How to Fix Double Clicking Razer Naga Mouse (with pictures)

Razer Naga EpicAre you having problems with your Razer mouse double clicking on single clicks and multiple double clicks? (Or any mouse for that matter?) Happened to me after about a year and a half worth of use. It is a fairly common problem with some pretty easy fixes that will extend your mouse’s life for a good while longer.

Your options:

  1. Adjust your Double-Click Speed for your mouse. Control Panel -> Mouse for you Windows users. Select a slower click speed.
  2. Software fix: AutoHotkey. The program script to block unintentional double-clicks can be found here: Buggy-Mouse. What it does? It blocks double click signals that are too fast to be human.
  3. Open up the mouse and clean the button contact points. (I recommend this first.) The pictures below are from the second time I have done this. Previous cleaning lasted a few months before I noticed it starting to act up again.

Cleaning a Naga’s Left and Right Button Contact Points

 Step 1:

Razer Double-Click Fix - Remove underside sticker and four screws

Remove outer sticker pad and the four screws.

The outer sticker pad and the four screws under it are the only things you have to remove to get inside of the mouse. When I did this the first time, the screws were extremely difficult to get out. I actually had someone hold the mouse so I could get enough torque on the screwdriver to turn and not strip the screw heads.

Alternatively, you could use a penetrating oil such as WD-40 to help free them.

Do not worry about the sticker, it can be cleaned and re-glued.

Step 2:

Razer Double-Click Fix - Pop top off by raising back side first

Remove top by lifting top from back to front.

There should not be much resistance in lifting up the back of the mouse. Even so, do not be afraid to give it force if needed. There are no plastic clips that are going to break.

After you get the back up, keep lifting towards the front. You may have to wiggle it a bit to get the front to let loose.

Step 3:

Razer Double-Click Fix - Spray contact cleaner into two button boxes at white switch.

Spray contact cleaner into cracks around white button switch.

The two black boxes on either side with the white switches are your target.  Try to get the contact cleaner down inside by toggling the switch to work it in. Do not worry if you spray a little too much, it will evaporate quickly.

Repeat this process many times as you want to get those contact points clean so you do not have to revisit again in a few weeks.

Some final notes:

Razer Double-Click Fix - Click the white buttons to work in contact clearner

Work in the contact cleaner by toggling the switch. Repeat a few times.

You can find electrical contact cleaner in a big box store like Walmart (auto section), AutoZone, and Lowes. Do not bet on a store like Best Buy stocking it. However, RadioShack should have it.

Regarding Stickers:

If your bottom sticker pads are coming off, no problem. First, clean the old residue off with something. Alcohol, kerosene, WD-40, and citrus-based cleaners are all good to help with that. You might even be able to revitalize its “stickyness” by using a mild solvent to clean off some of the old residue.

For new glue, I would suggest something that will allow you to remove and reapply the sticker again without destroying it. As such, I would stay away from really powerful adhesives like crazy glue. Elmer’s Glue is an option; as is making your own sticker glue. There are a couple recipes I have found, but yet to try. Would love to hear how they work.

Preserved Garden’s Old Crafting Recipe Sticker Glue

Skip to My Lou’s Homemade Stickers

Voter Suppression in Mississippi: A 2014 Fantasia

Blacks protest right to vote outside White House in 1965There have been a lot of Chicken Littles running around screaming about voter identification leading to disfranchisement and outright suppression. Well, the first voter ID election has passed for Mississippi, so is it the Jim Crow era again?

Before I get to that, I want to say a few things about voter ID and its implications. Now, when I say voter identification, I mean that in the broad definition. Identify who is voting; not only if they’re who they say they are, but that they’re eligible to be voting in the first place. In many states, it’s actually ineligible voters, which are improperly included on voter rolls, who pose more of a threat to the integrity of the electoral process than actually those pretending to be someone they’re not.[1]An NBC2 voter fraud story sparked a state-wide Florida investigation found as many as 180,000 ineligible voters. http://www.nbc-2.com/story/18315032/2012/05/11/nbc2-investigators. Absentee ballots present greater threat of voter fraud as highlighted in the 2009 Working Families Party scandal. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/. In 2008, more than a third of Mississippi counties had more registered voters than residents old enough to cast a ballot. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-10-24-197839872_x.htm However, democrats regularly block attempts to purge voter rolls of dead, disenfranchised felons, and undocumented immigrants as well.

Consequently, Republicans have pushed voter ID not because they want to stop minorities from voting, but to prevent illegal voting from occurring. Let’s be real here. If voting fraud was happening in Republican’s favor, Democrats would be attempting to quash it like overseas military votes.[2]The New York Times. EXAMINING THE VOTE; Lieberman Put Democrats In Retreat on Military Vote. July 15, 2001. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-lieberman-put-democrats-in-retreat-on-military-vote.html[3]Breitbart. Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting. August 2, 2012. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/02/obama-campaign-sues-to-restrict-military-voting

And the same is true for any votes for other conservatives against mainstream Republicans, as was the case when voting irregularities surfaced after the Mississippi runoff this year between McDaniel and Cochran. Suddenly, integrity of the voting system was not so paramount.

It’s not difficult to ascertain the motivations against voter identification. The groups most often cited as victims of it overwhelmingly support Democrats in both statewide and national elections. When voter fraud does happen — and it does happen — Democrats typically benefit.[4]Republican National Lawyers Association. Vote Fraud Newshttp://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp

But that isn’t the only reason. They also leverage it for identity politics and low information voters. Democrats have worked diligently to make “voter ID” synonymous with racism—their default rallying cry since Obama has come on scene. It’s the tired old narrative that conservatives are only motivated by racism and misogyny. “Vote for us so we can save you from Whitey.”

Moreover, this type of politics is heavily targeted toward low information minority voters. Roughly 25 percent of voting-age blacks do not have a government-issued identification, about triple that of whites.[5]Brennan Center for Justice. Voting Law Changes in 2012. October 3, 2011. http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voting-law-changes-2012 It’s much easier to get this cohort registered than getting them an identification, which requires more than a few minutes of motivation on their part to make a plan of action and carry it out on their own. No signing someone up for identification outside a supermarket or sending off for it through the mail. And while the vast majority genereally don’t have the motivation to show up to polls either, it’s still a significant amount of potential voters that sometimes can be motivated, as demonstrated 2008.

Now on to Mississippi’s part in all of this. Thirty-one states currently have some form of voter identification requirement, which range from non-photo identification with an alternative verification option, to photo identification only. And one of those evil photo-only states is Mississippi.[6]National Conference of State Legislatures. Voter Identification Requirements | Voter ID Law. October 31, 2014. Shttp://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to accurately examine minority voter participation in these states for 2014 midterms. Unless a major statewide election is taking place, exit polling if often not conducted. Additionally, midterms can only be compared to other midterms, not presidential cycles. Mississippi is one of those states that is missing midterm exit polls for the previous three cycles.

So instead, I am looked to New Hampshire and South Carolina as proxies in this discussion since Bloomberg deemed them among the seven total states that were “stupidly hard” to vote in.

South Carolina 2010 (Senate)
Vote by RaceTotalDemocratRepublican
White70%9%82%
Black25%80%9%
Latino3%N/AN/A
South Carolina 2014 (Senate)
Vote by RaceTotalDemocratRepublican
White69%19%74%
Black26%89%6%
Latino2%N/AN/A

Note that the black participation rate relative to other races actually went up from 2010, not down. Instead white participation actually dropped.[7]CNN Election Center. 2010 South Carolina Exit Pollhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=SCS01p1[8]CNN Election Center. 2014 South Carolina Exit Pollhttp://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/SC/senate#exit-polls

The same is true for New Hampshire, which saw an increase in both black and Hispanic participation relative to whites.[9]CNN Election Center. 2010 New Hampshire Exit Pollhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=NHS01p1[10]CNN Election Center. 2014 New Hampshire Exit Pollhttp://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/NH/senate

New Hampshire 2010 (Senate)
Vote by RaceTotalDemocratRepublican
White94%37%60%
Black1%N/AN/A
Latino2%N/AN/A
New Hampshire 2014 (Senate)
Vote by RaceTotalDemocratRepublican
White94%51%48%
Black2%N/AN/A
Latino3%N/AN/A

While it can’t be said with any certainty, South Carolina and New Hampshire certainly seem to suggest there wouldn’t be any significant changes in black voter participation in Mississippi either.
Further credence is lent to that argument when you consider only 3.8 percent of registered black voters lacked voter ID in 2008.[11]American University Center for Democracy and Election Management. Voter IDs Are Not the Problem: A Survey of Three States. January 9, 2008. http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/upload/csae080109.pdf And 0.1% of those declared themselves as Republicans–so no loss there, right!?

