History Channel’s Pawn Stars is Fake

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011
749501 Views

I watched a rerun of History's (cable's newest reality television network) Pawn Stars the other night. (Season 2; Episode 5). In this episode a man named Rod brought in — what he "believed" to be — his 1960 Les Paul Custom guitar. Rod claimed to have gotten the guitar during the 1980s while touring with bands Toto and Triumph.

I got curious as to just who he was in relation to those two bands, so I hit the internet to investigate. What I found was not exactly a surprise, even if it was a disappointment.

The segment was completely staged. The guitar used in the show belonged to local Las Vegas vintage guitar store, Cowtown Guitars. The "customer" was played by an employee of that same store. And the "expert" brought in to appraise it was yet another Cowtown Guitar employee/manager. (Exposé credit goes to the guitarphiles in the Les Paul Forums.)

The customer named Rod in the Pawn Stars episode is actually Rod Miller of Cowtown Guitars in Las Vegas, where he is employed at as a luthier. How long he has worked there, I do not know. But I found evidence of his employment there fourteen months before the first episode of Pawn Stars ever aired. (See Exhibit A below.)

Proof of Employment of Rod Miller @ Cowtown Guitars   1972 Gibson from Pawn Stars Episode
[Exhibit A]
 
[Exhibit B]

Jesse, the guitar expert in the episode that identified the guitar as being from 1972, can be found on Cowtown Guitar's website as one of the store's principal contacts.

With respect to the guitar, as of March 2011, it was still listed (as sold) on Cowtown Guitar's website. Note the same identical buckle rash in the website photo as in the episode clip below. (See Exhibit B above.)

 

But it does not end there. I found another episode that used more Cowtown inventory to stage a segment. In season 2, episode 14, a "customer" trades a 18th century French double-barreled shotgun for a 1978 Gibson Les Paul. Although Rick's expert appraises the shotgun for $10,000, the owner settles for "$4,000 worth of guitar." The customer had previously stated he was looking for a high end guitar — and it just so happened Rick had one in the back, which he admitted to never putting on display.

Meanwhile, over at Cowtown Guitars, there was a 1979 Gibson Les Paul for sale, identical in every way except for the year. (Click here to view Exhibit C.) Coincidence? Eh, probably not.

 

So, if the guitar was a setup, that means the transaction was a setup. And by way of the transitive property, it means the gun and customer must also be setups. In other words, the entire segment was duplicitous and a complete fabrication. (My guess is that the gun was brought in by the gun expert, himself.)

Still do not believe the show is completely fake? If the misrepresentations of these two segments involving three mundane pieces were not enough to cast aspersions over the entire series for you, you are in luck; because there is more.

There is proof of fraud as early as season one, episode eight, entitled Time Machines.

Rick Harrison buys a 1950s Coca-Cola machine to refurbish. Rick Dale of Rick's Restorations is enlisted to restore the machine. (You might also know Rick Dale from History's American Restoration.) The finished result is beautiful, indeed. However, there is one small problem. It is not the same machine.

Pawn Stars: Restored Coca-Cola Machine is FakePawn Stars: Restored Coca-Cola Machine is Fake

 

In fact, it is not even the same model. The machine on the left is identified as a Vendo 39. But the restored machine on the right is a Cavalier 79. The dimensions of the two machines are not even the same.

This was noticed by a Gulf Oil memorabilia collector who also claimed to recognize another piece on the show. Rick's Big Bet (Season 1; Episode 10) had a Wayne gas pump that, again, was taken to Rick's Restorations after purchase from the "customer."

Wayne Gas Pump on Pawn Stars

 

From a letter written to Rick Dale of Rick's Restorations:

One more thing – that gas pump you restored for the Pawn Stars…funny, the man that sold that pump to you years ago is a friend of mine! (Small world, right?) Anyway, he was watching the show with his wife, and – in his words – he almost fell out of his chair when he saw that pump. His wife actually recognized it! I mean, what are the odds that a pump you bought got sold unrestored to someone, who just happened to bring it into that Pawn Shop – only for them to buy it and return it to you for restoration? They'd have to be astronomical!

[Updated Aug. 15, 2011]

I received an email a while back, which brought my attention to another likely fabricated segment: The 18th-Century flintlock from (again) the first season's Time Machines episode (S01:E08). The customer–named simply Jim–is actually Jim Waters, a local Las Vegas comedian and actor, and "one of the founders of a Las Vegas Group called Film and Television artists of Las Vegas." I was told Jim was hired for the scene, and that the acting agency he is with often receives submissions for actors to work on the show.

Here is the clip from the show. How is his acting?

[Updated Aug. 17, 2011]

In the episode entitled Aw Shucks! (S03:E05), a customer brings in a Native American flax bow to pawn. (Watch the clip.) During the pawn and appraisal, the flax bow has a blue beaded string with orange and pinks balls. However, when the customer comes back to pick up the flax bow, it has a red beaded string with yellow, white, purple, and orange balls.

Why they could not be consistent in the use of flax bows for the segment, I have no idea. Whatever the case, the flax bow is recognizably a prop and not part of a real transaction with an actual customer.

I also found reports that the autographed Lou Gehrig jersey from episode Flight of the Chum (Season 2; Episode 25) was actually owned by Xtreme Collectibles of Las Vegas. Previously, the jersey was listed on their website for $7,999; however, at the time this was written, the website was no longer there. (There are several internet archives of the jersey's sale page (04/2008 – 02/2009). But unfortunately, due to some weird Yahoo image storage, the actual picture of the jersey was not archived as well.)

And it does not stop there. My perusing turned up at least circumstantial evidence of staged, scripted, and misrepresented segments involving the goods below:

  • 1965 Shelby Cobra bodyframe (Season 2; episode 2)
  • Hot air balloon (Season 2; episode 5)
  • AYT XP 2200 speedboat (Season 2; episode 13)
  • Collection of 1960s Pez dispensers (Season 2; episode 15)
  • Schweizer 300 helicopter (Season 2; episode 19)
  • 1930s Coca-Cola salesman cooler (Season 2; episode 26)
  • Miami Heat 2006 NBA Championship ring (Season 2; episode 27)

Now many will defend the scripting and staging of reality shows, arguing that their principal purpose is to provide entertainment to an audience. And only a naive individual, who is familiar with the evolution of reality of television, would be shocked or vexed to learn that elements of a show are not real. It is all buyer beware. And while I agree with the generality of that notion, one must also consider a show's topic and source.

This show airs on History — a channel that used to be known for high calibre documentaries. It had earned a veritable ethos over the years, and I had come to expect a certain level of integrity from the network. If the network wishes to air a show about a pawn shop in Las Vegas that spends most of its time buying sensational items that have little or nothing to do with real history, I would at least expect it to display a moderate amount of authenticity. Instead, we are presented with conspicuous deception under the pretense of fidelity.

Shame on you A&E. A disclaimer needs to be put at the beginning of these shows similar to Operation Repo's since the level of "reality" is the same.

The Ten Commandments of Government

Monday, March 14th, 2011
684 Views

Recently, the Ten Commandments were once again in the news. This time after school officials tore down copies off of students' lockers at Floyd County High School in Virginia. Display of the Decalogue was in part to protest the February 22 decision of the school board to remove "God's imperatives" from all school buildings.

That decision was made due to threats from the ACLU and Freedom of Religion Foundation to sue if they were not removed. However, threats of legal actions were made again by the ACLU after Floyd High School administrators banned students from displaying the Ten Commandments on their personal lockers. The ACLU sent another letter on February 24 to school administrators to clarify their obvious misunderstanding of the difference between a government entity sponsoring an organized religion and that of an individual's right to religious expression.

The week of March 6, the Floyd County Superintendent, Terry Arbogast, agreed to allow students' display of religious messages on their lockers — for now.

"We have decided to review our policy and procedures to put in writing more specific guidelines for students. Until that review and publication occurs, Jacob [the student at the center of this] will be permitted to place on his locker a copy of the Ten Commandments as requested."

Translation: "In order to stay out of trouble, we are going to honour your pesky Constitutional right to free speech until we can find a legal way to quash it."

Do not get me wrong, I do not care whether a kid gets to hang the Ten Commandments on their locker or not; even in a public school. But I do care when political correctness begins to intrude on individuals' rights, as was the case here.

Progressives like to attack the Ten Commandments not for what it says, but for what it represents to them — not Christians, but right-wing conservatives. Not to say that the association is incomprehensible. In my personal experience, most Christians, who wear Jesus on their sleeve, are not only fiscally conservative but exceedingly socially conservative as well. Display of the Ten Commandments has become synonymous with the impertinent, "When you die, where do you think you will you go?"

Even so, the ten "commandments" still are not at all idiosyncratic. In the United States, for example, we live under a system of government that demands the same of its citizens as God did of the people of Israel, which I demonstrate through legal code below.

For those of you that support the right-wing evangelicals in spirit, but not necessarily through the public display of symbols thereof, I present to you the Ten Commandments of Government. The US Federal government will be playing the role of God, of course, while the state of Virginia will be filling in for all the interpersonal commandments of man (except for number five).  Hang it in solidarity. Hang it in parody. Hell, hang it just to be a nuisance.

The Ten Commandments of Government:

  1. Thou shalt have no other nations before me

18 U.S.C. § 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the U.S., levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the U.S. or elsewhere, is guilty of treason

  1. Thou shalt not worship false idols

4 U.S.C. § 41: The seal heretofore used by the United States in Congress assembled is declared to be the seal of the United States.

  1. Thou shalt not take the flag of the United States in vain

4 U.S.C. § 8: No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America

  1. Remember the Independence Day, to keep it holy

5 U.S.C. § 3103: (a) The following are legal public holidays: Independence Day, July 4

  1. Honour thy father and thy mother

36 U.S.C. § 109 & 36 U.S.C. § 117: offer public and private expressions of Father’s Day to the abiding love and gratitude they have for their fathers & display the flag . . . on Mother’s Day as a public expression of love and reverence for the mothers of the United States

  1. Thou shalt not kill

Virginia Code § 18.2-30: Murder and manslaughter declared felonies

  1. Thou shalt not steal

Virginia Code: § 18.2-95: Larceny: Theft from the person of another of money or other thing of value. . .

  1. Thou shalt not commit adultery

Virginia Code § 18.2-366: Any person who commits adultery or fornication with any person whom he or she is forbidden by law to marry shall be guilty. . .

  1. Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor

Virginia Code: § 18.2-434: If any person [under oath] . . . willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe is true, he is guilty of perjury. . .

  1. Thou shalt not covet

Virginia Code: § 18.2-60.3: [No stalking people!]

The Commandments of Government

Download it:

  10-commandments-of-gov.pdf (957.8 KiB, 657 hits)

Historical S&P 500 Capital and Total Returns: 1970 to 2012

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011
26199 Views

Ever tired looking for the total monthly returns of the Standard and Poor’s 500? Well, unless you have an up to date subscription to Compustat, the search is frustrating at best. Here I have compiled both the capital and total (dividends reinvested) returns by month and year for the years 1970 through 2012. Links to the data sources used are provided as well as an Excel file containing the data.

Currently, the spreadsheet runs through June 2012.

A note on the spreadsheet 1-month and 12-month total returns: Some of the values within the spreadsheet are calculated while others are not. Return data available directly from Standard and Poor’s is used instead of calculated values. Their 1-month and 12-month total returns sometimes diverge from calculated values beyond the sixth decimal place.  

