Alondra Cano: Transparent As An Iron Curtain, “Conversational” As Rain Man

Busted last week for using public data to try to shame constituents who disagreed with her participation in a Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America, Alondra Cano is sorry…

…that all you dissenters are such racisssss rubes:

“It was not my intent to put anyone in danger by any means, and this was not an attempt to punish anyone,” Cano said. “But it was actually an attempt to have a public conversation about the importance of Black Lives Matter and how the public should continue to have that debate publicly without fear of having to hide your thoughts behind some rationale that doesn’t make sense.”

“…behind some rationale that doesn’t make sense”.  Hmmm.

Of course, her “public conversation” talk would seem less bullshit-y if Cano actually had a conversation.  She didn’t. She took the four dissenters contact information from a city server, and published it on Twitter – which is sort of like “having a conversation” with someone after you’ve hung up the phone with them.

And her “conversation” – like Heather Martens and Kim Norton before her – is, of course, a monologue; everyone who criticized her on Twitter got blocked; she responded to no media requests.

Which is an interesting response for someone who claims “”I did it out of a belief in government transparency and public discourse”;  intimidate dissenters, ignore questioners, hide from reporters.

8 thoughts on “Alondra Cano: Transparent As An Iron Curtain, “Conversational” As Rain Man

  1. My concern is not she broadcast Public Data, but that she broadcast Personal Data. The purpose of doxxing someone is to expose them to public ridicule and same, to intimidate others so they are afraid to voice an opinion lest they be ridiculed and shamed. That’s exactly how she used it.

    She claims the Name and Address data the City demands before it will allow a citizen to express an opinion is Public Data once the City receives it; therefore, it’s okay for council members to distribute the Public Data however they like – Tweet it, post it on Facebook, sell it to telemarketers or Chinese hackers. I don’t believe there’s any statute or case-law to support that interpretation of the law.

  2. Not sure what to think about this, but….a guy from Mankato (one Brad Schultz) posted a quite nasty message on the Mpls Black Lives Matter Facebook page. His name, city and employer are on his Facebook profile, so the BLM folks declared Jihad on him. Got him fired from his job at Archer Daniels Midland.

  3. Chuck, most BLM “members” aren’t elected public officials with a thin skin. If you’re talking about the same comment I saw, I’ll call BLM’s actions a “proportional response.”
    As to Council”victim” Cano, the comments she tweeted were polite though critical. The question I haven’t heard answered is, “If a records request had been filed, what information would’ve been redacted before release?”

  4. ‘“…behind some rationale that doesn’t make sense”. Hmmm.’
    Doesn’t make sense to whom?
    Passive voice is a sign of devious or at least sloppy thinking. Dog Gone uses it all the time.

  5. She give this mind numbing PR statement-excuse; we all get pushed around by people this dumb or with what is effectively bad intent.

    This will end badly.

  6. Pingback: LIVE AT FIVE: 01.04.16 : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.