Now I know what the haters will say. 2014 was low a turnout for Democrats. Even the traditionally motivated, ID’d voters sat at home, so what about the next election?

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University of Law is in the middle of this argument and lists the main barriers to obtaining photo identification. In summary, they evidence the three challenges to be access to open facilities, lack of transportation, and the cost of indemnification documentation (birth certificates, marriage license, etc.) required for issuance of photo ID.[12]Brennan Center for Justice. The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification. New York University of Law. July 18, 2012. http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification

Good news. Aside from the local DMV, every single Circuit Clerk’s office in every county in the state issues free photo identification. The voter is not even required to provide documentation or even a social security number. Date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name is all you need. But wait, there’s more. Do not have a ride? No problem. There is a toll free number to help with that too. Also free.[13]Mississippi Secretary of State. How Can I Get a Mississippi Voter ID Card?http://msvoterid.ms.gov/Pages/VoterIDHowtoGetID.htm

Anything else?

References   [ + ]

Automakers Establish Industry-Wide Privacy Policy, But Where is the NSA Clause?

Nineteen automakers have signed a customer privacy agreement and sent it off to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. They want to assuage us of any fears and underline their commitment to the government that they will protect the personal information their vehicles collect, and not share it with third parties without permission or notification of owners.

As for government inquiries into their customers’ personal information, they will only turn it over with “a lawful government request, regulatory requirement, legal order, or similar obligation, [and] warrant or court order [for] requests or demands from governmental entities for Geolocation Information.”[1]Global Automakers. Commitment Letter to Federal Trade Commission on Privacy Principles. November 13, 2014. https://www.globalautomakers.org/media/letter/commitment-letter-to-federal-trade-commission-on-privacy-principles

Personally, I think that is kind of silly statement considering the backdoor access some of them now — or will soon — provide to the NSA. I am looking at you GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

This is some serious stuff. In the olden days of yore, a driver could reliably assume total privacy inside their vehicle as it were devoid of any communication devices more complex than that silly pigtail cell phone antenna on the back window. But quickly, many of today’s cars are becoming impressive computerized information systems in their own right–potentially in continuous contact with other computer networks, relaying very detailed personal data. Smartphone apps; 4g wifi internet access; satellite communications; they can even snitch back to mission control that you are not wearing your seat belt.

It is common knowledge that the NSA can fully monitor almost all email, phone, and data services, and take control of many smartphones and most computer operating systems. Even turning your devices off is insufficient to deny them access. If it has power, can connect to a data network, and has a backdoor installed in it, it can likely be hijacked no matter the device’s state. So, with the current remote connections being designed into automobiles, how long will it be before the federal government has complete access and control of your vehicle as well?

Not even George Orwell’s imagination could dream up most of the technology that already exits in today’s surveillance state.

Think about it. Take GM’s OnStar systems, for example. They are standard in all vehicles, and collect and keep all sorts of information for undetermined lengths of time according to OnStar’s own Privacy Policy. Even the GAO warned earlier this year that by amassing this data, “they can create a detailed profile of individual behavior, including habits, preferences, and routes traveled—private information that could be exploited.”[2]Government Accountability Office. CONSUMERS’ LOCATION DATA: Companies Take Steps to Protect Privacy, but Practices Are Inconsistent, and Risks May Not be Clear to Consumers. GAO-14-649T. June 4, 2014. http://gao.gov/products/GAO-14-649T And while you can cancel the service, owners would be unable to deny forced government access unless the system was physically disabled in some manner.

All personal information about the owner is available, including any past information still stored, location, speed, etc. Moreover, recording devices such as cameras, microphones, connectivity to cell phones, and internet could all be misappropriated without the driver even knowing. At the rate we are going, I wonder how long before local law enforcement will also be able to request vague and deceptive warrants to eavesdrop on drivers.

But for now, the big questions are: Does the NSA already have backdoors in these technologies? And if so, what are they doing with it? Is it like Microsoft products, such as Skype, where they have complete access and record and store nearly all communications?[3]Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide.  New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014.

In the case of GM, an article on Brietbart connects some dots with the current and previous CEO that certainly suggests a corporate environment, which would be at the very best, passive against NSA requests. But then considering the company owes its current existence to both the Bush and Obama administrations, and even now has heavy government oversight into its operations, common sense would anticipate a cordial and dutiful collaboration if the NSA came knocking.[4]The Daily Beast. G.M. Becomes Government Motors Again. May 17, 2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/17/g-m-becomes-government-motors-again.html When the federal government literally owns you and your very survival depends on its continued support, why would you do anything other than bend over backwards?

Today, it is probably GM. But tomorrow it will certainly be all auto manufacturers that produce within the United States. I doubt it will be possible even fifteen years from now to buy a car without network connectivity, tracking, and recording devices. Moreover this technology will become so integrated into vehicles’ systems that disabling or removing it will be no longer be an option. By then there will be no place where you cannot be, and will not be, watched.

Let us just hope there will eventually be considerable resistance from the American electorate, which will curtail further erosion of privacy and civil liberties by the U.S. government.

Right. Try saying that with a straight face.

References   [ + ]

Flashback: Obama on Executive Orders and Immigration

Undocumented Leaders Handcuff Themselves to White House FenceSince the Republicans had their wave, ebbing, blowout, or whatever it is being called, President Obama has doubled down on his threat — now a promise — to undertake a significant amount of immigration reform unilaterally by using executive power. Sunday, on Face the Nation, he repeated it: “I am going to do what I can do through executive action. It’s not going to be everything that needs to get done. And it will take time to put that in place. And in the interim, the minute they [Republicans] pass a bill that addresses the problems with immigration reform, I will sign it and it supersedes whatever actions I take.”[1]Face the Nation. Obama, Bush. CBS News. November 9, 2014. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-november-9-2014-obama-bush/

President Obama is no stranger to sidestepping Congress in order implement, modify, and nullify laws through executive actions and directives. The administration’s coercion of states to adopt its own Common Core Standards in place of the No Child Left Behind Act, which was passed by Congress with bipartisan support in 2001, is great example of this. As well as the — so far — 24 changes Obama himself has made to Obamacare.[2]Galen Institute. 42 Changes to ObamaCare…So Far. Novermber 6, 2014. http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

However, for quite some time, the President had been very explicit in that he lacked the constitutional authority to suspend deportation of students and those who had grown up in the U.S., let alone for the rest of the estimated total 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants now living within the United States.[3]Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project. Growth Stalls, Unauthorized Immigrant Population Becomes More Settled. September 3, 2014. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/09/03/as-growth-stalls-unauthorized-immigrant-population-becomes-more-settled/

That quickly changed on August 18, 2011 — just 24 days after his speech to the La Raza Council — when The White House announced it would be realizing enforcement of much of the failed DREAM Act by halting deportations on individuals who qualified. This included those who were attending or had attended school in the U.S., individuals who had lived here for lengthy periods, and those who had served in the armed forces.

It makes no sense to spend our enforcement resources on these low-priority cases when they could be used with more impact on others, including individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes.[4]The White House. Immigration Update: Maximizing Public Safety and Better Focusing Resources. August 18, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/18/immigration-update-maximizing-public-safety-and-better-focusing-resources

Two months later, agent and union president of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chris Cane would testify before Congress that limitations of those who could be deported were much more broad than the administration had led the public to believe. In the case of ICE, it included just about any known or suspected unauthorized immigrant unless they were also a known criminal.[5]CNS News. Union President Testifies: ICE HQ Ordered Agents Not to Arrest Illegals–Including Fugitives. October 20, 2011. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/union-president-testifies-ice-hq-ordered-agents-not-arrest-illegals-including-fugitives

He ain’t known as the Liar in Chief for for nothing, folks.

 

 March, 2011 @ Univision Town Hall:

RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar (ph) through univision.com told us — I’m reading — “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”

OBAMA: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.[6]The White House. Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall. Bell Multicultrual High School, Washington, D.C.. March 28, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-univision-town-hall[7]Univision. ‘Es el Momento’, a Townhall meeting with President Obama. Bell Multicultrual High School, Washington, D.C.. March 28, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9xcB6ZnGcY

 

July 25, 2011, with La Raza Council:

Now, I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause. . . . And I promise you, we are responding to your concerns and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way.

Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress —

AUDIENCE:  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!  Yes, you can!

OBAMA:  Believe me — believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.  I promise you.  Not just on immigration reform.  But that’s not how — that’s not how our system works.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Change it!

OBAMA:  That’s not how our democracy functions.  That’s not how our Constitution is written.[8]The White House. Remarks by the President to the National Council of La Raza. Marriot Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, D.C.. July 25, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/remarks-president-national-council-la-raza[9]The White House. President Obama Addresses Council of La Raza. Marriot Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, D.C.. July 25, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqve7zzX4HQ

 

September, 2011 @ press round table Q&A:

LERNER:  Me again.  On the DREAM Act that you mentioned before, and this is like a statement from New York City:  Mr. President, I am an undocumented law graduate from New York City. I’m just writing to say that your message that you do not have a dance partner is not a message of hope.  A real dancer goes out on the dance floor and picks out his or her dance partner.  You’re just waiting.  You have the facts, numbers, dollars and votes on the side of granting administrative relief for DREAMers. We are doing our part.  It is time to do yours, Mr. President.

OBAMA:  I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  We are doing everything we can administratively.  But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things.  It’s just not true.

. . . .

But we live in a democracy.  You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.  And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end.[10]The White House. Remarks by the President in an “Open for Questions” Roundtable. Map Room, The White House, Washington, D.C.. September 28, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/09/28/open-questions-president-obama#transcript

 

And November, 2013, during immigration reform speech in California:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, please use your executive order to halt deportations for all 11.5 undocumented immigrants in this country right now.

….

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you agree that we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform at the same time we — you have a power to stop deportation for all undocumented immigrants in this country.

OBAMA: Actually I don’t. And that’s why we’re here.

So I respect the passion of these young people because they feel deeply about the concerns for their families. Now, what you need to know, when I’m speaking as President of the United States and I come to this community, is that if, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so.

But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. But it won’t be as easy as just shouting. It requires us lobbying and getting it done.

….

And if you’re serious about making that happen, then I’m ready to work with you. But it is going to require work. It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out. That’s always been the case in this country; that’s going to continue to be the case today.[11]The White House. Remarks by the President on Immigration Reform. Betty Ong Chinese Recreation Center, San Francisco, California. November 25, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/11/25/president-obama-speaks-immigration-reform#transcript

References   [ + ]

Remember Mississippi Forgotten, Cochran Reaps Conservative Support on Election Day

Thad CochranWhat the heck happened to #Remembermississippi!? After all the treachery from the old guard Mississippi GOP. After all the race hustling and outright lies perpetrated in fliers, radio, and robocalling. And after all the hoopla about “making Barbour & Co. think twice about ever taking Republican votes for granted again.”

Well, is it mission accomplished? Nope.

Good job guys, you supported good ‘ol Thad at about the same rate as you did in 2008. I think the message was heard loud and clear: You can mistreat Mississippi conservatives all you want and they will still turn out for you. #WinAtAnyCost

2008
2014
CochranFlemingCochranChilders
61.70%38.30%60.41%37.36%

We see in the table above, the percentage of the vote Cochran got only declined by 1.29% from 2008.[1]NBC News. Mississippi Election Results. Decision 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/ms/[2]New York Times. Election Results 2008. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/mississippi.html Even worse, he outperformed the RealClearPolitics’ poll by more than six points.

Because clearly tea party conservatives did not back Childers, what about those who were refraining from voting for Cochran?

Actually, roughly 1,500 more people voted for a Senate candidate than the total number voting in the House races (with 99.8% of District 2 currently reported).[3]NBC News. Mississippi Election Results. Decision 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/ms/ As for the total number of ballots cast for Republican or conservative candidates in the House races, it was almost identical — less than a quarter percent difference — to the number of votes Cochran received.[4]Although there was not a Republican on the District 2 ballot, I added Troy Ray and Shelley Shoemake’s votes together for a conservative tally, as both are clearly much more conservative than Thompson. For further details, Shoemake: https://www.facebook.com/shelleyshoemakeforuscongress. Ray: http://www.icanrebuildamerica.com/

Then comparing the exit polls from 2014 and 2008, conservatives and moderates backed Cochran at about the same rate in both. Conservatives especially.

2014: ON MOST POLITICAL MATTERS, DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF
CATEGORYTOTALCHILDERSCOCHRAN
Liberal13%79%19%
Moderate38%50%49%
Conservative49%17%80%

2014 exit poll data shows us that 80 and 49 percent of conservatives and moderates voted for Cochran, respectively. That makes about 58 percent of all non-liberals casting their vote for Cochran.[5]NBC News. Mississippi Election Results. Decision 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/ms/ Now, compare that to the 2008 election.

2008: VOTES BY IDEOLOGY
CATEGORYTOTALFLEMINGCOCHRAN
Liberal15%70%30%
Moderate35%48%52%
Conservative49%19%81%

Surprise! Respectively, 81 and 52 percent of conservatives and moderates voted for Cochran. Total, approximately 58 percent of non-liberals supported Cochran.[6]CNN. Mississippi Senate Exit Poll. 2008. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=MSS01p1

So, despite the predictably lower midterm voter turnout, not a damn thing changed in Cochran’s support at the polls.

#RememberMississippi!!!

References   [ + ]

There Was a Hidden Face in the Trinity Test Explosion

Trinity-Test-Fireball-25ms-modEveryone remember the Trinity test of 1945? The dawn of the atomic age, when the first nuclear device The Gadget was detonated in the deserts of New Mexico. It was identical in design to the bomb that would kill 66,000 and injure 69,000 in Hiroshima just three weeks later[1]The Manhattan Engineer District. “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Project Gutenberg. June 29, 1946. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp10.asp.

Well, I was watching some film of the Trinity test on Youtube and saw an angle I have never seen before. It was taken from a camera recording the explosion from a barrage balloon (aka tethered blimp/zeppelin). And about seven seconds into it, an image of a face appears on the right side of the screen.

Trinity Test Demonic Face

 

It weirded me out, man. Like the face of a demon staring down upon the creation of the quintessential WMD! Does the Devil have a weapons inspections program?

You can see it for yourself in the Atomcentral video @ the 1:31 minute mark:

References   [ + ]

Florida State Professor (Sally Karioth) Does Not Know What “Peer Reviewed” Means

Someone brought the testimony of Florida State University professor Sally Karioth to my attention yesterday. To be specific, it was prosecutor Jeff Ashton’s vetting of her as an “grief and trauma” expert that was so hilarious. She either could not grasp the concept of what peer reviewed research was, or was trying to pull a fast one on the prosecution so she could testify and get paid. Either case is shocking of a professor that has been with a state university “for forty years.” But the former means she is just an unbelievable idiot, or possibly suffering from the onset of dementia. The latter, however, means she technically committed perjury.

For anyone not familiar with peer reviewed journals, publishing in them is typically required for professors to make any real money. Also, it is inconceivable that a Ph.D. would not know what constitutes peer reviewed research since they have to use it in order to write their own dissertation — which, is also peer reviewed.

There really is no explanation for her not knowing what qualifies as peer reviewed. I assume it probably comes down to simple narcissism (or intoxication), hoping she could slip one by Ashton to appear more academic to her audience. Irony alert: She definitely came off as an academic, alright. The kind that loved their college experience so much, they refused to leave it.

Sally is who I think of when I hear the word tenure.

But since Karioth claims this to be her thirteenth trail as an expert witness, I thought this performance should be well documented for those evaluating her in the future. Lying about ones credentials or concealing the fact you are an idiot can affect the ethos of an expert witness’s testimony, possibly influencing the outcome of a trail. Buyer beware.

History Channel’s Pawn Stars is Fake

History's Pawn StarsI 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.)

Rod Miller from Cowtown Guitars

Exhibit A

1972 Les Paul Custom on Pawn Stars

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 an 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 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.

Jim Waters on Pawn StarsJim Waters Film and Television Artists of Las Vegas

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

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.

Flax Bow (before)

Flax Bow (after)

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 – 04/2010). 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.

Historical S&P 500 Capital and Total Returns: 1970 to 2014

NYC - Bowling Green: Charging BullEver tried 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 can be frustrating. Here I have compiled both the capital and total (dividends reinvested) returns by month and year 1970 – 2014. Links to the data sources used are provided as well as an Excel file containing the data.

Currently, the spreadsheet runs through October 2014.

