Bank set up on Christian principles fails

Integrity Bank of Georgia, set up to run on Christian principles, has failed.

Integrity's employees regularly prayed before meetings or in branch lobbies with customers, while the bank gave 10 percent of its net income to charities.

"We felt if we prayed and obeyed God's word and did what He asked, that He would help us be successful," the bank's founder, Steve Skow, told the Journal-Constitution in 2005.

The executives seem to have done OK, though:

CEO Steve Skow earned $1.8 million that year, while senior lender and executive vice president Doug Ballard earned $847,222. A typical community bank CEO, banking consultants said, earn roughly $300,000 per year.

(Via Pharyngula.)

When t-shirts, coffee tables, and screws are munitions

One of my prized possessions, now in a box in a closet somewhere, is a T-shirt that says on its front "This T-shirt is a munition." Underneath it is some machine-readable barcode that encodes the RSA public-key encryption algorithm expressed in Perl. As the seller of the shirt advertised, "it's machine washable and machine readable."

When I bought and regularly wore that shirt, taking it out of the country was a crime punishable by up to a $1 million fine and 10 years in federal prison. This is because U.S. rules under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), then enforced by the Department of Commerce, ruled that strong encryption qualified as a munition subject to export controls and requiring a special license for export. After the Dan Bernstein case was decided in 1996, computer source code printed in a book (human readable format) was not subject to export controls, but computer source code in a machine readable format, such as on my shirt, still was. So I could wear my other T-shirt with RSA Perl code on it, which had a program in the shape of a dolphin, out of the country, but not the machine readable "This T-shirt is a munition" shirt. The implication was that you could take a copy of Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography out of the country without an export license, but not a disk containing the very same code fragments printed in the book. This website authored by Adam Back, written at the time, proposed some possible motives for government restrictions on cryptography.

What the ITAR regulations on cryptography did for Internet software development was prohibit web browsers and server software from implementing the strong encryption necessary to protect electronic commerce from being exported from the United States. The result was that this development work simply occurred offshore. There were no barriers to importation of the software into the U.S., only to export it out. So the software was developed and sold by companies in places like Canada, Russia, and Estonia, which had no such inane restrictions.

Finally, in 1999, the U.S. wised up and relaxed the ITAR restrictions on encryption, allowing export without a license to most countries (the exceptions being countries with links to state-sponsored terrorism).

But ITAR is still around, and still having the unintended effect of pushing business out of the United States. The current victim is commercial satellite production. In 1999, ITAR authority over satellite technology export was shifted from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State, and since that time the U.S. share of commercial satellite manufacturing has dropped from 83% to 50%. The company Alcatel Alenia Space, now known as Thales Alenia, took steps in the late nineties to eliminate all U.S.-manufactured components from its satellites, with the result that it has subsequently doubled its market share to over 20%. The European Space Agency, Canada's Telesat, and the French company EADS Sodern, that makes satellite control and positioning systems, have all been phasing out their use of U.S.-supplied components. They've done this because dealing with U.S. vendors increases costs (due to regulatory compliance costs) and causes unpredictable delays in the supply of parts.

Nevada's Bigelow Aerospace delivered an aluminum satellite stand to Russia in 2006, which Robert Bigelow described as "indistinguishable from a common coffee table." But because it's associated with a satellite and officially part of a satellite assembly, it is covered by ITAR and had to be guarded by two security guards at all times. Even commodity items like screws and wiring, when part of a satellite, are covered by ITAR regulations.

The purpose of ITAR is to prevent key U.S. technologies with military applications from being leaked out to other countries that might be hostile to the U.S. But the effect of its overly broad application has been to shift the development of that technology to other countries and reduce the ability of U.S. companies to compete in the commercial satellite business.

Congress should look to reform ITAR--when export controls are so badly broken as to have nearly the opposite of the intended effect, they clearly need to be relaxed.

(Satellite and ITAR info via "Earthbound," The Economist, August 23, 2008, pp. 66-67.)

Robert Neuwirth at TED

This is a video of a presentation at the TED conference by Robert Neuwirth, author of Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World, about how the growth of squatter cities represents the cities of the future, as a growing percentage of the world's population will live in such cities. I find it fascinating how such extra-legal cities which tend to operate beyond the fringes of the law, are places of considerable freedom and opportunity despite their poverty. Another similar book is Ian Lambot and Greg Girard's City of Darkness: Life in Kowloon City, about the squatter city of Kowloon Walled City on the peninsula south of Hong Kong, where squatters developed their own systems of property rights and rules in the absence of government intervention.

A deceptive mortgage refinance offer

I received a letter in the mail from Chase Bank offering me a fee waiver on a mortgage refinance to "lower [my] monthly payments," "to save interest," and to "Save up to $1,000 in waived fees."

The letter gives me two options for "a fixed-rate first mortgage tailored to fit [my] needs - and with a new low rate." Option one is a 20-year fixed-rate mortgage at 6.13% (6.26% APR) with a payment of principal and interest that is described as giving me "monthly payment savings" of $178 and "total annual savings" of $2,132. Option two is a 10-year fixed-rate mortgage at 5.63% (5.80% APR) that is described as giving me "total interest savings" of $12,817.

There's just one problem with this. My current mortgage is a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 5.25%. I currently make extra principal payments every month so I am paying more than what my new monthly payment would be for option two of their refinance offer, the 10-year fixed-rate mortgage.

This means that both option one and option two are losers--neither will save me a cent. If I keep doing what I'm doing now, I'll have my mortgage paid off in nine years, paying less in interest and in total than in either option one or option two. By choosing option one I could choose to pay less per month without being penalized (except due to the higher interest rate), but I'd pay significantly more over the term of the loan--more than $50,000 more. By choosing option two, the "total interest savings" would only occur by comparison to my current loan if I were not making extra principal payments. But compared to what I'm actually doing, it again would cost a bit more (by a few thousand dollars), and I wouldn't have the flexibility of paying less in a given month if necessary that I have now with my current loan.

In short, Chase Bank has knowingly sent me an offer with two options that will cost me more money than my current loan, given how I am currently paying it off (and have been for as long as I've had the loan). But they've tried to describe them to me as though they will save me money, when they won't.

Don't accept one of these offers unless you either need to (e.g., it will give you lower monthly payments and you're struggling to make your current payments) or it will genuinely save you money in the long term (e.g., it has a lower interest rate that saves you more than any fees that may be rolled into the new loan).

Is online journal publication shrinking the long tail?