SortDateVolumeClose Price1 Month Capital Return12 Month Capital ReturnClose Value w/ Dividends1 Month Total Return12 Month Total Return
101/197011,114,70085.02-85.28--
202/197012,698,40089.505.27%-90.035.57%-
303/197010,535,70089.630.15%-90.430.44%-
404/197010,590,90081.52-9.05%-82.52-8.75%-
505/197012,992,80076.55-6.10%-77.75-5.78%-
606/197010,713,60072.72-5.00%-74.12-4.66%-
707/197010,880,90078.057.33%-79.827.69%-
808/197010,925,20081.524.45%-83.644.78%-
909/197015,148,50084.303.41%-86.663.62%-
1010/197012,358,60083.25-1.25%-85.94-0.83%-
1111/197012,399,50087.204.74%-90.295.06%-
1212/197015,846,80092.155.68%-95.685.98%-
1301/197118,472,50095.884.05%12.77%99.824.32%17.05%
1402/197120,444,20096.750.91%8.10%100.981.17%12.16%
1503/197117,716,900100.313.68%11.92%104.963.94%16.07%
1604/197119,955,700103.953.63%27.51%109.043.89%32.14%
1705/197115,956,00099.63-4.16%30.15%104.78-3.91%34.77%
1806/197114,500,00098.70-0.93%35.73%105.130.33%41.83%
1907/197113,248,00095.58-3.16%22.46%101.06-3.87%26.60%
2008/197115,043,10099.033.61%21.48%104.983.88%25.52%
2109/197112,676,60098.34-0.70%16.65%104.51-0.44%20.60%
2210/197113,894,70094.23-4.18%13.19%100.42-3.91%16.85%
2311/197114,034,70093.99-0.25%7.79%100.440.02%11.25%
2412/197117,805,400102.098.62%10.79%109.378.88%14.30%
2501/197218,940,000103.941.81%8.41%111.622.06%11.82%
2602/197219,829,000106.572.53%10.15%114.712.77%13.59%
2703/197219,000,400107.200.59%6.87%115.660.83%10.19%
2804/197219,107,500107.670.44%3.58%116.440.68%6.79%
2905/197215,958,100109.531.73%9.94%118.741.97%13.32%
3006/197214,880,400107.14-2.18%8.55%116.43-1.94%10.75%
3107/197215,001,000107.390.23%12.36%116.980.48%15.76%
3208/197216,055,200111.093.45%12.18%121.303.69%15.54%
3309/197213,122,000110.55-0.49%12.42%120.99-0.25%15.76%
3410/197215,125,000111.580.93%18.41%122.421.19%21.91%
3511/197221,245,500116.674.56%24.13%128.324.81%27.75%
3612/197219,593,600118.051.18%15.63%130.141.42%18.99%
3701/197319,458,000116.03-1.71%11.63%128.20-1.49%14.86%
3802/197317,691,500111.68-3.75%4.79%123.68-3.52%7.82%
3903/197316,233,600111.52-0.14%4.03%123.780.08%7.03%
4004/197314,640,500106.97-4.08%-0.65%119.04-3.83%2.23%
4105/197315,884,000104.95-1.89%-4.18%117.11-1.63%-1.37%
4206/197313,308,000104.26-0.66%-2.69%116.64-0.40%0.18%
4307/197315,300,400108.223.80%0.77%121.384.07%3.76%
4408/197312,390,800104.25-3.67%-6.16%117.24-3.41%-3.34%
4509/197318,177,300108.434.01%-1.92%122.254.27%1.04%
4610/197319,164,700108.29-0.13%-2.95%122.450.17%0.02%
4711/197319,775,20095.96-11.39%-17.75%108.87-11.09%-15.16%
4812/197320,392,50097.551.66%-17.37%111.021.98%-14.69%
4901/197417,144,00096.57-1.00%-16.77%110.23-0.72%-14.02%
5002/197414,236,30096.22-0.36%-13.84%110.15-0.07%-10.94%
5103/197415,321,40093.98-2.33%-15.73%107.89-2.05%-12.84%
5204/197412,630,90090.31-3.91%-15.57%104.02-3.59%-12.62%
5305/197412,998,10087.28-3.36%-16.84%100.88-3.02%-13.86%
5406/197412,867,50086.00-1.47%-17.51%99.73-1.14%-14.49%
5507/197412,956,80079.31-7.78%-26.71%92.34-7.42%-23.93%
5608/197413,469,50072.15-9.03%-30.79%84.36-8.64%-28.05%
5709/197414,752,50063.54-11.93%-41.40%74.64-11.52%-38.94%
5810/197417,214,70073.9016.30%-31.76%87.1916.81%-28.79%
5911/197414,709,50069.97-5.32%-27.08%82.93-4.89%-23.82%
6012/197416,005,70068.56-2.02%-29.72%81.64-1.56%-26.47%
6101/197520,781,30076.9812.28%-20.29%92.0212.72%-16.52%
6202/197523,221,00081.595.99%-15.20%97.896.38%-11.13%
6303/197523,494,00083.362.17%-11.30%100.382.54%-6.97%
6404/197521,336,80087.304.73%-3.33%105.495.10%1.41%
6505/197522,864,70091.154.41%4.43%110.524.76%9.56%
6606/197522,210,90095.194.43%10.69%115.804.77%16.10%
6707/197520,737,20088.75-6.77%11.90%108.34-6.44%17.33%
6808/197514,140,40086.88-2.11%20.42%106.43-1.76%26.17%
6909/197513,697,10083.87-3.46%32.00%103.11-3.12%38.14%
7010/197516,454,30089.046.16%20.49%109.856.53%25.99%
7111/197517,456,80091.242.47%30.40%112.952.82%36.20%
7212/197516,633,60090.19-1.15%31.55%112.03-0.81%37.23%
7301/197632,111,400100.8611.83%31.02%125.6712.17%36.56%
7402/197632,793,10099.71-1.14%22.21%124.61-0.84%27.30%
7503/197623,787,800102.773.07%23.28%128.813.37%28.33%
7604/197619,370,900101.64-1.10%16.43%127.81-0.78%21.15%
7705/197618,638,500100.18-1.44%9.91%126.39-1.11%14.36%
7806/197620,048,100104.284.09%9.55%131.994.43%13.99%
7907/197619,456,600103.44-0.81%16.55%131.36-0.48%21.25%
8008/197616,461,800102.91-0.51%18.45%131.12-0.18%23.19%
8109/197620,450,000105.242.26%25.48%134.502.58%30.44%
8210/197618,020,000102.90-2.22%15.57%132.00-1.86%20.16%
8311/197619,902,500102.10-0.78%11.90%131.46-0.41%16.39%
8412/197625,169,000107.465.25%19.15%138.845.61%23.93%
8501/197724,978,000102.03-5.05%1.16%132.27-4.73%5.25%
8602/197721,824,20099.82-2.17%0.11%129.86-1.82%4.21%
8703/197719,617,30098.42-1.40%-4.23%128.50-1.05%-0.24%
8804/197721,069,50098.440.02%-3.15%129.030.42%0.96%
8905/197721,124,70096.12-2.36%-4.05%126.50-1.96%0.09%
9006/197722,934,500100.484.54%-3.64%132.754.94%0.58%
9107/197724,885,70098.85-1.62%-4.44%130.71-1.54%-0.49%
9208/197719,683,90096.77-2.10%-5.97%128.85-1.42%-1.73%
9309/197719,278,00096.53-0.25%-8.28%129.050.16%-4.06%
9410/197720,501,90092.34-4.34%-10.26%124.02-3.90%-6.04%
9511/197724,635,70094.832.70%-7.12%127.943.16%-2.67%
9612/197722,596,60095.100.28%-11.50%128.900.75%-7.16%
9701/197821,333,80089.25-6.15%-12.53%121.50-5.74%-8.14%
9802/197820,439,40087.04-2.48%-12.80%119.04-2.03%-8.34%
9903/197823,532,20089.212.49%-9.36%122.542.94%-4.64%
10004/197836,422,50096.838.54%-1.64%133.609.02%3.54%
10105/197836,582,70097.240.42%1.17%134.820.92%6.58%
10206/197831,108,60095.53-1.76%-4.93%132.97-1.38%0.16%
10307/197828,774,000100.685.39%1.85%140.725.83%7.66%
10408/197839,078,200103.292.59%6.74%144.963.01%12.50%
10509/197834,795,000102.54-0.73%6.23%144.49-0.32%11.97%
10610/197832,957,20093.15-9.16%0.88%131.89-8.72%6.35%
10711/197825,452,80094.701.66%-0.14%134.732.15%5.30%
10812/197826,123,50096.111.49%1.06%137.371.96%6.57%
10901/197929,366,30099.933.97%11.97%143.464.43%18.07%
11002/197926,357,80096.28-3.65%10.62%138.85-3.21%16.65%
11103/197930,898,600101.595.52%13.88%147.135.96%20.07%
11204/197932,354,500101.760.17%5.09%148.060.63%10.82%
11305/197929,729,00099.08-2.63%1.89%144.84-2.17%7.43%
11406/197936,685,700102.913.87%7.73%151.144.35%13.67%
11507/197934,052,300103.810.87%3.11%153.171.34%8.85%
11608/197937,018,200109.325.31%5.84%162.015.77%11.76%
11709/197939,467,800109.320.00%6.61%162.700.43%12.60%
11810/197938,509,100101.82-6.86%9.31%152.29-6.40%15.46%
11911/197932,577,600106.164.26%12.10%159.534.75%18.41%
12012/197937,087,000107.941.68%12.31%162.942.14%18.61%
12101/198055,642,700114.165.76%14.24%173.066.22%20.63%
12202/198049,767,000113.66-0.44%18.05%173.05-0.01%24.63%
12303/198043,442,300102.09-10.18%0.49%156.23-9.72%6.18%
12404/198033,570,900106.294.11%4.45%163.454.62%10.40%
12505/198038,082,800111.244.66%12.27%171.865.15%18.65%
12606/198040,931,900114.242.70%11.01%177.303.16%17.30%
12707/198048,926,300121.676.50%17.20%189.646.96%23.81%
12808/198047,579,500122.380.58%11.95%191.551.01%18.24%
12909/198052,285,700125.462.52%14.76%197.192.94%21.19%
13010/198046,604,300127.471.60%25.19%201.182.02%32.11%
13111/198056,797,200140.5210.24%32.37%222.6110.65%39.55%
13212/198048,493,600135.76-3.39%25.77%215.90-3.02%32.50%
13301/198147,460,900129.55-4.57%13.48%206.86-4.18%19.53%
13402/198145,764,200131.271.33%15.49%210.461.74%21.62%
13503/198155,705,000136.003.60%33.22%218.874.00%40.10%
13604/198155,782,800132.81-2.35%24.95%214.64-1.93%31.32%
13705/198147,850,500132.59-0.17%19.19%215.190.26%25.21%
13806/198151,932,700131.21-1.04%14.85%213.84-0.63%20.61%
13907/198145,338,600130.92-0.22%7.60%214.280.21%13.00%
14008/198145,757,600122.79-6.21%0.34%201.91-5.77%5.41%
14109/198147,611,400116.18-5.38%-7.40%191.96-4.93%-2.65%
14210/198148,051,300121.894.91%-4.38%202.325.40%0.57%
14311/198151,775,000126.353.66%-10.08%210.674.13%-5.36%
14412/198145,465,900122.55-3.01%-9.73%205.27-2.56%-4.92%
14501/198252,087,000120.40-1.75%-7.06%202.59-1.31%-2.07%
14602/198253,475,200113.11-6.05%-13.83%191.26-5.59%-9.12%
14703/198257,043,000111.96-1.02%-17.68%190.27-0.52%-13.07%
14804/198256,413,800116.444.00%-12.33%198.874.52%-7.35%
14905/198253,518,000111.88-3.92%-15.62%192.09-3.41%-10.74%
15006/198253,445,900109.61-2.03%-16.46%189.20-1.50%-11.52%
15107/198256,402,800107.09-2.30%-18.20%185.83-1.78%-13.28%
15208/198279,960,400119.5111.60%-2.67%208.3912.14%3.21%
15309/198276,697,600120.420.76%3.65%210.991.25%9.91%
15410/1982102,066,100133.7211.04%9.71%235.2811.51%16.29%
15511/198292,881,400138.533.60%9.64%244.784.04%16.19%
15612/198278,372,200140.641.52%14.76%249.501.93%21.55%
15701/198391,654,200145.303.31%20.68%258.773.72%27.73%
15802/198389,431,500148.061.90%30.90%264.702.29%38.40%
15903/198387,064,700152.963.31%36.62%274.483.69%44.26%
16004/198394,631,000164.437.50%41.21%296.117.88%48.90%
16105/198396,525,700162.39-1.24%45.15%293.53-0.87%52.81%
16206/198393,189,500167.643.23%52.94%304.963.89%61.18%
16307/198384,270,500162.56-3.03%51.80%295.96-2.95%59.26%
16408/198377,705,600164.401.13%37.56%300.401.50%44.15%
16509/198386,222,300166.071.02%37.91%304.551.38%44.34%
16610/198389,241,900163.55-1.52%22.31%301.03-1.16%27.95%
16711/198392,130,400166.401.74%20.12%307.382.11%25.57%
16812/198391,461,900164.93-0.88%17.27%305.77-0.52%22.56%
16901/1984110,912,800163.41-0.92%12.46%304.06-0.56%17.50%
17002/1984101,281,000157.06-3.89%6.08%293.37-3.52%10.83%
17103/198487,568,600159.181.35%4.07%298.451.73%8.73%
17204/198489,513,500160.050.55%-2.66%301.280.95%1.75%
17305/198491,883,600150.55-5.94%-7.29%284.60-5.54%-3.04%
17406/198490,649,500153.181.75%-8.63%290.782.17%-4.65%
17507/198483,290,900150.66-1.65%-7.32%287.17-1.24%-2.97%
17608/1984112,364,300166.6810.63%1.39%318.8911.04%6.16%
17709/198497,242,600166.10-0.35%0.02%318.970.02%4.73%
17810/198495,744,300166.09-0.01%1.55%320.200.39%6.37%
17911/198487,374,200163.58-1.51%-1.69%316.61-1.12%3.00%
18012/198493,063,000167.242.24%1.40%324.952.63%6.27%
