AJ Bockelman, the Executive Director of PROMO, Missouri’s statewide LGBT organization, sent me information on another elected bigot who unfortunately has contempt for students who are non-conforming in appearance.
Ironically, House Rep. Jane Cunningham (R-86) is chair of the Elementary And Secondary Education Committee. The legislature is considering Missouri Safe School Legislation (HB 1751), a bill that would strengthen current state anti-bullying law by prohibiting bullying motivated by “actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, intellectual ability, physical appearance, or mental, physical, or sensory disability or disorder.”
During LGBT Equality Day in Jefferson City on Wednesday, she emitted a helluva bigoted screed. From PROMO’s press release:
Two youth attempted to speak with Representative Jane Cunningham (R-86) regarding Safe Schools Legislation because of her position as chair of the House Education Committee. Upon entering Rep. Cunningham told the youth to leave, as she “couldn’t look at [them] anymore,” because their appearance “offended” her. Both youth have facial piercings as many students do. The youth thanked Rep. Cunningham for her time and left the office.It gets worse below the fold.
Directly following the youths’ dismissal by Rep. Cunningham, another group of Volunteer Lobbyists met with the Representative and in asking why the last group of students were asked to leave the office, Rep. Cunningham stated:
Representative Jane Cunningham is chair of the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee of the Missouri House of Representatives. Her comments are out of line with someone in a position to protect and support a productive learning environment for students.PROMO has an action petition, “Say NO to Bullies in Missouri Government” here.“I don’t see how any human being could look at them for any prolonged period of time without getting physically ill… I thought I would throw-up if I looked at them any longer.”
93 Responses to “House Rep. Jane Cunningham, Missouri’s Sally Kern wannabe”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I can’t seem to find the press release online. Is the claim here that she’s bigoted against facial piercings, or what?
It does not say much about republican adults at all when the kids act more adult than they do.
Amazingly enough Cunningham assumes that everyone should listen to her infantile behavior and not want to send to her room without dinner in disgust.
Yes, well, I find her appearance offensive. She’s really cornered the market on giant disc earrings, elaborately tied silk scarves, and the hot-rollered bouffant, hasn’t she?
Ya really just gotta appreciate the irony here. What kind of functional human being has that kind of absence of self awareness? How is she not a fictional character? Maybe she’s some kind of stunt performance artist?
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=facial%20piercing&w=all&s=int
She ain’t too well travelled, apparently.
She has piercings herself, judging by that photo. Apparently they’re okay if they’re in your ears, but anywhere else and they somehow become horrible and disgusting. It’s almost as if she hasn’t thought this through logically.
Maybe a delegation of students who have been injured by bullies and bigots in training should visit her while their bruises and lacerations are still visible so that she can tell them how disgusting they look. That would make even better headlines for the wingnuts.
Judging by her reaction, i was imagining people with giant spikes through their cheeks or a dozen studded hooks dangling form their mouths, or some of the more extreme stuff Warren Ellis posts pictures of. Then i read further and realized she was getting this squicked out over a kid with a nose ring. Where’s she been for th last decade? I know librarians with more extreme piercing s than that!
the irony…it burns…
Admittedly, she acted like a jackass with those students, but the real question–which I can’t seem to answer by reading that clip–is: IS SHE SUPPORTING THE ANTI-BULLYING LAW OR NOT?
If she is, the acting-out w/r/t the piercings is small beer. If not, she deserves every unpleasant thing that can happen to a bigot in public life.
(I should say that fancy-shmancy piercings bring out the “What the hell were you thinking?” in me too, even if I generally manage to keep it to myself.)
Hey. how come pandagon never raise money or endorse specific candidate? (get down to real politics.)
pandagon base is measurable right?
Is it just me or are republican women starting to look alike? She seriously looks like she came out of the same clone-vat that gave us Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan.
Ponygirl: No, no, she’s got the proper haircut and facial structure, but she’s missing the gaudy oversized pearl necklace.
If she is, the acting-out w/r/t the piercings is small beer.
Not really, because one of the main problems with this sort of approach to bullying (whether it comes from government or individual schools) is that often the people declaring “zero tolerance” of bullying, or whatever, have serious blinders about how bullying works and tend to side with “normal” bullies over “weird” victims.
If she’s in favor of the anti-bullying bill, but behaves this way towards students who look just the tiniest bit “different”, I can pretty much guarantee you that this legislation is a waste of trees because it won’t address the real needs of bullied students.
this shocked me in no way. last year, I went with Kansas City’s chapter of PROMO, and we were welcomed in some offices; practically shoved out of some (with some LBGT youth, in tow- disappointing).
hey, at least we have Senator Jolie Justus! (fuck, I realized I’m in her “top 8″ on myspace! I’m such a fucking dork!)
I’ll bet a steak dinner against a glass of beer that she’s against the “sexual orientation” clause in the anti-bullying law.
Because we all know that beating up kids they consider “faggots” is a sacred rite of passage for teenage boys.
We should all thank Rep. Cunningham for proving us with a timely example of what bullying looks like.
