Flippin’ the Word

It’s meaningless to me whether or not Senator Larry Craig is gay, straight, or somewhere in between, so I won’t spend even one sentence exploring that abyss. I also don’t care whether he resigns or is removed or remains in office the rest of his life. What I am wondering, though, is when exactly come-ons became “lewdness.” The state certainly has an interest in policing both forced sex and public sex, but what is the government’s stake in patrolling public flirting?

As far as I can tell, Senator Craig at most indicated an amorous interest to the plainclothes policeman. I absolutely cannot see the crime in signaling to someone - of the same or opposite sex - that one is interested in the other person. Actually, how else do couples meet, date, and marry? If in fact it is criminal behavior to flirt, every man and most women who have ever visited a bar deserve to be rounded up and herded to jail.

Regardless of the right or wrong and lawfulness or unlawfulness of it all, is it really so pervasive that cops must go undercover to seek these dirty, filthy perpetrators? Is America actually safer because the long arm of the law has sent a message loud and clear that flirting will not be tolerated in airport restrooms?
I imagine the origin of these “airport sex stings” is similar to the basis for the New York City proposal criminalizing even the most cursory glance at a woman’s body. Apparently two women complained to the City Council that they were being stared at on the streets and at the subway. Naturally, it being New York City, the women were likely wearing spandex jeans and mesh belly tees, all of course in the interest of “self-expression.” So, the City’s reaction to two complaints is to seek three month jail sentences for any man who notices that the person to his left is in fact a female.

I deduct from the NYC proposal that probably one or two men complained that they had been propositioned in an airport restroom, and, cops being cops, the whole thing turned into a zealous hunt for guy-on-guy flirting in bathrooms. Taken together, both disproportionate reactions suggest an effort on the part of the government to eliminate the opportunity to procreate. Apparently population control hysteria has ceased to be a cause exclusive to “new-agers” and has floated up to the top of governmental priorities.

The do-goody-goody liberals are in hysterics over the airport inspections of Sikhs, ranting that Sikhs are not terrorists just because they wear turbans - and in fact aren’t even Muslim - thus they should not be subjected to turban searches. The rationale is essentially this: Sikhs aren’t engaged in terrorism, and therefore should not have their turbans invasively searched. Well, this is precisely the argument in favor of so-called racial profiling!

I note that apparently not all turbans are created equal. Those upset over Sikh airport treatment haven’t objected to turban inspections, they have objected to inspections of turbans worn by Sikhs. They don’t like that Sikhs are obligated to undergo security checks as if they are some kind of terrorists, when they as a group are never implicated in terrorism.

Newsflash: The old grandmother who depends on her cane to struggle out of her orthopaedic shoes is treated like some kind of terrorist at airports, even though octogenarians as a group are never implicated in terrorism. The new mother who is forced to taste her own breast milk is treated like some kind of terrorist at airports, even though mothers as a group are never implicated in terrorism. The 12 year old kid who is required to submit to complicated bioterrorism tests is treated like some kind of terrorist at airports, even though preteens as a group are never implicated in terrorism.

I’m sure that the liberal objectors get my point and are busily working toward a justification for their rare use of logic. They are on an imminent collision course now that two of the benchmark liberal charity cases are at odds: Their desperate desire to defend a minority group like the Sikhs from “civil rights violations” clashes completely with their weathered attempts at ensuring that no one is singled out at airports on the basis of actual evidence and incontrovertible facts.