The data sources can be found in the downloadable spreadsheet and the reference section below.

DateClose1 Month Capital Return12 Month Capital ReturnToral Return Dividend Reinvest (economagic)Total Return (^SPXTR)1 Month Total Return12 Month Total Return
01/197085.02--85.28---
02/197089.55.27%-90.03-5.57%-
03/197089.630.15%-90.43-0.44%-
04/197081.52-9.05%-82.52--8.75%-
05/197076.55-6.10%-77.75--5.78%-
06/197072.72-5.00%-74.12--4.66%-
07/197078.057.33%-79.82-7.69%-
08/197081.524.45%-83.64-4.78%-
09/197084.33.41%-86.66-3.62%-
10/197083.25-1.25%-85.94--0.83%-
11/197087.24.74%-90.29-5.06%-
12/197092.155.68%-95.68-5.98%-
01/197195.884.05%12.77%99.82-4.32%17.05%
02/197196.750.91%8.10%100.98-1.17%12.16%
03/1971100.313.68%11.92%104.96-3.94%16.07%
04/1971103.953.63%27.51%109.04-3.89%32.14%
05/197199.63-4.16%30.15%104.78--3.91%34.77%
06/197198.7-0.93%35.73%105.13-0.33%41.83%
07/197195.58-3.16%22.46%101.06--3.87%26.60%
08/197199.033.61%21.48%104.98-3.88%25.52%
09/197198.34-0.70%16.65%104.51--0.44%20.60%
10/197194.23-4.18%13.19%100.42--3.91%16.85%
11/197193.99-0.25%7.79%100.44-0.02%11.25%
12/1971102.098.62%10.79%109.37-8.88%14.30%
01/1972103.941.81%8.41%111.62-2.06%11.82%
02/1972106.572.53%10.15%114.71-2.77%13.59%
03/1972107.20.59%6.87%115.66-0.83%10.19%
04/1972107.670.44%3.58%116.44-0.68%6.79%
05/1972109.531.73%9.94%118.74-1.97%13.32%
06/1972107.14-2.18%8.55%116.43--1.94%10.75%
07/1972107.390.23%12.36%116.98-0.48%15.76%
08/1972111.093.45%12.18%121.3-3.69%15.54%
09/1972110.55-0.49%12.42%120.99--0.25%15.76%
10/1972111.580.93%18.41%122.42-1.19%21.91%
11/1972116.674.56%24.13%128.32-4.81%27.75%
12/1972118.051.18%15.63%130.14-1.42%18.99%
01/1973116.03-1.71%11.63%128.2--1.49%14.86%
02/1973111.68-3.75%4.79%123.68--3.52%7.82%
03/1973111.52-0.14%4.03%123.78-0.08%7.03%
04/1973106.97-4.08%-0.65%119.04--3.83%2.23%
05/1973104.95-1.89%-4.18%117.11--1.63%-1.37%
06/1973104.26-0.66%-2.69%116.64--0.40%0.18%
07/1973108.223.80%0.77%121.38-4.07%3.76%
08/1973104.25-3.67%-6.16%117.24--3.41%-3.34%
09/1973108.434.01%-1.92%122.25-4.27%1.04%
10/1973108.29-0.13%-2.95%122.45-0.17%0.02%
11/197395.96-11.39%-17.75%108.87--11.09%-15.16%
12/197397.551.66%-17.37%111.02-1.98%-14.69%
01/197496.57-1.00%-16.77%110.23--0.72%-14.02%
02/197496.22-0.36%-13.84%110.15--0.07%-10.94%
03/197493.98-2.33%-15.73%107.89--2.05%-12.84%
04/197490.31-3.91%-15.57%104.02--3.59%-12.62%
05/197487.28-3.36%-16.84%100.88--3.02%-13.86%
06/197486-1.47%-17.51%99.73--1.14%-14.49%
07/197479.31-7.78%-26.71%92.34--7.42%-23.93%
08/197472.15-9.03%-30.79%84.36--8.64%-28.05%
09/197463.54-11.93%-41.40%74.64--11.52%-38.94%
10/197473.916.30%-31.76%87.19-16.81%-28.79%
11/197469.97-5.32%-27.08%82.93--4.89%-23.82%
12/197468.56-2.02%-29.72%81.64--1.56%-26.47%
01/197576.9812.28%-20.29%92.02-12.72%-16.52%
02/197581.595.99%-15.20%97.89-6.38%-11.13%
03/197583.362.17%-11.30%100.38-2.54%-6.97%
04/197587.34.73%-3.33%105.49-5.10%1.41%
05/197591.154.41%4.43%110.52-4.76%9.56%
06/197595.194.43%10.69%115.8-4.77%16.10%
07/197588.75-6.77%11.90%108.34--6.44%17.33%
08/197586.88-2.11%20.42%106.43--1.76%26.17%
09/197583.87-3.46%32.00%103.11--3.12%38.14%
10/197589.046.16%20.49%109.85-6.53%25.99%
11/197591.242.47%30.40%112.95-2.82%36.20%
12/197590.19-1.15%31.55%112.03--0.81%37.23%
01/1976100.8611.83%31.02%125.67-12.17%36.56%
02/197699.71-1.14%22.21%124.61--0.84%27.30%
03/1976102.773.07%23.28%128.81-3.37%28.33%
04/1976101.64-1.10%16.43%127.81--0.78%21.15%
05/1976100.18-1.44%9.91%126.39--1.11%14.36%
06/1976104.284.09%9.55%131.99-4.43%13.99%
07/1976103.44-0.81%16.55%131.36--0.48%21.25%
08/1976102.91-0.51%18.45%131.12--0.18%23.19%
09/1976105.242.26%25.48%134.5-2.58%30.44%
10/1976102.9-2.22%15.57%132--1.86%20.16%
11/1976102.1-0.78%11.90%131.46--0.41%16.39%
12/1976107.465.25%19.15%138.84-5.61%23.93%
01/1977102.03-5.05%1.16%132.27--4.73%5.25%
02/197799.82-2.17%0.11%129.86--1.82%4.21%
03/197798.42-1.40%-4.23%128.5--1.05%-0.24%
04/197798.440.02%-3.15%129.03-0.42%0.96%
05/197796.12-2.36%-4.05%126.5--1.96%0.09%
06/1977100.484.54%-3.64%132.75-4.94%0.58%
07/197798.85-1.62%-4.44%130.71--1.54%-0.49%
08/197796.77-2.10%-5.97%128.85--1.42%-1.73%
09/197796.53-0.25%-8.28%129.05-0.16%-4.06%
10/197792.34-4.34%-10.26%124.02--3.90%-6.04%
11/197794.832.70%-7.12%127.94-3.16%-2.67%
12/197795.10.28%-11.50%128.9-0.75%-7.16%
01/197889.25-6.15%-12.53%121.5--5.74%-8.14%
02/197887.04-2.48%-12.80%119.04--2.03%-8.34%
03/197889.212.49%-9.36%122.54-2.94%-4.64%
04/197896.838.54%-1.64%133.6-9.02%3.54%
05/197897.240.42%1.17%134.82-0.92%6.58%
06/197895.53-1.76%-4.93%132.97--1.38%0.16%
07/1978100.685.39%1.85%140.72-5.83%7.66%
08/1978103.292.59%6.74%144.96-3.01%12.50%
09/1978102.54-0.73%6.23%144.49--0.32%11.97%
10/197893.15-9.16%0.88%131.89--8.72%6.35%
11/197894.71.66%-0.14%134.73-2.15%5.30%
12/197896.111.49%1.06%137.37-1.96%6.57%
01/197999.933.97%11.97%143.46-4.43%18.07%
02/197996.28-3.65%10.62%138.85--3.21%16.65%
03/1979101.595.52%13.88%147.13-5.96%20.07%
04/1979101.760.17%5.09%148.06-0.63%10.82%
05/197999.08-2.63%1.89%144.84--2.17%7.43%
06/1979102.913.87%7.73%151.14-4.35%13.67%
07/1979103.810.87%3.11%153.17-1.34%8.85%
08/1979109.325.31%5.84%162.01-5.77%11.76%
09/1979109.320.00%6.61%162.7-0.43%12.60%
10/1979101.82-6.86%9.31%152.29--6.40%15.46%
11/1979106.164.26%12.10%159.53-4.75%18.41%
12/1979107.941.68%12.31%162.94-2.14%18.61%
01/1980114.165.76%14.24%173.06-6.22%20.63%
02/1980113.66-0.44%18.05%173.05--0.01%24.63%
03/1980102.09-10.18%0.49%156.23--9.72%6.18%
04/1980106.294.11%4.45%163.45-4.62%10.40%
05/1980111.244.66%12.27%171.86-5.15%18.65%
06/1980114.242.70%11.01%177.3-3.16%17.30%
07/1980121.676.50%17.20%189.64-6.96%23.81%
08/1980122.380.58%11.95%191.55-1.01%18.24%
09/1980125.462.52%14.76%197.19-2.94%21.19%
10/1980127.471.60%25.19%201.18-2.02%32.11%
11/1980140.5210.24%32.37%222.61-10.65%39.55%
12/1980135.76-3.39%25.77%215.9--3.02%32.50%
01/1981129.55-4.57%13.48%206.86--4.18%19.53%
02/1981131.271.33%15.49%210.46-1.74%21.62%
03/19811363.60%33.22%218.87-4.00%40.10%
04/1981132.81-2.35%24.95%214.64--1.93%31.32%
05/1981132.59-0.17%19.19%215.19-0.26%25.21%
06/1981131.21-1.04%14.85%213.84--0.63%20.61%
07/1981130.92-0.22%7.60%214.28-0.21%13.00%
08/1981122.79-6.21%0.34%201.91--5.77%5.41%
09/1981116.18-5.38%-7.40%191.96--4.93%-2.65%
10/1981121.894.91%-4.38%202.32-5.40%0.57%
11/1981126.353.66%-10.08%210.67-4.13%-5.36%
12/1981122.55-3.01%-9.73%205.27--2.56%-4.92%
01/1982120.4-1.75%-7.06%202.59--1.31%-2.07%
02/1982113.11-6.05%-13.83%191.26--5.59%-9.12%