Well, all things considered, she was at the event, wasn’t she? She was going to take the meeting in the first place, wasn’t she? I fully expect that there are plenty of Missouri legislators who would not take a meeting with this group at all.
And these people showed up dressed in a way that she felt was offensive and disrespectful, and that makes her the bigot?
I’m sorry, but if you’re trying to get a Republican state legislator to support you on your policy objectives, then you need to moderate your dress and your rhetoric, focus on common goals and generally treat these people in a way they perceive as respectful.
Or, you can try to lobby Republican legislators with a bunch of stuff in your face, have them walk out on you, and then you get to be indignant about it on the internet. Both good choices.
Mitchforth: Let me get this straight:; The way to preach against bullying is to conform to the expecations of those who might be sympathetic to the bullies, that they will not scorn you?
I see this reccomendation all the time: we can’t fight back because it will provoke them. (Pick your topic, the war, Social Security, abortion, birth control, sex ed, fair pay, etc.) if we just give them a little of what they want, they’ll be willing to let us keep the rest.
Look at all the stuff it’s gotten for us so far: all the concessions we got for making deals about judges, and legislation. That’s been a real humdinger of a success.
If she was serious about the bill, she’d swallow her bile, recall that she serves the constituents (and I’ve seen a lot of representatives (from local, to state, to national take meetings with people who were marginal), and hear them out.
It’s her fucking job.
Here’s the deal. I’m too lazy to check into Cunningham’s background, but I am a secondary education major in my Level 1’s at UMSL, and a huge part of my education is social justice, and a goodly chunk of that is in regards to students with brightly-colored hair, facial piercing, “unusual” clothing, etc. I mean, I’m not a House Representative or anything, but I just wanted to let you know that this is not the prevailing attitude among Missouri educators. I always feel the need to come out of the woodwork when Missouri bigots are on the scene and let everyone know that we’re not all like that.
OK, I went on ahead and looked her up: BS in Business Admin from Florida State. Just the person we want making educational decisions.
“And these people showed up dressed in a way that she felt was offensive and disrespectful, and that makes her the bigot?”
It does. That they could have foreseen the bigotry changes squat. Intolerance shouldn’t be accomodated.
My guess is she can decide who she’ll be punished electorally for not taking a meeting with. She’s a Republican state rep in Missouri. She probably could have slammed the door on the whole gay group. The rep took the meeting, they came in dressed inappropriately, and rep didn’t listen to what they had to say as a result.
To me, this should go into the textbook of how to fail as an advocate. At some point, you have to draw a line to avoid compromising away your central goals. But if you’re so unwilling to present yourself as someone the other side can deal with that you won’t the rings out of your lips and nose for a meeting with a conservative legislator, you simply cannot make any meaningful progress in achieving any objective where you need their help.
I’m with you against bigotry based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age and disability.
But, frankly, if you show up dressed inappropriately for a job interview or a meeting like this, and you don’t get considered as a result, that’s not bigotry. If you want to be taken seriously, you should dress, speak and act like a serious person.
Mighty Ponygirl @ 12:Republican women all look the same because they are manufactured in the same factory.I believe it’s located in Stepford,Connecticut.
The news report doesn’t say they were dressed inappropriately, Mitch. It says that the Representative took it upon herself to get offended at their facial piercings.
A piercing is not something you can just remove. Even if you do take it out, that you had a piercing will be evident for some time afterwards, and in fact will be more conspicuous than a plain piercing.
Comparing this to a job interview, you have it exactly backwards. The students who showed up were not job applicants; Jane Cunningham is their representative, she works for them. If it was a job interview, Jane Cunningham was the applicant: and she flunked. You do not tell the people whom you work for that they have to remove their piercings before you will consent to talk to them.
Well, representatives generally enact the policies and agendas of the people who vote for them.
So Republican representatives from Missouri don’t really “work for” gay youth with facial piercings. If she was relying on their votes, she already lost her job.
Representatives do consitutent service to get votes. If you want to influence the way a rep will vote, you’re basically working as a lobbyist. And if your appearance offends the legislator so much that she walks out of the meeting, you’re a poor lobbyist.
If a representative is so bigoted and/or superficial that she can’t listen to someone because she doesn’t like how they look SHE is the one doing a poor job. She works for ALL of her constituents, whether they voted for her or not.
And I just have to speak out against criticizing republican women for their appearance. They provide plenty of fodder for criticizing substantial things without criticizing them for their clothes.
So Republican representatives from Missouri don’t really “work for” gay youth with facial piercings.
I didn’t realize that elected officials only represented the specific individuals who voted for them.
I should totally use that to avoid paying my taxes this year. I mean, I didn’t vote for the Bush Administration - why should I pay to support it or follow the policies set out by that particular branch of government?
, if you show up dressed inappropriately for a job interview or a meeting like this, and you don’t get considered as a result, that’s not bigotry. If you want to be taken seriously, you should dress, speak and act like a serious person.
Which is funny, because I know plenty of people who have “serious person” type jobs and are also able to have facial piercings, tattoos, unconventional hairstyles, etc. Granted, I work in a creative field, but seriously - I know doctors and lawyers with nose piercings.