18101/1985127,555,000179.637.41%9.93%350.277.79%15.20%
18202/1985120,806,300181.180.86%15.36%354.561.22%20.86%
18303/1985107,356,600180.66-0.29%13.49%354.800.07%18.88%
18404/198599,699,000179.83-0.46%12.36%354.46-0.09%17.65%
18505/1985112,929,000189.555.41%25.91%374.945.78%31.74%
18606/1985111,110,000191.851.21%25.24%380.821.57%30.96%
18707/1985117,603,100190.92-0.48%26.72%380.26-0.15%32.41%
18808/198591,128,100188.63-1.20%13.17%377.01-0.85%18.23%
18909/1985103,355,700182.08-3.47%9.62%365.22-3.13%14.50%
19010/1985115,858,200189.824.25%14.29%382.094.62%19.33%
19111/1985126,471,500202.176.51%23.59%408.306.86%28.96%
19212/1985138,908,500211.284.51%26.33%428.054.84%31.73%
19301/1986137,386,800211.780.24%17.90%430.440.56%22.89%
19402/1986162,673,600226.927.15%25.25%462.627.47%30.48%
19503/1986167,450,000238.905.28%32.24%488.425.58%37.66%
19604/1986153,995,400235.52-1.41%30.97%482.93-1.13%36.24%
19705/1986134,830,400247.355.02%30.49%508.625.32%35.65%
19806/1986132,604,700250.841.41%30.75%517.211.69%35.82%
19907/1986142,845,400236.12-5.87%23.67%488.28-5.59%28.41%
20008/1986134,628,500252.937.12%34.09%524.497.42%39.12%
20109/1986156,723,800231.32-8.54%27.04%481.13-8.27%31.74%
20210/1986137,562,600243.985.47%28.53%508.885.77%33.18%
20311/1986159,703,100249.222.15%23.27%521.252.43%27.66%
20412/1986154,548,600242.17-2.83%14.62%507.95-2.55%18.66%
20501/1987200,203,800274.0813.18%29.42%576.3413.47%33.90%
20602/1987190,952,600284.203.69%25.24%599.123.95%29.51%
20703/1987188,040,900291.702.64%22.10%616.402.89%26.20%
20804/1987195,942,800288.36-1.15%22.44%610.93-0.89%26.51%
20905/1987178,560,000290.100.60%17.28%616.230.87%21.16%
21006/1987170,931,800304.004.79%21.19%647.355.05%25.16%
21107/1987188,559,000318.664.82%34.96%680.145.07%39.29%
21208/1987201,342,800329.803.50%30.39%705.523.73%34.51%
21309/1987186,014,200321.83-2.42%39.13%690.05-2.19%43.42%
21410/1987290,813,600251.79-21.76%3.20%541.44-21.54%6.40%
21511/1987192,922,000230.30-8.53%-7.59%496.82-8.24%-4.69%
21612/1987186,222,200247.087.29%2.03%534.627.61%5.25%
21701/1988185,329,000257.074.04%-6.21%557.104.21%-3.34%
21802/1988196,464,500267.824.18%-5.76%583.074.66%-2.68%
21903/1988182,297,300258.89-3.33%-11.25%565.06-3.09%-8.33%
22004/1988169,819,000261.330.94%-9.37%571.311.11%-6.49%
22105/1988165,665,700262.160.32%-9.63%576.250.87%-6.49%
22206/1988206,096,300273.504.33%-10.03%602.704.59%-6.90%
22307/1988176,540,500272.02-0.54%-14.64%600.41-0.38%-11.72%
22408/1988150,345,600261.52-3.86%-20.70%580.03-3.39%-17.79%
22509/1988154,057,100271.913.97%-15.51%604.744.26%-12.36%
22610/1988169,458,000278.972.60%10.79%621.582.78%14.80%
22711/1988141,934,700273.70-1.89%18.84%612.72-1.43%23.33%
22812/1988141,529,000277.721.47%12.40%623.411.74%16.61%
22901/1989177,441,400297.477.11%15.72%669.067.32%20.10%
23002/1989177,037,300288.86-2.89%7.86%652.39-2.49%11.89%
23103/1989167,067,700294.872.08%13.90%667.602.33%18.15%
23204/1989169,782,000309.645.01%18.49%702.275.19%22.92%
23305/1989177,720,400320.523.51%22.26%730.684.05%26.80%
23406/1989188,049,000317.98-0.79%16.26%726.53-0.57%20.55%
23507/1989170,784,000346.088.84%27.23%792.139.03%31.93%
23608/1989177,996,500351.451.55%34.39%807.621.95%39.24%
23709/1989159,516,000349.15-0.65%28.41%804.34-0.41%33.01%
23810/1989190,398,600340.36-2.52%22.01%785.67-2.32%26.40%
23911/1989151,683,800345.991.65%26.41%801.692.04%30.84%
24012/1989167,968,000353.402.14%27.25%820.942.40%31.69%
24101/1990181,041,300329.08-6.88%10.63%765.83-6.71%14.46%
24202/1990165,598,400331.890.85%14.90%775.691.29%18.90%
24303/1990155,573,600339.942.43%15.28%796.252.65%19.27%
24404/1990146,198,500330.80-2.69%6.83%776.38-2.49%10.55%
24505/1990171,016,800361.239.20%12.70%852.089.75%16.62%
24606/1990160,561,400358.02-0.89%12.59%846.33-0.67%16.49%
24707/1990168,996,100356.15-0.52%2.91%843.62-0.32%6.50%
24808/1990179,009,100322.56-9.43%-8.22%767.36-9.04%-4.98%
24909/1990152,015,200306.05-5.12%-12.34%730.02-4.87%-9.24%
25010/1990166,433,000304.00-0.67%-10.68%726.91-0.43%-7.48%
25111/1990159,148,500322.225.99%-6.87%773.906.46%-3.47%
25212/1990161,548,000330.222.48%-6.56%795.462.79%-3.10%
25301/1991175,670,900343.934.15%4.51%830.104.36%8.39%
25402/1991238,220,000367.076.73%10.60%889.467.15%14.67%
25503/1991203,933,500375.222.22%10.38%911.002.42%14.41%
25604/1991191,974,000375.350.03%13.47%913.160.24%17.62%
25705/1991180,533,600389.833.86%7.92%952.554.31%11.79%
25806/1991171,125,000371.16-4.79%3.67%908.91-4.58%7.39%
25907/1991165,836,300387.814.49%8.89%951.284.66%12.76%
26008/1991175,330,000395.431.96%22.59%973.822.37%26.90%
26109/1991170,388,500387.86-1.91%26.73%957.52-1.67%31.16%
26210/1991185,306,900392.461.19%29.10%970.391.34%33.50%
26311/1991190,722,500375.22-4.39%16.45%931.29-4.03%20.34%
26412/1991209,637,600417.0911.16%26.31%1,037.8011.44%30.47%
26501/1992249,268,100408.79-1.99%18.86%1,018.46-1.86%22.69%
26602/1992235,259,400412.700.96%12.43%1,031.651.30%15.99%
26703/1992193,118,100403.69-2.18%7.59%1,011.59-1.94%11.04%
26804/1992216,163,300414.952.79%10.55%1,041.342.94%14.03%
26905/1992192,399,500415.350.10%6.55%1,046.440.49%9.85%
27006/1992202,516,300408.14-1.74%9.96%1,030.88-1.49%13.41%
27107/1992201,733,600424.213.94%9.39%1,072.994.09%12.79%
27208/1992181,680,900414.03-2.40%4.70%1,051.03-2.05%7.92%
27309/1992200,396,100417.800.91%7.72%1,063.381.18%11.05%
27410/1992214,042,700418.680.21%6.68%1,067.050.35%9.96%
27511/1992218,946,000431.353.03%14.96%1,103.393.40%18.47%
27612/1992229,184,500435.711.01%4.46%1,116.931.23%7.62%
27701/1993276,402,500438.780.70%7.34%1,126.210.84%10.58%
27802/1993298,768,900443.381.05%7.43%1,141.561.36%10.65%
27903/1993262,875,600451.671.87%11.89%1,165.652.11%15.23%
28004/1993290,506,100440.19-2.54%6.08%1,137.47-2.42%9.24%
28105/1993265,823,000450.192.27%8.39%1,167.902.68%11.61%
28206/1993264,796,300450.530.08%10.39%1,171.320.29%13.63%
28307/1993264,902,300448.13-0.53%5.64%1,166.61-0.40%8.73%
28408/1993261,774,000463.563.44%11.96%1,210.873.79%15.21%
28509/1993277,795,200458.93-1.00%9.84%1,201.59-0.77%13.00%
28610/1993295,763,300467.831.94%11.74%1,226.442.07%14.94%
28711/1993293,489,000461.79-1.29%7.06%1,214.74-0.95%10.10%
28812/1993270,900,000466.451.01%7.06%1,229.431.21%10.08%
28901/1994330,964,700481.613.25%9.76%1,271.223.40%12.88%
29002/1994322,199,400467.14-3.00%5.36%1,236.72-2.71%8.34%
29103/1994331,677,800445.77-4.57%-1.31%1,182.80-4.36%1.47%
29204/1994317,314,700450.911.15%2.44%1,197.971.28%5.32%
29305/1994280,603,300456.501.24%1.40%1,217.631.64%4.26%
29406/1994279,367,200444.27-2.68%-1.39%1,187.78-2.45%1.41%
29507/1994262,483,000458.263.15%2.26%1,226.793.28%5.16%
29608/1994293,626,000475.493.76%2.57%1,277.084.10%5.47%
29709/1994306,893,800462.69-2.69%0.82%1,245.85-2.45%3.69%
29810/1994316,548,500472.352.09%0.97%1,273.842.25%3.87%
29911/1994311,899,500453.69-3.95%-1.75%1,227.45-3.64%1.05%
30012/1994314,656,600459.271.23%-1.54%1,245.661.48%1.32%
30101/1995345,888,000470.422.43%-2.32%1,277.962.59%0.53%
30202/1995349,858,900487.393.61%4.33%1,327.773.90%7.36%
30303/1995354,150,400500.712.73%12.32%1,366.952.95%15.57%
30404/1995348,814,200514.712.80%14.15%1,407.202.94%17.47%
30505/1995359,721,300533.403.63%16.85%1,463.444.00%20.19%
30606/1995357,604,500544.752.13%22.62%1,497.432.32%26.07%
30707/1995379,995,500562.063.18%22.65%1,547.093.32%26.11%
30808/1995323,806,000561.88-0.03%18.17%1,550.980.25%21.45%
30909/1995369,404,000584.414.01%26.31%1,616.444.22%29.75%
31010/1995382,759,500581.50-0.50%23.11%1,610.66-0.36%26.44%
31111/1995382,961,900605.374.10%33.43%1,681.364.39%36.98%
31212/1995400,939,500615.931.74%34.11%1,713.751.93%37.58%
31301/1996439,102,700636.023.26%35.20%1,772.083.40%38.66%
31402/1996460,156,500640.430.69%31.40%1,788.510.93%34.70%
31503/1996447,510,000645.500.79%28.92%1,805.720.96%32.10%
31604/1996441,379,500654.171.34%27.09%1,832.351.47%30.21%
31705/1996421,495,000669.122.29%25.44%1,879.602.58%28.44%
31806/1996420,065,000670.630.23%23.11%1,886.770.38%26.00%
31907/1996420,610,000639.95-4.57%13.86%1,803.42-4.42%16.57%
32008/1996347,213,600651.991.88%16.04%1,841.462.11%18.73%
32109/1996422,632,000687.315.42%17.61%1,945.105.63%20.33%
32210/1996442,891,700705.272.61%21.28%1,998.752.76%24.10%
32311/1996438,942,000757.027.34%25.05%2,149.837.56%27.86%
32412/1996451,853,800740.74-2.15%20.26%2,107.23-1.98%22.96%
32501/1997555,199,000786.166.13%23.61%2,238.886.25%26.34%
32602/1997538,116,300790.820.59%23.48%2,256.430.78%26.16%
32703/1997533,832,000757.12-4.26%17.29%2,163.72-4.11%19.83%
32804/1997500,497,700801.345.84%22.50%2,292.895.97%25.13%
32905/1997506,850,000848.285.86%26.78%2,432.496.09%29.41%
33006/1997543,785,200885.144.35%31.99%2,541.474.48%34.70%
33107/1997568,452,200954.297.81%49.12%2,743.687.96%52.14%
33208/1997524,762,300899.47-5.74%37.96%2,589.98-5.60%40.65%
33309/1997570,023,800947.285.32%37.82%2,731.825.48%40.45%
33410/1997637,188,200914.62-3.45%29.68%2,640.59-3.34%32.11%
33511/1997545,404,700955.404.46%26.21%2,762.834.63%28.51%
33612/1997564,825,400970.431.57%31.01%2,810.271.72%33.36%
33701/1998667,360,500980.281.02%24.69%2,841.361.11%26.91%
33802/1998643,738,4001,049.347.04%32.69%3,046.297.21%35.01%
33903/1998654,296,3001,101.754.99%45.52%3,202.295.12%48.00%
34004/1998683,412,3001,111.750.91%38.74%3,234.501.01%41.07%
34105/1998601,696,0001,090.82-1.88%28.59%3,178.91-1.72%30.69%
34206/1998650,416,8001,133.843.94%28.10%3,308.034.06%30.16%
34307/1998674,577,7001,120.67-1.16%17.43%3,272.81-1.06%19.29%
34408/1998761,383,300957.28-14.58%6.43%2,799.63-14.46%8.09%
34509/1998834,008,5001,017.016.24%7.36%2,978.986.41%9.05%
34610/1998853,938,6001,098.678.03%20.12%3,221.308.13%21.99%
34711/1998706,959,0001,163.635.91%21.80%3,416.536.06%23.66%
34812/1998722,756,8001,229.235.64%26.67%3,613.415.76%28.58%
34901/1999901,605,2001,279.644.10%30.54%3,764.514.18%32.49%
35002/1999807,392,6001,238.33-3.23%18.01%3,647.51-3.11%19.74%
35103/1999822,904,3001,286.373.88%16.76%3,793.444.00%18.46%
35204/1999926,652,3001,335.183.79%20.10%3,940.353.87%21.82%
