Silver and Gold...Silver and Gold...

Find your niche in life and go with it. That's a pretty simple motto to live by and it really enables one to find success through what it is that they can actually do. However, that should probably be edited just to clarify that one's niche should be something legal, something that won't harm themselves or others and shouldn't be something that leaves gold or silver spray paint all over your face. Behold!

Oh, what the hell is that? Meet a one Patrick Tribett. Mr. Tribett apparently hails from West Virginia and his niche in life appears to be huffing spray paint. It would seem that gold and silver spray paints are his metallic colors of choice because according to one psychologist, a one David Blum, "... gold or silver paints have a higher concentration of toluene, a chemical that produces a high." Huh. Who knew? Well, who else besides Mr. Tribett? Seriously. And what the hell is toluene, you ask? According to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), it's basically a paint thinner like chemical with "a slightly sweeter aroma, similar to that of benzene." A slightly sweeter aroma? Who wrote up the MSDS on toluene anyway? Some glue sniffing sommelier?

But I digress. That's not a good look for anyone, really. It looks like he just got finished blowing C-3PO. But here's the thing: That's not a recent photo of Mr. Tribett. No, that's from 2005. And the only reason that I'd be showing you a mugshot from 2005 would be if it happened again. Behold!

Good Lord. What is wrong with this guy? According to WTOV-9 News over there in West Virginia, all of Mr. Tribett's arrests sounds about the same. When police finally make contact with the man, they always report that "...he was having a hard time walking, seemed intoxicated and had gold paint all over his face." Every. Time.

You'd think that after the first time, the guy would get a clue, right? But to be arrested twice, that makes it fairly clear that he has some sort of problem, doesn't it? BOTH times with gold paint all over his chin? (Again, appearing as if he had been engaged in some sort of untoward activity with a particular Star Wars droid.) Perhaps. Especially considering that the photo above isn't a current mugshot either. No, that one was taken in 2007. Behold!

Again, the story, very familiar, just with different dates and the ending is also familiar by concluding with Mr. Tribett being "...charged with public intoxication....after police said he was staggering on Market Street near 15th Street." Again, with his face and clothes covered in gold paint. One of his arrest reports is below if you'd like to view said aerosol asshattery.

I'm not sure how one huffs spray paint. I mean, with other inhalants, I suppose you just cram the thing (which is NOT intended to get you high) real close to your schnozz there and inhale. Wow. I'm sure you look super cool doing that, too! So with this arrest, one could assume that the trifecta is complete, in which case, one would be wrong. Behold!

Looks like he switched over to silver paint for that one. Is that like starting to drink decaf? So now we're witnessing the fruits of the labor of Mr. Tribett's fourth arrest for the exact same crime...inhaling spray paint and then staggering about town looking as if he's just cheated on C-3PO by blowing the Tin Man. Why can't he just inhale the paint and stagger about his own backyard or his own hallway or something? Why do the streets of town always have to be involved? (Don't get me wrong. I'm loving the mugshot goodness that comes out of this. I'm just curious is all.)

The shot above came within a week of the one before that one! Who keeps selling this guy paint?! It's not like the whole world hasn't seen the photos of this Golden Warrior by now! Don't sell him anymore paint! Make him get it off of the paint black market or something. The Underground Paint Railroad. I don't care, just don't sell it to him! I believe that the arrest for the mugshot above took place "...under the Interstate 470 bridge", which means that he's taken on the role of huffing bridge troll at this point. "Police said when they found him, Tribett looked right at them but continued huffing." Ahhh. The carefree huffing bridge troll. Regardless, it'll still get you arrested. Just like this will. Behold!

For cryin' out loud! What are we up to? FIVE? Five that we know of?? They're just getting worse, too. This last mugshot was the result of an arrest on August 29, 2009. That time, Tribett "...put up a fight during the arrest, even continuing to try and huff the white paint. Officers said they were forced to pepper spray him before they were able to take him to jail." Excellent! You want to huff something, dude? What say you huff a load of this pepper spray? Nice job, cops!

It's a good thing they didn't use the Taser on him or anything. He'd have had all of those chemicals racing through his gold-toned body. What if the electricity from the Taser caused him to burst into flames or something like that? Definitely an unfortunate scene there, for sure.

I noticed that he's using the white this time. I wonder what's up with that? Change of pace, perhaps? Or maybe he was hoping that no one would recognize him without his traditional and preferred spray paint of choice, the gold or the silver.

