I’m finding this item from Harper’s Weekly Review rather confusing, in multiple ways.<\/p>\n
We know about the wandering hippos — them a thing of rags and tatters<\/a>. But who knew they have been dubbed “cocaine” hippos? It’s not their fault they were owned by a mega drug dealer, is it? I mean, the hippos weren’t snorting.<\/p>\n A court in Ohio ruled that Colombia\u2019s \u201ccocaine hippos\u201d\u2014a herd descended from those owned by Pablo Escobar now roaming the Andes\u2014are legally people. \u201cThe surgery itself isn\u2019t the most complicated part,\u201d said a vet tasked with castrating the hippos. \u201cWe don\u2019t have those drugs for such enormous creatures available in Colombia.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n And why did this trial take place in Ohio? I’m assuming “Ohio” means our state and isn’t a region in Colombia.<\/p>\n The “legally people” thing is inexplicable to me. As is the connection between the first sentence and the castration.<\/p>\n And, wait — it’s presumably a Colombian<\/em> vet who said Colombia doesn’t have “those drugs for such enormous creatures…” Is this the Colombia we all think of as the drug production capitol of the western hemisphere?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’m finding this item from Harper’s Weekly Review rather confusing, in multiple ways. We know about the wandering hippos — them a thing of rags and tatters. But who knew they have been dubbed “cocaine” hippos? It’s not their fault … Continue reading