35305/1999826,511,0001,301.84-2.50%19.35%3,847.30-2.36%21.03%
35406/1999781,644,0001,372.715.44%21.07%4,060.825.55%22.76%
35507/1999765,225,2001,328.72-3.20%18.56%3,934.02-3.12%20.20%
35608/1999758,193,1001,320.41-0.63%37.93%3,914.56-0.49%39.82%
35709/1999831,252,3001,282.71-2.86%26.13%3,807.24-2.74%27.80%
35810/1999950,119,0001,362.936.25%24.05%4,048.176.33%25.67%
35911/1999920,777,1001,388.911.91%19.36%4,130.462.03%20.90%
36012/1999909,760,9001,469.255.78%19.53%4,373.735.89%21.04%
36101/20001,124,410,0001,394.46-5.09%8.97%4,153.98-5.02%10.35%
36202/20001,105,815,0001,366.42-2.01%10.34%4,075.35-1.89%11.73%
36303/20001,190,591,3001,498.589.67%16.50%4,474.039.78%17.94%
36404/20001,110,055,7001,452.43-3.08%8.78%4,339.43-3.01%10.13%
36505/2000948,127,2001,420.60-2.19%9.12%4,250.40-2.05%10.48%
36606/20001,054,454,5001,454.602.39%5.97%4,355.182.47%7.25%
36707/20001,002,085,0001,430.83-1.63%7.68%4,287.09-1.56%8.97%
36808/2000931,317,3001,517.686.07%14.94%4,553.386.21%16.32%
36909/20001,101,770,0001,436.51-5.35%11.99%4,312.99-5.28%13.28%
37010/20001,241,718,1001,429.40-0.49%4.88%4,294.76-0.42%6.09%
37111/20001,034,230,0001,314.95-8.01%-5.33%3,956.16-7.88%-4.22%
37212/20001,232,315,0001,320.280.41%-10.14%3,975.530.49%-9.10%
37301/20011,386,909,5001,366.013.46%-2.04%4,116.573.55%-0.90%
37402/20011,203,668,4001,239.94-9.23%-9.26%3,741.22-9.12%-8.20%
37503/20011,322,155,0001,160.33-6.42%-22.57%3,504.21-6.34%-21.68%
37604/20011,333,839,5001,249.467.68%-13.97%3,776.527.77%-12.97%
37705/20011,170,568,1001,255.820.51%-11.60%3,801.830.67%-10.55%
37806/20011,265,732,8001,224.42-2.50%-15.82%3,709.29-2.43%-14.83%
37907/20011,186,805,2001,211.23-1.08%-15.35%3,672.78-0.98%-14.33%
38008/20011,055,621,7001,133.58-6.41%-25.31%3,442.86-6.26%-24.39%
38109/20011,777,119,3001,040.94-8.17%-27.54%3,164.84-8.08%-26.62%
38210/20011,361,033,9001,059.781.81%-25.86%3,225.191.91%-24.90%
38311/20011,317,790,4001,139.457.52%-13.35%3,472.587.67%-12.22%
38412/20011,303,608,5001,148.080.76%-13.04%3,503.000.88%-11.89%
38501/20021,490,628,5001,130.20-1.56%-17.26%3,451.88-1.46%-16.15%
38602/20021,444,200,0001,106.73-2.08%-10.74%3,385.31-1.93%-9.51%
38703/20021,385,540,0001,147.393.67%-1.12%3,512.633.76%0.24%
38804/20021,372,613,6001,076.92-6.14%-13.81%3,299.67-6.06%-12.63%
38905/20021,281,036,3001,067.14-0.91%-15.02%3,275.36-0.74%-13.85%
39006/20021,604,925,500989.81-7.25%-19.16%3,042.02-7.12%-17.99%
39107/20022,012,640,000911.62-7.90%-24.74%2,804.91-7.79%-23.63%
39208/20021,374,013,600916.070.49%-19.19%2,823.330.66%-17.99%
39309/20021,472,279,000815.28-11.00%-21.68%2,516.49-10.87%-20.49%
39410/20021,717,287,300885.768.64%-16.42%2,737.988.80%-15.11%
39511/20021,492,221,000936.315.71%-17.83%2,899.145.89%-16.51%
39612/20021,289,625,700879.82-6.03%-23.37%2,728.82-5.87%-22.10%
39701/20031,539,433,800855.70-2.74%-24.29%2,657.33-2.62%-23.02%
39802/20031,400,452,600841.15-1.70%-24.00%2,617.46-1.50%-22.68%
39903/20031,503,596,600848.180.84%-26.08%2,642.880.97%-24.76%
40004/20031,498,005,700916.928.10%-14.86%2,860.578.24%-13.31%
40105/20031,554,328,500963.595.09%-9.70%3,011.295.27%-8.06%
40206/20031,562,219,000974.501.13%-1.55%3,049.701.28%0.25%
40307/20031,507,327,200990.311.62%8.63%3,103.471.76%10.64%
40408/20031,229,836,6001,008.011.79%10.04%3,164.001.95%12.07%
40509/20031,501,457,600995.97-1.20%22.16%3,130.40-1.06%24.40%
40610/20031,469,452,1001,050.715.50%18.62%3,307.485.66%20.80%
40711/20031,313,181,0001,058.200.71%13.02%3,336.580.88%15.09%
40812/20031,312,119,5001,111.925.08%26.38%3,511.575.24%28.68%
40901/20041,722,750,0001,131.131.73%32.19%3,576.021.84%34.57%
41002/20041,554,000,0001,144.941.22%36.12%3,625.731.39%38.52%
41103/20041,528,634,7001,126.21-1.64%32.78%3,571.03-1.51%35.12%
41204/20041,583,171,4001,107.30-1.68%20.76%3,514.97-1.57%22.88%
41305/20041,524,950,0001,120.681.21%16.30%3,563.211.37%18.33%
41406/20041,381,109,5001,140.841.80%17.07%3,632.491.94%19.11%
41507/20041,456,371,4001,101.72-3.43%11.25%3,512.27-3.31%13.17%
41608/20041,260,227,2001,104.240.23%9.55%3,526.470.40%11.46%
41709/20041,360,850,9001,114.580.94%11.91%3,564.671.08%13.87%
41810/20041,571,990,4001,130.201.40%7.56%3,619.131.53%9.42%
41911/20041,524,465,7001,173.823.86%10.93%3,765.564.05%12.86%
42012/20041,449,518,1001,211.923.25%8.99%3,893.703.40%10.88%
42101/20051,658,930,0001,181.27-2.53%4.43%3,798.79-2.44%6.23%
42202/20051,636,467,8001,203.601.89%5.12%3,878.732.10%6.98%
42303/20051,874,017,2001,180.59-1.91%4.83%3,810.05-1.77%6.69%
42404/20052,180,315,7001,156.85-2.01%4.47%3,737.79-1.90%6.34%
42505/20051,960,127,1001,191.503.00%6.32%3,856.723.18%8.24%
42606/20051,929,251,3001,191.33-0.01%4.43%3,862.190.14%6.32%
42707/20051,962,713,5001,234.183.60%12.02%4,005.823.72%14.05%
42808/20051,930,243,4001,220.33-1.12%10.51%3,969.27-0.91%12.56%
42909/20052,232,144,2001,228.810.69%10.25%4,001.420.81%12.25%
43010/20052,493,393,3001,207.01-1.77%6.80%3,934.71-1.67%8.72%
43111/20052,260,836,1001,249.483.52%6.45%4,083.533.78%8.44%
43212/20052,057,125,2001,248.29-0.09%3.00%4,084.960.03%4.91%
43301/20062,595,998,0001,280.082.55%8.37%4,193.122.65%10.38%
43402/20062,380,568,4001,280.660.05%6.40%4,204.490.27%8.40%
43503/20062,310,510,8001,294.831.11%9.68%4,256.831.24%11.73%
43604/20062,406,755,2001,310.611.22%13.29%4,313.991.34%15.42%
43705/20062,591,135,9001,270.09-3.09%6.60%4,189.83-2.88%8.64%
43806/20062,632,855,4001,270.200.01%6.62%4,195.510.14%8.63%
43907/20062,440,476,0001,276.660.51%3.44%4,221.390.62%5.38%
44008/20062,280,876,5001,303.822.13%6.84%4,321.832.38%8.88%
44109/20062,563,743,5001,335.852.46%8.71%4,433.202.58%10.79%
44210/20062,708,938,6001,377.943.15%14.16%4,577.663.26%16.34%
44311/20062,826,198,0001,400.631.65%12.10%4,664.711.90%14.23%
44412/20062,462,849,0001,418.301.26%13.62%4,730.141.40%15.79%
44501/20072,983,144,5001,438.241.41%12.36%4,801.681.51%14.51%
44602/20072,935,275,7001,406.82-2.18%9.85%4,707.77-1.96%11.97%
44703/20073,205,736,8001,420.861.00%9.73%4,760.421.12%11.83%
44804/20073,006,294,5001,482.374.33%13.10%4,971.294.43%15.24%
44905/20073,104,253,6001,530.623.26%20.51%5,144.763.49%22.79%
45006/20073,261,343,3001,503.35-1.78%18.35%5,059.29-1.66%20.59%
45107/20073,564,664,2001,455.27-3.20%13.99%4,902.43-3.10%16.13%
45208/20074,091,885,6001,473.991.29%13.05%4,975.911.50%15.13%
45309/20073,196,581,5001,526.753.58%14.29%5,162.013.74%16.44%
45410/20073,477,202,1001,549.381.48%12.44%5,244.121.59%14.56%
45511/20074,317,578,5001,481.14-4.40%5.75%5,024.88-4.18%7.72%
45612/20073,363,127,5001,468.36-0.86%3.53%4,990.02-0.69%5.49%
45701/20084,925,982,3001,378.55-6.12%-4.15%4,690.71-6.00%-2.31%
45802/20084,148,143,0001,330.63-3.48%-5.42%4,538.33-3.25%-3.60%
45903/20084,661,172,0001,322.70-0.60%-6.91%4,518.73-0.43%-5.08%
46004/20084,113,069,0001,385.594.75%-6.53%4,738.814.87%-4.68%
46105/20084,039,814,7001,400.381.07%-8.51%4,800.191.30%-6.70%
46206/20084,840,303,3001,280.00-8.60%-14.86%4,395.51-8.43%-13.12%
46307/20085,923,937,2001,267.38-0.99%-12.91%4,358.56-0.84%-11.09%
46408/20084,264,482,3001,282.831.22%-12.97%4,421.611.45%-11.14%
46509/20086,900,428,5001,166.36-9.08%-23.60%4,027.61-8.91%-21.98%
46610/20087,226,593,900968.75-16.94%-37.47%3,351.18-16.79%-36.10%
46711/20086,199,530,000896.24-7.49%-39.49%3,110.72-7.18%-38.09%
46812/20085,320,791,300903.250.78%-38.49%3,143.821.06%-37.00%
46901/20095,844,561,500825.88-8.57%-40.09%2,878.84-8.43%-38.63%
47002/20097,022,036,200735.09-10.99%-44.76%2,572.31-10.65%-43.32%
47103/20097,633,306,300797.878.54%-39.68%2,797.638.76%-38.09%
47204/20096,938,945,600872.819.39%-37.01%3,065.399.57%-35.31%
47305/20096,883,268,000919.145.31%-34.36%3,236.845.59%-32.57%
47406/20095,330,941,800919.320.02%-28.18%3,243.260.20%-26.21%
47507/20095,080,675,400987.487.41%-22.08%3,488.577.56%-19.96%
47608/20095,764,944,2001,020.623.36%-20.44%3,614.513.61%-18.25%
47709/20095,633,064,2001,057.083.57%-9.37%3,749.333.73%-6.91%
47810/20095,451,064,0001,036.19-1.98%6.96%3,679.68-1.86%9.80%
47911/20094,443,852,5001,095.635.74%22.25%3,900.466.00%25.39%
48012/20094,163,287,2001,115.101.78%23.45%3,975.741.93%26.46%
48101/20105,071,601,5001,073.87-3.70%30.03%3,832.62-3.60%33.13%
48202/20104,658,238,4001,104.492.85%50.25%3,951.433.10%53.61%
48303/20104,702,951,7001,169.435.88%46.57%4,189.706.03%49.76%
48404/20105,847,150,9001,186.691.48%35.96%4,255.891.58%38.84%
48505/20106,626,699,4001,089.41-8.20%18.52%3,915.85-7.99%20.98%
48606/20105,235,174,0001,030.71-5.39%12.12%3,711.05-5.23%14.42%
48707/20104,704,026,6001,101.606.88%11.56%3,971.197.01%13.83%
48808/20104,044,967,7001,049.33-4.74%2.81%3,792.09-4.51%4.91%
48909/20103,993,981,4001,141.208.76%7.96%4,130.358.92%10.16%
49010/20104,432,102,3001,183.263.69%14.19%4,287.303.80%16.51%
49111/20104,354,084,2001,180.55-0.23%7.75%4,287.730.01%9.93%
49212/20103,762,922,7001,257.646.53%12.78%4,574.156.68%15.05%
49301/20114,816,605,0001,286.122.26%19.76%4,682.562.37%22.18%
49402/20113,225,297,3001,327.223.20%20.17%4,843.173.43%22.57%
49503/20114,046,691,7001,325.83-0.10%13.37%4,845.110.04%15.64%
49604/20114,042,194,0001,363.612.85%14.91%4,988.522.96%17.21%
49705/20114,114,534,2001,345.20-1.35%23.48%4,932.15-1.13%25.95%
49806/20114,105,601,3001,320.64-1.83%28.13%4,849.78-1.67%30.68%
49907/20114,308,168,0001,292.28-2.15%17.31%4,751.33-2.03%19.64%
50008/20114,942,913,4001,218.89-5.68%16.16%4,493.23-5.43%18.49%
50109/20115,104,933,8001,131.42-7.18%-0.86%4,177.36-7.03%1.14%
50210/20114,874,946,6001,253.3010.77%5.92%4,633.9210.93%8.08%
50311/20114,287,457,6001,246.96-0.51%5.63%4,623.68-0.22%7.84%
50412/20113,667,346,6001,257.600.85%0.00%4,670.981.02%2.12%
50501/20124,182,808,0001,312.414.36%2.04%4,880.314.48%4.22%
50602/20124,143,404,0001,365.684.06%2.90%5,091.344.32%5.12%
50703/20123,980,752,2001,408.473.13%6.23%5,258.893.29%8.54%
50804/20123,916,786,0001,397.91-0.75%2.52%5,225.88-0.63%4.76%
50905/20124,158,095,9001,310.33-6.27%-2.59%4,911.80-6.01%-0.41%
51006/20124,103,472,3001,362.163.96%3.14%5,114.184.12%5.45%

