"After the black American in Texas was mutilated and killed," Mr. Buckley begins, "and the gay student in Wyoming also mutilated and killed, President Clinton asked for increased federal dominion over hate crimes. Is there a need, let alone a philosophical justification, for such a thing, or was Mr. Clinton's call nothing more than what George Will designated as moral pork barrel?" A crackling exchange over the conflicting legal principles. WFB: "John hits this passerby, who's black, and steals his wallet. Now, if he is convicted merely of stealing, he gets five years, let's say. But if he is convicted of hitting him because he's black, he gets ten years. Now why would that one sentiment, i.e., prejudice, be more greatly penalized than the kind of cupidity that brings on mugging and stealing?" NS: "Well, for the same reason that our civil-rights laws have taken acts that are completely lawful in general-- We have a employment-at-will doctrine in this society, which basically means an employer can refuse to hire somebody or can fire somebody for any reason at all, except... [that] you may not refuse to hire, you may not fire, because of these invidious classifications: race, gender ... So, if you take something that is already a crime, it is completely fair and rational for society to say, 'This is a more serious crime, given the problems of discrimination.'"