Comments

  1. says

    throwing glitter on someone = jail time and a fine.

    not being a responsible adult and choosing to be laissez-faire about a report of child-rape? totes acceptable.

    if i’ve learned anything in the last year it’s that all you need to do to not be held accountable for your actions and inactions is to coach football.

  2. NorthAlabama says

    QUICK!!! Rip the DANGEROUS GLITTER from our childrens hands!!! We’ve been handing over this hazardous weapon to our unsuspecting youth and teachers for years without concern for their well being, how could we have been so foolish.

  3. says

    @Randy
    With all of the post 9/11 “security concerns”, I’m amazed that one of these glitter bombers hasn’t been shot/tazed/detained. Throwing more avant-garde substances, let alone ones that are less recognizable than glitter, would horrify the security teams, and penultimately just make things worse without furthering the political point.
    Food for thought

  4. Charlie says

    I am sure there are much more serious Federal charges that could have been brought. And since it is likely a first offense he will probably just face a fine and possible probation if convicted.

    But his parents will probably pay a lot of money to lawyers to defend him. And his school might take action against him. And this is something he will have to explain for the rest of his life to potential employers.

  5. NVTodd says

    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

    Throwing glitter in someone’s eyes isn’t going to do anything to win people over to your argument. If anything, it accomplishes the exact opposite of your supposed goal.

    You can joke about how harmless glitter is all you want, and laugh about how deserving these people are of this happening to them, but all you’ve accomplished is to prove that you are as incapable of intelligent discourse as you accuse your opponents of being.

    Lead by good, positive example, not by futile, violent gestures.

  6. says

    NVTODD, can you give any specific actions of the “good positive example” and/or “intelligent discourse” that will have an effect on the Santorums/Romneys/Bachmanns/Gingrichs?

    because, as far as i can tell, even the Gay Republicans haven’t been able to change their minds on any LGBT Issues, and lord knows they’re as “inoffensive and considerate to anti-gay republicans” as one can be.

    so, any specifics you have in mind would be greatly appreciated.

  7. NVTodd says

    “kiwi”

    I didn’t say anything about being “inoffensive and considerate to anti-gay Republicans”, so what’s with the quotes ?

    Fabricating quotes and implying I’ve stated something I clearly have not isn’t going to lend your views much credence.

    So far as “changing the GOP”, these are politicians, you don’t change them, you change the people who elect them. You don’t give your enemies everything they need to garner support and sympathy, doing that just plays into their agenda. It’s called “strategy”.

    The fact that YOU can’t think of a single example of how to be a positive influence IS the problem.

    Ellen is on TV just about every day changing hearts and minds, and she does it by showing people that not all gay people have to act-out and resort to lies and violence to make a point.

    The truth wins out when it’s given an chance, put down the glitter and grow up.

  8. says

    I didn’t say I couldn’t, I asked you what your specific plans of action would be, instead of these glitterings.

    i think it’s worth noting that most LGBT people don’t resort to any forms of violence.

    if the LGBT community had a “violent reputation” we’d have equal rights, believe it or not – people wouldn’t be proud of spreading anti-gay bigotry because they’d literally be afraid of doing so.

    nobody is afraid of insulting the LGBT Community. at all.

    “not all gay people resort to lies and violence to make a point”

    i dare say the vast MAJORITY of LGBT people don’t resort to lies and violence. we do not have a reputation for violence. it’s very simple.

    i’ll say this, though: clearly gay republicans are slacking and not doing their job. the GOP’s base remains as anti-gay as ever – so what are Gay republicans NOT doing?

    what’s not being done? Are they not actually Out? Are they not able to be firm and confident about LGBT people’s rights to equality, liberty, freedom and fair treatment?

    Ellen is indeed great, and decidedly “benign” about her Gayness – that didn’t stop “one million moms” from being furiously, and baselessly, homophobic and angry toward her.

    very odd, eh?

  9. says

    Not that I have any great love of Mitt Romney, but violence is violence! Glitter-bombing is dangerous as well as asinine. It’s about time charges got pressed, and I hope it becomes the standard way to deal with these attention-starved “activists”.

  10. Jon says

    Glitter-bombing is dangerous? Someone tell the strippers and toy makers! Don’t be ridiculous. I say glitter-bomb away. Civil disobedience is against the law by its very nature. Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail, remember. He had a parade without a permit. And you know what? I hope that they get glitter-bombed so much that it just sticks to them and they can’t get it out of their hair. And I hope every glimmer and sparkle reminds them of how low and bitter they are to deny other people their rights. And in the least, its annoying.

  11. jack says

    Good! Mabye this will send a message to other gay stereotypes that throwing “fairy dust” and politicians you disagree with is beyond silly and it is an assault.

  12. Jon says

    @Jack I don’t condone throwing politicians you disagree with. However, you also imply that being similar to a stereotype is something bad. What stereotype? And yes it is silly. Would you prefer an act of rage? As far as assaults go, it is, I think, the least amount of force you could ever use on a person. Any amount of force used is tantamount to an assault. The next time a fly buzzes around your head you can indignantly say you’ve been assaulted – fine. These are people who support stripping people of their civil legal rights. Using the least amount of force possible is a blessing. And civil disobedience requires breaking the law. MLK Jr. wrote from Birmingham that sometimes the right thing to do is break the law. This is one of those times. If you can’t see that, you don’t know who your friends and enemies are.

  13. Henry Holland says

    “if i’ve learned anything in the last year it’s that all you need to do to not be held accountable for your actions and inactions is to coach football”

    Yeah, except for the one coach who is under house arrest and will be found guilty of child rape (Sandusky), the head coach of the university it took place at who died in disgrace and it can be argued was driven to an early grave by the scandal (Paterno), the coach who saw it happen and didn’t report it right away who will never get near a coaching job again (McQueary), the two administration people who got fired and face criminal charges (Spanier and Schultz) etc. etc. etc.

    God, you just lie, make stuff up and think no one will notice.

    “Fabricating quotes and implying I’ve stated something I clearly have not isn’t going to lend your views much credence”

    Welcome to Little Kiwi’s world!

    “nobody is afraid of insulting the LGBT Community. at all”

    Again with the lying. Tell that to Tracy Morgan, Roland Martin, Jalen Rose and on and on.

  14. jack says

    Jon you don’t know much about MLK if you think he would advocate assault. His whole philosophy was non-violence. He did advocate breaking “unjust” laws but never raising your hand full of glitter to interfere with someones right to free speech.

  15. Jon says

    @Jack: So I guess Stonewall should have never happened, then? Because to assault someone is always, without exception, morally reprehensible in your view? MLK would not advocate assault, I agree. I argued that sometimes you have to break the law – that was my point. My second point was that this is the least amount of assault (legally defined as force used against a person) conceivable. If this bothers you so terribly, and you want to quibble semantics, then you do not know who your friends are. We need the gay equivalent for an “Uncle Tom”.

Leave A Reply