Chris Anderson's book, The Long Tail, showed how the Internet has made it possible for business models that focus on small niche markets rather than mass markets to be successful. While a bricks-and-mortar bookstore will typically have at most a couple hundred thousand titles and make most of its money from bestsellers, Amazon.com can list millions of titles and makes a quarter to a third of its revenue from the "long tail" of books that are not in the top 100,000 sellers.

One might think that putting science journals online would mean that more obscure articles would get greater readership, but a study by James Evans published in Science argues that as more journals are published online, fewer articles are being cited, and those that are tend to be more recently published. While the ability to search online by keywords means that an author of a scientific paper is unlikely to overlook any published paper containing those keywords, it also means that authors are less likely to look at other articles published in the same issues or run into articles that may be related in the big picture but don't contain the selected keywords. Evans found that for each additional year of back issues available online, the average age of articles cited in that journal fell by a month. He predicts that for the average journal, adding five years of back issues online results in a drop in the number of articles cited per year from 600 to 200.

The concern here is similar to the concern about online social networks that become narrowly focused--that people are missing exposure to ideas that they might have previously come across, now that they can select more specifically the items they want. I'm not sure how seriously to take this concern. In my own case, I don't feel like the Internet is causing me to overspecialize, rather it's providing me with access to all sorts of information I wouldn't previously have run into. I don't feel like the Internet is in danger of subdividing into sections of compartmentalized information the way that Bill Bishop's book, The Big Sort, suggests people are forming physical like-minded clusters of neighborhoods. I wonder if Evans would have found different results if, instead of looking at journal citations, he looked at the role being played by electronic publications such as blogs and mailing lists, where I suspect there is increasing interdisciplinary cross-pollination.

(Via The Economist, July 19, 2008, p. 89.)

July's Pre-foreclosure Numbers

I bought my first house 10 years ago, in July, 1998. Prior to the purchase I was living in a nearby apartment complex, paying $435/month for a 2-bedroom, 1 bath. I (over)paid $86,500 for the house, putting 3% down, so my monthly payments, at roughly $600, were ~35% higher than my rent--a reasonable premium to me, considering I'd suddenly be living and building equity in "my own place."

Today, zillow.com says the house is worth about $192,000, and monthly payments at 3% down would come to just under $1300/month. By comparison, you can still rent that 2 bedroom apartment for around $600. Doing the same math again, I don't think I'd come to the conclusion that the "ownership premium" is really worth it. Would you?

You might be wondering what my little story has to do with July's notices of trustee's sales--which, at 6412, as you can see from the graph, were lower than June's. Bush's housing bailout bill recently became law, which may mean that we have just passed the peak for home foreclosures--and soon we may even see a stop to falling home prices. Great news for current home owners, but, as my personal anecdote suggests, not-so-great news for housing affordability in general. The bailout essentially is a subsidy to current home owners at the expense of future home owners.

Because it will prop up current prices beyond where they would have naturally fallen, housing affordability will remain low, encouraging the spawning of all sorts of new government programs to help address "the affordability gap" (or some such wealth-transfer justificationist nonsense)--making money cheaper than it actually is, which will in turn encourage sellers to raise their prices still further while at the same time creating homeowners out of people who probably aren't fiscally responsible enough to be ones. Is this sounding familiar, yet?

As a non-homeowner who is making twice what he made in 1998 but would have an extremely hard time justifying paying $1300/month to own a crappy house, I would have preferred if Congress could've just left well enough alone.

Car dealer strategies

A few years ago, people were using their homes as ATMs to purchase all sorts of consumer goods including cars. More recently, desperate home sellers were offering to throw in a "free" car with the purchase of a house. Now at least one auto dealer is offering to pay your mortgage.

This morning I heard a commercial for one of the local Phoenix Nissan dealers (one that receives frequent complaints from people who appear to not pay very close attention to what they are purchasing). The ad offers to make your mortgage payments for the rest of the year when you buy a car from them, even if your mortgage is as much as $2,000, without changing the sale price of the car. I suspect that means without lowering the sale price of the car below the point of profit.

It doesn't strike me as a sensible way to avoid foreclosure.

Phoenix foreclosures spreading

The Arizona Republic is catching up with reality:

Foreclosures across metro Phoenix number 16,647 for the first half of the year compared with 9,966 during all of 2007 and 1,070 in 2006.
...
"It has become more of an equity problem than a subprime problem," said Tom Ruff, a real-estate analyst with Information Market.
...
Notice of trustee sales, or pre-foreclosures, also continue to climb. There were 35,111 pre-foreclosures filed in Maricopa County through July. That compares with 30,166 for all of 2007.

The article also notes that the median resale price for a home in Phoenix is now $210,000, down 30% from the peak in 2006.

More people are speculating about reaching a bottom. That would be nice, but we've still not seen a peak on preforeclosures, which set another record in June (6929, vs. 6416 in May). For comparison, the total sales volume in June was 5748 (and 5656 in May), according to the Arizona Realtor's Association. (These stats via Einzige, thanks!)

Rock, Brock, and the Savings Shock

Via Long or Short Capital comes a children's story authored by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. The blog gives two versions of the story, first from the Amazon description of the book:

Rock and Brock may be twins, but they are as different as two twins can be. One day, their grandpa offers them a plan-for ten straight weeks on Saturday he will give them each one dollar for doing their chores. But there is a catch! Each dollar they save, he will match.

Rock is excited-there are all sorts of things he can buy for one dollar. So each week he spends his money on something different-a toy moose head, green hair goo, white peppermint wax fangs. But while Rock is spending his money, Brock is saving his. And each week when Rock gets just one dollar, Brock’s savings get matched. By summer’s end, Brock has five hundred and twelve dollars, while Rock has none. When Rock sees what his brother has saved, he realizes he has made a mistake. But Brock shows him that it is never too late to start saving.

And a second version based on Sheila Bair's recent urging that lenders freeze mortgage teaser rates and the government create a $50 billion loan program for mortgage holders in trouble to pay down their mortgages:

I think it is time to tell the real story of Rock and Brock. The one, where Brock puts his money into an FDIC insured savings account, while Rock asks his friend Kerimov to hook him up with some later-untraceable source of leverage, investing the proceeds in Russian oil assets. At the end of 10 weeks, Brock’s savings bank is kaput, wiping out most of his savings. Over the same period, Rock’s oil assets have doubled, which leaves him with enough cash to purchase the operating assets of Rock’s S&L, after negotiating a free put from the Fed. And a Ferrari Enzo.

