The Corner poster notes the following from the Eursoc:
Thing is, because of common ancestors we also share large amounts of genetic code with dogs (95 percent), mice (somewhere between 85 and 98 percent, depending on who you ask) and 74 percent with a primitive nematode worm known as C. elegans.
And be careful how you peel that fruit, you fascist: Bananas share approximately 50 percent of our genetic code, while daffodils just 35 percent.
The mind boggles. A serious case can be made for treating animals better. Examples: this column by Pamela Anderson on chimpanzees in today's Wall Street Journal, and former Bush White House speechwriter Matthew Scully's book Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. But giving chimpanzees and gorillas the same rights as human beings? To advocate that you have to be a jackass.
This morning the Washington Post had a front-page story on the United 93 movie, with the headlines "When Hollywood Makes History" and "Invented Details in 'United 93' Raise Real Questions."
I'm happy to see the film get publicity, but the take of the story seems dumb. Of course, some of the details are invented: We don't know exactly what happened on United 93. But what really burned me up were the last two paragraphs:
Bruce Hoffman, a Washington-based counterterrorism expert with the Rand Corp., notes that the news media have long avoided replaying some of the more disturbing images of Sept. 11. But, he says: "These equally horrible events are now being depicted as entertainment. I don't know why that's more acceptable.
"Producers and directors can have the purest and best intentions to re-create the horror and tragedy and bravery of the passengers. But the bottom line is, it's still entertainment. You have to question whether making it into entertainment cheapens and demeans it."
Hoffman seems to think it's unacceptable to replay the images of September 11. Why? Because ordinary Americans, racist pigs that they are, are going to get angry and go beat up and kill any Muslim they can get their hands on? That seems to be the view of many in our cognitive elite, who take a dim and condescending view of their fellow citizens.
Finally, a front-page article in this morning's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that puts flesh and blood on a point I made in my April 11 Journal column on immigration: Mexico's birthrate is way down, which means that immigration from Mexico in the near future is unlikely to continue at the rate of the past 20 years. The future is not always just like the past, and the decline in Mexico's birthrate will likely produce a flex point on the line in the immigration graph sooner or later.