Two Wrongs make a Right? The Logic of Sean Mill

As children, we’re taught “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Santa Ana Planning Commissioner Sean Mill apparently never received this lesson in kindergarten. Instead, he insisted, last night at a Santa Ana Planning Commission meeting, that his prejudicial remarks against a Vietnamese blogger that he was either “raped by pirates” or had “Agent Orange exposure” were somehow defensible because the blogger deserved it! In this alternative reality, which we will refer to as the Millian World, it’s OK for a person to lob racist remarks as long as the target of the remark is determined to be a racist as well.

At Monday’s Santa Ana Planning Commission meeting, where Mill had hoped to become the next chair of the commission, Mill asserted that he was “incited” to make racist remarks (in addition to homophobic ones made in 2010 and 1989), and it begs the real question here – why is this hateful stew of prejudice and homophobia lying right beneath his surface.  Using the Millian perspective of reasoning allows Mill to (1) denigrate an entire race (the Vietnamese); (2) a person’s sexual identity (the LGBT community); and (3) and bully the citizens of Santa Ana who have audacity to challenge him when he is incited (Mike Tardiff and others).

In the Millian perspective, two wrongs really do make a right.

To avoid being accused of cherry-picking, some background: In 2010, Mill was engaged commenting on the Bolsavik blog which has since shutdown.  Mill’s debate was with a blogger regarding the Vietnamese community. Mill deemed this commenter to be an “anti-Latino racist,” and he made the following comments on an April 2010 post on the Orange Juice Blog, in response to Little Saigon’s Lam Pho who complained about Mill’s Boslavik comments:

“Get over yourself already you anti-Latino bigot. I did not joke about rape or torture I simply asked a question if your bigoted countrymen who were demeaning our soldiers. Their anger and unstable behavior stems from somewhere so I asked if perhaps it was the result of being ‘raped by pirates’ or ‘agent orange exposure.’”

“Can you explain the unstable behavior? What causes such anger and hatred towards white folks. Latino’s (sic) and our soldiers that fought in Vietnam?

Talk about arrogance, your comment, ‘If they were switched, the Viet would have a thriving economy and wouldn’t need to invade the US,’ is about as arrogant as they come.

Sure the Vietnamese community has thrived economically but that would have never have come to be without the handouts provided by the American taxpayers. Latino immigrants have not had the benefits of such handouts and low interest loans.”

You can see these remarks for yourself: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/04/does-criticizing-the-vietnam-war-mean-youre-anti-vietnamese/ (Mill’s comments were posted on April 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM) until Vern Nelson decides to take the comment or the post down.

Did the Vietnamese commenters belittle our soliders and Latinos?  That blog post and blog is gone and a supporting post that might back up Mill’s content is also deleted from the Orange Juice blog (with scores of posts authored by Mill).  If someone has a screen grab of the post and comment, please put it the comments section below.  Much like Mill’s non-apology for homophobic comments he wrote in 1989 and 2010, there was no apology to the suggestion that Vietnamese anger was related to being raped by pirates or Agent Orange exposure.

But when you consider that two weeks ago, Mill was being considered to replace Eric Alderete as chairman and he has settled for retaining his vice chair is a win of sorts for residents who spoke out on the possibility of Mill’s appointment.

Mill was called on the carpet by fellow commissioner Bruce Bauer for the “raped by pirates” and “Agent Orange” remarks. Bauer called the remarks “indefensible and despicable.” Bauer’s sister-in-law is a Vietnamese immigrant. When Mill responded to Bauer, he didn’t deny making the remarks or apologize for them.  Mill instead defended them, asserting that he was permitted to lob these remarks because he felt the other persons were insulting our soldiers who fought in Vietnam.

Mill’s self-defense of his racist remark doesn’t explain why he attributed the success of the entire Vietnamese community was the result of “handouts by the American taxpayers.” Since we reviewed Mill’s comments against the LGBT community in an earlier post, lets move to the bullying and intimidation tactics.

In the Millian World, Mill is allowed to pick fights with Santa Ana citizens who don’t share his opinions. If he is incited, it is OK for Mill to call them out by name, despite the clear prohibitions contained in the Santa Ana Ethics Ordinance against this sort of conduct.

