Back to the High Programmer's Blog
A better graph would be of the derivative of that graph. Mostly what people are going to see is the increase of the dead and get pissed off about that, but really it is the slope that matters at the context points in the graph. I say perform a spline approximation to the raw data points, then graph the slope. It would be much more effective as it would show that deaths happened faster just after the context points.
Basically, graph the derivative? A graph that varies from 0 to erm, 6 or so wouldn't capture the full human cost. It would arguably be a more clear graph, but would fail to show the mounting toll. While the graph is honest, it also intends to carry a message: the deaths continue to pile up.
I also don't think that intent is to show that the context points caused or were directly correlated with the fatality rate. Again, it's more telling that to despite repeated announcements of major accomplishments and progress that soldiers continue to die. The most telling date being 5/1/2003 "Mission Accomplished," the day that the White House announced that major combat operations were over. If major combat operations were over, why have 616 men died since then? Why is the fatality rate in the last month about the same as the first month?
I think the graph could benefit from a little polish and maybe a bigger graphic (at the moment a single death is too small to register), but I wouldn't change the core design.
A similar graph based on http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ might tell an interesting story as well. Unfortunately those numbers are much less reliable and the group gathering them has a bias that would cause many to discount the numbers. The U.S. military loses are not up for debate.
"Sometimes making the wrong choice is better than making none at all..."
Zod: I think you're being a little too subtle, as I have no idea what your point is. The quote is a typical aphorism, and while aphorism can be a succinct way to summarize a viewpoint, they are not arguments in and of themselves. (And where does it come from? Google doesn't show any hits.) As for the link, while it's interesting (it is important to keep in the mind the human costs of all wars), but seems only tangentially relateed.
The British sustained 50,000 casualties and 10,000 dead in one day during the battle of the Somme. Yet they did not falter in the face of naked aggression by evil men intent on destroying them.
Fascinating, I'm sure. Also, completely irrelevent, much like Zod's point. Please, if you've got a point, make it.
Just to be perfectly clear (perhaps my original post was confusing): My point is that many of our troops have died since their Commander in Chief declared "Mission Accomplished." As a public we were told to expect a brief war; the administration did no suggest that we'd be involved in a guerrilla war for a long time afterward. This does not appear to be the case, and reflects poorly on the Bush administration.
I'm Brazilian, and, in my country there are millions and millions so sorry for a murderer (an amarican's murderer indeed) had won elections in US...
It's just wait and see how Us will get out of Iraq. (problably with much, much more than 1,000 dead soldiers)
American soldiers will bleed for a dumb.
Gustavo from Brazil.
'2 Years After Invasion, Poll Data Mixed', by Dan Balz and Richard Morin wrote:
Despite the optimism about the future, the poll suggests there has been little change in the negative public opinion about the decision to go to war. Fifty-three percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, 57 percent said they disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, and 70 percent said the number of U.S. casualties, including more than 1,500 deaths, is an unacceptable price.
"2 Years After Invasion, Poll Data Mixed", by Dan Balz and Richard Morin in the The Washington Post
Hi, Max/Richard, thanks for the spam. I will point out that I'm using Google's rel=nofollow extension, so no Google juice for you. Thanks for playing, though!
Your site is realy very interesting.
