The audio tells us that that the candidate represents “a new generation of leadership.” The video shows him schmoozing with an octogenarian sheriff who owes his career to voters in Sun City.
Bloggers are, to some extent, a higher class of the trolls we so despise. We want to provoke a reaction. We’d like to be regarded as a thorn in the side of those in power.
This is why the biggest disappointment of the current John Huppenthal controversy is that I seem to have only caught his attention once. I had a state senator who posted anonymously on here for years, and the son of a now-disgraced former state treasurer used to come on here too. Still, the biggest blogging controversy in this state, and I have only a tangential relationship to it.
Three of Huppenthal’s internet aliases have been printed in numerous places. I went through the comments and didn’t find any from Thucky or Thucydides. I found a grand total of one from Falcon9.
Back in 2010, I did a short report about the post-election Arizona State Democratic Party Meeting. The report included Felecia Rotellini’s promise to keep being a watchdog on just-elected Attorney General Tom Horne. This prompted several very long comments from a fella named Jochas defending Horne’s record as Superintendent of Public Instruction. What the guy is saying these days, I’m not sure.
Anyhow, this prompted a comment from Falcon9 that seemed to be somewhat skeptical of Horne’s record:
Arizona’s graduation rate for 2002/2003, the year Horne was elected, was 75.9.
Arizona’s most recent graduation rate, as mentioned above, was 70.7%.
If you are going to make conclusions about Horne’s tenure using this data set, the best that can be said is that he held things steady, no statistically significant change.
However, we need the most recent data, for school year 2010, to make any conclusion.
Yep. That’s it. Not exactly provocative, but interesting that he was less than a cheerleader for Horne.
Three Sonorans published a list of comments made by Huppenthal under the name Falcon9. That one included several IP addresses. Those didn’t lead to anything new from Huppenthal, but I did find a guy at one of those IP addresses calling himself Doug. Doug seems to be a Republican, but he also had good words for Ted Kennedy. I doubt that Doug is Huppenthal, but if it was him, that post alone would probably lead to impeachment proceedings.
By the way, after talking to a few legislators, it seems that Huppenthal wasn’t exactly chummy with his fellow solons back when he was in the lege. This is probably the bigger reason for the lack of the usual wagon circling by the Phoenix civic establishment than the racism and general unhinged nature of his commentary.
Obviously, I didn’t catch the guy’s attention. That means I missed out on gems like this one posted in response to a bit on employer sanctions over at Espresso Pundit:
We have a whole lot fewer caucasians working now that the hispanics have left. But, crime is much lower. No money and no one is stealing it.
The cameras have largely left, but this week, we were reminded that the story of our Little Ukraine On The Virgin River continues. First, there were reports that militiamen (largely from other states), having stayed behind after the standoff and apparently lacking anything else to do, have been harassing the locals and demanding their papers. There also came word of infighting among the various militia groups camped out at the Bundy Ranch, a predictable result considering that we are talking about a movement where every man fancies himself a colonel.
To the media’s credit, reporting on this story has largely made it clear that this insurrection was not an isolated incident, but merely a fairly extreme manifestation of a long-standing conflict between rural westerners and a Federal government which they simultaneously depend upon and rail against. While most would trace this back to the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s, those more familiar with the history of the western states see this current running back into the 19th century. Folks who want insight into the roots of this might do well to check out two books, one a scholarly history and the other fiction, about a spectacular crime that occurred in Arizona in 1889.
Ambush at Bloody Run: The Wham Paymaster Robbery of 1889- A Story of Politics, Religion, Race and Banditry in Arizona Territory by Larry D. Ball (2000) tells of an incident when a gang of Mormons in Graham County held up a U.S. Army pay wagon bound for Fort Thomas with twenty-eight thousand dollars. As implied by the title of the book, the crime, investigation, and subsequent trial provide an excellent window into many of the conflicts that came to shape our state. Coming at a time when an ascendant progressive movement was becoming more prominent, the events pitted figures from the two emerging factions of Arizona’s Democratic Party against each other: on one side progressives like former Representative Selim Franklin and Arizona Star editor (as well as future Governor) Louis Hughes versus conservatives like Territorial Delegate (and future U.S. Senator) Marcus A. Smith, who neglected his duties in Washington D.C. to defend the gang when they went on trial in Tucson.
