Racial Facism at the San Francisco Chronicle

In the movie Cool Hand Luke, actor Strother Martin says when reluctantly subjecting Luke to solitary confinement: "I hate to do that to a human being, I really do." When using the word "fascism" I must state honestly that this word is only in my vocabulary because I know it exists. It is a powerful term, one that conjures images of Il Duce, Mussolini himself. It has never been used by this writer in any piece I have ever written. It contains far too much loaded imagery. So why is it used in the title?

I believe in literal word translations to more clearly convey thoughts. I also believe that the San Francisco Chronicle is one of the most racially fascist newspapers in the country. Free to behave accordingly, they have perfected the specifications of the treasonous left: characterize dissenters as racists, bigots, and homophobes often enough and they´ll go away. Discredit conservative views with argument-by-epithet. Sprinkle in "diversity," "tolerance," and "school safety" and 90% of the public will cower in fear, possessing little energy or inclination to defend their beliefs. This is the way the best game in town works, and the Chronicle plays it to the hilt.

On Monday, May 6, Chronicle Columnist Emil Guillermo wrote a column titled: "Ah, Color Blindness? Connerly's Deceptive Vision" (http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/guillermo/) flippantly discrediting Ward Connerly´s Racial Privacy Initiative (RPI), slated to appear on the November ballot. The language is clear:

"The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment."

Guillermo, is as he says a "Filipino American with a Spanish surname, I'm a demographer's nightmare. Asian? Hispanic? On the census, I mark "other" and write-in "Aspanic." In the article Emil states: "Proud about being Hispanic? Black? Asian? Keep it to yourself. No one would care anymore." He states as well: "Of course, without knowing race and ethnicity, how could we have identified such simple public-health issues as the Asian-American community's tendency toward high blood pressure?" Emil, I thought we were all equal. You mean we´re not? Some have higher blood pressure than others? I´ll be.

So, I decided to write Emil an e-mail. I provide my initial message verbatim, and Emil´s initial reply verbatim as well.

Dear Emil: It appears from your article "Ah, Color Blindness? Connerly's Deceptive Vision" that separatism should triumph over integration. If this is true, and to assuage your disapproval with Ward Connerly's initiative, then I should judge you, and anything you write, based on your ethnicity, and not the content, quality of research, factual representation, and persuasion of your columns. Is this what you would prefer your readership to do? Or would we be guilty of racism?

You failed to mention the number of students who have been denied entry into elite UC colleges, not based on SAT scores and GPA's that surpassed those of other students, but because of ethnic traits they did not possess. Would you rather that you go into surgery, under the steady hand of a medical practitioner who has earned his or her stripes based upon their outstanding ability to perform the operation successfully, to save your life, or instead be operated on by a doctor who qualified for medical school, not because of grades and superior talent, but because of skin color. And the answer is?

According to the poll question next to your article on the Chronicle's website (as of 5/8), looks like 76% [of 4,100 respondents] agree with Mr. Connerly. What say about Content of one's character, versus color of one's skin Emil? Where does that fit in your pantheon of priorities?

Protection from all enemies, domestic and foreign? check Wealth and opportunity? check Freedom of speech? check Advantage based on ethnicity? Not unless you think that you are entitled to privileges beyond the rest of us. Or perhaps you have a different definition of equal protection and opportunity.

You state: "If it were passed, the Race Privacy Initiative would ban any classification by race. Proud about being Hispanic? Black? Asian?" Who said anyone had to stop having pride in their race? The issue is that no one race should have any advantage over another? Here's a novel concept you may not be entirely prepared for Emil: How about some pride in being an American? Or did I offend you.

Your next quote leaves out an important fact: "But race information is more helpful than not. A short time ago, your humble columnist was stopped by a police officer for speeding. After the standard ticketing process, the officer asked me about my race." So you were pulled over because of racial profiling, or were you asked this question because this happens to be a required check box on the official ticket used by the officer to process the incident? A check box that will go away when RPI passes.

"Little wonder, then, that researchers and policy analysts have been among those most critical of the initiative so far." Really? Who specifically are these researchers?

The best quote though is: "Ah, color blindness. What a wonderful world it would be, filled with ignorance and invisibility, two essential ingredients for racism. That's the ultimate outcome of Connerly's deceptive vision."

Let me ask you this after reading your multicultural screed. Did you aspire to and qualify for your job at the newspaper, based on substantiated proof of your journalistic talent, or because of the paper's requirement to fill your spot based upon a quota for an Asian-American writer? If you can answer that question honestly, you'll have revealed either an incredible bias in favor of skin color over merit, or discovery of a completely false premise that applies to everyone else but yourself. Which one is it? Sounds like your preoccupation with identity is more important than your commitment to equality.

"To answer your question: I was hired based on talent. Not on quota. But why am I one of the few people of color in the industry (less than 12 percent). There's no lack of talent out there. You also blatantly misrepresent my position. Diversity is not separatist. Diversity means I can be Asian American and American. America is not just one, but many. Together. Look at your own divisive rhetoric. It mimic's Connerly's divisiveness perfectly."

Later, we went back and forth in e-mail exchanges, but I realized it was time to bail when he played the race card: "Here's what gets at most white Americans" and "Color blindness is embraced because it gives an advantage to whites." I never told him I was white.

Out of curiosity, I decided to read some of his previous work, such as one titled: "White as Snow" (2/12/02). Emil was upset that "We have a team that doesn't look like America" at the 2002 Winter Olympics. And: "Considering the amount of public expense, perhaps there should be some kind of affirmative action in the Olympics."