Long or Short Capital is excellent for cynical and hilarious commentary on current financial events.

Analysts say 150 U.S. banks will fail in next 18 months

The New York Times says that some banking analysts (two of which are mentioned by name) predict that "as many as 150 out of the 7,500 banks nationwide could fail over the next 12 to 18 months." If that were to happen, that would likely exhaust the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC, which will be spending $4 to $8 billion to cover the insured deposits of failed IndyMac bank. The Deposit Insurance Fund had about $52.4 billion at the end of 2007.

The worst case scenarios I've seen frequently discussed are hyperinflation and a Greater Depression. The way to survive the former would be to keep funds in more-stable foreign currencies and gold; for the latter it would be better to stay in cash and bonds (so long as none of the bonds default). A diversified set of investments is still your best bet, in my opinion.

UPDATE (September 12, 2008): The Economist (August 30, 2008) reports that the FDIC has 117 banks on its watch list, compared to 90 at the end of March, and reports that the drawdown on the Deposit Insurance Fund for IndyMac is sufficient to trigger a required funds "restoration" plan within the next 90 days.

Who profits from the war on drugs?

Well, apart from those in the illegal drug business themselves, who benefit from the lack of legal competition, it looks like the big winners are government contractors--DynCorp and now Blackwater.

Milton Friedman's argument for illegal immigration

Will Wilkinson gives a long quotation from an argument by Milton Friedman, along with some explication. The basic argument is that free immigration to jobs is a good thing, free immigration to welfare is a bad thing, and in the absence of a separation between legal residency and eligibility for welfare, the best result is achieved by encouraging more illegal immigration:

But the important takeaway here is this: Friedman’s view is that a certain kind of unrestricted welfare state makes illegal immigration good, because it severs residency from welfare eligibility. Friedman is unequivocal about the desirability of free migration. Anyone really committed to Friedman’s stated view about welfare and immigration should by no means try to restrict immigration, but instead should try to enable illegal immigration. A devout Friedmanite should stand stoutly against every fence, every border cop, every increase in the INS budget, any proposed database check for a new workers’ legal status, etc. I think it makes more sense to argue first for a guest worker program. But if that is in fact impossible, then Friedman has it right: more illegal immigration is the best we can do.

See the fuller discussion at Will Wilkinson's blog.

UPDATE (June 13, 2008): And, of related interest, a discussion of how the benefits of remittances are really the benefits of labor migration, and how Switzerland, despite being difficult to immigrate to, has the highest percentage of foreign-born in its population of any OECD country, also both from Will Wilkinson. The latter provides further evidence for the logical separability of citizenship, residency, work rights, and welfare eligibility.

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Last night I attended an event at which one of the attendees promoted "Zeitgeist: The Movie." I was prompted to finally watch this piece of pernicious nonsense back in January when a commenter at this blog made reference to it, and I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. The movie is in three segments--the first is on the origins of Christianity, in which it argues that Jesus was a myth derived from Egyptian myth, based on the work of Acharya S. The second is 9/11 conspiracy theory. The third is an argument that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a scam. It's almost entirely garbage, dependent on crackpot sources.

I posted a series of comments about the movie as I watched it, but I'll summarize those here and add a bit more.

The first part argues that Christianity is derived from Egyptian myth, primarily by pointing out parallels between them. The arguments are apparently derived from the self-published "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Acharya S (Dorothy M. Murdock) and perhaps also from Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ, both works of pseudoscholarship based on the work of other pseudoscholars like 18th century archaeologist Godfrey Higgins, 19th century amateur Egyptologist and poet Gerald Massey, and Alvin Boyd Kuhn, a high school language teacher and promoter of Theosophy) and entirely ignores actual work in Egyptology. For example, the film draws a list of comparisons between Horus and Jesus that is just fabricated--Horus wasn't born of a virgin, he was the child of Isis and Osiris, though Isis was impregnated by Osiris through some magic after he was dead. There have been parallels drawn between Isis and Mary that are more plausible (especially in iconography), but the movie exaggerates them, too, and fails to note the considerable areas of dissimilarity. A quick look at the Wikipedia entries on Horus and Isis is sufficient to show that the comparison is strained. The significance of a December 25 birthdate is nonexistent--Christianity did acquire attributes of pagan religions later in its history, and it has clearly been a syncretistic religion, but while this is evidence of falsehood in Christian traditions, it is not a clue to its origin.

For accurate information about Christianity and the formation of the Christian tradition, virtually any mainstream academic work will be more reliable. There has been a lot discovered since the work of 19th century Theosophists, both in the form of document manuscripts and archaeology, that sheds light on the early history of Christianity. In discussions at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forums, poster GreNME wrote:

Oh, those people were mostly made of of the beginnings of the Theosophist movements (Blavatsky and the like) or people with similar stated motivations but not the same organizational structure (like Graves). Yeah, Dorothy [Murdock] cites regularly enough from these people (especially Graves and Massey), but the thrust or crux of her writing tends to be more similar to those like Allegro-- taking the message into a realm of New-Age-y attempts to center on mid-20th-century discoveries about the mystery schools.

That's why I mentioned Ehrman, by the way. I had the opportunity to send him a question on the topic of the "out of Egypt" mystery school centric literature coming out about by those like Dorothy, and his response was essentially that people who stick to that thin and shallow an interpretation of the mystery schools really don't understand the materials they're trying to work with in the first place.

I've read a few very well-worded academic arguments against a historical Jesus, but none of them rely on the mystery schools, Egyptian mythology, Krishna, or Mithras. They tend to focus on the culture of the region at the time and the unreliability of the few Roman authors who are used by apologists today. For me, all said and done, I don't much care because I'm not a Christian anyway. It's only reliably traceable back to Paul anyway, in my opinion.

So read some Bart Ehrman for a more accurate picture. The best case I've read for Jesus being a myth is in the books of G.A. Wells, though I'm not inclined to buy it. (Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle has also been recommended as a strong case for Jesus being mythical, but I've not read it.) I think the Arabic text of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews provides strong evidence that Josephus did refer to a historical Jesus and that his text was altered by later Christian interpolation rather than an insertion completely made up out of whole cloth.

Some of the same kind of errors (via dependence on sources like Harpur and Kersey Graves) that are in "Zeitgeist" are also in Brian Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There," for which you an find a nice fair-minded critique, along with responses from Flemming and Richard Carrier, in "God Who Wasn't There: an Analysis."