One of the things that becomes clear in this book is that that, unlike today, the military was not spared from the anti-government rhetoric of the era. The peacetime Army was regarded as a nuisance, and soldiers were regarded as freeloaders. Because the soldiers at Fort Thomas were largely African-American “Buffalo Soldiers” of the 24th Infantry, racism was a factor as well. It is only in this context that it starts to make sense that a significant number of Arizona residents regarded the theft of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to be no big deal, even if 8 men were wounded in the process. Of course, then as now, these attitudes were tainted by hypocrisy. In this case, the gang’s ringleader Gilbert Webb had a contract to provide grain to the Army. In other words, he was financially dependent on the same soldiers that he robbed.
This episode of the Old West is largely forgotten in the popular imagination. I think this may be because it is messy and unromantic, and it cannot easily be made to fit cinematic tropes that we have come to accept whether we like it or not. The good guys, to the extent that they exist, do not fare well, while the bad guys largely get away with something close to murder. The subsequent career of bandit Wilfred Webb will make Arizona readers nod and say “Yep. Sounds like our state ain’t changed much.”
The novella “A Pilgrim on the Gila” by Owen Wister (1895), a political satire inspired by the same incident, similarly rings true today. Except for two uncomfortable passages, where a character based on African-American woman gambler Frankie Campbell (who Ball’s narrative shows as one of the most fascinating characters to emerge from the incident) is reduced to a dated, panicky mammy stereotype, the sophisticated, cynical humor mostly still works after all these years.
The author, who was visiting Fort Thomas when all this happened, is someone whose name may not be familiar, but we have all been affected by his influence on popular culture. Wister’s novel The Virginian: A Horseman of the Plains, is widely regarded one of the first westerns, and he is credited with creating many of the conventions of the genre. Wister’s own politics, which come through in his writing, were considered conservative even in his own time, and today he would probably be a Republican in the snobbish authoritarian mold of Michael Bloomberg. But whether you not come away agreeing with the politics behind them, “Pilgrim” and his other works show that the rugged individualism of the west always inspired controversy.
Particularly appropriate to the issues in Nevada, is a passage that comes near the end of the story:
I supposed it something local then, but have since observed it to be a prevailing Western antipathy. The ill thinking sons of the sage-brush ill tolerate a thing which stands for discipline, good order and obedience, and the man who lets another command him they despise. I can think of no threat more evil to our democracy, for it is a fine thing diseased and perverted–namely, independence gone drunk.
“Pilgrim” goes in and out of print, though it is often anthologized. One such collection be found for free here.
While there are few similarities or outright parallels between what is going on in Nevada today and what happened in Southern Arizona in 1889, anyone who checks out these books will find sentiments and conflicts that still sound strangely familiar.
The last few weeks have been tough on anyone who still believes that the media should have a serious role in the public dialogue in Tucson.
First, city staff proposed a budget that axed Access Tucson and left the city’s Channel 12 “restructured” and without a home, apparently so the building that houses both of them can be sold to a developer, leaving Tucson without a public-access cable station and severely limiting citizen access to City Council proceedings. Next came the news that the Tucson Weekly, which recently celebrated 30 years of independent journalism, has been sold to an out-of state firm with “a record of decimating publications they acquire.” (Here is where someone points out that the same outfit also acquired Inside Tucson Business, but, considering that ITB is little more than a Chamber of Commerce organ that has been giving schmucks like Lionel Waxman column space for years, its demise would be no great loss.) Finally, Arizona Public Media announced that Arizona Illustrated, a local institution since 1980, will be put “on hiatus” until June. This move will mean that our local public broadcasting system will be almost entirely without local public affairs content, with the exception of a few minutes of headlines at the beginning of NPR programming and, of course, whatever Arizona Spotlight can fit in-between self-indulgent essays and profiles of out-of-town artists during its weekly half-hour on the radio.
As if to remove any doubt that things are in a downward spiral in this regard, local CBS affiliate KOLD decided to observe the 2-year anniversary of the disappearance of Isabel Celis with a “special report” in which reporter Som Lisaius asked famed Phoenix-area psychic Allison DuBois for “insights” into the as-yet unsolved case.