Times change. There was a time when women in pants were considered “inappropriately dressed” for business. There was a time when a man with hair longer than his ears risked losing out in a job interview. Basic facial piercings (as well as dreadlocks, some tattoos, etc) are next on the list.
Astraea, did you read the article ?
“I didn’t realize that elected officials only represented the specific individuals who voted for them.”
If that’s true, I haven’t had more than a few years with any representation my whole life. Just knowing I’ve never had a president represent me since 1980 is a great comfort…
“Republican women all look the same because they are manufactured in the same factory.I believe it’s located in Stepford,Connecticut.”
Who has their remote controls?…
While Rep. Cunningham is being all sorts of stupid, somewhere along the line, I would have thought that the kids’ chaperones/parents/supervisors would have told them to take on their piercings and put on a tie before meeting with a member of their state government.
It’s all well and good to point out that Rep. Cunningham is stupid, but her stupidity makes her easily manipulated, which could have been simply taken advantage by lobbying her with people whose looks and dress are convincing.
Unless, of course, the purpose was to provoke Rep. Cunningham into an embarrassing meltdown over nothing, in which case, I would have to say to the kids, “Good job!” I confess that her outburst probably has many benefits to PROMO’s causes.
A song my gandchildren were listening to, which seems appropriate:
they’re gonna clean up your looks
with all the lies in the books
to make a citizen out of you
because they sleep with a gun
and keep an eye on you, son
so they can watch all the things you do
because the drugs never work
they gonna give you a smirk
‘cause they got methods
o’ keepin’ you clean
they gonna rip up yo heads
your aspirations to shreds
another cog in the murder machine
they said all teenagers scare the living shit out of me
they could care less as long as someone’ll bleed
so darken your clothes
or strike a violent pose
maybe they’ll leave you alone
but not me!
the boys and girls in the clique
the awful names that they stick
you’re never gonna fit in much, kid
but if you’re troubled and hurt
what you got under your shirt
will make them pay for the things that they did
they said all teenagers scare the living shit out of me
they could care less as long as someone’ll bleed
so darken your clothes
or strike a violent pose
maybe they’ll leave you alone
but not me!
NO, it’s textbook for failing as a civil servant. She is paid with taxpayer money to work for all the people in her constituency.
If these kids had stormed her office and demanded she sign a petition, she’d have a point about respect. But she took the meeting. She acknowledged the issue was important. Then when they showed up, she was disgusted by their piercings–not the way they dressed.
I’m sure there are politicians who took meetings in the past, and when the people who showed up were black or Jewish or female, decided that they were being disrespected.
Respect is earned. It’s not an entitlement. When your representatives start acting like they deserve to be treated like royalty, that’s when you need to kick them hard in the butt.
No no no nono! She is a public servant. Her job, paid for with tax money, is to represent and serve her district. She took the meeting–that means she thought it was worthwhile and not a waste of her time. She then kicked them out before she heard anything they said because of their appearance.
That’s fucked up. That is the disrespect. She had a duty to listen to them, even if she then disregarded everything they said b/c she didn’t like what they looked at. She’s the one violating the etiquette here, and she should be taken to task for it b/c she’s a public servant.
If she worked for a private firm, your point of dressing to deal with them has more ground. But she’s NOT in a private firm. SHE works for THEM.
If she votes for the legislation, that will mitigate things, but she still needs to be put in her place–that of respecting her constituency and not expecting to be treated like royalty b/c of her position.
These kids came to her to talk about bullying, and she bullied them! She basically told them they deserve to be beaten b/c she didn’t like the way they looked. That’s fucked up, Mitch, no matter how you try to spin it.
Cunningham would obviously not be bitching about the way a group of “Young Republicans” were dresses. case closed. I’m pretty sure it had little to do with piercings.
Oh, and thank you Sandy: you said it well. grew up on KS side of KC, have resided on MO side of KC (KC proper for some years, in fact): this does not represent us. We do have some extremely bad apples that make headlines- that’s not representative of MO, though. we’re not suffering from groupthink.
Mitchforth: you know it has everything to do with the perceived of the youth, and Cunningham is just trying to cover her ass. but, then, she’s already shown it. don’t give her any benefit of the doubt: she’s a bitch, pure and simple.
that should have read: perceived orientation of the youth.
Yeah, I read the article. I thought Ginmar’s comment was funny and obviously sarcastic. Others not so much.
I’m wondering what Cunningham would do if she walked into her doctor’s office, only to find a woman with a nose piercing. Or her accountant’s office. Or her attorney’s.
What if they were a group of major donors to her campaign?
Would she run away, blathering about how she was “disgusted”? I have a feeling the answer would be no.
Somehow, I get the feeling if Rep. Cunningham was a Democrat, Mitchforth wouldn’t be wagging his finger so hard.
“If she votes for the legislation, that will mitigate things, but she still needs to be put in her place”
Talking about ‘putting a woman in her place’ makes me uncomfortable, even if that woman is an obnoxious, bigoted Republican. Rephrase, please?
