I commented over at National Geographic,

” Put E. Europe on the top.

Good chart, except it looks as though the important variability is in Eastern Europe… I think that the more stable components should be at the bottom and thus I think it would have been more effective to put E. Europe on the top. If this were done than the rest of the funding would have been visually more constant during the last half of the time with the variation moe obviously due to E. Europe.

Thanks… “