Bonobo

Are hybrid crosses between bonobos and humans possible?  According to an NPR story (which is actually a plug for a novel, Lucy by Laurence Gonzales) such a thing might be feasible in the near future and, in fact, has been outlawed in Arizona. This doesn't seem to be part on the online Arizona statutes, yet, but it was part of SB1307, signed into law on May 7, 2010:

B.  A person shall not intentionally or knowingly:
1.  Create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid.
2.  Transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb.
3.  Transfer or attempt to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb.
4.  Transport or receive for any purpose a human‑animal hybrid.

...yada yada...

So, that cannot legally be bred (created?) in Arizona.  But once created, perhaps elsewhere, then what?

This brings a whole lot of interesting questions.  Questions familiar to those suggested by slavery and same-sex marriage. 

If a hybrid is a person in California, are they a person in Arizona?  Can they vote?  Can they be bought and sold?

If you cannot tell that a hybrid is a hybrid, how can you know if they are not human?  Especially if they are third generation or later?  A DNA test may not reveal it.

Did nature clean up most of the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

Thanks, Cecil.  I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says, you're my hero.

See here:

... Do oil spills mostly go away on their own? Yes. Does that mean we’re better off leaving them alone? Of course not. Nobody doubts we need to plug leaks and contain spillage, and I’m persuaded bioremediation helps at least sometimes.

Shakedown

Rep. Barton (R. Texas) retracts his statement but really, isn't it a shakedown?  I would feel better if BP decided who to compensate themselves and any disagreement handled by the courts.  Instead we are going to have an "independent" panel make the decisions.

What Mr. Barton retracted:

I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown, with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.
...
So I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/17/2272820/transcript-of-joe-bartons-remarks.html

I agree.  It is a "terrible precedent"."