“I know plenty of people who have “serious person” type jobs and are also able to have facial piercings, tattoos, unconventional hairstyles, etc. Granted, I work in a creative field, but seriously - I know doctors and lawyers with nose piercings.”
But how many state representatives and lobbyists do you know with nose piercings?
Seriously, bullying (school and otherwise) is a serious problem, and every student ought to be protected no matter who they are or what they wear. At the same time, people who adopt a counterculture aesthetic (like facial piercings) shouldn’t be surprised to discover that they have difficulty functioning in settings where traditional cultural mores regarding appearance and behavior are strongly enforced (ie, government) (and schools - hell, we wouldn’t *need* anti-bullying legislation if people who didn’t ‘fit in’ weren’t held in contempt). I have to agree with Mitchforth: a lobbyist who dresses in a way that he/she knows is likely to offend conservative politicians isn’t being a very good lobbyist (unless having conservatives take offense is the entire point of the exercise).
I agree with the basic fact - she works for ALL her constituents, regardless how they look. And this is not a job interview, nor a situation where she gets to set a dress code.
That would be true no matter what the issue was that the meeting was about.
But it’s particularly egregious in this case. While clean-cut, well-dressed, unpierced, straight, athletic, white kids can get bullied too, they aren’t the primary targets.
She effectively objected to meeting with the people who are most affected by the legislation the meeting was about.
That isn’t just like refusing to meet with black constituents (which would be bad enough!)
It’s like refusing to meet with inner-city black constituents regarding crime or gang-related issues regarding their own neighborhoods. There is a possibility that they are precisely the people best able to discuss the issue intelligently.
Intriguing that some of the posters are assuming that the students in question, simply because they had piercings, were not well-dressed and groomed. Because, God knows, you can’t wear a tie and a nose ring at the same time.
I don’t know if they did or they didn’t. But I do note that the stated reason for getting booted was that the piercings disgusted her - not that they were inappropriately dressed.
And let’s also note that, even after she threw them out saying their appearance “offended” her: “The youth thanked Rep. Cunningham for her time and left the office.”
THANKED HER FOR HER TIME! Which she didn’t even really give!
But supposedly the kids were the disrespectful ones here. sheesh.
These are not professional lobbyists. They are students advocating for themselves, and they deserved respect, not more bullying. By publically speaking about them as digusting and offensive to look at, bullying is exactly what Cunningham is doing. I would still disagree with her if she had described them as dressed inappropriately, but that would be a slightly better response.
My mother is a professor at a university. She’s very conservative about some things, like piercings other than earrings. She will complain in private at home about them, and will tease students about them (which I don’t agree with, but she isn’t mean about it), but she NEVER refuses to take them seriously and certainly never refuses to discuss their class work or grades because of them. Because she is there to help them, and she understands that.
And as others pointed out, her statements read as homophobic as well as rude and bullyish.
“I would have thought that the kids’ chaperones/parents/supervisors would have told them to take on their piercings”
Because a hole in one’s face is so much less conspicuous than a discrete stud or plug? Generally people don’t see fit to get their knickers in a twist over the lump of metal so much as the fact that they’re in the presence of a the sort of person who would get a facial piercing (read: a freak). Removing the jewelry would not likely have accomplished much; the evidence of the piercing, and the fact that you’re talking to someone who would get one, would still be relatively visible.
Also, can someone explain what’s so terribly offensive to decent people everywhere/unprofessional about facial piercings full stop? Or is this one of those things like natural hairstyles and black women, where it just is and if we have to ask why, we’re never going to “get it”?
It’s just typical of the conservative mindset. Never mind that these children are victims of brutality. Never mind that the most minimal definition of government is that it should protect those unable to protect themselves (it’s biblical too). Never mind that the students are approaching with apparent respect and the vaunted “working within the system” for change, so alleged beloved of conservatives.
What matters is how people bother me. And if stripping them of all power fails, well, we might need some (strongly disapproved of, naturally) bullying as back-up. Not to draw too close a paralell, but it’s awful similar to the attitude that well-off Southern whites had about lynchings back in the day. Tut-tutting the violence while blaming the victim.
At the same time, people who adopt a counterculture aesthetic (like facial piercings) shouldn’t be surprised to discover that they have difficulty functioning in settings where traditional cultural mores regarding appearance and behavior are strongly enforced
I will be sure to show up in heels, pantyhose, hat, and kid gloves next time I need to pop into a local governmental building. I mean, god forbid I challenge the traditional cultural mores of my elected officials, some of whom date to an era where a ‘lady’ would be considered indecent if she wasn’t wearing the above garments.
Don’t most everyday clothes worn by people under the age of 60 smack of ‘countercultural signals’? Jeans, pants for women, comfortable shoes, fabrics that breathe, wash-and-go hairstyles, even the stock corporate outfit of a polo and chinos are all derived from various 20th century rebellions.
Reading this thread, I’m almost convinced that the piercing/tattoo/dreadlock point of argument is an excuse to heap abuse on people of lower status than the speaker. Whether it’s about race, class, sexuality, gender, whatever.