  S&P500-Historical-Monthly-Total-Returns.xlsx (94.4 KiB, 12,046 hits)

References:

1) S&P 500 Total Return; Monthly Dividend Reinvest 1970-88 Then Daily (EOP)

2) Standard and Poor's Monthly Return Spreadsheet

3) YCharts S&P 500 Monthly Return

Don Imus Looks Like John C. Calhoun

Saturday, April 25th, 2009
339 Views

John Caldwell Calhoun: (1782 – 1850)

7th Vice President of the United States, serving under both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Additionally, he represented South Carolina as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. He was the 10th U.S. Secretary of War and 16th U.S. Secretary of State.

John Donald Imus:

Radio and television talk show host, humorist, writer, and philanthropist.

Don Imus and John C. Calhoun

 

There is bit of similarity between the mugs of these two…

Believe it or not, but I think Calhoun might actually be smiling in his portrait.

Did you know that Calhoun was an advocate of slavery and nullification? Some might compare that to Imus’ belief that the Rutgers University women’s basketball team is is comprised entirely of "nappy-headed hoes." Twinkies?

Want to know of another individual that is often compared to both Imus and Calhoun?

Sam the Eagle as Don Imus and John C. Calhoun

Sam the Eagle from The Muppet Show

I have to note that while Sam may be a staunch conservative, he is more motivated by moral righteousness rather than constrained prejudice.

More Proof the Grammys are a Sham

Saturday, April 4th, 2009
429 Views

Grammy Award for the Best Liberal Mouthpiece

I did not watch the Grammy Awards show this year, but I did recently discover that John Mayer won the Best Male Pop Vocal Performance for his song, “Say.”

Say what!? Did anyone take the time to listen to the song before giving him an award for it?

Look, I have nothing against John Mayer. In fact, I really like some of his music and think he is a really talented guy. That aside, the only award Mayer should have received for “Say” was a Razzie Award for Worst Song Written for Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media. (Ironically, “Say” was nominated for the Best version of that category too.)