03/1982111.96-1.02%-17.68%190.27--0.52%-13.07%
04/1982116.444.00%-12.33%198.87-4.52%-7.35%
05/1982111.88-3.92%-15.62%192.09--3.41%-10.74%
06/1982109.61-2.03%-16.46%189.2--1.50%-11.52%
07/1982107.09-2.30%-18.20%185.83--1.78%-13.28%
08/1982119.5111.60%-2.67%208.39-12.14%3.21%
09/1982120.420.76%3.65%210.99-1.25%9.91%
10/1982133.7211.04%9.71%235.28-11.51%16.29%
11/1982138.533.60%9.64%244.78-4.04%16.19%
12/1982140.641.52%14.76%249.5-1.93%21.55%
01/1983145.33.31%20.68%258.77-3.72%27.73%
02/1983148.061.90%30.90%264.7-2.29%38.40%
03/1983152.963.31%36.62%274.48-3.69%44.26%
04/1983164.437.50%41.21%296.11-7.88%48.90%
05/1983162.39-1.24%45.15%293.53--0.87%52.81%
06/1983167.643.23%52.94%304.96-3.89%61.18%
07/1983162.56-3.03%51.80%295.96--2.95%59.26%
08/1983164.41.13%37.56%300.4-1.50%44.15%
09/1983166.071.02%37.91%304.55-1.38%44.34%
10/1983163.55-1.52%22.31%301.03--1.16%27.95%
11/1983166.41.74%20.12%307.38-2.11%25.57%
12/1983164.93-0.88%17.27%305.77--0.52%22.56%
01/1984163.41-0.92%12.46%304.06--0.56%17.50%
02/1984157.06-3.89%6.08%293.37--3.52%10.83%
03/1984159.181.35%4.07%298.45-1.73%8.73%
04/1984160.050.55%-2.66%301.28-0.95%1.75%
05/1984150.55-5.94%-7.29%284.6--5.54%-3.04%
06/1984153.181.75%-8.63%290.78-2.17%-4.65%
07/1984150.66-1.65%-7.32%287.17--1.24%-2.97%
08/1984166.6810.63%1.39%318.89-11.04%6.16%
09/1984166.1-0.35%0.02%318.97-0.02%4.73%
10/1984166.09-0.01%1.55%320.2-0.39%6.37%
11/1984163.58-1.51%-1.69%316.61--1.12%3.00%
12/1984167.242.24%1.40%324.95-2.63%6.27%
01/1985179.637.41%9.93%350.27-7.79%15.20%
02/1985181.180.86%15.36%354.56-1.22%20.86%
03/1985180.66-0.29%13.49%354.8-0.07%18.88%
04/1985179.83-0.46%12.36%354.46--0.09%17.65%
05/1985189.555.41%25.91%374.94-5.78%31.74%
06/1985191.851.21%25.24%380.82-1.57%30.96%
07/1985190.92-0.48%26.72%380.26--0.15%32.41%
08/1985188.63-1.20%13.17%377.01--0.85%18.23%
09/1985182.08-3.47%9.62%365.22--3.13%14.50%
10/1985189.824.25%14.29%382.09-4.62%19.33%
11/1985202.176.51%23.59%408.3-6.86%28.96%
12/1985211.284.51%26.33%428.05-4.84%31.73%
01/1986211.780.24%17.90%430.44-0.56%22.89%
02/1986226.927.15%25.25%462.62-7.47%30.48%
03/1986238.95.28%32.24%488.42-5.58%37.66%
04/1986235.52-1.41%30.97%482.93--1.13%36.24%
05/1986247.355.02%30.49%508.62-5.32%35.65%
06/1986250.841.41%30.75%517.21-1.69%35.82%
07/1986236.12-5.87%23.67%488.28--5.59%28.41%
08/1986252.937.12%34.09%524.49-7.42%39.12%
09/1986231.32-8.54%27.04%481.13--8.27%31.74%
10/1986243.985.47%28.53%508.88-5.77%33.18%
11/1986249.222.15%23.27%521.25-2.43%27.66%
12/1986242.17-2.83%14.62%507.95--2.55%18.66%
01/1987274.0813.18%29.42%576.34-13.47%33.90%
02/1987284.23.69%25.24%599.12-3.95%29.51%
03/1987291.72.64%22.10%616.4-2.89%26.20%
04/1987288.36-1.15%22.44%610.93--0.89%26.51%
05/1987290.10.60%17.28%616.23-0.87%21.16%
06/19873044.79%21.19%647.35-5.05%25.16%
07/1987318.664.82%34.96%680.14-5.07%39.29%
08/1987329.83.50%30.39%705.52-3.73%34.51%
09/1987321.83-2.42%39.13%690.05--2.19%43.42%
10/1987251.79-21.76%3.20%541.44--21.54%6.40%
11/1987230.3-8.53%-7.59%496.82--8.24%-4.69%
12/1987247.087.29%2.03%534.62-7.61%5.25%
01/1988257.074.04%-6.21%557.1-4.21%-3.34%
02/1988267.824.18%-5.76%583.07-4.66%-2.68%
03/1988258.89-3.33%-11.25%565.06--3.09%-8.33%
04/1988261.330.94%-9.37%571.31-1.11%-6.49%
05/1988262.160.32%-9.63%576.25-0.87%-6.49%
06/1988273.54.33%-10.03%602.7278.544.59%-6.90%
07/1988272.02-0.54%-14.64%600.41277.49-0.38%-11.72%
08/1988261.52-3.86%-20.70%580.03268.07-3.39%-17.79%
09/1988271.913.97%-15.51%604.74279.494.26%-12.36%
10/1988278.972.60%10.79%621.58287.272.78%14.80%
11/1988273.7-1.89%18.84%612.72283.18-1.43%23.33%
12/1988277.721.47%12.40%623.41288.121.74%16.61%
01/1989297.477.11%15.72%669.06309.217.32%20.10%
02/1989288.86-2.89%7.86%652.39301.51-2.49%11.89%
03/1989294.872.08%13.90%667.6308.542.33%18.15%
04/1989309.645.01%18.49%702.27324.565.19%22.92%
05/1989320.523.51%22.26%730.68337.694.05%26.80%
06/1989317.98-0.79%16.26%726.53335.78-0.57%20.55%
07/1989346.088.84%27.23%792.13366.19.03%31.93%
08/1989351.451.55%34.39%807.62373.251.95%39.24%
09/1989349.15-0.65%28.41%804.34371.74-0.41%33.01%
10/1989340.36-2.52%22.01%785.67363.11-2.32%26.40%
11/1989345.991.65%26.41%801.69370.512.04%30.84%
12/1989353.42.14%27.25%820.94379.412.40%31.69%
01/1990329.08-6.88%10.63%765.83353.94-6.71%14.46%
02/1990331.890.85%14.90%775.69358.51.29%18.90%
03/1990339.942.43%15.28%796.253682.65%19.27%
04/1990330.8-2.69%6.83%776.38358.82-2.49%10.55%
05/1990361.239.20%12.70%852.08393.89.75%16.62%
06/1990358.02-0.89%12.59%846.33391.14-0.67%16.49%
07/1990356.15-0.52%2.91%843.62389.89-0.32%6.50%
08/1990322.56-9.43%-8.22%767.36354.65-9.04%-4.98%
09/1990306.05-5.12%-12.34%730.02337.39-4.87%-9.24%
10/1990304-0.67%-10.68%726.91335.95-0.43%-7.48%
11/1990322.225.99%-6.87%773.9357.676.46%-3.47%
12/1990330.222.48%-6.56%795.46367.632.79%-3.10%
01/1991343.934.15%4.51%830.1383.644.36%8.39%
02/1991367.076.73%10.60%889.46411.087.15%14.67%
03/1991375.222.22%10.38%911421.032.42%14.41%
04/1991375.340.03%13.46%913.16422.030.24%17.62%
05/1991389.833.86%7.92%952.55440.244.31%11.79%
06/1991371.16-4.79%3.67%908.91420.07-4.58%7.39%
07/1991387.814.49%8.89%951.28439.654.66%12.76%
08/1991395.431.96%22.59%973.82450.062.37%26.90%
09/1991387.86-1.91%26.73%957.52442.53-1.67%31.16%
10/1991392.451.18%29.10%970.39448.481.34%33.50%
11/1991375.22-4.39%16.45%931.29430.41-4.03%20.34%
12/1991417.0911.16%26.31%1037.8479.6311.44%30.47%
01/1992408.78-1.99%18.86%1018.46470.7-1.86%22.69%
02/1992412.70.96%12.43%1031.65476.791.30%15.99%
03/1992403.69-2.18%7.59%1011.59467.52-1.94%11.04%
04/1992414.952.79%10.55%1041.34481.242.94%14.03%
05/1992415.350.10%6.55%1046.44483.60.49%9.85%
06/1992408.14-1.74%9.96%1030.88476.41-1.49%13.41%
07/1992424.213.94%9.39%1072.99495.874.09%12.79%
08/1992414.03-2.40%4.70%1051.03485.72-2.05%7.92%
09/1992417.80.91%7.72%1063.38491.431.18%11.05%
10/1992418.680.21%6.68%1067.05493.130.35%9.96%
11/1992431.353.03%14.96%1103.39509.923.40%18.47%
12/1992435.711.01%4.46%1116.93516.181.23%7.62%
01/1993438.780.70%7.34%1126.21520.490.84%10.58%
02/1993443.381.05%7.43%1141.56527.591.36%10.65%
03/1993451.671.87%11.89%1165.65538.722.11%15.23%
04/1993440.19-2.54%6.08%1137.47525.7-2.42%9.24%
05/1993450.192.27%8.39%1167.9539.762.68%11.61%
06/1993450.530.08%10.39%1171.32541.340.29%13.63%
07/1993448.13-0.53%5.64%1166.61539.16-0.40%8.73%
08/1993463.563.44%11.96%1210.87559.623.79%15.21%
09/1993458.93-1.00%9.84%1201.59555.33-0.77%13.00%
10/1993467.831.94%11.74%1226.44566.822.07%14.94%