From the City of Santa Ana Code of Ethics and Conduct –

“I treat my fellow officials, staff and the public with patience, courtesy and civility, even when we disagree on what is best for the community.”

“I encourage full participation of all persons and groups ..”

Mike Tardif, a Santa Ana resident and business owner, specifically pointed out several examples of how Mill singled him out during Planning Commission meetings against the spirit of the city’s ethics ordinance.

Tardif said: “As an appointed official of the City of Santa Ana, Mr. Mill has an obligation to live up to the letter and spirit of the Code (of Ethics).  He should engage residents through rational discussion — not in a heated, accusatory, belittling and unprofessional rant in a public forum….As a resident, property owner and business owner in Santa Ana, I feel that it is important to work with representatives of the city who treat the public with “patience, courtesy and civility, and work towards consensus building.  Mr. Mill does not fit that bill.”

Another example of Mill calling out a resident by name from the dais was repeated last week, when Mill singled out a member of the audience, “Darren,” who was sitting in the audience recording Mill’s rant and/or complaint about an FPPC filing we made for Mill’s refusal to disclose his economic interests.  Watch the clip here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYwJ1MIjw4 to see how Mill singled out “Darren” (who was simply in the audience to speak on his support for a restaurant business and not against Mill’s possible election to chair).  Mill defending singling out “Darren” because he saw Darren was recording the rant.

Santa Ana resident Dave Hoen was also direct in his comments to the board.  “People are going to disagree, but some of our residents, private citizens as well as business owners, who have participated in trying to make Santa Ana a better place, have been subjected to vile, offensive and warrantless attacks by those who disagree with them.  Unfortunately one of the planning commissioners has been associated with some of these vile and offensive attacks.  In my book, that activity alone should disqualify him as a Planning Commissioner, let alone in a position of leadership on that Commission.  And in standing here saying this, I know I am opening myself up to attacks from “anonymous” sources. I know business owners who would like to be saying what I have just said, but for fear of retribution, they will not.  Business owners, developers and residents should not be afraid to speak their ideas of how to make Santa Ana better for all of us.”

In the end, after a few go-rounds of voting, Jim Gartner is the new chairman of the Planning Commission and Sean Mill is the vice chair — with Mill casting the deciding vote for himself in a 4-3 decision.  For all the city’s chest thumping about diversity, Lynette Verino, a Mexican-American and the only woman on the Commission, was passed over by Mill’s four votes.  The city’s Planning Commission leadership is two white guys.

In his closing remarks, chairman Alderete — Mill’s best friend on the Commission — lamented how politicized the Planning Commission has become while failing to recognize his own role in allowing this to happen.  It doesn’t seem possible, but the Planning Commission’s business is more about settling political scores than handling the business of permits and strategic urban planning and much more politicized than City Council meetings.  Time for the City Council to be a more active player in the activities of the Planning Commission.

In the two weeks since Mill launched a tirade over a possible FPPC investigation into his failure to disclose his income sources for his statement of economic interests, we still await the FPPC’s decision on a full investigation into the matter (the Commission communicates via snail mail).  Mr. Mill and his supporters have also failed to produce a single newspaper article from the “scores” of stories Mr. Mill says he’s authored that support Santa Ana’s and Orange County’s LGBT community.

Members of the community who opposed Mill’s election to chair can cheer the decision that prevented him from wielding the gavel, but so many in Santa Ana’s LGBT community and heavily-populated Vietnamese Ward 6 have to be wondering why Mill is on the Planning Commission at all.

Why are Sal Tinajero and Vince Sarmiento continuing to run cover for Mr. Mill?  In the case of Sarmiento, running interference for a city official who’s made bigoted remarks isn’t new.  He gave then council member Claudia Alvarez, facing censure from the City Council, an out after she referred to Irv Chase, a Jewish developer with property in Santa Ana, as “Hitler.”  Rather than punish Alvarez for her remarks, Sarmiento caved and helped the city organize and host a forum on race relations — primarily for Latinos and Jewish residents that was by-invitation only event despite most of the funding paid for using tax dollars.  A person who attended that event — Planning Commissioner Sean H. Mill, who obviously didn’t learn much.