To understand why this song is such a travesty requires a close look at the song’s lyrics. (Click here to see them.) Of the 354 words (not including the background chorus at the end), 82 of them are the word “say.” What is that you say? Yes, more than 23 percent of the words in the song are that one specific word. Add the “say(s)” from the background chorus, and the total number of “say(s)” jumps to either 89 or 96 (it is hard to tell for sure—I am going with the latter). Now, I would like to remind you, this all goes down in a scant 3:49 minutes. Take away the first ten seconds before Mayer actually begins to sing, and you have the word “say” said every 2.28 seconds!

The song’s chorus, “say what you need to say,” is essentially repeated 42 times during that 3:39 minutes. (Again, that is not including the seven occurrences of it in the background chorus.) Or another way to look at it: If it takes Mayer approximately 2 seconds to sing it, then he spends 84 seconds (42 x 2 = 84) singing the chorus. That means 38.4 percent of the song is consumed by the repetitious six word chorus—which leaves (on average) only 3.21 seconds between each chorus verse.

If you did also throw in the background chorus, which takes him roughly four seconds per verse, those statistics get even worse. With that addition included, Mayer sings his trite refrain for a total of 1:52 minutes, or 51.1 percent of the total time he spends singing during the entire song! What the hell!?

(Want to hear it? Ignore all the 14 year old girl comments below the video.)

And they gave the man a Grammy for it. A song that, if listened to on repeat, would surely drive any sane person mad in short notice; undoubtedly resulting in either suicide or mass homicide. It is no less than flabbergastingly astonishing because, as I just demonstrated, the song’s awfulness is quantifiably irrefutable.

Right about now, you are probably asking yourself why an award—that supposedly represents a pinnacle of annual achievement—was bestowed upon such a piece of garbage? Well, Maynard James Keenan of Tool, A Perfect Circle, and Puscifer said this about the Grammys in 2002:

“I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don’t honor the arts or the artist for what he created. It’s the music business celebrating itself. That’s basically what it’s all about.”

I second that analysis. Actually that is what most of these award shows are all about. How else can it be explained why we have so damn many of them?

Let us see here, we have got the Country Music Association Awards; the Golden Globes; the Emmys; the Screen Actors Guild Awards; Teen Choice Awards; Peabody Awards; GLAAD Awards; A-List Awards; MTV Movie Awards; BAFTA Awards; Independent Spirit Awards; Academy Awards; CMT Music Awards; Independent Music Awards; Television Critics Association Awards; Satellite Awards; Directors Guild of America Awards; Saturn Awards; Art Directors Guild Awards; Eddie Awards; Gotham Awards; Annie Awards; Image Awards; Writers Guild of America Awards; Producers Guild of America Awards; IFMCA Awards; Makeup and Hairstylist Guild Awards; American Society of Cinematographers Awards; ADG Awards; American Choreography Awards; ASCAP Awards; Film Music Awards; People’s Choice Awards; National Board of Review Awards; Young Hollywood Awards; American Comedy Awards;… ALRIGHT! Enough already! Trust me, I could keep going but I am sure you get the picture.

No other nation on Earth comes anywhere close to having as many awards as America does for music, television, and film. Of course, the reason for this is simple. Our country produces more music, television, and films, than any other country; so we have to make enough awards available to be sure everyone has a chance at getting one. These people have needy, fragile egos that must be acknowledged year-round. Unlike the rest of us, a simple paycheck will not suffice. But Maynard also left out something else. “Artists” are not showered with Grammys due just to financial and promotional considerations, but political ones as well. Simply take a look at the Grammy recipients for the Best Spoken Word Album over the past six consecutive years in order to see that. Each one has gone to liberal political works—much like the Pulitzer Prize always does. Coincidence? Me thinks not. (And yet it is the liberals who are always screaming about the Fairness Doctrine?)

Grammy Awards of 2009

  • Beau Bridges, Cynthia Nixon and Blair Underwood for An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It by Al Gore

Grammy Awards of 2008

  • Barack Obama for The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

Grammy Awards of 2007

  • Jimmy Carter for Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis; and
  • Ossie Davis & Ruby Dee for With Ossie and Ruby: In This Life Together (Tie)

Grammy Awards of 2006

  • Barack Obama for Dreams from My Father

Grammy Awards of 2005

  • Bill Clinton for My Life

Grammy Awards of 2004

  • Paul Ruben (producer) & Al Franken for Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

In regard to Barack Obama’s performances, Patrick Stewart would have been a far more deserving beneficiary if, for example, he had used his amazing oratory skills to narrate a children’s audio tape guide for a museum exhibit, or even just filled in for the Moviefone guy one night. In contrast, Obama just sounded like an average guy reading a book aloud—cheesy inflections and all. How can one justify that as a Grammy performance? Wait. Unless… maybe it is not so much about the performance, but about rewarding those propagating liberal agendas? Yes, that must be it! And Barack Obama did not just win one Grammy, but two. Wow, is he loved! He must be, like, their leader or something. Hmm.

I wonder if Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had come out in 2007, would they have deemed a tie between it and The Audacity of Hope? I think Obama should co-write and record some more books just to see how many Grammys he can rack up. Hey, he does still have that abridged version of Dreams from My Father, targeted at school aged children, coming up. After that, maybe he could record the book that his half-sister is soon to write? Unless they think it will look too suspicious doling out two Grammys for audiobooks derived from only one book, that should make him good for at least two more Grammys.

But wait, you are still probably wondering why John Mayer received a Grammy for “Say?” Well, I believe it too was for political reasons. You see, Mayer was commissioned to write “Say” for the Rob Reiner film, The Bucker List, in 2007. Reiner is an internationally known progressive liberal activist. Although he made the mistake of endorsing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential Election, I am sure his continual blogging contributions to the Huffington Post and decades of service to the extremist movement must have kept him in the good graces of the “powers that be.” And since none of Reiner’s films had won any awards for the past thirteen years, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences obviously decided to at least throw a Grammy at the theme song from his last film.

As for the other Best Pop Vocal nominations, none of them were used as the highlight track in any films directed by liberal activists. Poor bastards, they never stood a chance.

College Athletes’ SAT and IQ Scores

Friday, January 2nd, 2009
4598 Views

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution just did a report on student athletes’ SAT scores. Through a public records request, they found average SAT scores for entering freshmen students, athletes, and football players, for public universities in different athletic conferences. Not surprisingly, athletes’ SAT scores tended to lag behind the average scores of university students. This was particularly true for football players, as their average SAT scores were some of the lowest. Obviously, football and scholastic aptitude infrequently go together.

But a SAT score is more than a proprietary college admissions number—it can also be used as a proxy for IQ, or general intelligence. Back in 2004, Meredith Frey and Douglas Detterman published a paper in the Psychological Science journal where they correlated SAT scores with the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)–both of which are used to estimate IQ, and correlate strongly with other intelligence tests. Two equations were derived for predicting IQ from SAT scores. However, only one proved to be reliable for post-1994 SATs, as the test underwent significant changes and scores were recentered that year.

XIQ = (0.095 * SAT-Math) + (-0.003 * SAT-Verbal) + 50.241

Using this equation, the correlation between SAT and Raven’s APM scores was found to be .72 after adjusting for a restricted sample range (n=116, σ=119). To verify the stability of the equation, a jackknife procedure was undertaken where the equation is derived from on one-half the sample, tested on the second-half, then repeated vice-versa. Correlations from the two tests were .523 and .542, respectively (p < .01).

I took this equation and applied it to the SAT scores listed in the AJC report. Of course, only composite scores were reported. So, I found the average verbal and math scores for each testing year, and calculated each score’s percentage of the total. These percentages were used to find a rough estimate of students’ and athletes’ average sub-scores. Both male and female averages were utilized for the student population, whereas only average male subscores were included for atheletes and football players, as these two groups are predominately male.

The SAT scores and estimated IQs for students, athletes, and football players, from 54 public universities, in eight division conferences, can be found below:

SAT Scores and Estimated IQs for Students and Student Athletes
SchoolConf.Student SATAthlete SATFootball SATStudent IQAthlete IQFootball IQ
MarylandACC12161054961106.798.093.8
ClemsonACC11581022950104.097.293.9
NC StateACC11821031926105.298.393.4
North CarolinaACC12681080951109.4100.094.1
Florida StateACC11551012917104.197.593.0
VirginiaACC13231129993111.9102.996.6
Georgia TechACC134411091028112.9102.098.2
Virginia TechACC12001072951106.2100.294.6
Oklahoma StateBig 121103971878101.594.390.1
Iowa StateBig 1211331058922102.998.992.6
Kansas StateBig 1210851024100.697.3
ColoradoBig 121127975966102.795.795.3
NebraskaBig 1211291010962102.897.495.1
MissouriBig 1211641062942104.599.293.7
OklahomaBig 121158999920104.396.392.7
TexasBig 1212301037948107.698.694.4
Texas A&MBig 1211571001911104.296.992.7
Texas TechBig 121120968901102.496.092.8
LouisvilleBig East103797387898.495.090.6
RutgersBig East11841061938105.599.293.5
CincinnatiBig East1064103993599.898.793.9
South FloridaBig East1099993932101.596.593.7
SyracuseBig East11851045922105.599.093.2
ConnecticutBig East11871023956105.598.695.4
WisconsinBig Ten12071065961106.298.593.8
MichiganBig Ten12641148997109.0103.196.1
Ohio StateBig Ten11631050955104.398.594.2
IndianaBig Ten11031042973101.798.395.1
IowaBig Ten11241036964102.798.094.7
Michigan StateBig Ten11161017917102.397.192.5
IllinoisBig Ten12411053952108.1100.095.2
MinnesotaBig Ten11501062936103.8100.494.5
PurdueBig Ten11571062974104.1100.496.3
MemphisC-USA102897189098.195.591.8
Arizona StatePac-1010861003937100.695.792.7
Oregon StatePac-1010851012997100.696.195.5
UCLAPac-1012751028930109.597.593.0
Washington StatePac-10104099491698.595.992.3
WashingtonPac-1011721046949104.998.594.0
OregonPac-1011001018953101.597.794.7
ArizonaPac-1011201017924102.497.793.3
CaliforniaPac-1012981095967110.7101.395.3
GeorgiaSEC11881002949105.495.793.3
South CarolinaSEC1101996932101.496.093.1
LSUSEC11051000926101.796.993.4
TennesseeSEC10891009927100.997.393.5
ArkansasSEC11571022910104.297.492.2
KentuckySEC11271034962102.897.994.6
AuburnSEC11161017922102.397.793.3
FloridaSEC12361021890107.897.991.8
Mississippi StateSEC10881004911100.997.192.8
AlabamaSEC1112993926102.097.294.0
MississippiSEC10861002932100.997.794.4
HawaiiWAC1095984968101.195.594.7

 

This table and more details can be found in this spreadsheet:

  College-Athletes-SAT-and-IQ-Scores.xlsx (57.8 KiB, 1,814 hits)

In terms of conferences as a whole, the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) ranked first in average IQ for students and athletes, while the Big Ten conference took first for football players, with an average of 94.7. The Big 12 conference had both the athletes and football players with the lowest average IQ, at 97.1 and 93.3 respectively. The Big East had the students with the lowest IQ, averaging 102.7. Conference-USA and the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) are not included in that ranking as only one school was represented from each.

The schools with the largest gaps in SAT and IQ scores were Florida State and UCLA. Florida´s SAT and IQ gap was 346 and 16.1, respectively. UCLA was 345 and 16.5. AJC´s Mark Knobler noted that these gaps between football players and students are larger than in typical students between the University of Georgia and Harvard University. Oregon State had the smallest SAT and IQ gap—88 and 5.2 points, respectively.

