All That Glitters Isn’t Intelligent

A while ago, I issued a challenge to supporters of single-sex marriage, and opponents of the proposed Constitutional Amendment on the issue this fall; develop an argument that’ll convince a majority of Minnesota voters that you’re right about the issue.

For a fair chunk of that audience, the “argument” has been expressed as simply chanting “you’re a bigot”, which is a stupid argument.

For another fair chunk, the argument reverts to chanting “we don’t vote on civil rights”, which is a nice platitude.  Also bullcrap.  We vote on civil rights all the time.  Ask any second amendment supporter or opponent of campaign finance “reform” / speech rationing, or academic freedom activist, or anti-”Fairness Doctrine” watchdog.  And that completely avoids the question “is marriage a civil liberty”.  I don’t know that I support the Amendment – but I know that all the best arguments against it come from conservatives.

The dumbest argument of all?  Glitter.

It’s become a fad among the local cutesy-but-inartciulate crowd in the past year; if you can’t manage an actual adult argument (and they never, ever can), throw glitter at them.

The Strib editorial board sounds off against the fad - for all the wrong reasons.  It comes in the wake of some giggle moron throwing glitter at Mitt Romney during his stop in the Twin Cities earlier this week:

 That’s a mistake. Further glitterings, especially of presidential candidates, place everyone at campaign rallies at risk. Security officers must make instantaneous judgments about suspicious-looking people who get close to the candidates and their families. Whether it’s highly trained Secret Service officers or local law enforcement, it’s incredibly difficult in those split-seconds to distinguish someone drawing a weapon from someone pulling out a hidden bag of confetti.

According to the Strib, that’s the reason to stop the glitterings; the safety of the idiot throwing the glitter.

Thjey’re wrong, of course..  The risk to the over-schooled, under-educated, smug little glitter-throwing jagoffs isn’t the main reason to ditch the glitter.

The damage the practice does to our political discourse.  It’s long been a principle of free speech; your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins.  Maybe a couple of feet before, if you’re smart.  Throwing anything at another person is a form of assault; if you did it to a spouse or significant other in the wrong context (the middle of a fight) it could earn you a trip to jail.  As, indeed, it should have for the little prick that glittered Romney.

So what we have in Minnesota -and it seems to be a phenomenon among smug little Minnesota jag-bags, so far – is a group of people that thinks a form of assault, stylized as it is, is a legitimate form of protest.   Of “free speech”.

It makes Minnesota look like an invincibly stupid place.

As if electing Al Franken and Mark Dayton hadn’t done enough damage.

9 thoughts on “All That Glitters Isn’t Intelligent

  1. Mix 100 mg biohazard with 25 g glitter.
    “Glitter bomb” political adversary.
    Walk away.
    The person throwing the glitter wouldn’t have to be in on the plot “Here’s the glitter. Get close to the candidate and glitter bomb them. It’ll do our cause a lot of good and you’ll feel good doing it!”
    This is afad on the left because its stupid, childish, and dangerous.

  2. Update on 2nd amendment rights…….the Aldi store CC holder who shot a robber who was pointing a shotgun at store employees in Milwaukee…some right wing back woods bubba stereotype? His name is Nazir Al-Mujaahid . Talked about in Milwaukee Journal:

    Al-Mujaahid said he and his wife stopped at the store, at N. 76th St. and W. Villard Ave., for some last minute dinner items. They’d never shopped at the store before, he said.

    He said they had just walked in when he noticed the suspect approach the cashiers holding up a shotgun with the stock cut off and a bag, demanding money in a very agitated way. Fearing for the safety of himself, his wife and others in the store, he said, he unholstered his semi-automatic 9mm handgun, cocked it and kept it down at his side as he motioned another customer behind the robber to move away.

    When the robber turned the the shotgun toward him, Al-Mujaahid said, he fired 6 or 7 shots from about 20 feet away. He said he hit the suspect in the leg and forehead. The robber then dropped the shotgun and bag, and fled the store. Police arrested a suspect and an accomplice later. They had not been formally charged as of Friday morning.

  3. I missed this part….catch the irony about the “no guns allowed” sign at the store:

    He said he knew from his recent training that you need a clear head, breathe right and “commit to a decision.”

    Al-Mujaahid, an internet marketer, said he’s always been a gun rights support and previously exercised his right to openly carry a firearm. When Wisconsin adopted a concealed carry law last year, he applied for his permit in November. He said he obtained it Jan. 17 or 18.

    He said he did not notice the sign at Aldi prohibiting weapons in the store, and that if he had, he would have gone elsewhere. He said since he began to carry a concealed gun, he has stopped from going into other businesses where he did see the sign.

    Al-Mujaahid said he hopes the incident will deter other criminals from using guns in areas where law-abiding people may defend themselves

  4. C’mon, Ben! You know better! Because he has a middle eastern sounding name, he’s obviously a tea party member.

  5. It makes Minnesota look like an invincibly stupid place.
    I think Governor Ventura established the precedent. Franken and Dayton are just corroboration of the fact. Minnesota is an invincibly stupid place.

  6. don’t forget it goes back further than that, we were the only state to vote for Mondale in 1984.

Leave a Reply