Somehow, I don’t think this woman would dare express disgust at a mangled veteran with half a face. She’d find it in herself to suck it up, even though the most compassionate people could find that hard. She expressed disgust because she, like those others who bully them, believed there would not be any consequences to picking on them. If you can’t get past minimal superficialities to deal with people’s actual problems, you don’t deserve public office. I hope the voters so decide. BTW I do a lot of lobbying for a living. Here is the difference between me and these kids. I wear the hose and heels because I’m being paid to represent someone else, or I have been entrusted with the cause of a prominent charity. If I’m really just respresenting myself, I darn well expect to be listened to by my representative or their staff person, I don’t care if I’m wearing a Barney suit.
preying mantis, my friends who had labret (sp?) and cheek piercings don’t have conspicuous holes when they take their jewelry out. I mean, you can see them, but only if you look carefully.
Look, I don’t find myself disgusted or offended by street clothes, either, but I do know when professional dress is required, and I would have expected the adult supervisors of these kids to have given them guidance about this when visiting the state capitol. Rep. Cunningham isn’t just shallow and superficial, she’s downright mean. However, particularly when dealing with the mean and stupid is to give them as little room to maneuver as possible.
As I said, though, there is at least a benefit to provoking her into an outburst over nothing, because it makes her look bad– makes her look like a bully, in fact. No one deserved to be treated like those kids were treated, but what’s the point of putting themselves in that position in the first place? This was a severe failure of supervision and preparation on the part of the adults who were working with the kids.
Tyro, you should work for the TSA.
I agree that students should show up clean and neatly dressed to an important meeting with their political representative: it makes clear they intend to be serious and want to be taken seriously.
Nothing in the story says the students didn’t do exactly that. They can’t be required to remove a piercing: the representative was full of fail.
She’s a lady of a certain age for whom piercings are for circus freaks. I can attest to the change in societal norms. When I was but a spore, only prostitutes had tattoos. Easier to identify what was left of the body (love those old days). Now even middle-schoolers are inked. Yes, I wonder about the parents and their career choices they offer their offspring. But, I know it is more my aged habits than actual pimping (I hope).
Sorry to not placate your fantasies but if you interview with multiple piercings, you are not serious and I’ll do my best to find you a position that is congruent with your lack of adult behavior. If you are adult, what you do with other consenting, like-minded adults does not interest me at all. If you show up for work unable to pass a metal detector, I’ll look for backroom, dead-end chores. See me when you aren’t quite juvenile.
Check out her affiliation and her district. This ain’t the evilbig city.
Talking about ‘putting a woman in her place’ makes me uncomfortable, even if that woman is an obnoxious, bigoted Republican. Rephrase, please?”
Jesus Christ, FUCK OFF. The commentor obviously meant “put in her place as a REPRESENTATIVE”.
You know this is why leftys have the rep they have, right? As overly sensitive sanctimonious twits?
Mold, I am surprised that your missive did not include a demand for those darn kids to get off your lawn. Also, you obviously hire for low-skill, low-wage positions. I suggest you find an industry which depends on highly-skilled, specialized labor. The advantage is that it’s more satisfying and interesting. The disadvantage for you, however, is that you’ll be forced to bite the bullet and accept certain people who don’t measure up to your aesthetic preferences, since the costs of finding another equally qualified person vastly exceed the cost to your visual sensibilities. Because the natural end-result of your mindset will mean that you will only end up hiring tall, blonde handsome/pretty workers over more-qualified short brunettes.
Check out her affiliation and her district. This ain’t the evilbig city.
Are you saying that people from outside cities are all morons? I don’t think that’s fair, even if it’s true in her case.
I have two facial piercings I got 15 years ago, which do signify that I once belonged to a certain subculture with certain beliefs. I’m not so involved with that subculture now, but the piercings are a part of me. And I happen to be a very serious, responsible person: I have a masters degree; I work in a specialized research field, with a “real,” serious job; and I’ve owned and maintained a house (by myself) for 6 years. I’m so “adult” that two families have asked me to be legal guardians for their children (in case anything should happen to them), and one uncle has given me power of attorney. It is true, however, that if you are going to judge me solely by my piercings and not by my history, I probably don’t want your job. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s your loss.
Oh, and I vote and pay lots of property and income tax, too. Unfortunately, my piercings don’t get me out of that.
Now even middle-schoolers are inked. Yes, I wonder about the parents and their career choices they offer their offspring.
Er, no.
I don’t think it’s actually legal to sign off on getting your kid a tattoo.
I know a couple people who sought out the really shady tattoo parlors that would ink them without asking for ID, but even that wasn’t with parental permission, and they were at least 15-16.
There is no way there are middle schoolers out there with tattoos. Nohow, no way.
Not to mention that, unless the tattoo is on your hand or neck, it’s not like it’s anybody’s business whether you have one or not. I have a huge tattoo on my back. I wear a shirt to work. My employability has never been called into question.
The idea of a lawmaker as a public servant is rhetoric, and the custom of consituent service is electorally motivated as opposed to being part of the traditional job description.