Surprisingly though, basketball players were even worse off than those specializing in the pigskin.

Nationwide, football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates — and men’s basketball players average seven points less than football players.

Sports are big business for these universities. Coaches rotate on what seems like a quadrennial basis, often making more than the presidents of their universities. Their temporary, high paid tenures and golden parachutes are analogous to that of many high profile CEOs. As for players, admission requirements for typical students rarely have any relevancy for talented athletes, who may even receive all-expenses paid scholarships in addition to enrollment with GPA and SAT/ACT scores that are below minimum acceptance.

And, there are also other examples of sports dominating and superseding university policies.

I know that Mississippi State University, an SEC school, provides free daily tutoring, specifically, for all athletes—the civilian student body need not apply. And should an athlete’s GPA fall below minimum for any semester, that tutoring becomes mandatory. Again, this is not true for regular students. Another school, the University of Southern Mississippi, actually closes its library a couple hours before any football game—even if the game is during the week. At USM, at least, access to football is more important than access books.

And while I am not familiar with the intricacies of other university’s sports programs, I am sure similar priorities exist for most of them as well. It is sad that for these schools, putting and keeping an athlete on the field often takes precedence over keeping a student in the classroom.

Same-Sex (Gay) Households by Zip Code, State: 2000 & 2007

Thursday, December 11th, 2008
745 Views

Ever wondered how gay (or not gay) where you live is? Some time ago, I remember getting into a conversation regarding how gay the Montrose area in Houston, Texas, was. A friend told me it was “gayer” than even San Francisco. The argument was that Montrose had a greater per square mile density than even the preeminently gay San Francisco. The logic was, being an entire city, many of its alternative lifestyle residents lived outside the city limits.

While that sounded like a plausible argument, I felt that it was certainly incorrect to compare a very small geographical area of Houston to a city of 764,976 people. So, I looked it up.

Beginning in 2000, the Census began tracking same-sex cohabitating couples.

2000 Census report of married and unmarried (gay) couples

Married and Unmarried-Partner Households by Metropolitan Residence Status: 2000

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf

The same-sex totals are aggregated by adding “Male householder and male partner” and “Female householder and female partner” together from under “Unmarried-partner households” in the UNMARRIED-PARTNER HOUSEHOLDS BY SEX OF PARTNERS data table (PCT14 from the 2000 Census, and B11009 from the American Community Surveys).

Although the U.S. Census records of same-sex couples are not a true reflection of the amount of gays living in a particular region, it can be used as a proxy to compare and contrast different areas of the country. The website gaydemographics.org has done an  used to do an excellent job tallying gay demographics for different countries, states, cities, etc.

Turns out that Montrose is pretty gay. Looking at the 77006 area code in the 2000 Census, one will find it had the tenth largest percentage of same sex couples for any zip code reporting more than 100 same-sex couples. However, San Francisco’s 94114 area code comes in at second place under this same qualifier. While 15.97 percent of Montrose’s couples reported to be same-sex, Castro/Noe Valley was 32.09 percent–more than double. The city of San Francisco, itself, was 6.91 percent while Houston was 1.75 percent. So, technically, my friend was right when he said that Montrose was gayer than San Francisco; albeit an unfair comparison.

Unfortunately, until the 2010 Census comes out sometime in 2011, zip code data is only available from 2000.

Zip Codes with Highest Percentage of Same-Sex Couple Households (100 or more): 2000

RankZip codeTotal couplesSame-sex couples% Same-sex couples
102657, Provincetown, MA62124238.97%
294114, Castro/Noe Valley, San Francisco, CA5,8591,88032.09%
390069, West Hollywood, CA3,32277323.27%
420036 Downtown, Washington, D.C.51410821.01%
530308-Rennaisance Park, Atlanta, GA1,21725220.71%
620005, PA Corridor/ Chinatown, Washington, D.C.1,18521317.97%
702118, Boston/Roxbury, MA2,69046917.43%
810011, South Chelsea/North Village, NY7,5361,30117.26%
995446, Guerneville, CA98316616.89%
1077006, Montrose, Houston, TX3,06248915.97%
1194131, Twin Peaks/Diamond Heights, San Francisco, CA5,92794515.94%
1220009, Dupont/Logan, D.C.5,99193215.56%

 

The Gay Demographics site does not yet have state totals for 2007. But do not fret–I do:

Same-Sex Couple Households for U.S. States, D.C.: 2007

RankStateTotal CouplesTotal Same Sex Couples% Same Sex Couples% Change in Same Sex Couples 2004 - 2007
United States 62,687,003 757,658 1.21%0.22%
47Alabama 957,335 7,589 0.79%-0.05%
29Alaska 140,943 1,462 1.04%0.15%
11Arizona 1,266,392 17,827 1.41%0.29%
34Arkansas 616,381 6,228 1.01%0.28%
5California 6,800,607 104,723 1.54%0.14%
9Colorado 1,038,277 15,272 1.47%0.41%
18Connecticut 749,552 9,546 1.27%0.28%
10Delaware 181,587 2,598 1.43%0.34%
1District of Columbia 69,413 4,320 6.22%1.08%
13Florida 3,850,504 53,648 1.39%0.24%
16Georgia 1,831,246 24,266 1.33%0.19%
39Hawaii 253,071 2,353 0.93%-0.07%
49Idaho 352,986 2,657 0.75%0.13%
19Illinois 2,601,923 30,524 1.17%0.28%
35Indiana 1,408,497 14,093 1.00%0.26%
43Iowa 711,766 6,124 0.86%0.32%
46Kansas 625,512 5,038 0.81%0.15%
41Kentucky 921,723 8,003 0.87%0.10%
36Louisiana 828,922 8,059 0.97%-0.01%
15Maine 326,798 4,350 1.33%0.24%
14Maryland 1,126,942 15,640 1.39%0.37%
2Massachusetts 1,315,638 23,023 1.75%0.46%
25Michigan 2,115,506 23,072 1.09%0.38%
24Minnesota 1,194,142 13,084 1.10%0.28%
48Mississippi 561,911 4,407 0.78%-0.06%
27Missouri 1,287,552 13,650 1.06%0.31%
44Montana 217,285 1,831 0.84%0.26%
38Nebraska 401,446 3,784 0.94%0.35%
12Nevada 529,725 7,398 1.40%0.23%
20New Hampshire 315,242 3,643 1.16%0.24%
21New Jersey 1,786,519 20,567 1.15%0.22%
4New Mexico 389,043 6,059 1.56%0.39%
8New York 3,618,594 54,144 1.50%0.23%
32North Carolina 1,931,023 19,765 1.02%0.12%
52North Dakota 150,841 8070.54%0.06%
33Ohio 2,465,560 24,973 1.01%0.26%
31Oklahoma 773,796 7,987 1.03%0.28%
3Oregon 839,229 13,227 1.58%0.43%
23Pennsylvania 2,693,195 29,792 1.11%0.32%
6Rhode Island 212,546 3,222 1.52%0.57%
26South Carolina 903,979 9,655 1.07%-0.06%
51South Dakota 180,680 1,168 0.65%-0.24%
28Tennessee 1,305,793 13,827 1.06%0.58%
30Texas 4,651,323 48,179 1.04%0.23%
45Utah 553,225 4,549 0.82%-0.17%
17Vermont 145,924 1,905 1.31%0.58%
22Virginia 1,622,710 18,144 1.12%-0.22%
7Washington 1,420,661 21,307 1.50%0.61%
40West Virginia 416,798 3,795 0.91%-0.29%
42Wisconsin 1,296,466 11,186 0.86%0.19%
37Wyoming 119,500 1,148 0.96%0.29%
50Puerto Rico 610,774 4,040 0.66%-0.03%

 

Additional state data for the years 2000 and 2007 can be found in this Excel spreadsheet:

  2000-2007-Same-Sex-Couples-by-State.xlsx (41.9 KiB, 1,258 hits)

What Does Cursive Have to Do with the LSAT?

Sunday, December 7th, 2008
1004 Views

Turns out that one needs to study for more than just puzzles, logic arguments, and passage structures: You also need to know cursive! Despite having three books, totaling 1,362 pages between them, not one of them mentioned having to write out the following statement in cursive!

 LSAT Certifying Statement

The proctor instructed us to write the certifying statement in cursive, and when finished, look to the front of the room so she would know when to move on to the next set of instructions. At first glance, it did not seem like that big of a deal. But after attempting to write out a few words, panic set in when I realized that I forgot how to write in cursive!

I thought about questioning authority as to why we needed to write in cursive. I thought about sharing with the group that I had forgotten this third grade skill. But instead, I kept my head down and tried to relight those burned out synapses as fast as I could. About half way through the statement, I could sense that all writing in the room had ceased. I could feel attention shifting to me. Nonetheless, I kept my focus and plowed ahead. After a few more moments of silence, she moved to the next set of instructions without me. When it was all said and done, I had produced a paragraph that looked like it had been penned by a mentally challenged elementary kid. I could not even make it all fit in the box!

I quit writing in cursive not long after I learned it. The reason for that is two part: 1) Anything that I hand write is usually for me to read (i.e. notes); and I have trouble reading my own cursive handwriting. 2) Anything that I write, for anyone besides me, is nearly always typed. For these reasons, I have been writing exclusively in print and typeface for more than a decade. However, it was not so much that I could not actually write in cursive, it was just really hard. Imagine someone that is not ambidextrous trying to write out a paragraph using their non-dominant hand. That is what it felt like–slow and labored.

As soon as I got back home, I hit the internet to find out why the certifying statement had to be written in cursive, and whether or not I was alone in my inability to formulate this particular esoteric scrawl. While I never found a satisfying answer as to why, I did run into a dissonance abating report from the College Board. It reported that of the almost 1.5 million students completing the first ever essay section on the SAT in 2006, only 15 percent of them utilized cursive. The other 85 percent printed. So, maybe I am not alone?

I get a certain enigmatic aesthetical pleasure by methodically printing very ossified, invariate, and often rectilinear letters. Personally, I believe that cursive should be relegated solely to fancy dinner menus, wedding invitations, and other formal event informational brochures, as it serves no uniquely practical or functional purpose. It is already known fact that cursive takes readers longer to read and is not actually faster to write.[1,2] Besides, having to read it for anything more, gives me a headache, seeing as everything in the digital age comes in print. Moreover, I am very ardent in the belief that cursive should only be undertaken by calligraphers and those displaying the utmost technically proficient penmanship. Nothing irritates me more than having to read a page full of sloppy cursive. If only I were king…

Here is to hopefully never having to do it again: ¡Muerte a cursive! ¡Viva la print!

References:

1) Cursive vs. Printing: Is One Better Than the Other?

2) Graham, Steve, Naomi Weintraub, and Virginia W. Berninger. 1998. The Relationship Between Handwriting Style and Legibility. Journal of Educational Research 91 (5):7

Just How Impressed Should We Be By Michael Phelps’ Medal Count?

Monday, August 18th, 2008
338 Views
Michael Phelps

I made the promise to myself that I would not watch the Olympics this year. Those Pollyannas that are willing to log days of flight time, lay out thousands of dollars, and voluntarily pack themselves into 91-thousand seat arenas, they likely buy into the same perceptions that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the media peddle every two years: "[to bring] people together in peace to respect universal moral principles" And, oh yeah. . . to allow the best athletes of the world a chance to compete against each other on a global stage.