The second part is standard 9/11 conspiracy theory that has been refuted in previous posts at this blog. It completely ignores radical Islam and the actual events that led up to September 11, 2001, and like all such conspiracy theories, completely fails to provide a coherent explanation that incorporates the level of detail in the 9/11 Commission Report. That report is a flawed document, to be sure, but it is still far, far more comprehensive, detailed, and accurately sourced than anything the 9/11 truthers put out. The right way to investigate 9/11 is to start with the 9/11 Commission Report, with accounts of the movements and actions of the 19 terrorists, and going back farther to the 1993 WTC bombing, Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and the Alkifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, the murder of Emir Shalabi, the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane by El-Sayyid Nosair, the killing of Rashad Khalifa in Tucson in 1990 and the role of James Williams and Wadih el-Hage (secretary for Osama bin Laden in Sudan), and so on.

The U.S. government's connection is that it funded the mujahideen insurgents in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, and then walked away after the Soviets were defeated, allowing rich Saudis to step in. There's no question that "blowback" has played a major role, and I'll also agree that the Bush Administration has hugely exploited the 9/11 attacks to its advantage and to expand presidential power (as the PBS Frontline on "Cheney's Law" documents, which I highly recommend watching and you can see online).

The right way to investigate 9/11 is to stick to reliable sources and accounts that attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, not bullshit stories made by collecting a few bits of data from unreliable sources and constructing elaborate fantasies of speculation. Some reliable sources I recommend are Gerald Posner's Why America Slept, James Bamford's A Pretext for War, and James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans. Specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theory, read the book of critiques published by Popular Mechanics and visit websites like 911myths.com and Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Instead, Zeitgeist relies on crackpots like Michael Ruppert and Ted Gunderson, both former police officers who have a long history of promoting nonsensical conspiracy theories. Ruppert is best known for his claims to have found that the CIA was peddling drugs (itself a plausible claim, even if not well substantiated by him) while he was a narcotics detective for the LAPD; after being removed from the force in 1978, he has gone on to argue for Peak Oil and 9/11 conspiracy theory. In 2006, after facing charges of sexual harassment from a former employee whom he admits he paraded around the office in his underwear in front of, he fled to Venezuela, then moved to Canada, and then to New York and Los Angeles. Gunderson spouted nonsense about satanic ritual abuse in the 1980s and has endorsed the accuracy of phony psychic Sylvia Browne, as well as promoting wild claims of child sexual abuse by "some of America's leading politicians" including George W. Bush, which makes him sound like the crazy mind-control sex slave claimants, "Brice Taylor" (Susan Ford), Cathy O'Brien, and Kola Boof (the last of whom makes the sex slave claims without the mind control claims).

The film provides no good sources for any of its claims, and seems to contradict itself. It claims there's no evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the attacks (despite the fact that we have people like al Qaeda member Ramzi Binalshibh, who attempted to enter the U.S. to enter a flight school but was denied a visa, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, head of al Qaeda's media committee and main plotter of the attacks, in custody), yet turns around and suggests that there's something suspicious about the Bush family connections to the bin Laden family and that two members of the bin Laden family lived in Falls Church, Virginia "right next to CIA Headquarters." Why would that connection be relevant or suspicious if Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it?

Osama bin Laden's father had 55 children and 22 wives, and there are currently about 600 bin Laden family members--most appear to be law-abiding citizens who have disowned Osama. The two Falls Church residents, however, were two of Osama's sons, Abdallah and Omar, the latter of whom was a member of al Qaeda.

The charge of the FBI being told to "back off" from bin Laden investigations from the White House is now known to have been approved by counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, not exactly a fan of George W. Bush, whose testimony on the issue has been somewhat inconsistent. While Clarke originally claimed the plan came from top officials in the White House and was approved in consultation with the FBI, he subsequently said that he took personal responsibility for the decision to allow the bin Laden family members to leave the U.S., and that he didn't think it was a mistake, and that he'd do it again.

The third section of the movie is about the U.S. Federal Reserve, which appears to be derived from John Birch Society propaganda, with a bonus argument that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and thus federal income tax is invalid. It argues that the Panic of 1907 was caused by (rather than, as was actually the case, ended by) J.P. Morgan, and makes no mention of the Knickerbocker Trust. It argues that the Federal Reserve Act was put into effect by a conspiracy of international bankers and the Rockefellers through Sen. Nelson Aldrich, and claims that the Federal Reserve is entirely private. But the Fed's head and board of governors is appointed by the president, which isn't mentioned by the film. Wikipedia gets theFed's legal status right, it's part of the federal government but with a fair degree of independence so that politicians can't directly manipulate monetary policy. Its status is accurately described in Bill Woolsey's October 2004 article in Liberty magazine, "Who Owns the Fed?". A number of other Federal Reserve conspiracy claims are debunked here.

It then goes off into tax evader craziness, claiming that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified, but without actually discussing the evidence. That argument is made in William J. Benson and Martin J. Beckman's book The Law That Never Was, which documents errors in the ratification documents, such as typos, alternate capitalization, alternate pluralization, etc. Courts have ruled that Benson's argument doesn't work and that his selling his book as part of a tax evasion defense package constitutes fraud, and he's served time in jail for tax evasion.

As an aside, while reviewing the above I came across an even more interesting argument against income tax (not in Zeitgeist) discussed by Cecil Adams in his "Straight Dope" column. The argument states that the 16th Amendment is invalid because Ohio was not a state at the time of ratification, and William H. Taft, who was president, was therefore not legally president since he was not a U.S. Citizen. Everybody thought Ohio was made a state in 1803, but in 1953 when Ohio was preparing for its 150th anniversary of statehood, they found that Congress had defined its boundaries and approved its constitution, but failed to admit it to statehood. Ohio made an appeal for statehood (delivering it to Congress by horseback) and Congress passed a resolution granting it retroactively. Cecil Adams' description and commentary about it is worth reading.

Tax protestor claims more generally are refuted at this GWU law professor's website, and a nice case study refutation is Sheldon Richman's three-part "Beware Income-Tax Casuistry."