Usually, too much dedication to constituent service materially detracts from the representative’s ability to focus on their primary legislative duties. In a few cases lawmakers can be powerful enough that they can devote staff to taking care of the people from the district, and can still focus on the real job, but even then, there’s no way they can provide face time to hear about everyone’s pet issue.
A lawmaker is not a caseworker, or a therapist or a best friend, and, frankly, if lawmakers were more focused on making laws, and less focused on constituent service and securing earmarks, legislation processes at the state and federal level would suffer much less constipation. And lawmakers are absolutely not supposed to make laws for everyone.
Regardless of the issue, someone supports it, and someone opposes it. Election serves as a mandate from the constituency that the majority position is ideologically in sync with the legislative agenda of the representative. You can’t please everybody all the time.
As for the students, there are modes of dress and appearance that convey in our society that you are a serious person who is there to do business. If people make a presumption that someone is not a serious person because of their race or gender, that is bigotry.
If people presume that someone is not a serious person because they look like Amy Winehouse, that’s a good reason for not looking like that.
Mitchforth, did you miss the part where she called these high school kids OFFENSIVE? These kids are trying to stand up for themselves or others as victims of bullying, who are marginalized and disrespected by so many people around them. And she called their appearance (so often not just an asthetic choice, but a form of self expression that epitomizes how isolated and unrepresented they feel) offensive. In a public statement she called them SO repulsive it made her PHYSICALLY ILL.
Don’t blame the kids or minimize the impact of what Cunningham said by suggesting it’s a matter of propriety.
Mitch, if our government functioned correctly, there would be no need for legislators to provide constituent services because the civil service would already do it. As it is, we do not expect the civil service to provide their services efficiently, so we rely on legislators to make the ends meet. That’s the way the American system works. Now, I don’t like it, but it doesn’t bother me so much that it motivates me to move to England or Germany, so I’m more at less at peace with the reality of the situation… The system is set up so that citizens expect their legislators to provide them with certain services. Since the alternative is to have a highly-educated, professional, well-paid civil service, I have no illusions regarding what voters are going to pick.
I think it’s ridiculous to think people over a certain age must be protected from the realities of society, Mold; this isn’t Victorian times. I’m older than that representative and I don’t have any trouble with piercings, tattoos, or unusual clothing. In fact, I (and many of my peers) find it a charming display of youthful expression.
the custom of consituent service is electorally motivated as opposed to being part of the traditional job description.
*blink*
[CRICKETS chirp in background.]
No, I think you have that backwards. Serving the interests of constituents is the entire basis of the democratic system. We vote for you, you look out for our collective interests in your given branch of government.
These students didn’t stop by for a meet & greet, or drop in to try and get Cunningham to give a commencement address. They set up a meeting to discuss Cunningham’s support of LGBT rights for youth in conjunction with this anti-bullying bill.
If this isn’t the core of her duties as an elected official, I don’t know what is.
“I don’t think it’s actually legal to sign off on getting your kid a tattoo.”
Huh? Of course it’s legal to sign off on your kid getting a tattoo, same as it’s legal to sign off on your kid getting their ears pierced at the mall. Generally the parlor itself will not accept clients under a certain age, though, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find that most states have a minimum age for it with parental permission.
If I had to guess, though, I’d say most of the minors running around with tattoos either borrowed the ID of an of-age friend who looked like them or went to a shady/off-books parlor.
If I had to guess, though, I’d say most of the minors running around with tattoos either borrowed the ID of an of-age friend who looked like them or went to a shady/off-books parlor.
Yeah, that’s what I said.
The main reason I would doubt the ability for a parent to sign off on their kid’s tattoo is that there are several layers of ‘medical decisions’ type forms to be signed. I never saw anything like that for piercings - more like a shop liability waiver.
That said, there are more and more 16 year olds having elective cosmetic surgery these days, and I guess the same sorts of consent would be required.
“The main reason I would doubt the ability for a parent to sign off on their kid’s tattoo is that there are several layers of ‘medical decisions’ type forms to be signed.”
Not really. It’s a superficial and cosmetic alteration even if it is more permanent than a piercing. The form my mother signed allowing me to get one of my tattoos looked almost exactly like the liability waiver you’d get at a piercing booth in the mall. The parlor just required a lot more in the way of ID-checking than Claire’s ever did.
“But, frankly, if you show up dressed inappropriately for a job interview or a meeting like this, and you don’t get considered as a result, that’s not bigotry. If you want to be taken seriously, you should dress, speak and act like a serious person.”
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that you were simply sharing Jane Cunningham’s bigotted view. I thought you were making an argument.
If you had made that clear to begin with, I could have used the appropriate response for it, and not try and vainly argue back. I don’t care the tiniest little bit about what mode of dress you consider serious.
Not really. It’s a superficial and cosmetic alteration even if it is more permanent than a piercing. The form my mother signed allowing me to get one of my tattoos looked almost exactly like the liability waiver you’d get at a piercing booth in the mall.
I just got a tattoo about 6 months ago. There are definitely medical forms involved. The one that sticks out most in my mind was the one where I had to agree that I’d been warned I could develop all sorts of terrible health problems, up to and including AIDS, via tattooing.
