfair, and Mrs. Claus sets out to correct those policies, and what you just saw, where Rudolph is being treated very very badly, and that should never happen," Guiliani said.
Here's an interview of this guy on Fox. It's also notable because they have a response from Brad Stine, one of my favorite comedians. I'd say he does a good job of treating the good professor's idea with all the seriousness it deserves.
In case you're not aware of him, Brad Stine is best knows for his routine "Put a helmet on!" here's a clip
Ah well - enough wasting of time. Back to work. I have an exam to write, a paper to finish, and a presentation to check (my student-managed investment fund group is making their end-of-semester presentation to the fund's advisory board in two days, and this time we're doing it on-site at the offices of a major investment management firm).
update: The Unknown Daughter thought I was kidding when I told her someone had made up a story about Rudolph being bullied. She's finding out that the world is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine. Then she proceeded to make fun of Professor Giuliani. That's my girl.
As I've mentioned before, I'm a big fan of using pre-recorded videos as resources for my students. I've been wondering if they would be attractive to others.
I recently came across a site called MindBites - they provide a platform for the distribution of video content online. Basically, they're an iTunes-type store for instructional videos. So, I uploaded my tutorials (so far, only the first two) for the Texas Instruments BA 2+ calculator, and priced them at $0.99 each (pretty much an iTunes model). I'm curious to see if anyone buys them.
Since I'm already putting much of my core Introductory Finance Class into short videos as a resource for my students, I'll post them to the Mindbites site as well. I figure there might be someone who's willing to pay a few bucks for (as an example) a series of 5 videos (about 3 hours alltogether of lectures on Time Value (with examples for using the calculator, the formulas, and Excel spreadsheets). If not, at least I'll have them done for my classes.
In case you're interested, the videos can be found here. If you decide to download them (the site takes PayPal), leave a review.
Here's an interesting interview of Yale finance professor Robert Shiller on the Charlie Rose show. The early part of the clip is an interview of Winston Churchill's grandson - it's also interesting (I'm a Churchill fan), but if you want to skip it, Shiller starts around 14:15.
For those of you who aren't academics, the publishing process (for "refereed" journals) goes like this:
You send a piece out to a journal
The editor reviews it to find one or more suitable referees (people who supposedly have some background in that area)
The referee goes over the piece with a fine-tooth comb. They make comments/suggestions about everything from the statistical methodology you've used to the writing style to the basic premises of the piece. Pretty much anything is fair game, stopping just short of "you dumb, you ugly, and yo momma dress you funny")
They write a referee report that can be either clear rejection (i.e. go away or we will taunt you again), revise and resubmit (make the following suggested changes and we'll look at it again) or accept (almost never done on the first round).
If it's a revise and resubmit, you attempt to make the changes (or at least address the issues raised in some way) and then resubmit it to the journal. The editor sends it back to the referee(s) for another look. Sometimes they even bring in a new referee.
Steps 4 and 5 can be repeated several times (the record I've heard at a finance journal is 4 rounds).
Most times, the referees' comments truly improve the paper (they should, since they're chosen ostensibly because they know the topic). But once in a while, you get a referee who seems like an idiot. Or alternately, you get two referees who ask you to do two things that are mutually exclusive. In that case, it can feel like this: HT: Mike Munger
I've started putting together my syllabus for the spring semester. I'll be teaching the advanced corporate finance class. I haven't taught this particular class for a couple of years, so I thought I'd change things around a bit this time. It's about 50/50 between lectures and cases, and this time around I think I'll play this clip from Other People's Money. It's the speech by Larry The Liquidator at the shareholders' meeting, and it's a pretty good representation of the PE/buyout/corporate selloff world's approach to things. It's also one of the best finance clips you'll find in any movie anywhere. .