"Zeitgeist: The Movie" was apparently put out by "GMP, LLC", which is a company based in Port Chester, NY registered to a James Coyman, who has been claimed to be the person behind the pseudonym "Peter Joseph" credited for the writing, producing, directing, and editing of the film. Other documents online associate GMP, LLC with John Giura, former vice chairman of north Chicago company CGI Holding Corporation (now Think Partnership, Inc., traded on AmEx under the symbol THK), a company with a subsidiary, WebSourced, Inc., which is "a leader in search engine marketing (see www.keywordranking.com) and on-line dating (see www.Cherish.com)." A John Giura has directed a music video for the Nashville, TN band Clem Snide, and a John P. Giura from New York City directed a 20-min short film called "Inside Trip" shown at the 2002 Maryland Film Festival, as well as some other videos found online attributed to him and his JPG Studio in NYC. The short festival film stars former Olympic wrestler John P. Giura, who has apparently lived in Oak Park, IL and New York City. In 1986, a John Giura of Oak Park, IL who was a partner in the firm of Stein, Roe, and Farnham, was charged by the SEC for participation in a complex "kickback and payoff" scheme which victimized Teamster union pension funds in upstate New York. It's not clear which, if any, of these is associated with the GMP, LLC that put out Zeitgeist. [See update below.]

There is a movie at Google Video titled "Zeitgeist Refuted" that appears to be itself filled with bad arguments promoting Christianity. Though I've only watched a small part of it, it doesn't seem to actually respond to the claims of "Zeitgeist: The Movie."

Other responses to "Zeitgeist: The Movie" include:

The criticism section of the Wikipedia article on "Zeitgeist: The Movie"
The Web Skeptic wiki entry on "Zeitgeist: The Movie"
The site "Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked"
Jay Kinney's review of "Zeitgeist" at boingboing
Tim Callahan's, "The Greatest Story Ever Garbled," a debunking of part I of "Zeitgeist" for Skeptic magazine's e-skeptic newsletter

Henry Makow's site, which amusingly takes issue with part one but swallows whole the nonsense in parts two and three and concludes that Zeitgeist is itself the product of a conspiracy, is worth a laugh.

UPDATE (August 6, 2009): I decided to add to the main post the text of my comment from October 30, 2008 below, about "Zeitgeist Addendum":

I watched a little bit (the first 30 minutes) of the "Zeitgeist Addendum," which looks to be largely derived from "Money is Debt," another video floating around the Internet. I skimmed through much of the rest.

It's somewhat more accurate than the previous parts, but has the same flaws as "Money is Debt," most seriously in its discussion of interest. The creators of both films do not seem to understand the time-value of money, or that the expansion of the money supply doesn't create problems so long as non-monetary wealth is also expanding. No matter what you use as money, there will always be a system of credit that rides on top of it, of the sort that has been contracting rapidly in the current financial crisis. (This contraction has been *increasing* the value of the U.S. dollar this year.)

The idea that money creates slavery and that if we just got rid of fractional reserve banking, nobody would be forced to work for a living is a bit ridiculous.

Looks like part 2 of the film is based on John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which is a book I've read. His book was entertaining, but mostly unbelievable, and he's not a credible source. Note that he claims that we all have the shamanic ability to shapeshift and become invisible, for example.

Some of the stuff he talks about is correct, such as U.S. intervention using the CIA in the Middle East and South America, the history of which is told in Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes.

In part III, the film suggests that we only need money because of scarcity, and that scarcity is a fiction. But scarcity isn't a fiction, scarcity exists because there is no limit to what people can want and desire--there can be scarcity even when a resource is abundant.

My impression is that the "Addendum" is just as bogus as the first three parts--it's largely lifted from other sources, and those sources are unreliable.

UPDATE (January 5, 2010): Better speculation by salvorhardin at Democratic Underground says that "Peter Joseph" is Peter J. Merola. This appears to be a correct identification if the Animation World Network's announcement of a multimedia event from May 29-June 3, 2007 is accurate:

ZEITGIEST is a unique and ambitious multimedia, musical event by P.J. Merola. This event is free and not for profit. It runs from May 29 - June 3, 2007 at 8:00-9:30 pm.

ZEITGEIST is an abstract, aesthetic exploration of personal belief and social myth -- told through a multimedia work of live solo percussion, stereo video displays and electronic music. Using animation, live performance, drama, humor, and narrative, ZEITGEIST attempts to bring its audience to a place that most likely counters what they believe as true.

Please visit http://www.zeitgeistnyc.com for a video preview and to make reservations.

The "GMP" is then "Gentle Machine Productions," as reported here. Gentle Machine Productions released a CD GMP001 titled "J.S. Bach on the Marimba," arranged by P.J. Merola, with P.J. Merola playing the marimba.

The Village Voice ran a story in 2004 about P.J. Merola and his brother Eric.

Phoenix Trustee's Sale Notices for May, 2008

After I counted up May's 6416 notices of trustee's sales in Maricopa county I took a look at the graph for May of 2007 and I just had to laugh. If you'll recall, May of 2007 was Phoenix's break-out month for pre-foreclosures. It was the month when the real estate bubble showed us that it wasn't an also-ran, trouncing the dot bomb's NTR record by almost 300. Yet here we are a year later and last May's 2009 notices seem almost like something to pine for.

Notice also the Gaussian descriptive statistics I was naïvely including with my posts back then. If we were to take those number seriously - in particular the standard deviation - then we'd be forced to conclude that May 2008's number should essentially be impossible. Clearly foreclosure statistics are not Gaussian.

Liberaltarianism

Will Wilkinson has an interesting post about how his market liberal views are very like the views of Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan, and that the libertarian-conservative alliance against a slippery slope to socialism isn't justified by what's actually occurring in the world today.

In a subsequent post, he writes about how economic regulation and tax/transfer policies are logically separable, but most people think about them as if they aren't; a comparison of levels of inequality and poverty across the EU shows that the common thought that less regulation and taxation goes hand-in-hand with higher levels of poverty and inequality (of the sort seen in the U.S. and UK) doesn't hold. Thus you could have a regime with very low levels of regulation yielding more wealth, combined with more redistribution for a better safety net and less poverty and inequality.

And in another post, he calls for greater empirical grounding for proposals in political philosophy, of the sort that has started to yield fruitful results in moral philosophy:

But shouldn’t it impossible to take seriously an argument to the effect that, say this or that policy is required in order to secure the conditions for the development of some capacity, in the absence of (a) a well-empirically-grounded theory of the nature of that capacity and its development, and (b) some kind of actual evidence that this or that policy in fact has the kind of effect on it that one hypothesizes? I wouldn’t mind so much if political philosophy arguments were more often in the form of “Hey, here’s a conjecture! I suggest somebody competent to do so try to find out if it’s true.” I would be quite happy if I saw more “Hey, here’s a conjecture, and here’s a my attempt to honestly synthesize the relevant literature in a first pass at getting the answer.” That would be terrific. But usually, the argument aims to establish something substantive with an armchair, a Joe Stiglitz op-ed, and something remembered from the Tuesday Science Times.

