DO I NEED PROTECTION FROM FOOTSY-PLAYING SENATORS?

While I do not necessarily believe that Senator Craig is "innocent", I find the entire entrapment process to be more than slightly objectionable. And I am not gay (not that there's anything the matter with that, as Seinfeld would say).

But there are a few questions:

1. If indeed the Policeman was so sure that the Senator was going to proposition him for sex, why didn't the Policeman WAIT until the Senator actually verbally (or physically) propositioned him?

Since the Policeman did not wait, there is not a real case, and not necessarily a real indication of intent. Can you REALLY arrest somebody for placing their foot outside of the limits of their toilet cubicle?

What if there was a cockroach on the floor? Wouldn't you want to get your feet out of the way? What if you plopped down on the toilet and you suddenly discovered that the slob who previously used the toilet pissed all over the floor (not uncommon at airports)?

In any event, I find it extremely puzzling, and rather disturbing, that the Police Officer didn't wait until the Senator had actually propositioned him. That would have been a much more effective arrest, and it would have shown DEFINITIVELY that the Senator was making an explicit sexual advance.

2. Another question. What is the law that they have in Minnesota airports? Is it against the law for one consenting male adult to proposition another adult male for sex? Is it against the law to even APPEAR as if you are propositioning them? What are the "official" indications of intent?

Considering that the Police Officer is ruining the life of a Senator, a very accomplished individual, you would think that there would be some official indications of intent. Is pushing your foot into an adjoining cubicle sufficient reason to have your life ruined? Or touching the bottom of the toilet barrier in a "suggestive" way?

And what was the Senator even suggesting? Was he going to perform sex on the Policeman from the other side of the barrier? HOW? Would they both lay on the floor? Why did not the Police Officer let this situation play out so that we could, indeed, see how this bad man was going to accomplish his alleged intended sexual tryst.

3. Another question arises: Couldn't this Police Officer have been assigned to some more important responsibility rather than being assigned to sitting on airport toilets and trying to entrap dirty old men?

This is a particularly germane question when you consider that this is AIRPORT SECURITY. Would it not be a better use of this officer to be asssigned to look for possible terrorists, rather than harmless old perverts?

3. Let me say personally to the Minnesota Police. I do NOT need protection from Dirty Old Men who want to have sex with me in airport toilets. I do, in fact, know how to say the word "NO". In the event that some pervo asks me if I would like to have sex with him, I have no problem saying the word "NO". In fact, no gay men have propositioned me for about 20 years. Nor has anybody ever stuck their hand or their foot in my toilet cubicle. This would be a major mistake on their part, since the appendage would probably come back seriously damaged.

4. Let me applaud the work of the Police in general. I DO NEED protection from people like murderers, rapists, terrorists, robbers, burglars, etc. I deeply appreciate the work of the police in protecting me from violent criminals.

However, I DO NOT need protection from dirty old men who are seeking out like-minded dirty old men in airport toilets. And in fact, I have never been approached by one, so they are probably quite discrete in their footsy-playing.

To summarize, while the behavior of the Senator is sleezy and hypocritical, him being a Closet Queen who runs as a Republican Homophobe, I think that the use of police officers for this sort of entrapment is a waste of an important resource. It is particularly a waste when it is done at airports, where there is a critical continuing need to be on the alert for terrorists.

Draft 2, 11/14/07.