The mind-blowing conduct of Minneapolis City Council member Alondra Cano and the shocking words of Jackson, Mississippi City Council member Kenneth Stokes raise many questions. Who elects these people? How is it possible that individuals this ignorant of basic American values, this defiant of common decency, and this contemptuous of the responsibilities of elected officials acquire any power at any level of government?
I suspect that the answers, whatever they are, will be useful in diagnosing the dread illness that has created so many supporters for Donald Trump. The challenge for today, is simpler, if not necessarily easier: Which of these local embarrassments is worse? Let’s review their recent headlines, shall we?
Alondra Cano was an enthusiastic participant in the unethical and illegal Black Lives Matter demonstrations at the Mall of America and the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport after Christmas. They were called “protests,” but the objects of the civil disobedience were unrelated in any way to the matter being protested, unless the objective was to do damage to ordinary American life—and it was—and to intimidate ordinary, law abiding citizens. This wasn’t courageous elected officials joining a civil rights march for a legal demonstration in the Sixties. Cano allied herself with racist thugs, against the system and the citizens she was elected to represent.
The depths of her contempt for fairness and the ethical obligations of her office were really revealed her response to critics, which was to doxx enough of them, she assumed, to intimidate others. Stephen Dent, who had previously contributed to Cano’s election campaign, wrote a message to Cano on the city website stating the obvious: that she was no longer fit to serve on the council by “closing private property” and “supporting illegal actions” by assisting the BLM mob economic terrorism. Cano responded by tweeting Dent’s message to her 2000 followers, adding his private e-mail address and phone number. She did the same to at least three other critics.
Though Cano later deleted the doxxing tweets, she saw nothing wrong with her tactics, including her use of the state’s public records law to publicize the personal information of her critics, tweeting, “Not surprised that I’m being targeted 4 supporting today’s #BlackLivesMatter event. Data practices requests are helpful in exposing racism” —thus race-baiting her own constituents.
Nice.
How could Stokes, indeed any elected official, be more unfit for office, you ask?
Speaking last week about police chases originating in neighboring jurisdictions crossing city limits into Jackson, Mississippi, Councilman Kenneth Stokes publicly exhorted his city’s citizens to interfere with law enforcement and to criminally assault police officers, saying, “Let’s get rocks, let’s get bricks and let’s get bottles and start throwing them and then they police won’t come in here anymore.”
Which of these hateful incompetents would you rather have representing you?
Ethics Alarms 
Ugh.
I hate that I have a choice.
A very fast google shearch shows that Cano spelled women, womyn in a tweet Does that tip the scale?
Both have committed criminal acts.
Stokes is worse because he’s essentially soliciting mayhem to not just police officers but the whole community. He’ll get it too. If anyone gets killed as a result of his actions I hope he’s found guilty of accessory to murder.
Unfortunately, Jack, you are directing your questions to the wrong crowd. Most of the writers here are at least somewhat ethical, and I think the majority are white, though I might be wrong. The fact is that a very large part, if not all of the black community in this nation has very little hope and very little faith that the system as set up, or the white man, will treat them fairly or give them what they need to get ahead. This leads to a great deal of pent-up anger, and a desire to unleash that anger on those they hold responsible for their plight.
They are not interested in facts, they are not interested n playing by the rules, and they are not interested in good order or respecting the guardians of good order. They are interested in taking power and property by the easiest means. You can say people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, or that they are being unethical, ore destructive, or whatever, but all the rhetoric in the world does no good if it falls on deaf ears or is rejected outright. That’s the stage we are at, and the people at the very top are on the side of the mayhem this time out.
Well, at least the Jackson Sheriff, MS AG and MS governor seem to be ready to take action against Stokes (my vote for worse, marginally).
I’m not sure what Trump’s ridiculous proposals have to do with either of these city counsel thugs. To my knowledge, Trump has not advocated doing anything actually illegal. Building the border wall is a dumb idea because it is prohibitively expense. Keeping any more Muslims non-citizens from entering the U.S. would gravely effect our relationships with Muslim states like Turkey which is in NATO but I guess it does play to the “low information voter” crowd. But equating Trump with these thugs really isn’t fair.
Allow me to clarify:
What I wrote was…
“Who elects these people? How is it possible that individuals this ignorant of basic American values, this defiant of common decency, and this contemptuous of the responsibilities of elected officials acquire any power at any level of government? I suspect that the answers, whatever they are, will be useful in diagnosing the dread illness that has created so many supporters for Donald Trump.”