Let's hear it for empiricism.

Worthless stock market advice

On May 8, 2008, "An end to the economy's nose dive?", MSN MoneyCentral, Jon Markman suggests that the recession may be over or not a big deal for major company stocks:

"If Hyman is right, and StockScouter continues to highlight the right sectors and stocks to play, there is no reason for investors to fear the pressures facing big companies right now. It really may be time to go off high alert."

But just two months ago, Markman was saying that you should sell every stock you own and get out of the market, on March 13, 2008, in "Sell stocks while the selling's good":

"Yet veteran observers are swiftly coming to the conclusion that attempts to regain world financial stability could be doomed due to a stunning crash of commercial-debt financing and lack of trusted leadership, and they now believe private investors should take advantage of any rallies to purge their portfolios of most stocks and nongovernment bonds."

My advice: Don't take stock market advice from Jon Markman. The fact that he's a "technical analyst"--making predictions based on short-term patterns of stock movement using methodology that has no better support than astrology, tea-leaf reading, or palmistry--is further reason to avoid reading him for any reason other than humor value.

ASU director of real-estate studies uses bogus stats

The Arizona Republic reports today that Arizona State University's director of real estate studies at the Morrison School of Management and Agribusiness has been presenting an unrealistically rosy picture of home resales in Maricopa County by including trustee sales as resales.

Trustee's sales are when banks take possession of a property from a borrower in default. As readers of this blog are aware, trustee's sales have been going through the roof--Einzige has been reporting notices of trustee's sales, issued when borrowers fall 90 days past due on their mortgages. The most recent such report was for April.

By including trustee's sales, Butler's numbers showed home resales up 15 percent in April 2008, year over year, the first uptick for year-over-year resales since July 2005. The Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service, on the other hand, showed a 12 percent decrease.

Apparently Butler failed to notice--or didn't see the point in telling--that over a third of his reported resales were trustee's sales (2,025 of 5,585). The corrected number for actual sales was 3,565 (lower than ARMLS's number of 4,874).

Compare that to April's notices of trustee's sales--6,184--and you see the the immediate future prospects are bleak, not rosy. Homes are going on the resale market much faster than they are selling, which means further inventory growth and home prices have farther to fall.

Butler has agreed that he made a mistake and will report trustee's sales separately from now on.

April's Trustee's Sale Notices

Based on this chart, Ray Kurzweil would undoubtedly predict that in late 2009 or early 2010, Maricopa County will reach its foreclosure singularity - the moment at which all homes will simultaneously be served notices of foreclosure and beyond which it is impossible to predict what will happen.

April's 6184 notices were yet another unprecedented high.

"Expelled" weekend box office, theater counts, and ratings

Click the image for the facts that "Expelled" doesn't give you.


This post is a placeholder to report on "Expelled"'s weekend box office and the accuracy of my five predictions about the film, as well as a few more I'll add here. My five predictions were that "Expelled" will:

(1) be on fewer than 800 screens, (2) will have an initial weekend box office of less than $2 million, with (3) a per-screen take of less than $2,500, (4) won't break the top ten despite it being a slow opening week, and (5) will make less than $10 million in box office take by the end of 2008 (though it may make more than that through DVD sales).

Prediction (1) is already falsified, since it's opening in 1,052 theaters. Prediction (4) may well be wrong due to how weak this weekend is for new films--it's pretty clear that #1 and #2 will be "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "The Forbidden Kingdom." Al Pacino's "88 Minutes" is also opening in many theaters and has the draw of its star, but it's getting terrible reviews. C.S. Strowbridge at The-Numbers estimates that "Expelled" will only need a $3 million opening weekend to make the top ten, so my predictions are at least consistent with each other.

Looking at the list of top Christian films below, I see that the most recent "Veggie Tales" movie, "The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything," came in at number 6 in January 2008 with an opening weekend of $4.2 million on 1,337 screens. I doubt that "Expelled" will do that well, though I expect (6) it will break the top ten in the Christian films category, probably about to the eighth position. Looking at controversial films, however, I think it's unlikely to make the top twenty--(7) it will probably end up around 22nd at best, beating "The Last Temptation of Christ." Documentaries are a bit easier, and it could very well make the top ten, but (8) I wouldn't expect it to get above the seventh slot.

Finally, (9) I expect to see its theater counts drop rapidly starting next week, losing at least 500 theaters by next Friday as its audience sees the film and more popular entries displace it in the new week.

UPDATE (April 19, 2008): I expect that predictions (2) and (4) may be falsified; a weekend take of $3-4 million looks likely after Friday's estimated take of $1,126,000 and its coming in at #8 on Friday. #1-#7 ahead of "Expelled" were: "The Forbidden Kingdom," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," "Prom Night," "88 Minutes," "21," "Nim's Island," and "Street Kings." Prediction (3) looks like it will easily be proven correct; "Expelled" earned $1,070 per-theater on Friday, making it #5 for per-theater take.

UPDATE (April 20, 2008): Prediction (2) has been falsified as the current estimated box office take is $3,152,896. Prediction (4) looks like it will be falsified, with "Expelled" barely cracking the top ten--it has been passed by "Horton Hears a Who" and looks like it will be #9 for the weekend. Prediction (3) looks like it will be false, too, though in my defense I intended to predict a per-screen daily average take rather than a per-theater take for the entire weekend. Saturday's take was $941/theater, versus Friday's $1,145, and Sunday looks like it will be lower still (projected to be $911/theater).

UPDATE (April 21, 2008): "Expelled"'s weekend take has been revised downward from the estimate, to $2,970,848, or $2,824 per-theater. So my prediction (3), taken the way I said it rather than meant it, was not wrong by much. It also came in at #10 for the weekend (#9 was Leatherheads), so prediction (4) was falsified in the most minimal way possible. Predictions (5)-(9) appear to be on solid ground. Sunday's take was only $737/theater, and it's all downhill from here.