Even someone who is not skeptical about psychic phenomena should question why DuBois is taken seriously. Her purported superhuman powers have thus far failed to lead to an arrest in a criminal case, and Phoenix police detectives have characterized her “insights” into the Baseline Killer and Serial Shooter cases as less-than-helpful. Her
credibility moral authority reputation in this regard is due largely to the fact that she was played by Patricia Arquette in a successful and long-running television series. Essentially, KOLD brought her on board for the story not because she had a proven record of solving tough cases, but because a fictional character with the same name as her was seen busting the bad guys on teevee nearly every week. Lisaius would have done as well to interview Patrick Jane or Shawn Spencer.
(An aside here: I always had difficulty suspending my disbelief with regard to Medium. This was not because of DuBois’ psychic abilities, but because the Maricopa County Attorney, played by veteran character actor Miguel Sandoval, was portrayed as a Mexican-American. The show ran during the height of the Arpaio-Thomas reign of terror, and I always thought that the portrayal of Maricopa County government as a paradise of ethnic harmony strained credulity and made it clear that the writers really had no interest in portraying anything other than an imaginary and generic Phoenix.)
I guess it should be mentioned that the idea for this story seems to not have been entirely KOLD’s idea. The story mentions that the family contacted DuBois based on the suggestion of a Tucson Police Department detective. Clearly, on top of the other issues that the TPD has been facing lately, their officers have to answer for giving Celis’ distraught relatives some useless and terrible advice.
This, however, does not absolve KOLD from responsibility. They still ran with what amounted to a sensationalist celebrity story which exploited the grief of a local family and the community in general. More than this, the story lacked depth and was otherwise irrelevant and stupid. Unfortunately, such irrelevance is increasingly the norm with regard to journalism in the Old Pueblo.
A while back, we had some trouble necessitating I wipe out a bunch of files that had been corrupted. Among the files I deleted were those for Akismet, a “plug-in” for WordPress blogs such as this one to catch spam comments.
I deleted them thinking I could just reinstall Akismet. Unfortunately, I could not after weeks of trying different things. I finally broke down and contacted technical support and they did their alchemy and bam…I have reinstalled Akismet.
Hopefully, the thousands (yes, thousands) of spam messages advertising knock off purses and Viagra will stop and we can all go back to calling Tom names.
It is actually an old story, but it has gained some currency due to the highly visible StartUpNY campaign out of the State of New York’s economic development office. We have all seen the ads. One of them features an outfit called Valutek, who recently left Arizona for Upstate New York.
Valutek, a firm that manufactures products for the cleanrooms used in research and high-technology manufacturing, in moved their corporate headquarters from Phoenix to Albany three years ago, just as the current economic development initiative was starting in the Empire State. It was also a year after Arizona passed a budget that included the largest cuts to higher education in American history. The timing is not mere coincidence, as reported by the Albany Business Review:
Valutek, which has operations in China and Malaysia, decided to move to New York after Arizona State University, which it has worked with for several years, lost microelectronics funding, [Valutek CEO Greg] Heiland said.
The television spots tout tax breaks as a feature of New York’s aggressive economic development initiative, however, a look on StartUpNY’s web site makes it clear that this is just a part of a far more comprehensive strategy:
START-UP NY (SUNY Tax-free Areas to Revitalize and Transform Upstate NY) is Governor Cuomo’s initiative to transform SUNY campuses and other university communities across the state into tax-free communities for new and expanding businesses.
1. Business will be able to locate in these zones and operate 100% tax-free for 10 years.
2. Businesses will have access to resources of world-class higher education institutions, including industry experts and advanced research laboratories.
3. Universities and colleges will become tax-free communities that provide their students and teachers access to real-world, cutting edge business experiences.
Of course, legislative leaders in Arizona would look at this and say “See? Even in New York they are cutting taxes to attract business!” without bothering to see what they are actually doing. New York’s tax breaks are carefully targeted toward new businesses locating in “underutilized areas.” Functionally, this is the same as a landlord offering a prospective tenant a break on the rent in exchange for a promise to fix up a blighted storefront. In either case, it is an investment in improving the community. In Arizona, we cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes because taxes are bad. Any pittance of economic development that results is a happy coincidence.
More than this, New York’s strategy recognizes the importance of partnering with higher education institutions, something that is only possible if those institutions are adequately funded. The trouble is, in Arizona they are not. The University of Arizona received a fraction of what was asked for in the budget that was passed this week, making it difficult for them to work effectively toward the state’s economic development.
