How About We All Agree To Stop Glitter-Bombing People?

From time to time during the campaign season, the candidates vying for the GOP nomination have been set upon by marriage equality activists at public appearances and subjected to "glitter-bombing." This tactic has been highly effective, as each of these candidates have, post-glittering, completely reversed their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Ha! Just kidding! It's actually just sort of been a mild annoyance. But after Mitt Romney's post-primary speech in Colorado Tuesday night, stuff finally got real for a glitter-bomber, as Romney's newly-assigned Secret Service detail immediately apprehended 20-year-old University of Colorado Denver student Peter Smith, and turned him over to police. He now faces a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail for his troubles. It's as if local law enforcement authorities are treating the glitter-bombing as something dangerous. Well, guess what? It actually is.

Per Judy Kurtz at The Hill:

But Stephen Glasser, an optometrist in downtown Washington, tells [The Hill] that while they might seem harmless, glitter bombs can cause real damage: "If it gets into the eyes, the best scenario is it can irritate, it can scratch. Worst scenario is it can actually create a cut. As the person blinks, it moves the glitter across the eye and can actually scratch the cornea." Although not likely, it can even cause a potential loss of sight.

That's almost what happened to one of Glasser's patients, who was out at a New Year's Eve soiree where partygoers were tossing glitter around: "It literally scratched not the cornea, but the white of the eye ... [S]ince [glitter isn't] exactly what you'd call sterile, there's not only a chance of a scratch, but giving the person an infection."

Yeah, as soon as we get to "scratch the cornea," I'm done. So, how about we all agree that "glitter-bombing" is totally played out before anyone else gets blinded and/or arrested? Okay? Terrific. Good talk, guys.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

Comments

[Corndoggy]

12:29 AM on 02/20/2012

How about throwing lube and pudding

[Jerry Bourbon]

10:48 AM on 02/10/2012

Hmm. Interesting. If it is OK to throw stuff at politicians who "oppose your rights", would it be OK for gun owners to throw, say, spent shell casings at Democratic politicians like Daley or Feinstein who are trying to restrict THEIR rights?

[MrVega]

04:26 AM on 02/10/2012

The biggest problem with glitter bombing is it creates victims out of these bullies.

I think the "spreading santorum" method was much more effective and creative.

[Lord Ligonier]

01:52 AM on 02/10/2012

I guess it's not surprising that people who embrace homosexual sodomy think that throwing things at people is ok too.

[MrVega]

04:23 AM on 02/10/2012

But heterosexual sodomy is still okay, right? Please?

[RadCenter]

10:45 AM on 02/10/2012

Gotta love that qualifier.

[Djay0252]

10:43 AM on 02/10/2012

I think that nature is trying to say that with what comes out of that part of the body....NOTHING should be going in!

[Diana Hibbard LoCascio]

10:36 PM on 02/09/2012

I'd like to see a new way to let them know rational people are displeased with them. The glitter bombing does not seem to get the desired effect any more since it has become common place.
Let's spend that energy in other ways.

[nutzodriven]

05:45 PM on 02/12/2012

there is its called vote them out. Problem is you all keep re electing the same baffoons. Ie Reid,Pelosi Durban etc

[soccer babe luvs u]

09:44 PM on 02/09/2012

Unless these so-called "glitter-bombers" are dusting primary candidates with showers of sparkles with malicious intentions, I don't see why such drastic security measures are necessary. Yes, glitter may harm a person's eyes, but such an injury would likely be unsubstantial.

[Will737]

08:54 AM on 02/12/2012

I see that you know so much more than the optometrist. You must think that you are really smart. I guess you will also pretending to be smarter than lawyers and judges and be representing these clowns when they put them into jail too.

[Stephen Holland]

07:43 PM on 02/09/2012

Half of Ron Paul is great. The other half is scary & delusional. But all of Ron Paul is true and open.If we could have a president & 1/2,,,he would be the greatest half this country could ever have.

[MrVega]

04:23 AM on 02/10/2012

A propos of.... nothing?

[BGUMP]

06:38 PM on 02/09/2012

Let's throw garlic, we all know vampires can't stand that.

[hmmmmm]

06:36 PM on 02/09/2012

"you'll put your eye out!"

[BGUMP]

06:32 PM on 02/09/2012

Whatever it takes to brighten up the room.

[midwesthousewife]

06:28 PM on 02/09/2012

Next up--the lethal effects of a cream pie in the face!

[carbec]

06:23 PM on 02/09/2012

How about securing a substance that does not pose a threat to eyes? Surely some confetti-like (crepe paper) in a gold color would work just as well to get the point across.

It would then be a completely safe procedure. It makes the point.

[soisay]

11:07 PM on 02/09/2012

OMG! Isn't this how swings and slides all got replaced by those play-safe wood and plastic playyards?

[grittyreboot]

06:20 PM on 02/09/2012

This is a typical media distraction. I'm disappointed, Mr Linkins.

The real conversation should be about the damage these "victims' " rampant and public homophobia causes to gay kids who are struggling with their identity.

[Will737]

02:27 PM on 02/12/2012

The distraction is caused by the fools that throw the glitter, not those who report on it.

[grittyreboot]

06:17 PM on 02/09/2012

"But Stephen Glasser, an optometrist in downtown Washington, tells [The Hill] that while they might seem harmless, glitter bombs can cause real damage"

Right. Glitter does damage to homophobes but what homophobia does to gay kids, that's just fine right? Glad to see you can keep things in perspective, doctor.

[RLaitres]

06:16 PM on 02/09/2012

If we are given our "druthers" some of us might prefer more "glitter bombs" and cream pies and far fewer guns and bullets.