According to that one psychologist guy, that David Blum, all of this huffing "...can also cause permanent damage and what he called "sudden sniffing death." The permanent damage part is fairly easy to spot. I'm having a hard time believing that this "sudden sniffing death" is something that happens frequently or often. If Mr. Tribett is any indicator, it doesn't happen at all! Blum also mentioned that huffing is "...something that kids experiment with and, if they're not properly educated on the dangers of abusing chemicals, it could be a problem that follows them into adulthood." You think?

moreless

Flori-duhs It Again

Sadly, there's still a need in Florida for some sort of PSA on the appropriate reasons to call 911. Honest to

God, I did not think that it was that difficult for folks to comprehend and understand what the definition of an emergency is. And I understand that there's a wide range of things which DO constitute an emergency, but not being able to find your car keys isn't one of them. Jackass.

According to an article over there at UPI, a one Lin Xu (pronounce that however you'd like to), age old-enough-to-know-better-by-27, "...called 911 several times early Saturday from a pay phone outside of a Walgreens store in Boynton Beach."The article doesn't state what it was that he told the 911 operator, but whatever it was, it was enough for officers to actually show up!He told them that "... he called the emergency line because he lost his house key." To which, I'm assuming, the officers response was, "And....?" I'm thinking that there might have been alcohol involved due to Mr. Unpronounceable giving the officers an address in Texas. And that is where the UPI report of this account goes a bit astray when they include "... it was not clear whether he recently moved to Florida or was visiting at the time of the incident." What now?

It wasn't clear if he lived there or was visiting? Did he have ID? How do they not know that? What part exactly wasn't clear? Are those the only two choices? Florida and Texas? Perhaps the gentleman was from a, um...a...foreign land and was, um.....visiting! Yeah, that's it! Visiting our fine nation, perhaps unannounced and unexpected (with no intent of ever leaving)!

If so, then it would have made perfect sense to a one Monte Hilton to call 911 for a ride home, as that's what he did on August 25 in Tampa. The guy needed a ride, so he went to a pay phone and called 911. (What is it with folks in Florida who are unclear on the concept of 911?! Are they also unclear on the concept of cell phones?! I didn't even know that there were pay phones around anymore! Then again, I don't live in Flori-duh.) "Hinton hung up when a dispatcher answered, but deputies were already responding and found Hinton near the phone." I find it difficult to believe that there wasn't some other pressing issue for the officers to tend to other than a pay phone using, 911 calling, rideless guy, but at least they're doing their job! Can't complain about that.

Meanwhile, since Florida is such a completely sane and stable area of the country, we have a woman over in Niceville who was not being very nice. Again, according to the UPI account of this incident, a woman was arrested "...for attacking a smoker with air freshener sprayed from a can." Of course she was. What now?

It would seem that said fresh scent wielding woman was "...waving the can of Glade Potpourri Air Freshener around the other woman's head while dispensing its contents at a Niceville apartment complex." Again, not very nice. And surprisingly, that had no effect upon Smokey Smokerson, who kept right on a-puffin'. That's when the woman (allegedly) "... pointed the can at the back of the other woman's head and sprayed it for nearly a full minute."

Now, a minute is a long time if you're spraying a fresh summer's breeze at someone's head. But I'd think it would be even longer for the person who was the target of said refreshing aerosol based scent. If someone is spraying air freshener at me in that fashion, I'm certainly not going to just sit there for an entire minute as they do so! Why didn't this person get up and deck this lady? (Oh. Wait. Flori-duh. Maybe the Rascal scooter that they use to get around had malfunctioned in some manner. Or perhaps the oxygen tubing got tangled up somewhere. You can't swing a dead cat in Flori-duh without hitting someone on oxygen.)

According to the police, the crazy spraying woman told them, "I will do it again, and take it to the Supreme Court because I have the right to breathe fresh air." Um, yeah. That's about your typical Florida argument right there. Quoting things that don't exist. That and/or pretending to know what's in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. See, while I agree that breathing fresh air is desirable, I'm not really recalling it being in the Bill of Rights OR the Constitution. Let's see...freedom of speech...right to arm bears...a warrant would be nice...speedway trials....unusual crullers....huh. Nope. Nothing about fresh air in there.

And to complete the Flori-duh trifecta, we saunter on over to Tallahassee where the AP informs us of a one Richard Irby who is a "...55-year-old man known for biking around Tallahassee wearing nothing but a thong". Well, this can't end well.

Said Mr. Irby "...is facing a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct for exposing himself." What did I tell ya? Not ending well. Any sort of grundle exposure is not a well ending.

Mr. Irby is 6-foot-3 and weighs 220 pounds. And he was wearing a thong. JUST a thong. Well, yes, I'd say that he WAS exposing himself at SOME point, as I don't think that a thong is designed to contain 220 pounds of a 6 foot, 3-inch cyclist! It's barely designed to contain anything, let alone...THAT!But let's just think about this for half a second. :::shudder:::: Yes, yes! I know it's not pleasant. Half a second, that's all!