For Emil´s more rabid followers, who can forget his "Running Ethnic: The Antirace Card" (3/05/02) wherein he stated: "Going ethnic is a matter of timing. And with most ethnic minorities being Democrats, you can go ethnic too soon, especially if you're Republican. Just ask Dick Riordan." Forgive me, I´m a little slow to the draw Emil. Do you mean like the "race card?" As a white male I´d be in jail for a hate crime if I "went ethnic" too soon.

Best yet is his masterpiece: "Halle, Sacheen and the Fightin´ Whites," (3/26/02) wherein he described the Oscars and Halle Berry's thank-you speech. "Society is often reluctant to let go of old, negative images when it comes to people of color. It hangs on to them no matter how out of date they are." Then he went on to describe the intramural basketball team made up of American Indians at the University of Northern Colorado who took to calling their team the Fightin' Whites, an admitted spoof designed to make fun of the left´s hypersensitivity to team names.

But Emil was having none of it, calling the huge number of Fightin´ Whites shirt sales, and press apathy a "cultural disconnect." In a clincher quote: "Whites weren't insulted, because no one sees them as just a cartoonish stereotype. They get all the face time in our culture, and their images run the gamut from stereotypes of racist white trash to the president of the United States." I´ll be. Racist white trash and the President. Sure you didn´t mean they were one and the same?

Back in April 2001, San Francisco Business Journal writer Jon Rhine described the paper´s most extensive redesign in 35 years in "Paper Tiger Tries Changing Stripes. 'Goofy' Chronicle Yearns to be Taken Seriously." Rhine talked about "a major public relations blitz aimed at burnishing an admittedly tarnished image."

The article said: "The Chronicle had a credibility deficit going back decades and decades that we needed to address," acknowledged [Executive Editor] Bronstein. "Research showed us that people were not making an emotional connection with the paper."

It´s been one year since that report. Nothing seems to have changed. Layoffs preoccupy many at the goofiest of papers, but we at least have Emil Guillermo to help us maintain our "emotional connection" with cartoonish stereotypes, right? And after all, what we´re looking for is not news but entertainment, not facts but racial epithets, and not serious journalism, but comedic relief from the ceaseless assault on common sense.

In all fairness, there are some very good writers at the Chronicle. Debra Saunders, the lone conservative, who last week publicly identified herself as the Chronicle´s resident "freak" is terrific. Robert Salladay does some bang up pieces on politics. And sometimes even Carla Marinucci strays from blatant pro-Davis favoritism to write an objective piece. What should concern readers though, if this is a real newspaper, is the racially fascistic opinions delivered by Mr. Emil Guillermo.

And yes I did research the term fascism, from Benito Mussolini´s "What is Fascism, 1932." "Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society. Fascism involves the forcible suppression of opposition and social regimentation."

As of 5/11/02, 04:20pm PDT, the San Francisco Chronicle SF Gate Poll "Agree with Connerly´s Initiative to ban state collection of racial data" (5,448 votes) stood at:

86%: "YES, government should be race blind." 13%: "NO, effect is to hurt minorities." 1%: "Mercy, not another divisive election."

If this poll is any indication, the Chronicle has little to say in support of 86% who agree with Connerly. That´s a lot of potential customers to indifferently ignore don´t you think? The sad reality of the Chronicle´s social distortion and suppression of opposition is that they establish destinations to stories, before they examine the facts. Facts, in a sense, predicate conclusions that certain classes of readers and audiences be protected and coddled, regardless of the compromise to journalistic integrity. I focused on one specific instance of journalistic fascism, wherein the writer used race as a vehicle. And this my friends, is dishonest journalism.

Mr. Guillermo replied in his e-mail in part: "America is not just one, but many. Together." True enough Emil. Now a question for you. Thomas Jefferson in 1826, a few days before he died, said: "The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." Are you and other "people of color" entitled to ride on the backs of other Americans just because of the color of your skin? Or would it be offensive to compete with you based on content of character?

You can discuss this story with me at: gohabsgo@cox.net. You can reach Emil Guillermo at emil@amok.com. And I´m not quite sure what the "amok" means, but I´ll bet it has something to do with "running."

Yes, Guillermo is a contemptible, race-obsessed fool. But really, we're talking about a columnist at a minor paper in America's least sensible media market. If he were to get major national exposure, I might be more inclined to worry.

On the other hand, Debra Saunders does get national attention, so I think we'll be okay.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

But Emil was having none of it, calling the huge number of Fightin´ Whites shirt sales, and press apathy a "cultural disconnect." In a clincher quote: "Whites weren't insulted, because no one sees them as just a cartoonish stereotype. They get all the face time in our culture, and their images run the gamut from stereotypes of racist white trash to the president of the United States." I´ll be. Racist white trash and the President. Sure you didn´t mean they were one and the same?

I'm in total support of color blindness, and Connerly's initiative could be a step in the right direction.

However, Patrick Mallon (the article's author) seems to be letting his emotions get in the way of logic, especially in the snippet quoted above. Although Mallon seems to think otherwise, I would have to admit Guillermo's point about stereotypes has some (even if only a little) validity. Unless Guillermo has a track record of calling the President racist (or white trash), Mallon's "one and the same" response is ridiculous to the point of knee-jerk stupidity.

Thus, he does Conservatism a disservice.

(Again, if Guillermo is on record as having called President Bush anything like "racist white trash," I'll change my mind about Mr. Mallon's remark.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.