September 10, 2007

Is this the gayest-looking graph ever?

Here's the ultimate graph from General Petraeus's long-awaited testimony about Iraq, and, just looking at it, aren't you ashamed to be an American?

I have no idea what it means (if anything), but all those little mincing stars with question marks ... Christ, almighty. This guy's a general? It's bad enough that Powerpoint seems to be more important than winning wars in determining who gets promoted in the Pentagon these days, but if we're going to have Powerpoint Warriors, can't they at least put together macho Powerpoints?

Somebody should do a Powerpoint version of Patton's speech in front of the huge American flag, like the Powerpoint version of the Gettysburg Address.

Graph via Kevin Drum.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remember, he's trying to convince Democrats (and a few Republicans).

rast said...

"Gay"? Do you have a 6th grader or something?

The graph is kinda stupid, yes...

C. Van Carter said...

Show your support for Strategic Overwatch by wearing a lime green ribbon.

Anonymous said...

Highlarious...yes it is very gay. Gay as in that graph wants to have sex with another graph of the same gender...that kind of gay. Good job Steve, that made me laugh my ass ofd. Dan Redmond

Alex said...

Channeling Udolpho or ADC a bit there (wait, maybe I mean Tyler Durden?)...either way, nice work.

michael farris said...

As business-culture author Michael Korda once wrote:

"...reports, however elaborate, are usually designed to justify plans that have already been made or to serve as expensive rationalizations for decisions that were taken before the 'facts' were ever put on paper."

This guy's job was not to 'evaluate' the surge or anything really going on in Iraw, but to find some (any!) justification for continuing Bush's policy of remaining there.

No one in favor of or opposed to this policy will pay any attention to this graph or any other piece of evidence.

And it's not gay (what self-respecting gay man would choose those colors and tacky stars?). It's infantile, it looks like it was intended for a group of slow third graders.

Getting back to its purpose; the only people meant to pay attention to that graph are political commentators.

Half Sigma said...

The U.S. Army is the most poorly managed organization I ever worked for.

I believe this is because the U.S. Army is a very strong believer in the Peter Principle.

ricpic said...

Three levels of overwatch. Assuming overwatch means what I think it means, that alone could paralyze any individual initiative.

Simon Oliver Lockwood said...

ricpic: Overwatch does not mean what you probably think it means. It basically means covering support. Tactical overwatch would be the guy with the heavy weapon ready to provide covering fire for the guy advancing forward. Strategic overwatch would be at a higher level of command (brigades rather than squads).

Anonymous said...

Gay? Childish? Yes and yes. But also very foreign. The "eye" that did the artwork doesn't translate as in line with any familiar American style. You know how a lot of the graphic arts (signage) from India is so wacky? The Russian eye for art also is much more fond of what we see as clashing colors and shapes.

I would feel comfortable if, say, the armed forces of Paraguay came up with that graph on the overhead projector. That would make sense. It doesn't inspire confidence that this is US Army issue instructional material.

Or just maybe the school age child of a US Army officer wanted to help out dad the night before the big presentation. I'm tempted to say that somebody's school marm wife, or young daughter or ditzy girlfriend added those funky stars - but the placement of the small floating question-marks tucked into position with each star reeks of male brain idiocy. I'm a hetero guy and I say that with confidence. Also the garish colors remind us of a bad sweater that many men have indeed been caught dead in at some point in their lives.

OK I've spent enough time chiming your blog, Mr. iSteve. But I want to end with this salient point: What the hell is the blogger with the single ugliest-on-the-internet 1996-style dogface yellow-snow homepage (namely Steve Sailer) doing criticizing anybody else's graphic arts skills?