11/1993461.79-1.29%7.06%1214.74561.41-0.95%10.10%
12/1993466.451.01%7.06%1229.43568.21.21%10.08%
01/1994481.613.25%9.76%1271.22587.523.40%12.88%
02/1994467.14-3.00%5.36%1236.72571.57-2.71%8.34%
03/1994445.77-4.57%-1.31%1182.8546.65-4.36%1.47%
04/1994450.911.15%2.44%1197.97553.661.28%5.32%
05/1994456.51.24%1.40%1217.63562.751.64%4.26%
06/1994444.27-2.68%-1.39%1187.78548.96-2.45%1.41%
07/1994458.263.15%2.26%1226.79566.983.28%5.16%
08/1994475.493.76%2.57%1277.08590.234.10%5.47%
09/1994462.71-2.69%0.82%1245.85575.79-2.45%3.69%
10/1994472.352.08%0.97%1273.84588.732.25%3.87%
11/1994453.69-3.95%-1.75%1227.45567.29-3.64%1.05%
12/1994459.271.23%-1.54%1245.66575.711.48%1.32%
01/1995470.422.43%-2.32%1277.96590.642.59%0.53%
02/1995487.393.61%4.33%1327.77613.653.90%7.36%
03/1995500.712.73%12.32%1366.95631.762.95%15.57%
04/1995514.712.80%14.15%1407.2650.362.94%17.47%
05/1995533.43.63%16.85%1463.44676.364.00%20.19%
06/1995544.752.13%22.62%1497.43692.072.32%26.07%
07/1995562.063.18%22.65%1547.09715.023.32%26.11%
08/1995561.88-0.03%18.17%1550.98716.820.25%21.45%
09/1995584.414.01%26.30%1616.44747.074.22%29.75%
10/1995581.5-0.50%23.11%1610.66744.4-0.36%26.44%
11/1995605.374.10%33.43%1681.36777.074.39%36.98%
12/1995615.931.74%34.11%1713.75792.041.93%37.58%
01/1996636.023.26%35.20%1772.088193.40%38.66%
02/1996640.430.69%31.40%1788.51826.590.93%34.70%
03/1996645.50.79%28.92%1805.72834.550.96%32.10%
04/1996654.171.34%27.09%1832.35846.851.47%30.21%
05/1996669.122.29%25.44%1879.6868.692.58%28.44%
06/1996670.630.23%23.11%1886.77872.010.38%26.00%
07/1996639.95-4.57%13.86%1803.42833.48-4.42%16.57%
08/1996651.991.88%16.04%1841.46851.062.11%18.73%
09/1996687.335.42%17.61%1945.1898.975.63%20.33%
10/1996705.272.61%21.28%1998.75923.762.76%24.10%
11/1996757.027.34%25.05%2149.83993.587.56%27.86%
12/1996740.74-2.15%20.26%2107.23973.9-1.98%22.96%
01/1997786.166.13%23.61%2238.881034.746.25%26.34%
02/1997790.820.59%23.48%2256.431042.850.78%26.16%
03/1997757.12-4.26%17.29%2163.721000.02-4.11%19.83%
04/1997801.345.84%22.50%2292.891059.75.97%25.13%
05/1997848.285.86%26.78%2432.491124.226.09%29.41%
06/1997885.144.35%31.99%2541.471174.594.48%34.70%
07/1997954.317.81%49.12%2743.681268.047.96%52.14%
08/1997899.47-5.75%37.96%2589.981197.01-5.60%40.65%
09/1997947.285.32%37.82%2731.821262.565.48%40.45%
10/1997914.62-3.45%29.68%2640.591220.4-3.34%32.11%
11/1997955.44.46%26.21%2762.831276.894.63%28.51%
12/1997970.431.57%31.01%2810.271298.821.72%33.36%
01/1998980.281.02%24.69%2841.361313.191.11%26.91%
02/19981049.347.04%32.69%3046.291407.97.21%35.01%
03/19981101.754.99%45.52%3202.2914805.12%48.00%
04/19981111.750.91%38.74%3234.51494.891.01%41.07%
05/19981090.82-1.88%28.59%3178.911469.19-1.72%30.69%
06/19981133.843.94%28.10%3308.031528.874.06%30.16%
07/19981120.67-1.16%17.43%3272.811512.59-1.06%19.29%
08/1998957.28-14.58%6.43%2799.631293.9-14.46%8.09%
09/19981017.016.24%7.36%2978.981376.796.41%9.05%
10/19981098.678.03%20.12%3221.31488.788.13%21.99%
11/19981163.635.91%21.80%3416.531579.026.06%23.66%
12/19981229.235.64%26.67%3613.411670.015.76%28.58%
01/19991279.644.10%30.54%3764.511739.844.18%32.49%
02/19991238.33-3.23%18.01%3647.511685.77-3.11%19.74%
03/19991286.373.88%16.76%3793.441753.214.00%18.46%
04/19991335.183.79%20.10%3940.351821.113.87%21.82%
05/19991301.84-2.50%19.35%3847.31778.1-2.36%21.03%
06/19991372.715.44%21.07%4060.821876.785.55%22.76%
07/19991328.72-3.20%18.56%3934.021818.18-3.12%20.20%
08/19991320.41-0.63%37.93%3914.561809.19-0.49%39.82%
09/19991282.71-2.86%26.13%3807.241759.59-2.74%27.80%
10/19991362.936.25%24.05%4048.171870.946.33%25.67%
11/19991388.911.91%19.36%4130.461908.972.03%20.90%
12/19991469.255.78%19.53%4373.732021.45.89%21.04%
01/20001394.46-5.09%8.97%4153.981919.84-5.02%10.35%
02/20001366.42-2.01%10.34%4075.351883.5-1.89%11.73%
03/20001498.589.67%16.50%4474.032067.759.78%17.94%
04/20001452.43-3.08%8.78%4339.432005.55-3.01%10.13%
05/20001420.6-2.19%9.12%4250.41964.4-2.05%10.48%
06/20001454.62.39%5.97%4355.182012.832.47%7.25%
07/20001430.83-1.63%7.68%4287.091981.36-1.56%8.97%
08/20001517.686.07%14.94%4553.382104.436.21%16.32%
09/20001436.51-5.35%11.99%4312.991993.33-5.28%13.28%
10/20001429.4-0.49%4.88%4294.761984.9-0.42%6.09%
11/20001314.95-8.01%-5.33%3956.161828.42-7.88%-4.22%
12/20001320.280.41%-10.14%3975.531837.360.49%-9.10%
01/20011366.013.46%-2.04%4116.571902.553.55%-0.90%
02/20011239.94-9.23%-9.26%3741.221729.08-9.12%-8.20%
03/20011160.33-6.42%-22.57%3504.211619.54-6.34%-21.68%
04/20011249.467.68%-13.97%3776.521745.397.77%-12.97%
05/20011255.820.51%-11.60%3801.831757.090.67%-10.55%
06/20011224.38-2.50%-15.83%3709.291714.32-2.43%-14.83%
07/20011211.23-1.07%-15.35%3672.781697.44-0.98%-14.33%
08/20011133.58-6.41%-25.31%3442.861591.18-6.26%-24.39%
09/20011040.94-8.17%-27.54%3164.841462.69-8.08%-26.62%
10/20011059.781.81%-25.86%3225.191490.581.91%-24.90%
11/20011139.457.52%-13.35%3472.581604.927.67%-12.22%
12/20011148.080.76%-13.04%35031618.980.88%-11.89%
01/20021130.2-1.56%-17.26%3451.881595.35-1.46%-16.15%
02/20021106.73-2.08%-10.74%3385.311564.59-1.93%-9.51%
03/20021147.393.67%-1.12%3512.631623.433.76%0.24%
04/20021076.92-6.14%-13.81%3299.671525-6.06%-12.63%
05/20021067.14-0.91%-15.02%3275.361513.77-0.74%-13.85%
06/2002989.82-7.25%-19.16%3042.021405.93-7.12%-17.99%
07/2002911.62-7.90%-24.74%2804.911296.34-7.79%-23.63%
08/2002916.070.49%-19.19%2823.331304.860.66%-17.99%
09/2002815.28-11.00%-21.68%2516.491163.04-10.87%-20.49%
10/2002885.768.64%-16.42%2737.981265.418.80%-15.11%
11/2002936.315.71%-17.83%2899.141339.895.89%-16.51%
12/2002879.82-6.03%-23.37%2728.821261.18-5.87%-22.10%
01/2003855.7-2.74%-24.29%2657.331228.14-2.62%-23.02%
02/2003841.15-1.70%-24.00%2617.461209.71-1.50%-22.68%
03/2003848.180.84%-26.08%2642.881221.460.97%-24.76%
04/2003916.928.10%-14.86%2860.571322.078.24%-13.31%
05/2003963.595.09%-9.70%3011.291391.725.27%-8.06%
06/2003974.51.13%-1.55%3049.71409.481.28%0.25%
07/2003990.311.62%8.63%3103.471434.331.76%10.64%
08/20031008.011.79%10.04%31641462.31.95%12.07%
09/2003995.97-1.19%22.16%3130.41446.77-1.06%24.40%
10/20031050.715.50%18.62%3307.481528.625.66%20.80%
11/20031058.20.71%13.02%3336.581542.070.88%15.09%
12/20031111.925.08%26.38%3511.571622.945.24%28.68%
01/20041131.131.73%32.19%3576.021652.731.84%34.57%
02/20041144.941.22%36.12%3625.731675.71.39%38.52%
03/20041126.21-1.64%32.78%3571.031650.42-1.51%35.12%
04/20041107.3-1.68%20.76%3514.971624.51-1.57%22.88%