UPDATE (April 24, 2008): The-Numbers has posted its list of theater counts for the weekend of April 25, 2008, and "Expelled" isn't on the list. I'd guess this means they just don't have the information yet, rather than that it's not appearing in any theater (since none of last week's openers and only one of this weekend's openers are yet listed), but we'll soon find out if my prediction (9) is correct and it is down to 552 or fewer theaters. (If Arizona is an indication, the drop may not occur until next week.) Box Office Mojo is now reporting "Expelled"'s theater count at 1,041 for its second weekend, a drop of 11 theaters, which falsifies prediction (9). It looks like it's not common for a huge drop in theater counts to occur in the first week, so this was probably a dumb prediction unless the movie was a total bomb, which it hasn't been. I think a 500-theater drop is much more likely for next week, however--call that prediction (10). For this weekend, I suspect we'll see each day's average take in the $500-$700 per-theater range, or $500,000-$700,000 total per day; probably closer to the low end, and thus ending the weekend with a total take of between $5.4M and $6M, and leaving prediction (5) accurate unless it turns out to be popular internationally. It will also probably drop out of the top ten starting today.

UPDATE (April 26, 2008): "Expelled" began its second weekend with (The-Numbers' estimate) a $505,000 take ($485/theater) on Friday, even lower than I guessed yesterday. Box Office Mojo's estimate is even lower: $450,000 ($432/theater).

UPDATE (April 27, 2008): The second weekend's estimated take is $1,378,867 ($1,325/theater, The-Numbers) or $1,379,000 ($1,324/theater, Box Office Mojo), which will put the total at about $5.2M, below the lower end of my guess on Thursday, with a total of about $5.2M.

UPDATE (April 28, 2008): The weekend's estimated take is now $1,395,000 ($1340/theater), with "Expelled" ranked at #13, according to Box Office Mojo. Looks like it followed the more normal pattern with a Saturday peak ($529,000) and less on Friday ($452,000; The-Numbers estimates $505,000 for Friday) and Sunday ($414,000), all still estimates. Today will probably drop well below $200,000.

UPDATE (April 29, 2008): Monday's take was $157,191 ($151/theater), though the rank went up to #12.

UPDATE (May 2, 2008): "Expelled" is staying around longer than I would have imagined, but it has now dropped 386 theaters to 655, and its daily box office take will suffer accordingly. It looks like "Expelled" is going to end up doing about the same amount business as "Megiddo: The Omega Code 2," and not as well as "The End of the Spear," two Christian movies that were previously distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures. Prediction (5) looks dead on (less than $10 million in box office by the end of 2008); prediction (6) looks like it was too generous ("Expelled" should easily break into the top ten on Christian films, but it now looks unlikely to reach #9, let alone #8); prediction (7) also looks too generous (hitting #22 on the "controversial" film list; #23 or #24 looks more likely, though Box Office Mojo has decided not to list "Expelled" in that category at all); prediction (8) is easy at this point (it won't reach #7 on the documentary list; it looks like even breaking into the top 10 is out of reach). So my prediction accuracy was about as good as coin flipping. I was way off on theater count-related predictions, but more accurate on revenue and rank-related predictions. But enough about those predictions. I'll continue to update this post with the data until it drops completely out of the theaters.

Some websites for statistics:

"Expelled" box office numbers and rating at The-Numbers:
4/19/2008: "Expelled" came in at #8 for Friday, with an estimated box office take of $1,126,000, and a per-theater take of $1,070 (ranked #5).
The-Numbers rating: 3.75/10 (16 votes; 25% rated it 10 and 62.5% rated it 1).
4/20/2008: "Expelled" has dropped to #9 for the weekend, with an estimated box office take of $3,152,896 for the whole weekend, and a per-theater take of $2,997.
4/22/2008: The-Numbers gives different numbers than Box Office Mojo, though their weekend totals agree: Friday: $1,126,000 ($1070/theater), Saturday: $967,000 ($919/theater), Sunday: $878,000 ($835/theater), for an opening weekend total of $2,970,848 ($2,824/theater). Monday: $238,804 ($227/theater).
04/23/2008: Tuesday, April 22: $227,232 ($216/theater). Total: $3,436,884.
04/25/2008: Wednesday, April 23: $234,596 ($223). Thursday, April 24: $231,440 ($220). Friday, April 25: $505,000 ($485), ranked #13. Total: $4,408,000.
4/30/2008: Still no numbers for Saturday or Sunday. Monday, April 28: $157,191 ($151).
5/1/2008: Tuesday, April 29: $162,396 ($156). Wednesday, April 30: $159,273 ($153).
5/2/2008: Thursday, May 1: $158,232 ($152).
5/5/2008: May 2-4 weekend: $683,552 ($1,042/theater).
5/6/2008: Monday, May 5: $66,912 ($102/theater).
5/8/2008: Tuesday, May 6: $74,128 ($113), Wednesday, May 7: $73,472 ($112).
5/9/2008: Thursday, May 8: $78,720 ($120). Total: $6,906,488.
5/12/2008: Friday, May 9-Sunday, May 11: $328,836 ($818). Total: $7,235,324.
5/14/2008: Monday, May 12: $38,994 ($97); Tuesday, May 13: $35,778 ($89).
5/16/2008: Wednesday, May 14: $43,818 ($109), Thursday, May 15: $43,014 ($107).
5/28/2008: Monday, May 26: $16,019 ($193). Total: $7,598,071.

Theater counts at The-Numbers:
4/18/2008: 1,052
4/25/2008: 1,041
5/2/2008: 656
5/9/2008: 402
5/16/2008: 210
5/23/2008: 83

"Expelled" ratings at Rotten Tomatoes:
4/18/2008 7:54 a.m. MST: 8% fresh (12 reviews, 11 rotten, 2.9/10 rating)
4/18/2008 11:48 a.m. MST: 7% fresh (14 reviews, 13 rotten, 2.9/10 rating)
4/18/2008 1:35 p.m. MST: 5% fresh (21 reviews, 20 rotten, 2.8/10 rating)
4/18/2008 2:56 p.m. MST: 9% fresh (22 reviews, 20 rotten, 3/10 rating) (Christianity Today review added)
4/19/2008 4:15 p.m. MST: 9% fresh (23 reviews, 21 rotten, 3/10 rating)
4/22/2008 6:23 p.m. MST: 12% fresh (25 reviews, 22 rotten, 3.2/10 rating)
4/24/2008 4:39 p.m. MST: 10% fresh (30 reviews, 27 rotten, 2.9/10 rating)
4/292008 8:08 a.m. MST: 9% fresh (33 reviews, 30 rotten, 3/10 rating)
Top Critics: 0% fresh (13 reviews, 13 rotten, 2.6/10 rating)
RT Community rating: 50% fresh (377 reviews, 188 rotten, 4.8/10 rating)

"Expelled" ratings at IMDB:
4/19/2008 4:15 p.m. MST:
Average rating is 3.3/10 with 402 very polarized votes--81 (20.1%) rated the movie a 10, 276 (68.7%) rated it a 1.
Females like it more than males, and those under 18 and over 45 like it more than those in between.

