Sooner or later somebody is gonna get hurt

From Toilet Paper Media:

A gay rights activists threw glitter at Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) as she left the stage at the RightOnline conference here Saturday. The “glittering” is not the first glitter-related stunt pulled on a Republican running for president this year.

Get Equal, a California-based gay rights group, claimed responsibility for the glittering, which did not hit Bachmann. A previous glittering aimed at Newt Gingrich was more successful in reaching its target.

While I support their cause, this “glitter bombing” stuff is stupid and dangerous. I spent a number of years working security, and somebody rushing at a candidate with something in their hand (or pulling something from their pocket) would be considered a deadly threat.

Think Gabrielle Giffords or imagine somebody rushing at President Obama. The Secret Service agents guarding the President would have split seconds to react. If they capped some glitter-bomber rushing at Obama it would be ruled justifiable homicide.

BTW – The same thing applies to people with cream pies or anyone else pulling similar protest/publicity stunts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Sooner or later somebody is gonna get hurt

  1. votermom says:

    Glitter, pies, acid …

  2. Apparently the ability to think your way out of a wet paper bag is not required for some of these protest activities.

    Next up, glitter gun that looks like a real gun. What could possibly go wrong?

  3. jjmtacoma says:


    Yeah, rushing with anything in your hand (probably even a camera) is just not a good idea.

    Glitter. Is that supposed to be like fairy dust?

  4. glennmcgahee says:

    While today that may be true. I’ll forever be grateful for the cream pie in Anita Bryant’s face as she tried everything she could to have us LGBT people burned at the stake.

    • Valissa says:

      Yup that was a good one. I had forgotten all about it until you mentioned it.

      From Wikipedia

      In 1977, Dade County, Florida (now Miami-Dade County), passed an ordinance sponsored by Bryant’s former good friend Ruth Shack, that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[3] Bryant, as the leader of a coalition named Save Our Children, took part in a highly publicized campaign to repeal the ordinance. On June 7, 1977, Florida voters repealed the anti-discrimination ordinance by a margin of 69 to 31 percent. This same year, Anita Bryant and Save Our Children also supported a law passed by the Florida Legislature that prohibited gay adoption (the law didn’t include fostering children).[4]

      Bryant’s political success stirred backlash from some opponents. She was “pied” as a political act (in her case, on television), in Des Moines in 1977.[5] Bryant quipped, “At least it’s a fruit pie.”[6] While covered in pie, she began to pray to God to forgive the activist “for his deviant lifestyle” before bursting into tears as the cameras kept rolling. Bryant’s husband, after promising not to retaliate, later took another pie and threw it at the LGBT rights protesters that had pied his wife.[7] By this time, gay activists had ensured the boycott on Florida orange juice had become more prominent and it was supported by many celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Paul Williams, John Waters, Carroll O’Connor, Mary Tyler Moore and Jane Fonda. The story was told in the book, At Any Cost (1978). Bryant is still widely reviled in the gay community.[8] …

      The Florida Citrus Commission did not renew her endorsement contract upon its lapse in 1979 because of the controversy and the negative publicity generated by her political campaigns and the resulting boycott of Florida orange juice.[1] Ultimately, backlash against Bryant’s political activism in the late 1970s “ended a high-flying career” and Bryant filed for bankruptcy in Arkansas in 1997.[1]

  5. 1539days says:

    I spent a number of years working security, and somebody rushing at a candidate with something in their hand (or pulling something from their pocket) would be considered a deadly threat.

    Time for some tazers.

  6. Three Wickets says:

    I’ve never been a big politico. Just the past couple of years or so, the klown and others have gotten me more interested, to their dismay. Most of this stuff is new to me. Back in college, I was very supportive of women’s advocacy and gay rights, I had more gay friends than straight ones, and my affinities haven’t changed much over the years. Until 2007, I had been working and living abroad a lot. Pretty soon after I came back, we had the clusterfuck 2008 election season. I’d always been a Hillary supporter. I barely even knew what a Progressive or a New Democrat was. Anyway, all this activism now has my head spinning. I don’t know if I’m a Democrat anymore. I remain a strong supporter of both women and gay causes. But the progressively aggressive, hate-everyone, pay-attention-to-me-me-me political activism from some LGBT political activists lose me, and I never thought that could happen.

    • jjmtacoma says:

      I wonder if some of the attention getting and hostile advocacy is because we no longer can rely on representative governement of any kind.

      I am a supporter of LGBT rights because I believe supporting the rights of everyone is the only way to ensure we all get fair treatment. Plus, I have good friends who are part of this community and I’d do anything to help them too.

      I am sure my fairy dust question sounds weird – but I have to wonder who thought that was a good idea? Glitter?

      • ralphb says:

        Amen to all that. I have family and dear friends in the LGBT community and couldn’t be more supportive of full equality. Glitter is a rainbow of sorts, I guess, though it seems highly ineffective to me.

    • Valhalla says:

      Well, at least some of it is media filtering. They always gravitate toward the most outrageous part of any social movement. It’s easy to get the impression that the whatever-group is crazy or stupid or demanding outrageous stuff. The great majority of gay rights activists aren’t risking life or serious injury to throw some silly glitter.

      That being said, I don’t get the glitter thing. The pie in the face thing — that I get. I get animal rights activists who throw fake blood on fur-wearers (although I’m not actually down with that, at least I get it). What is the message, they’re all superficial glitter and no substance? (all hat, no cattle?) Well, that’s not very original or exciting, since we all knew that already. Plus neither Gingrich or Bachman are particular shiny. Now glittering Obama would make some sort of sense.

      • Three Wickets says:

        And I believe that. Wasn’t the glitter thing as much as the aggressive LGBT activist voices I see on facebook and twitter, and I connect with many. I should probably ease up some, too much politics, could be hearing voices in my head. 🙂

  7. foxyladi14 says:

    been doing that foe years 😆 😆

Comments are closed.