Don't Be a Hater.

Yesterday, the overpaid members of our Senate voted to pass a controversial hate crimes bill, which they cleverly tacked onto a war funding bill in an attempt to make it veto-proof. Currently, our nation identifies a violent crime as a "hate crime" if the victim's religion, race, national origin or color was the perpetrator's primary motivation. If the president signs this newly passed hate crimes act, sexual orientation, gender, disability, and "gender identification" will be added to the list of forbidden motivations for violent acts.

What does this mean? It means that if you kill a gay guy because he's gay, the legal system will somehow consider the crime worse than it would have been if you had killed him for taking your favorite parking space at Wal-Mart. The logic here is obviously flawed: gay guys go to Target, not Wal-Mart. But the Senate's logic is also flawed: all violent crimes, with the possible exception of those committed by highly intelligent, yet emotionless robot ninjas, are motivated by some kind of hate. There simply isn't any rational reason to pass a bill that would make already illegal acts "more illegal" if they're motivated by a particular class of hatred. Of course, certain law-makers don't see things the same way I do:

(From the LA Times)
"We have never had this bill with the potential to go as far as it is," said Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.), one of the chief sponsors, who pleaded for the president to sign it as a "legacy that he can claim on an important civil rights issue."

Smith stood on the Senate floor next to a photo of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was brutally beaten in Wyoming in 1998 and left to die tied to a fence. The bill is named for Shepard. "What happened to Matthew should happen to no one," Smith said.

I agree with Gordon Smith on one point: nobody should be brutally beaten to death and left to die tied to a fence. However, I'm pretty sure that murder was outlawed in Wyoming well before 1998. Yes, that law didn't stop people from killing Matthew Shepard, but neither would the bill the Senate just passed. As it turns out, the two men responsible for Matthew Shepard's murder were caught, prosecuted, and are both serving life sentences. If this new hate crimes bill had been passed prior to 1998, what difference would it have made? None. Matthew Shepard would have been killed, the killers would have been prosecuted, and in all likelihood, the sentence would remain the same. I may not be an expert on the mindset of criminals, but I have a tiny hunch that most murderers will be undeterred by the possibility of being charged with a "hate crime" instead of just a plain ol' murder.

So, to commemorate the downright stupidity of this bill, I hereby award the 110th Congress of the United States of America the prestigious "Walrus of Shame", donated by Texas State University:


It must also be noted that the Walrus of Shame makes an excellent conversation starter at weddings, funerals, parties of all kinds, and NRA meetings. For information on how to get your own Walrus of Shame, please contact the Texas State University department of Multicultural Student Affairs by phone at (512) 245-2278, or by e-mail at multicultural-affairs@txstate.edu.

My Enemy's Enemy Might Still Be My Enemy.

No matter what General Petraeus & Co. actually say when they testify about progress in Iraq on Monday, it's already obvious what the spin from the Bush camp will be. While they may admit -- in an offhand sort of way -- that the progress we've seen in Iraq hasn't reached desired levels, they will almost certainly shine their rhetorical spotlight on the fact that in the once-dangerous Al-Anbar province of Iraq, Sunnis who were previously fighting against American forces with the help of Al-Qaeda are now fighting against Al-Qaeda with the help of American forces. Of course, this definitely sounds like a good thing -- what could be bad about some of our worst enemies becoming our friends and allies? Isn't that a valid sign of progress? Well, yes... and no. If these Sunni ex-insurgents have truly experienced a miraculous change of heart overnight, the news is fantastic. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is probably a little less rosy.

This is because our new-found Sunni allies still hate our guts; they just happen to hate Al-Qaeda's guts a little bit more. They're our co-belligerents in the fight against Al-Qaeda, not friends -- and there happens to be a difference. The main difference being that once Al-Qaeda is driven from Al-Anbar province, there's a fair chance that these foul-weather friends could turn on us hard and fast.

Now, I'm not omnipotent or anything, so I may be wrong about this. But looking at the history of the situation, I don't think it's an altogether unreasonable assessment:

(1) For years, the Sunni tribes in Al-Anbar province wanted us dead. Coincidentally, Al-Qaeda also wanted us dead. Because of this convergence of interests, Al-Qaeda and the Sunnis developed a relationship of co-belligerency against the American forces.

(2) But then, Al-Qaeda crossed the line, attempting to control the Sunnis using brutal tactics of terror and intimidation. Now the Sunnis wanted to get rid of Al-Qaeda, but they couldn't do it alone. Coincidentally, the American forces also wanted to get rid of Al-Qaeda, but they couldn't do it without local support. This second convergence of interests allowed us to develop our current relationship of co-belligerency with the Sunnis.

So what happens when Al-Qaeda is removed from the scene? The most logical step for the Sunni's of Al-Anbar would be a return to the fight against the American occupation. The current Sunni-American alliance is built on a common goal, not deep seated loyalty or a mutual love of democracy. Once that goal is achieved, it would be naive to assume that this alliance built on self-interest will hold. Worse still, Sunnis who were taking pot-shots at us only months ago are now receiving weapons, funds, and training from the U.S military. If the Sunnis decide to bite the hand that feeds them, we could find ourselves faced with a well-fed enemy indeed.

In a time when hope for Iraq seems scarce, it's only natural that the administration tries to cling to every scrap of good news it can find. But placing an unrealistic amount of trust in an alliance that seems flaky at best may not be the greatest idea in the world. What seems like an investment in the future stability of Iraq could easily turn into a dangerous gamble -- and the American people may not be able to tolerate another major blunder in an already unpopular war.