We could call this penny-wise but pound-foolish, but this would imply that the reluctance to fund the Universities is simply a matter of frugality rather than the fact that the legislature generally has little appreciation for the mission of the University system and is sometimes ideologically opposed to the concept of higher education. This writer remembers a legislator, many years ago, getting up on the floor of the House of Representatives to oppose a biotech initiative for the Universities, saying that this industry would bring to our state “people who are opposed to the capitalist system,” That man is now our Superintendent of Public Instruction.
It would be unwise to exaggerate the impact of Valutek’s departure, or to assume that it is part of a larger trend. It is more a sign of lost opportunity. Arizona’s only economic development idea is cutting taxes. This has yielded some negligible results, but the net growth of new jobs here has lagged behind New York and most other states. At the very least, Valutek’s move shows that we could do much better.
We have been hearing about a forthcoming Cesar Chavez biopic since at least the 1990s, when an El Vez lyric plugged a rumored project by Moctezuma Esparza which never materialized. Today, a mainstream feature film about the legendary Arizonan finally opens nationwide.
Predictably, this has brought out the trolls, the same trolls who tell us that Martin Luther King Jr. would support the TEA Party if he were alive today and that Ronald Reagan was the real hero of the civil rights movement. This time, the claim is that Chavez was a registered Republican and a vocal and dedicated opponent of immigration.
First, his one-time voter registration is irrelevant. The Republican party of the 1950s and 60s was a very different animal than the one which is familiar to us today, and his political loyalties have to be considered in the context of his contentious relationship with some prominent Democrats like California Governor Pat Brown. His well-recorded support of Democrats like Bobby Kennedy and lifelong work for causes like civil rights and organized labor, however, would seem to imply that his Republican registration was nominal at best.
As for his immigration stand, I first heard this one from some of my Republican colleagues as a member of the legislature. As strange as it seems, despite the fact that many people at and around the capitol had actually worked with Chavez, not one of the folks telling me these things bothered to ask around before repeating the talking points.
In keeping with my biblical namesake, I would not take their word for it. I called up my former colleague, Representative John Loredo, who had worked with Chavez as a young man, and he helped me get in touch with some folks familiar with the issue. It was no surprise that Chavez’ position on immigration was more nuanced and complicated than my anti-immigrant colleagues would have been willing to concede.
Chavez was first and foremost a labor organizer, and anyone familiar with history knows that organized labor in the West has a problematic history with regard to immigration. In Arizona, for example, in the name of protecting unionized workers, nativist elements within organized labor successfully pushed legislation during the early days of statehood that effectively disenfranchised the state’s Mexican-American population for decades. Chavez, at one point in his career, campaigned against illegal immigration, even as his union welcomed the undocumented in its hiring halls. This needs to be considered in context.
Chavez’ own organizing efforts, both with the Community Service Organization (CSO) during the 1950s and the United Farm Workers (UFW) from the 1960s onward, included undocumented immigrants, so he clearly did not take issue with immigration in and of itself. His issue was with undocumented immigrants being brought over the border in an effort to break strikes, and with the fact that federal law enforcement turned a blind eye to this even as they targeted other folks who crossed the border illegally. His grievance was with the inconsistency of immigration enforcement, particularly because this hypocrisy conveniently tended to favor the growers who opposed him, and undermined his fight for the dignity of the farmworkers his union represented, including those who were here without papers.
Chavez’ stand, and the UFW’s tactics and rhetoric in this regard were, as eloquently reported by former Arizona State Senate Majority Leader Alfredo Gutierrez, controversial among Mexican-American political leaders at the time. Chavez eventually moved on from this crusade, and by the 1980s, his organization, which had already long advocated for the inclusion of the undocumented in the labor movement well before other unions did so, actively supported progressive immigration reforms. The amnesty provision of the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 was passed due in large part to the UFW’s efforts.
The film has also been attacked by conservatives for failing to portray Chavez’ activities against illegal immigration. This is about as silly as attacking Moctezuma Esparza’s Gettysburg for failing to show General Hancock’s mediocre performance during Reconstruction. It is beyond the scope of the movie, which takes place before this issue emerged.
I guess we can concede one thing to the trolls: the life, work and legacy of Cesar Chavez are much bigger than can be portrayed in any one movie. On the other hand, the dismissive conservative talking points in this regard fail in a much bigger way. The historical facts, as usual, tell a far more complicated story.