It’s of course possible that parents can sign off on something like that. But it’s definitely more than just a permission form.
Either way, I think we both agree that there are basically zero children under the age of 14 with commercially administered and non-fraud-related tattoos in the USA.
“Either way, I think we both agree that there are basically zero children under the age of 14 with commercially administered and non-fraud-related tattoos in the USA.”
Can we also agree that all both of them must get off our lawns?
Also, much hilarity on a ‘job interview’ analogy being used as a golden standard of tolerance.
Mich, it looks very much like the basis of your arguments is that people who look differently than those in power don’t deserve their say or the ability to be who they are. That matches very well with how bullying works. You look/act/screw differently than me, so you deserve any bad treatment you get.
Also, for Mold — I work in an extremely traditional and male-dominated industry where most workers are not only older but also fall into a very few specific racial categories. How is that I, a young female with 6 holes in each ear and a fairly prominent tattoo was able to get such a job? My point: If the person with the best resume and interview happens to have a few extra holes and decorations (and a vag too!), it seems as though more and more employers are willing to go with the flow.
Yes.
Hey, you, over there! With the Pokemon logo tattooed across your forehead! Get off my lawn!
(shuddering to think there are probably adults with Pokemon tattoos, but let’s not go there, please)
Yes, the kids have tats and they are not washable. They are proud of the design and make sure to mention that there was parental involvement. It is probably (and sad) that this is one time they shared….For those with eager fingers, it is the lack of parents in the child’s life that I find sad.
Funny, most posters describe their ‘herbal habit’ knowing the legal ramifications (I assume youall are adults) and can’t quite wrap the idea that laws can be honored mostly in their breach.
One of the nicest and most polite males that I know also has numerous tats, piercings, earlobe stretchers,etc. He is invariably gracious and pulled his ex-skank girlfriend form the abyss (small towns have no secrets). Still, every person has a strong visceral reaction to him and it is always negative. Knowing this, will I hire him to placate your desires or will I hope he takes the damn things out until it is his personal time.
I’ve worked in both ends of the wage scale. You may have madskillz or just be in the evilbig city where this is far less assumed to be S&M perversion. Either way, if you show up in tats, visible piercings, or pajamas; I’ll assume you need some more experience. Freaking out your parents is somewhat a young person’s game.
For those with delusions, very few people are not easily replaced. SEALS, Spetznatz, DSG9 are some that have training and values that are rare. If you have doubts, do the numbers on your skill set, gender, and how many peers you have.
Yes, the kids have tats and they are not washable. They are proud of the design and make sure to mention that there was parental involvement.
I’m sorry, but I still want to see actual photographic proof (not edited, either; it’s quite easy to draw a very real-looking tattoo on someone in photoshop) of this.
Is this something you saw on Nightline?
Again, sure I know of a few people who got tattoos illegally behind their parents’ backs as teenagers. Which is not the same thing as an 11 year old asking “mommy, can I have a tattoo?”
I’ve seen people turned away from the shop where I’ve been getting work done for much less questionable requests (like a guy bringing in his girlfriend and announcing that she wants his name tattooed on her neck).
I’ll also remind you of what I said above — I have friends who are CPA’s, attorneys, veterinarians, researchers, and all sorts of “serious” jobs despite their facial piercings. My gynecologist has a nose ring. Lower down on the wage scale, and in more of a ’service industry’ context, I was just admiring the stretched ear piercings of the girl who manages my very upscale neighborhood wine shop.
Sure, I live in New York, and maybe in a tiny town where everybody is all up in everybody else’s business this would not be possible. But state legislators represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones from some idealized Mayberry world that by and large no longer exists.
Yes, the kids have tats and they are not washable. They are proud of the design and make sure to mention that there was parental involvement.
I’m sorry, but I still want to see actual photographic proof (not edited, either; it’s quite easy to draw a very real-looking tattoo on someone in photoshop) of this.
Is this something you saw on Nightline?
Again, sure I know of a few people who got tattoos illegally behind their parents’ backs as teenagers. Which is not the same thing as an 11 year old asking “mommy, can I have a tattoo?”
I’ve seen people turned away from the shop where I’ve been getting work done for much less questionable requests (like a guy bringing in his girlfriend and announcing that she wants his name tattooed on her neck).
I’ll also remind you of what I said above — I have friends who are CPA’s, attorneys, veterinarians, researchers, and all sorts of “serious” jobs despite their facial piercings. My gynecologist has a nose ring. Lower down on the wage scale, and in more of a ’service industry’ context, I was just admiring the stretched ear piercings of the girl who manages my very upscale neighborhood wine shop.
Sure, I live in New York, and maybe in a tiny town where everybody is all up in everybody else’s business this would not be possible. But state legislators represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones from some idealized Mayberry world that by and large no longer exists.
Sorry for the impending double post.
lol at the opoponax…so i never actually taught 8th graders who had tattoos? hmm.
No! It doesn’t make her look like a bully; it means she is a bully.
The point of putting them in that position is teaching them to take action and responsibility for their society.