Here are some answers—Q—“Who elects these people?” A—Kneejerk, ignorant, angry one-issue voters who give power to wildly unqualified people who voice the wildly irresponsible, emotion and passion-driven sentiments of civic dolts.”
See the Trump connection now?
Hmm, Trump voters may be passion driven and ignorant. However, Trump is not a one issue candidate. His proposals may be highly impractical, ridiculous, offensive but he does cover a broad spectrum of issues. It is also unfair to equate him with the city counsel thugs who encourage illegal activities. I can’t believe I’m defending The Donald but in this case, I have to.
Again, I didn’t compare the candidates, I compared the people who think unqualified, unethical loudmouths are qualified to lead.
Re doxxing: remember Trump publishing Graham’s cell phone number?
I can see the parallel between Trump’s and Cano’s doxxing although I think Cano’s actions were far more serious in the effect they could have. In a city, the other councilman could wind up dead as a result of Cano’s doxxing this information. Trump’s doxxing seems more to me as being obnoxious and showing his true colors.
As far as I read it, the connection of Cano and Stokes with Trump is the voter who is, was, or could be (given enough morons like them) responsible for placing any of the three in a position of representation or authority over so much as a lame ladybug. Leaving aside the amount of influence Trump has already amassed, if I may repeat the words you missed — these are voters who put into office time and again people like Cano and Stokes who are, like Trump, “ignorant of basic American values,”…”defiant of common decency.”, and …”contemptuous of the responsibilities of elected officials.” What isn’t “fair” … either to the American public or for that matter to the whole world … is to have someone with those characterists sitting in the Oval Office, havng been elected there by two kinds of voters — those who are themselves ignorant of what constitutes a beneficial, effective elected official, and those who allowed it to happen because they continued to view the candidate as a clown.
No fair. Jack posts faster than I do.
I think Ms Cano to be worse, doxxing someone and siccing the mob on them because of a quieter disagreement? She should not be in public service if she can’t handle disagreement. No government activity is free of competing concerns. (though her extra curricular activities are not part of her job duties) Her critics has a right to criticize. Has she even heard of free speech and the Constitution? All people who want a Gov’t position with authority should pass a simple test before they get their first paycheck.(and no back pay if they haven’t passed it.)
Stokes is just inciting others to attack cops, just plain illegal. I cannot even begin to respect his issue unless he has put his money where his mouth is, and sits in jail for extended periods for doing it. Telling others to do it makes THEM pay the consequences for his showboating. They both want and want us to think they are the heroes, but heroes sacrifice and go into the underbelly before they can bring good things. Inciting online or throwing rocks is Hitler-esque leading the mob. They are both terrible,
She’d likely claim the test was racially-biased if she failed it.
Stokes is beyond stupid. What on earth makes him think that his own town’s cops aren’t going to be outraged by this open invitation to armed vigilantism, no matter how much they may resent the invasion of their territory? Surely someone has got across to him by now that a #1 on the apology list/retraction scale is due. Fast. Or else he might as well pack his bag and get out of town.
I read somewhere that Tanishi Coates and his ilk are essentially militating for their own segregated cantons that will be free of policing by external forces. Brilliant.
Almost makes me hope they get what they wish for. Almost.
It would make for an interesting experiment, providing that no outside intervention was allowed until it ran its course.
Alondra Cano apparently stated the following:
“It wasn’t out of character for me to do that. It was actually very in line with what I typically do, and it’s just unfortunate that these folks thought it was private information.” (from here: http://kstp.com/news/stories/s4005272.shtml)
I think this is a kind of rationalization. ‘What I did is consistent with how I usually act, so it must be ethical,’ or something like that. It boggles my simple mind.
A variation on 44. The Unethical Precedent, or “It’s Not The First Time”
I think a more relevant question would be, “Is there any big city in America that doesn’t have the equivalent of these two criminals on their city council… and what can be done about both them and the dregs of society that keep electing them?”.
We have a few here in CT, naturally.
Criminal politicians or dregs of society?!
One is a public official intentionally trying to instigate the public into illegal acts of physical violence against police officers which I believe is quite illegal. The other is participating in what some ignorant people consider a protest and then intentionally releasing private information about opposition to instigate harassment against opposition which I believe is illegal too.
I wouldn’t either one of these morally bankrupt people representing me; I think they have both earned their place in a jail cell.
Remember that bunks I was building, with the moat filled with acid? It’s got room. And! And! I’m trying to get the acid electrified. Or perhaps breed some acid proof sharks. Regardless, it will be secure.
Pingback: Does It Matter If the Oregon Standoff is Terrorism? - Windypundit