05/20041120.681.21%16.30%3563.211646.81.37%18.33%
06/20041140.841.80%17.07%3632.491678.831.94%19.11%
07/20041101.72-3.43%11.25%3512.271623.26-3.31%13.17%
08/20041104.240.23%9.55%3526.471629.830.40%11.46%
09/20041114.580.94%11.91%3564.671647.481.08%13.87%
10/20041130.21.40%7.57%3619.131672.651.53%9.42%
11/20041173.823.86%10.93%3765.561740.334.05%12.86%
12/20041211.923.25%8.99%3893.71799.553.40%10.88%
01/20051181.27-2.53%4.43%3798.791755.68-2.44%6.23%
02/20051203.61.89%5.12%3878.731792.632.10%6.98%
03/20051180.59-1.91%4.83%3810.051760.89-1.77%6.69%
04/20051156.85-2.01%4.47%3737.791727.49-1.90%6.34%
05/20051191.53.00%6.32%3856.721782.463.18%8.24%
06/20051191.33-0.01%4.43%3862.191784.990.14%6.32%
07/20051234.183.60%12.02%4005.821851.373.72%14.05%
08/20051220.33-1.12%10.51%3969.271834.48-0.91%12.56%
09/20051228.810.69%10.25%4001.421849.330.81%12.25%
10/20051207.01-1.77%6.80%3934.711818.5-1.67%8.72%
11/20051249.483.52%6.45%4083.531887.283.78%8.44%
12/20051248.29-0.10%3.00%4084.961887.930.03%4.91%
01/20061280.082.55%8.36%4193.121937.932.65%10.38%
02/20061280.660.05%6.40%4204.491943.190.27%8.40%
03/20061294.871.11%9.68%4256.831967.381.24%11.73%
04/20061310.611.22%13.29%4313.991993.791.34%15.42%
05/20061270.09-3.09%6.60%4189.831936.41-2.88%8.64%
06/20061270.20.01%6.62%4195.511939.030.14%8.63%
07/20061276.660.51%3.44%4221.3919510.62%5.38%
08/20061303.822.13%6.84%4321.831997.422.38%8.88%
09/20061335.852.46%8.71%4433.22048.892.58%10.79%
10/20061377.943.15%14.16%4577.662115.653.26%16.34%
11/20061400.631.65%12.10%4664.712155.891.90%14.23%
12/20061418.31.26%13.62%4730.142186.131.40%15.79%
01/20071438.241.41%12.36%4801.682219.191.51%14.51%
02/20071406.82-2.18%9.85%4707.772175.78-1.96%11.97%
03/20071420.861.00%9.73%4760.422200.121.12%11.83%
04/20071482.374.33%13.11%4971.292297.574.43%15.24%
05/20071530.623.25%20.51%5144.762377.753.49%22.79%
06/20071503.35-1.78%18.36%5059.292338.25-1.66%20.59%
07/20071455.27-3.20%13.99%4902.432265.75-3.10%16.13%
08/20071473.991.29%13.05%4975.912299.711.50%15.13%
09/20071526.753.58%14.29%5162.012385.723.74%16.44%
10/20071549.381.48%12.44%5244.122423.671.59%14.56%
11/20071481.14-4.40%5.75%5024.882322.34-4.18%7.72%
12/20071468.36-0.86%3.53%4990.022306.23-0.69%5.49%
01/20081378.55-6.12%-4.15%4690.712167.9-6.00%-2.31%
02/20081330.63-3.48%-5.42%4538.332097.48-3.25%-3.60%
03/20081322.7-0.60%-6.91%4518.732088.42-0.43%-5.08%
04/20081385.594.75%-6.53%4738.812190.134.87%-4.68%
05/20081400.381.07%-8.51%4800.192218.51.30%-6.70%
06/20081280-8.60%-14.86%4395.512031.47-8.43%-13.12%
07/20081267.38-0.99%-12.91%4358.562014.39-0.84%-11.09%
08/20081282.831.22%-12.97%4421.612043.531.45%-11.14%
09/20081166.36-9.08%-23.61%4027.611861.44-8.91%-21.98%
10/2008968.75-16.94%-37.47%3351.181548.81-16.79%-36.10%
11/2008896.24-7.48%-39.49%3110.721437.68-7.18%-38.09%
12/2008903.250.78%-38.49%3143.821452.981.06%-37.00%
01/2009825.88-8.57%-40.09%2878.841330.51-8.43%-38.63%
02/2009735.09-10.99%-44.76%2572.311188.84-10.65%-43.32%
03/2009797.878.54%-39.68%2797.631292.988.76%-38.09%
04/2009872.819.39%-37.01%3065.391416.739.57%-35.31%
05/2009919.145.31%-34.36%3236.841495.975.59%-32.57%
06/2009919.320.02%-28.18%3243.261498.940.20%-26.21%
07/2009987.487.41%-22.08%3488.571612.317.56%-19.96%
08/20091020.623.36%-20.44%3614.511670.523.61%-18.25%
09/20091057.083.57%-9.37%3749.331732.693.73%-6.91%
10/20091036.19-1.98%6.96%3679.681700.67-1.86%9.80%
11/20091095.635.74%22.25%3900.461802.686.00%25.39%
12/20091115.11.78%23.45%3975.741837.491.93%26.46%
01/20101073.87-3.70%30.03%3832.621771.4-3.60%33.14%
02/20101104.492.85%50.25%3951.431826.273.10%53.62%
03/20101169.435.88%46.57%4189.71936.486.03%49.77%
04/20101186.691.48%35.96%4255.891967.051.58%38.84%
05/20101089.41-8.20%18.52%3915.851809.98-7.99%20.99%
06/20101030.71-5.39%12.12%3711.051715.23-5.23%14.43%
07/20101101.66.88%11.56%3971.191835.47.01%13.84%
08/20101049.33-4.74%2.81%3792.091752.55-4.51%4.91%
09/20101141.28.76%7.96%4130.351908.958.92%10.17%
10/20101183.263.69%14.19%4287.31981.593.80%16.52%
11/20101180.55-0.23%7.75%4287.731981.840.01%9.94%
12/20101257.646.53%12.78%4574.152114.296.68%15.06%
01/20111286.122.26%19.76%4682.562164.42.37%22.19%
02/20111327.223.20%20.17%4843.172238.553.43%22.57%
03/20111325.83-0.10%13.37%4845.112239.440.04%15.64%
04/20111363.612.85%14.91%4988.522305.762.96%17.22%
05/20111345.2-1.35%23.48%4932.152279.63-1.13%25.95%
06/20111320.64-1.83%28.13%4849.782241.65-1.67%30.69%
07/20111292.28-2.15%17.31%4751.332196.08-2.03%19.65%
08/20111218.89-5.68%16.16%4492.72076.54-5.44%18.49%
09/20111131.42-7.18%-0.86%4177.341930.78-7.02%1.14%
10/20111253.310.77%5.92%4633.92141.810.93%8.08%
11/20111246.96-0.51%5.63%4623.682137.08-0.22%7.83%
12/20111257.60.85%0.00%4670.982158.941.02%2.11%
01/20121312.414.36%2.04%4880.32255.694.48%4.22%
02/20121365.684.06%2.90%5091.342353.234.32%5.12%
03/20121408.473.13%6.23%5258.882430.673.29%8.54%
04/20121397.91-0.75%2.52%5225.892415.42-0.63%4.76%
05/20121310.33-6.27%-2.59%4911.82270.25-6.01%-0.41%
06/20121362.163.96%3.14%5114.182363.794.12%5.45%
07/20121379.321.26%6.74%5185.212396.621.39%9.13%
08/20121406.581.98%15.40%53022450.62.25%18.01%
09/20121440.672.42%27.33%5439.022513.932.58%30.20%
10/20121412.16-1.98%12.68%5338.592467.51-1.85%15.21%
11/20121416.180.28%13.57%5369.552481.820.58%16.13%
12/20121426.190.71%13.41%5418.492504.440.91%16.00%
01/20131498.115.04%14.15%5699.142634.165.18%16.78%
02/20131514.681.11%10.91%5776.512669.921.36%13.46%
03/20131569.193.60%11.41%5993.152770.053.75%13.96%
04/20131597.571.81%14.28%6108.622823.421.93%16.89%
05/20131630.742.08%24.45%6251.52889.462.34%27.27%
06/20131606.28-1.50%17.92%6167.552850.66-1.34%20.60%
07/20131685.734.95%22.21%6481.42995.725.09%25.00%
08/20131632.97-3.13%16.10%6293.692908.96-2.90%18.70%
09/20131681.552.97%16.72%6491.053000.183.14%19.34%
10/20131756.544.46%24.39%6789.423138.094.60%27.18%
11/20131805.812.80%27.51%6996.323233.723.05%30.30%
12/20131848.362.36%29.60%7144.73302.32.12%31.86%
01/20141782.59-3.56%18.99%7173.453315.590.40%25.87%
02/20141859.454.31%22.76%6925.423200.95-3.46%19.89%
03/20141872.340.69%19.32%7242.233347.384.57%20.84%
04/20141883.950.62%17.93%7303.093375.510.84%19.55%
05/20141923.572.10%17.96%7357.073400.460.74%17.68%
06/20141960.231.91%22.04%7529.793480.292.35%22.09%
07/20141930.67-1.51%14.53%7579.333503.190.66%16.94%
08/20142003.373.77%22.68%7882.563643.344.00%25.25%
09/20141972.29-1.55%17.29%7772.023592.25-1.40%19.73%
10/20142018.052.32%14.89%7961.853679.992.44%17.27%