Average rating for males: 3.1
Average rating for females: 6.3
Average rating for under 18-year-olds: 6.7 (male 6.7, female 10)
Average rating for 18-29 year-olds: 3.0 (male 2.5, female 7.7)
Average rating for 30-44 year-olds: 3.0 (male 3.1, female 2.0)
Average rating for 45+: 4.7 (male 4.5, female 5.5)

4/21/2008 10:36 a.m. MST:
Average rating is now 3.6/10 with 659 votes, still highly polarized (22.2% 10, 61.0% 1), but now with a few more 7, 8, and 9 ratings (2.4%, 4.2%, and 4.7%, respectively), and a few more 2 and 3 ratings (2.1% and 1.2%, respectively).

Average rating for males: 3.3
Average rating for females: 6.7
Average rating for under 18-year-olds: 6.5 (male 6.3, female 7.8)
Average rating for 18-29 year-olds: 3.4 (male 3.0, female 7.7)
Average rating for 30-44 year-olds: 3.3 (male 3.3, female 2.4)
Average rating for 45+: 4.1 (male 4.0, female 7.7)

4/24/2008 4:41 p.m. MST:
Average rating is now 3.6/10 with 2,332 votes (25.4% 10, 57.0% 1; 5.1% 9, 4.0% 8, 2.0% 7, 1.5% 3, 3.1% 2).

Average rating for males: 3.4
Average rating for females: 5.4
Average rating for under 18-year-olds: 6.0 (male 5.5, female 7.9)
Average rating for 18-29 year-olds: 3.2 (male 3.0, female 5.5)
Average rating for 30-44 year-olds: 3.6 (male 3.6, female 3.4)
Average rating for 45+: 4.6 (male 4.4, female 6.7)

Expelled box office and ratings at Box Office Mojo:
4/19/2008 9:54 a.m. MST: Box Office Mojo readers rate the movie a B, with 110 votes (66.4% A, 3.6% B, 28.2% F).
4/20/2008 12:21 p.m. MST: "Expelled" took in less money on Saturday than on Friday--$990,000, or $941 per theater. Sunday's projected take is $958,000.
4/21/2008 5:07 p.m. MST: The opening weekend box office take was $2,970,848, a per-theater average of $2,824. Sunday brought in only $775,000, or $737 per theater.
4/22/2008 6:25 p.m. MST: Monday's box office take was $238,804, another 68.8% drop in daily gross, for a per-theater average of $227. Total take is now $3,209,652. Friday-Sunday have been updated: Friday: $1,208,748 ($1,149), Saturday: $996,244 ($947), Sunday: $765,856 ($728). The weekend total agrees with The-Numbers, but the daily totals do not.
4/23/2008 2:01 p.m. MST: Tuesday: $227,232 ($216); Wednesday: $234,596 ($223). Six-day total: $3,671,480.
4/24/2008 3:04 p.m. MST: Thursday: $231,440 ($220). Seven-day total: $3,902,920.
4/25/2008 6:56 p.m. MST: Friday: $450,000 ($432) (estimate), rank #13. Seven-day total: $4,353,000.
4/30/2008 1:58 p.m. MST: Saturday: $529,000 ($508), Sunday: $414,000 ($398), Monday: $157,191 ($151), Tuesday: $162,396 ($156). Weekend numbers are all still estimates.
5/2/2008 7:04 p.m. MST: Wednesday: $159,273 ($153), Thursday: $158,232 ($152).
5/5/2008 9:20 a.m. PDT: May 2-4 weekend: $684,000 ($1,042).
5/6/2008 7:40 p.m. PDT: Friday, May 2: $216,480 ($330), Saturday, May 3: $270,272 ($412), Sunday, May 4: $191,552 ($292), Monday, May 5: $66,912 ($102), ranked #15. Total: $6,680,168.
5/7/2008 7:53 p.m. PDT: Tuesday, May 6: $74,128 ($113).
5/8/2008 8:29 p.m. PDT: Wednesday, May 7: $73,472 ($112).
5/9/2008 5:17 p.m. PDT: Thursday, May 8: $78,720 ($120).
5/11/2008 4:01 p.m. MST: May 9-11 weekend: $328,836 ($818), in 402 theaters, ranked #21.
5/12/2008 7:39 p.m. MST: Friday, May 9: $100,902 ($251); Saturday, May 10: $120,600 ($300); Sunday, May 11: $107,334 ($267). Total: $7,235,324.
5/13/2008 3:55 p.m. MST: Monday, May 12: $38,994 ($97).
5/14/2008 8:04 p.m. MST: Tuesday, May 13: $35,778 ($89).
5/16/2008 7:40 p.m. MST: Wednesday, May 14: $43,818 ($109); Thursday, May 15: $43,014 ($107). Total: $7,396,927.
5/18/2008 6:13 p.m.: May 16-18 weekend estimate: $89,000 ($423) in 210 theaters.
5/21/2008 11:14 a.m. MST: May 16-18 weekend: $102,690 ($489). Total: $7,499,617.
5/28/2008 12:38 p.m. MST: May 23-26 four-day weekend: $46,314 ($558). (May 23-25: $35,109 ($423).) Total: $7,598,071.

All-time top box office for documentaries at Box Office Mojo.
All-time top box office for controversial films at Box Office Mojo.
All-time top box office for Christian films at Box Office Mojo.

Arizona still #7 in foreclosures

Last November, I reported that year-over-year foreclosure rates had doubled and Arizona ranked #7 in the nation for foreclosures. Reuters reports that national foreclosure filings have gone up another 57% for the twelve-month period ending in March 2008. Arizona has been in fourth place for each of the first three months of 2008, despite foreclosures falling by 5% in March, and remains at the #7 position for overall number of foreclosures.

The twelve-month total foreclosure rankings:

1. California
2. Florida
3. Ohio
4. Georgia
5. Texas
6. Michigan
7. Arizona
8. Illinois
9. Nevada
10. Colorado

The March 2008 foreclosure rankings:

1. Nevada (1 in 139 homes)
2. California (1 in 204 homes)
3. Florida (1 in 282 homes)
4. Arizona (1 in 283 homes)
5. Colorado (1 in 339 homes)
6. Georgia (1 in 351 homes)
7. Ohio (1 in 448 homes)
8. Michigan (1 in 475 homes)
9. Massachusetts (1 in 486 homes)
10. Maryland (1 in 538 homes)