So, anyway, last week, David “Three Sonorans” Morales posted this on his Facebook page:
At first, I saw this and wanted to respond by pointing out that David’s memory seems to be too short for him to recall the Democratic opposition to SB1070 and HB2281. But then, I realized that, though his comments about Democrats are unfair and not based in historical fact, he may have stumbled upon an ugly truth regarding the outrage over SB1062, the latest manifestation of ugly bigotry from the legislature.
First, we have to realize that, though bigotry is inherently evil, the way that this evil manifests itself against any given community is unique and rooted in a particular history. The bigotry against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans that drove SB1070 has its roots in, among other things, economic anxiety, misconceptions about this region’s history, a fear of the loss of political power and concerns about crime. The “facts” upon which these are based are often spurious, exaggerated or out of context, but at least there is some sort of negligible substance there to argue.
Bigotry against homosexuals, which is what is behind SB1062, is different. It is largely about squeamishness over what other people might be doing. There can be no pretense that this is about anything as important as preserving jobs for good Americans or combating brutal gangs because it clearly is not.
Anti-gay rhetoric is obsessed with sex. Though we certainly hear this less often than we did in the 1980s and 90s, conservatives still have a habit of making graphic, sometimes scatological references to what they imagine gays might be doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. During my time in the legislature, one Mesa Republican notoriously kept a stash of gay porn in her desk, ready to deploy as props during floor debate as an illustration of what she viewed as the depravity of homosexuality. Notwithstanding the number of ostensibly tough, macho dudes who live in fear of being buggered, its called homophobia for a reason, after all, even the most eloquent anti-gay activist is basically arguing, in the words of political philosopher Joe Bob Briggs, “we heard what you gays are doing, and we don’t like it.”
In other words, while the bigotry behind SB1070 was ignorant, the bigotry behind SB1062 is irrational. It can be argued that this is a distinction without a difference, and that it is not simply coincidental that movement conservatives embrace both, but it does begin to explain why the reaction to the two bills has been different.
Anti-gay bigotry is largely about what other people are doing, so it is easy to argue against legislation like SB1062 from a live and let live perspective, particularly in an age when gay culture is being mainstreamed and the case for legalized discrimination starts looking a little silly. In contrast, the case against sB1070 is in some ways harder to make. Anglo suburban anxiety about immigration is reenforced by largely stereotypical and negative portrayals of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the media, and cross-border crime is a very real problem, so the hate behind legislation like SB1070 becomes all too easy to rationalize.
Of course, this does not fully explain the differences between the reactions to the two bills. In 2010, the organized business community expressed misgivings about the substance of SB1070 and the bill’s possible negative effects on the political debate and Arizona’s image as a state, but were unwilling to press the issue any further. In contrast, most business organizations (with the notable exception, as of this writing, of The Tucson Metro Chamber) as well as many prominent Republicans, are calling for a veto of SB1062, and this seems an active possibility. Four years ago, Governor Brewer was facing what seemed to be a tough re-election fight, and the possibility that the Executive Tower would again be occupied by a Democrat seemed too much for the chambers and the Republican establishment to stomach, and dabbling in apartheid was seen as an acceptable price to keep her in office. Now, Brewer is not up for re-election, and everybody, still smarting from the bad press that SB1070 brought us, is concerned about the damage to Arizona’s image and the Republican “brand” that such clearly bigoted legislation will bring. Or perhaps, they have finally decided that this has all gone too far, in which case, this seems too little, too late.
But then again, if this were truly driven by a desire to turn the corner and shake our image as a haven for bigotry, one would suspect that they would be willing to do something to reverse the damage that SB1070 did to our state, but we have no such luck. An effort by Senator Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix) to repeal SB1070 has received no support from Republicans or the business community, and has been met with the same dismissive ridicule from the press that the law’s opponents were subjected to four years ago, when the state’s major newspapers were more willing to rail against 1070′s critics than the bill itself. By the same token, the silence from these quarters regarding efforts to require taxpayers to pay the legal bills of SB1070′s sponsors seems to imply that they are still okay with the law.
There are welcome signs that SB1062 will vetoed. The widespread public outrage over this evil bill is heartening, and gives great hope to those of us who have been fighting for change for years. Unfortunately, there remain troublesome signs that some bigotry remains acceptable.