Download it in Excel:

S&P 500 Total Yearly and Monthly Returns -- Dividends Reinvested (XLSX) (98.7 kB)

 

Some notes:

  • Economagic[1]Economagic S&P 500 Total Return; Monthly Dividend Reinvest 1970-88 Then Daily (EOP) data used for calculations 01/1970 – 05/1988, then ^SPXTR[2]YCharts S&P 500 Total Return (^SPXTR) after
  • Economagic values are calculated after 2003 using monthly total returns
  • Uncalculated percentage returns came from Standard & Poor’s[3]S&P 500 Monthly Performance Data

References   [ + ]

College Athletes’ SAT and IQ Scores

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution just did a report on student athletes’ SAT scores.[1]The article no longer appears to exist on ATJ’s website. See reference to it on U.S. News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-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 subscores. Both male and female averages were utilized for the student population, whereas only average male subscores were included for athletes 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
MarylandACC12161054961106.79893.8
ClemsonACC1158102295010497.293.9
NC StateACC11821031926105.298.393.4
North CarolinaACC12681080951109.410094.1
Florida StateACC11551012917104.197.593
VirginiaACC13231129993111.9102.996.6
Georgia TechACC134411091028112.910298.2
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 121120968901102.49692.8
LouisvilleBig East103797387898.49590.6
RutgersBig East11841061938105.599.293.5
CincinnatiBig East1064103993599.898.793.9
South FloridaBig East1099993932101.596.593.7
SyracuseBig East11851045922105.59993.2
ConnecticutBig East11871023956105.598.695.4
WisconsinBig Ten12071065961106.298.593.8
MichiganBig Ten12641148997109103.196.1
Ohio StateBig Ten11631050955104.398.594.2
IndianaBig Ten11031042973101.798.395.1
IowaBig Ten11241036964102.79894.7
Michigan StateBig Ten11161017917102.397.192.5
IllinoisBig Ten12411053952108.110095.2
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
Washington StatePac-10104099491698.595.992.3
WashingtonPac-1011721046949104.998.594
OregonPac-1011001018953101.597.794.7
ArizonaPac-1011201017924102.497.793.3
CaliforniaPac-1012981095967110.7101.395.3
GeorgiaSEC11881002949105.495.793.3
South CarolinaSEC1101996932101.49693.1
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
AlabamaSEC111299392610297.294
MississippiSEC10861002932100.997.794.4
HawaiiWAC1095984968101.195.594.7

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

S&P 500 Total Yearly and Monthly Returns (Dividends Reinvested) (XLSX) (57.8 kB)

 

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 SEC 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.

References   [ + ]