Arizona bans Arabic numerals

(Patriot Newswire) After sparking national controversy by requiring police to check the papers of those they suspect of being illegal immigrants and banning ethnic studies, Arizona continues its march toward cultural purity with a ban on Arabic numerals.

Tom Horne, Arizona's superintendent of public instruction, explains why he felt the ban was necessary: "I was shocked to learn that students at all levels were being taught with the numbers of our non-European enemies, who we are engaged in a multi-millennial existential struggle to the death with us in the War on Terror. Worse, these numbers are being used all over the country."

Horne illustrated the threat posed by Arabic numerals in a presentation at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"If you look at this photo behind me of Osama bin Laden, you'll notice them squiggly lines in the background. Now I've been told those are actually Arabic letters, and we have absolutely no way of knowing what those letters say--hell, they might not even be spelling words in English. If our children are learning Arabic numerals, they could be passing terrorists messages without us knowing it right under our noses."

Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, fully supported Horne's move. "Superintendent Horne tells me that the Latin language, which has nothing to do with the hordes of Latin Americans swarming our borders but instead was the language of the great Caucasian Roman Empire, has a perfectly good set of numbers our teachers can begin using immediately, Roman numerals."

Some rank and file Republicans in Arizona are unsure whether using Roman numerals would be an improvement.

Bob Herman, a mudflap salesman in Tempe explains their concern. "The Roman Empire was great and all that, but didn't they roll around in the sheets with the Egyptians and Africans they conquered? Can we really be sure that those numerals were invented by a guy who was just, you know, European?"

Horne is looking to address this concern with DNA testing of ancient Romans. To prepare for the possibility of a multi-ethnic outcome, he is also scouting for backup numerals of Celtic, Viking, or at least Albino origin.

Rob from the mercenaries and give to the troops

I teach writing at community college, and had a conservative student who was a Marine who had served in Iraq, and he seemed to hate Blackwater and the rest of the mercenaries as much as any lefty does.

Their presence is seriously demoralizing to our troops.

It occurred to me that even conservatives would support eliminating mercenaries from a ''support the troops'' angle.

Simply pledge to take the money from the mercenaries and give it to the troops.

And if we canceled the mercenary contracts and used every penny that had gone to them to raise the pay of our troops, especially those most at risk of being poached by mercenary companies, we would still end up saving money.

How?

Every former special forces, pilot, or other badass who leaves the military early to join a mercenary outfit cost a lot to train, and training their replacement will cost a lot. We would prevent that loss by retaining them in the regular military. (We would also cut off the gift of that taxpayer funded training to those companies).

Save money, support the troops, look like the good guys on the international stage...that would be tough for even the corrupt politicians who set up the contracts and get the kickbacks to argue against.

We need WAR TAX to force GOP to choose between war & ''no new taxes''

David Obey has stumbled upon a way to further sink the GOP.

He warned Obama that if he continued the Afghanistan War, he would institute a ''war surtax'' of 1% for most people and 5% for the wealthiest to pay for it.. He should add a bracket for businesses too.

I would formalize it and add that when ever troops are sent into harms way, the tax is triggered and stays in place until the war is over, and the rates could be adjusted annually depending on the actual cost of the war.

Bush accidentally set the precedent for this when he continually asked for war spending as supplementals instead of as part of his regular budget (so he could claim his budget wasn't creating as big a deficit as it really was).

Republicans in Congress who want to see any war continue as long as possible should be asked if they support such a proposal to pay for current and future wars or whether we should continue to charge our grandchildren for them.

The current cost of our two ongoing wars:

It was around $937 billion when I posted it, so divided by the 308 million people who live in the United States, it would be about $3000, per man, woman and child. That would be lower for most of us if we charged the wealthy a slightly higher percentage than the rest of us.

And that would be on top of what we spend on the military that's in the regular budget.

Separating war spending from the rest of the budget would force Republicans (and business-owned Democrats) to make a Sophie's Choice between two of their cherished policies: endless wars and no new taxes.

I suspect they would try to have it both ways or call for cuts in social programs instead, but since so many people are struggling right now, that might not go over so well.

It would also help people re-connect taxes to actual government action, rather than the current disconnect between what people want, and their GOP pavlovian conditioning to assume any tax increase is bad. Maybe people would start to wonder what percentage of the budget goes to other issues too.