I know it’s already been passed by both houses, but here is my suggested amendment to SB 1062. I think all right thinking people will find it an improvement:
A. A person exercising rights under this section must post a sign that clearly prohibits certain persons on their premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements:
1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public.
2. Contain a pictogram that details what persons are not allowed within a red circle and a diagonal red line across a representation of such persons.
3. Contain the words, “no (description of persons not allowed) allowed pursuant to state law”.
B. A so-described person shall not be on the premises of a retailer if the owner has posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section.
C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection B of this section if:
1. The person was not informed of the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section before the violation.
2. Any one or more of the following apply:
(a) At the time of the violation the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section had fallen down.
(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.
(c) The retailer had posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section not more than thirty days before the violation.
D. An appropriate state agency shall prepare signs at no cost to retailers.
E. The signs required by this section shall be composed of block, capital letters printed in black on white laminated paper at a minimum weight of one hundred ten pound index. The lettering and pictogram shall consume a space at least six inches by nine inches. The letters comprising the words “no (description of persons not) allowed” shall be at least three-fourths of a vertical inch and all other letters shall be at least one-half of a vertical inch. Nothing shall prohibit a retailer from posting additional signs at one or more locations on the premises.
Rule #1 of satire is that you never rip off the mask. You let your readers poke around and figure things out for themselves. Jonathan Swift didn’t have an an epilogue to A Modest Proposal saying “Hey, I was kidding about that…” Still, I want to explain a bit of what I did here. What I have above is ARS 4-229, the law that says that bar owners who don’t want guns in their establishments must post a sign. When the law was debated, there was a suggestion for even a larger sign. Then-Senator Randy Graf suggested a sign that would have been about half the size of the front door of most bars. Firearms are so protected and important that everyone has to know what place won’t welcome them.
No such provision is in SB 1062. Our guns are important to us; our gay neighbors aren’t.
There is actually a pretty vigorous debate over Common Core Standards and many legitimate questions over to what extent, or even if, they should be implemented. It is a debate that needs to happen, and one that should be conducted with rigor, integrity, and an eye toward our future needs as a community, state, and nation.
Of course, this is not the sort of debate that is happening in the Arizona Legislature, thanks largely to Senator Al Melvin (R-Segregated Gated Retirement Community North of Town). Melvin’s SB 1310, which passed a Senate Committee yesterday, bans the implementation of Common Core in Arizona. The Senator’s stated reason for his opposition cited no specifics, merely that the standards were a good idea from “the private sector and the governors” that got “hijacked by Washington.” In other words, the merits of the standards are less of an issue than the fact that they are being championed by The Big Bad Black Man.
He also, as usual, said something about Ronald Reagan, which made even less sense.
In fairness, conservatives who supported the legislation did have some substantial complaints, though these were largely about boogiemen. Howie Fischer’s story in the Star quoted a woman who testified in front of the committee about her concern that the use of computers would lead to indoctrination into “the concepts of global warming, evolution, defaming the founders.” The connection is unclear, but it is certain she does not want her world view challenged by study of science or history. Likely this is a minority view, but, unfortunately, this pride in ignorance is what is guiding our educational policy around here.
Senator David Bradley (D-Tucson), did what he does best by calling out Melvin on his bullshit. Here is Fischer’s account:
Melvin’s opposition led Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, to question him as to whether he’s actually read the Common Core standards that have been adopted by 45 states.
“I’ve been exposed to them,” Melvin responded.
Pressed by Bradley for specifics, Melvin said he understands that “some of the reading material is borderline pornographic.” And he said the program uses “fuzzy math,” substituting letters for numbers in some examples.
Melvin actually should be familiar with “fuzzy math” that substitutes letters for numbers. It has been a well established part of mathematics curricula for hundreds of years, including, no doubt, his own academic program at the Merchant Marine Academy. It is called algebra.
On the other hand, Melvin may be on to something.
Modern algebra has its roots in the work of Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, a Persian scholar working in Baghdad in the 9th century. In fact, much of modern mathematics, even our number system itself, owes a substantial debt to scholars who spoke Arabic and prayed toward Mecca five times a day. Even the word “algebra” is Arabic in origin.
That’s right. Common Core is just a back door way of imposing Sharia Law.