POLICY BY THE NUMBERS

You know, I've long had the idea that football games should end at the point when it is clear who the winner will be.  Further play only risks further injury.  And the fans begin leaving at this juncture anyway, so what's the point of continuing to play?

I'm reminded of all the above as I view an evolving attitude towards our wars.  It seems we now have an argument afoot that at some number of casualties on our side we should declare the war as lost and quit.  Is this because it has become hopeless, or is it just a number? The anti-war crowd rely a lot on these numbers.   But isn't it a preposterous sort of war that you assume  is lost at some number of casualties?  Is the other side going to use the same number?  Of course, if the number is huge and in danger of becoming even greater as at the end of WWII in Japan, then that is different.  So, please spare me headlines about deaths of our military in Iraq or Afghanistan.  I will be for or against these wars on some sort of rational grounds such as how each affects our national interest.

Another issue on which many seem to be blinded by numbers is prison population.   Some seem to think there is a maximum number of people who should be incarcerated, independent of the number who have committed crime.  Now, they know this sounds a little silly, so they rig up this crazy argument:  Because the prison population has more non-whites than the population at large, from a proportion standpoint, prejudice is being practiced.   And hence, prisoners should be released.  Listen, non-whites, especially blacks, in this country have suffered disadvantages in education and economic opportunity for many years and this has brought about this crime situation.  We need to attack this social problem in a more determined and serious manner and get our head out of the sand.  In the meanwhile, I want dangerous people locked up or under strict supervision.