Let’s start with some fun: Strange math and funny logic
Regarding the rabbi’s contention that, if chimps share 90% of their genome with a human and should therefore have 90% of human rights, as one pundit has suggested:
since bananas share some genes with humans, would it not be logical to accord them say 30% of the rights of people? Where is the line? Some people might even prefer sharing a prison cell with a banana than a monkey, although I think we can assume that the monkey would prefer to share with the banana!
A learned person has written to advise me that "Strictly speaking, the chimp is entitled to share his cell with three sinful bananas, not one." Following the learned friend's lead, it occurred to me that the chimp is also entitled to share his cell with nine-tenths of a human. Thus the human serving time in the slam would be entitled to be out on the street 10 percent of the time. Hmmm. A career criminal could get to like sharing a cell with a chimp ...
Meanwhile, if you are reading blogs on company time anyway, be sure you check out Gene Weingarten’s “What if Gene were a Genius?” spoof on alternative reality what-if scenarios:
What if wishes were horses?
Then beggars would ride. But so would everyone else. We would each have, like, 7,000 horses. They would completely paralyze civilization, consuming all vegetable matter in a week or less. Continents would rise several feet, just from accumulated poo. And anytime anyone wished for no more horses, another horse would appear. The world would end in a terrifying, thundering apocalypse of horses, is what would happen.
If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.
Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say "O’Leary is a crummy journalist"; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, "O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983," well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.