As a child of the 1980s, the Olympics began as an indomitable contest of "good vs. evil" that quickly morphed into a disgusting display of capitalistic consumerism after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Today, the Olympics still sport the traditional veneer of yesteryears. But at the core, the event is about six dollar cokes, two weeks of million dollar corporate advertisements, and athletes, which unfortunately, are just this month’s reality television stars for "Fast-Food America."

With that said, I have nevertheless been forced into experiencing some of the Michael Phelps’ mania. Without a doubt, the guy is the Lance Armstrong of the swimming pool. He has won more gold medals than any previous Olympian; as well as winning the most consecutive gold medals within a single Olympic Games. He currently stands in second place behind gymnast Larissa Latynina for the most medals of all time.

All of this "most medals" talk got me to thinking. How many medals are available to a male Olympian in Swimming each Games? And how many are available to contesting athletes in other sports, or to those competing in the Winter Games?

As you might have already guessed, swimming is probably the best sport to be good at if one wants a chance at climbing to the top of the multiple-medalist list.

Below are tables listing the total available medals for the different events of both the 2008 Summer Olympic Games and the 2006 Winter Olympic Games:

Total Olympic Medals by Season, Sport, and Sex

2008 Summer Olympics

EventMenWomenMixedTotal
Athletics242347
Swimming171734
Wrestling14418
Boxing1111
Shooting9615
Canoe/Kayak Flatwater9312
Weightlifting8715
Gymnastics Artistic8614
Rowing8614
Judo7714
Cycling Track7310
Fencing5510
Taekwondo448
Diving448
Canoe/Kayak Slalom314
Badminton2215
Archery224
Table Tennis224
Tennis224
Cycling Road224
Basketball112
Baseball11
Triathlon112
Volleyball112
Water Polo112
Trampoline112
Handball112
Hockey112
Modern Pentathlon112
Beach Volleyball112
Cycling BMX112
Cycling Mountain Bike112
Football112
Gymnastics Rhythmic22
Softball11
Synchronized Swimming22
Equestrian66

 

2006 Winter Olympics

EventMenWomenMixedTotal
Alpine Skiing5510
Biathlon5510
Bobsleigh213
Cross-Country Skiing6612
Curling112
Figure Skating1124
Freestyle Skiing224
Ice Hockey112
Luge1113
Nordic Combined3115
Short Track Speed Skating448
Skeleton112
Ski Jumping33
Snowboarding336
Speed Skating6612

 

As can be seen, the highest medal counts for men are found in Athletics (24) and Swimming (17). But unlike Swimming, many events in Athletics are not related to each other. All events in Swimming are, in fact, swimming.

Athletics combines events such as throwing, jumping, walking, and running. Those athletes that excel at marathons will not present any contention in sprints, just as those specializing in throwing objects will come up short in pole vaulting.

For example, at the time this was written, Carl Lewis holds the record as having the fifth most gold (9) and total medals (10) of all time. The only events which he competed in were short distance running (100m, 200m, 4×100m Relay) and long jumps.

When considering only short distance running events, five individual and team non-hurdle medal events exist; seven, including hurdles; and eight, if we include the long jump:

  1. 100 Meter
  2. 200 Meter
  3. 400 Meter
  4. 4 x 100 Meter
  5. 4 x 400 Meter
  6. 110 Meter Hurdles
  7. 400 Meter Hurdles
  8. Long Jump

Compare that to the list of events that are related to those Michael Phelps took part in during the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games (not listed are the 50m, 1,500m freestyle, and the 10km marathon):

1. 100 Meter Backstroke   8. 100 Meter Breaststroke
2. 100 Meter Butterfly*   9. 100 Meter Freestyle
3. 200 Meter Breaststroke   10. 200 Meter Backstroke
4. 200 Meter Freestyle*   11. 200 Meter Butterfly*
5. 400 Meter Freestyle   12. 200 Meter Individual Medley*
6. 4 x 100 Meter Freestyle Relay*   13. 400 Meter Individual Medley*
7. 4 x 200 Meter Freestyle Relay*   14. 4 x 100 Meter Medley Relay*

* Denotes swimming events Phelps participated in during 2004 and 2008 Summer Olympics.

Phelps competed in eight (or 54%) of the fourteen related swimming events in 2004 and 2008. In comparison, Carl Lewis competed and medaled in four events at the 1984 Olympics. That is four (or 50%) out of the eight Athletic events deemed "related," previously.

Drop the two hurdle events or the long jump, and Lewis would have been four (or 66.7%) out of six or three (or 42.9%) out of seven, respectively. Either way, it is clear that the sport of swimming has at least three quarters more related medal events than does Athletics in the current Olympic lineup. (14 events compared to Athletic’s 8).

Moving down the list, Wrestling and Boxing would appear to take the number three and four spots for most medals available to a male Olympian in a single Games. However, because both these sports have a plethora of weight classes, Wrestling actually only has two medal events available for a particular weight class, while Boxing (and Weightlifting) only has one.

Consequently, the event that appears to offer the third most medals to men is actually a tie between the Shooting and Canoe/Kayak Flatwater events, with a total of nine medals up for grabs. However, since it seems reasonably possible for someone to win every event in both sports, they actually tie as the number two spot for total possible medals practically obtainable.

The Winter Olympics are even more dismal for an athlete wishing to wear the crown of "most medals won" since the two top events there – Cross-Country Skiing and Speed Skating – only offer six medals each; a fraction of what is available in Swimming, Shooting, Canoeing, or Athletics.

It is obvious that while Michael Phelps may be an amazing athlete, he has a major, almost unfair, advantage in achieving record breaking aggregate medal counts. If Venus or Serena Williams wanted to tie Phelps’ current medal count, for example, one of the Williams sisters would need to win every Olympic Tennis event from now to the 2036 Summer Games, and then pick up bronze medals in 2040 Games. But, by that time, Venus and Serena will be 58 and 60 years old, respectively. That should make for an interesting show.

So, if you got a kid with a body built like a giant monkey, and want to get him into the Olympics, might I suggest starting him on swimming lessons immediately? Because that is probably the only chance he will have at ever beating Phelps’ gold medal count.

Racial Composition of America’s Safest and Most Dangerous Cities

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008
987 Views

At some point every year, it seems news organizations collectively report on the United States’ safest and most dangerous cities. Shortly thereafter, the unfortunate city to be tagged with that year’s “most dangerous city” award goes on the defensive, lambasting what it sees as a “misuse of statistical crime data.”

While cities with high crime typically display high unemployment, low average educational achievement, and high levels of poverty compared to those with low crime rates, one thing is certain of cities making the top ten: their populations are comprised of high percentages of minorities. However, does this hold true for the rest of the cities on the nefarious most dangerous list?

Background:

Since 1995, the annual publication entitled City Crime Rankings has been produced by Morgan Quinto Press until it was bought out in 2007 by CQ Press. Essentially, this publication is simply a regurgitation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) annual statistical publication Crime in the United States. However, City Crime Rankings’ purpose—as described by its publisher—is to “. . .provide easy-to-understand crime comparisons for cities and metro areas throughout the United States.” It is from this publication that the infamous and controversial America’s Safest and Most Dangerous Cities ranking is derived.

In the listing, cities, which have populations in excess of 75,000 and report their crime statistics to the FBI, are ranked based on six categorical crime rates: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft. These crime categories are equally weighted and added together to calculate a city’s aggregate level of violent crime, then divided by its total population to create the violent crime rate used to create the lists’ ordinal ranking.

Although widely reported at its face value by nearly all media outlets, the outright ordinal ranking of entire cities from best to worst is controversial due to its often misleading perceptions of the danger or safety associated with a particular a city. In fact, the FBI, which produces the annual statistical data that the report utilizes, cautions against attempting to compare crime data of different geographical units solely on the basis of their population coverage. According to their warning, rankings such as with the City Crime Rankings publication “provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular . . . city,” and “lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents.”

Some key points of contention concerning the city rankings are the report’s indifference towards: individuals risk profiles (such as age and lifestyle); violent crime that is disproportionately concentrated in a few small areas; property versus bodily crime; and to the degree which suburbs are located within a city’s boundary line. The FBI also details some additional variables that can distort crime rankings.

The Data:

The racial and ethnic composition was found for the 100 most dangerous cities of 2006 from America’s Safest and Most Dangerous Cities. The numbers for the three racial groups examined were found from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 American Community Survey. From this, percentages of “blacks or African Americans,” “whites,” and “Hispanics or Latinos (of any race)” were calculated for each city. The racial and ethnic classifications follow the Federal Register Notice, Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.

For the three racial or ethnic groups, and for blacks and Hispanics combined, each group’s percentage of total population is plotted for each city — from most to least dangerous. A line of best fit — or trend line — is then found to show the relationship between the ranking of the cities and their racial and/or ethnic groups.

Blacks as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities:

Blacks as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities

 

In terms of the most dangerous cities and black populations, a correlation of .5427 between blacks and crime was found with an R2 of 29.45 percent. This means that for every increase in the ranking of a city as more dangerous, the black population variable would explain 29.45 percent of the change.

The slope of the trend line is -.003610. Thus, for every increase in a city’s “danger” ranking, the black population percentage increases by .3 percent on average.

 

Hispanics as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities:

Hispanics as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities

 

A slightly negative correlation of -.0416 was found between Hispanics and crime. However, the results were not statistically significant from zero.

 

Blacks and Hispanics as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities:

Blacks and Hispanics as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities

 

Combining Hispanic and black populations together actually decreased the correlation compared to blacks’ correlation singularly. Correlation decreased by .0199 to .5228 – R2 decreased by 2.12 to 27.33 percent.

 

Whites as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities:

Whites as a Percentage of the Total Population for the Most Dangerous Cities

 

A negative correlation of -.5607 was found between the white population of a city and its crime ranking. The absolute correlation between crime and city rankings for white populations was slightly higher than for black populations. That means an increase in the percentage of whites within a city has slightly more of an impact on decreases in crime rankings than does a decrease in the percentage of blacks.

The slope of the trend line was a positive 0.003469. This is nearly a perfectly inverse slope of the black population trend line. A close to perfect inverse relationship exists between black and white populations and a city’s crime ranking. Stated another way: For every increase in a city’s “danger” ranking, the percentage of black population increases by 0.36 percent while the white population decreases by 0.35 percent.

Sadly, I already knew of blacks' correlation to violent crime in the US. Although there are a many of variables that go into predicting whether a city has a high propensity for violence, no single variable predicts it better than blacks' percentage of the population. That, of course, in no way speaks to causation. Being black absolutely does not mean you are more likely to be violent. But it can be inferred that the long list of variables — including culture –  associated with causing violent criminal behaviour, is closely associated with a very large proportion of America's black population when compared relatively to other ethnically or racially defined US populations.

I was surprised though to find the statistically insignificant correlation to violent crime and Hispanic population, alone. The broad stereotypical thought is that areas with high concentrations of minorities are predictably more violent. However, in examining the cities in this top 100, we find that Hispanics are not a predictor of violent crime at all. In fact, when included with blacks in the regression, the coefficient of determination actually decreased.

So, the answer to the question of whether or not minorities comprise high percentages of the populations for the rest of "America's most dangerous cities" is yes for the vast majority, excluding a couple outliers. But more specifically, the data suggests that, in general, blacks' percentage of a city's total population predicts a city's ordinal ranking of violence, possibly better than any other single variable's influence.