It’s not a set-up by these kids to ‘trap’ the representative into “looking” bad. They set up an appointment with their representative to discuss proposed legislation that directly affected them, her constituents. That’s the proper way to do it.
She agreed the issue was important by agreeing to take the meeting. She was doing her job right up until she kicked them out of her office without listening to them.
At that point she became a bully and totally fucked up doing her tax-payer funded job.
As for those of you who think representatives are just too darn busy to help out their constituents and that we should kowtow and grovel before them respectfully before we expect them to do as little as listen to us–do you have any idea what being an American is? Do you think this country was founded by people who treated legislators that abused their authority with respect simply b/c of their position?
Or was the idea rather that government should serve the people? And if they don’t, you kick their asses?
No wonder the country’s so fucked up.
(thanks, Eric, btw)
I have a huge tattoo on my back. I wear a shirt to work. My employability has never been called into question.
Spare me, Theseus, for I AM THE MIGHTY MINOTAUR! This Cocoon has witnessed your sins, and she seeks vengeance! The Cocoon will punish the wicked, the Cocoon will reward the righteous! You must escape from her grasp, you must end your freedom!
honestly, I really wanted a youtube of it, but couldn’t find it.
It was a joke reference to “Red Dragon” anyway. But The Monarch is funnier.
Folks, I have sinned. I posted before all the information was read. I did not know that the students were LGBT and that most of her response, as best as I can tell, was based on her inability to see them as human. I got pwned by my own ignorance.
“Folks, I have sinned…I got pwned by my own ignorance.”
Admitting your mistake is the first step on the road to recovery.
Now say 3 Hail-Ceiling-Cat’s and sin no more…
It was a joke reference to “Red Dragon” anyway. But The Monarch is funnier.
I know, but again, Monarch was funnier. couldn’t find a youtube of the red dragon bit, either.
pandagon base is measurable right?
no. all your pandagon base are belong to us.
….sorry….
It appears she knew they were gay when she took the meeting with them. She just wasn’t expecting them to look like they’d been victims of some sort of horrible drive-by fly-fishing attack.
And she called their appearance (so often not just an asthetic choice, but a form of self expression that epitomizes how isolated and unrepresented they feel) offensive.
Mind you, if she had quoted the Dandy Warhols “Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth” in dismissing them, I’d be on her side.
No, I think you have that backwards. Serving the interests of constituents is the entire basis of the democratic system. We vote for you, you look out for our collective interests in your given branch of government.
You don’t live in a democracy, either de jure or de facto.
The people the legislature are beholden to are those who put them there. In practice that means (i) campaign contributers, (ii) activists and organisers, and (iii) voters. In that order. As the esteemed sagette said “You gotta dance with them that brung you”, and I’m betting that Cunningham felt she didn’t owe a LGBT alliance of students so much as an obligatory air-kiss.
Folks, Jane Cunningham is not from a small town. She is from a wealthy suburb of St. Louis. Plenty of well off college kids wear piercings. They even vote. There’s no excuse for rudeness there. But one thing she knows for sure - these kids aren’t going to donate money to her.
Vote, ha…without a draft to threaten their precious hides, they vote less than lemurs.
Vote, ha…without a draft to threaten their precious hides, they vote less than lemurs.
What, me vote?
I am a Lobbyist in Jefferson City and I remember talking to the group of “volunteer Lobbyists” who’s recollection of this event was very different. In fact the response to why the boys were turned away was not because of looks at all but because of the lack of respect shown towards the Representative and that the representative had an important meeting with Representative Low. So my memory is something that I know for fact, this article is noting but false rumors and lies. I hope you will look for the truth and not settle on a set of lies.
for the truth, check into her back ground.
www.jane-cunningham.com
Jack: In fact the response to why the boys were turned away was not because of looks at all but because of the lack of respect shown towards the Representative and that the representative had an important meeting with Representative Low.
Oh, so when Jane Cunningham said that the reason she kicked them out of her office was that she was disgusted by their piercings, she was lying - the real reason was she’d double-booked herself, but she preferred to blame the kids who’d come to see her rather than her office’s inefficiency?
“Jack” = Sock Puppet for Cunningham…
Oh, so when Jane Cunningham said
I believe you mean “When PROMO’s press release reported that Jane Cunningham said…”.
Be fair to Jack, even if he’s on the “other side” and acknowledge that the two are not necessarily the same thing.
who the fuck cares about what you ’should’ be wearing when meeting a person ‘in authority’ — every single one of those standards is racist, sexist, and classist, in every single instance, no question about it, so why are we even concerning ourselves with dress codes and how to be ‘proper’?
this woman is an asshole. end of story.
This is odd. After all, both devotees of and refugees from small-town life describe it as somewhere that everybody pretty much knows everybody’s business. Why should decent people, who knew that tattoo-face guy
was basically OK, ostracize him for his looks? Pretty much everyone is annoying in some way, and in a small place if you avoid the annoying you are all alone.
…I realize that there are lots of theories and even more novels based on this occurrence in small towns. I’d appreciate recommendations of good novels.