This guy is known as the Bicycling Bikini Man. This is what he does. People know that. I'm not sure if it's OK with people that he does this, or if they're just used to it (as much as you can get used to seeing a 220 pound guy with a thong go a-pedalin' past you), but there has to be something else going on here. If he was just out to bike around in as little as possible, you can still get that same effect by wearing something other than a thong. Those really short NBA shorts from the late 70s and early 80s, for example. Those are short, yet they would contain ones nether regions a hell of a lot better than your basic plum smuggler would! But yet he chooses the thong. That leaves us with two choices. He's either a pedophile or he's not quite right in the head. Possibly both, definitely not neither.

TampaBay.com reports that "...Irby suffered a traumatic brain injury while in high school." Ah-ha! And another piece of the puzzle falls into place. "Almost four decades later, he still walks and speaks with difficulty. Problems with concentration and a tendency to behave oddly keep him from working." Really? "A tendency to behave oddly"? Really? A guy busting around town on a bike wearing a banana hammock is behaving oddly? Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

OK, look, this one has a pretty simple solution. It seems pretty clear that the guy wasn't trying to expose himself. I also don't think that he's trying to hurt anyone or offend anyone. That being said however, I don't think that he has the ability to exercise discretion in certain situations...like those requiring pants. If there's any sort of rational thinking going on at the DA's office there in Tallahassee, they'll make a deal with this guy. They'll tell him he has to at least wear a pair of shorts when he rides his bike. If they don't have any complaints about him riding with just a thong for the next...6 months? Is that fair? 6 months with no "Oh, my God!" complaints and the charges get dropped? Seems reasonable to me.

Then again, pants seem reasonable to me. Someone get that guy some trousers and let's hope that sanity prevails for this one.

moreless

Selective Diversity in Advertising

I'm thinking that if you're a company that markets its product to just about every conceivable demographic that there is, what say you either increase your advertising budget so that you can create custom ads tailored to each particular group or that you just hire people who can use Photoshop in such a way that your end result doesn't look like you used Photoshop. Either way, whatever you do, don't airbrush out the black guy and Photoshop in a white guy. (BONUS TIP: Don't use your competitors products in your ads as if they are your products. Realllllllly awkward.)

Here's the scoop: Microsoft ran a photo ad for Microsoft's business productivity software on their website. The photo shows three people in some sort of business meeting. There's an Asian guy, a black guy and a white woman. All three appear to be just giddy with interest at whatever the woman is doing there with her little remote thing. I'm guessing she's not looking for a ball game, which is unfortunate. (Nothing makes the work day go by faster like watching some ball.) Behold!

Now, if you just glance at the photo, I doubt anything in particular is going to jump out at you. But if you look at it for a minute, you might notice that something just doesn't seem right. There's something amiss(and it's not the chick). For instance, the guy in the middle, why does he have a big ol' jack-o'lantern head there? It's way too big for that body that it's on. And the guy on the end? Where's the rest of his hand?!

I also can't figure out why everyone only has one hand above the table and the other hand below the table (God sees everything!), but maybe it's just some weird policy HR implemented. I really don't know. But we'll get back to the oddities in a minute. Before we do that, we're going to take a stroll over to the Polish version of the same Microsoft site which is advertising the same product with the same photo. Er, uh, well....it's almost the same photo. They had to change few things, starting with Pumpkin Gourd there in the middle. Behold!

Oh. Well. That's...um...different. Sooooooo....they really needed a white guy, eh? What gives? No one is really quite sure, but the general consensus seems to be that it was not racism. Thank God that Al Sharpton is all tied up with exploiting Michael Jackson's death to get involved in this one. If Jacko hadn't been using some sort of an equivalent to an elephant tranquilizer to get to sleep permanently, we could very well have been subjected to the Reverend Al and his Long, Long List of Things Racist White People Do INCLUDING Photoshopping out all black tech workers in Poland! But the take from folks in Poland was that there are very few black people in Poland and Microsoft was probably trying to create an ad that reflected the culture over there. And fair enough. But couldn't they have found a competent photo editor to recreate that culture?

The ad has so many things wrong with it, it's really hard to know where to start. Even though the black guy became much whiter (and a considerable amount younger as well), all of him didn't become whiter, as his hand is still that of the black guy. Behold!

Seriously, how do you miss something like that if you're the one doing the editing? Wouldn't it have just been easier to get another stock photo and make two different ads? I'm thinking it would have, but what do I know? I've always been white. Kind of like that computer. I don't recall Microsoft based computer products coming with that nifty white finish that the laptop in the photo is sporting. No, the only laptops that I recall seeing come in white were.....oh. Macs. Again....awk-ward.

They sure didn't try very hard to cover up that it's a Mac in the photo. Why would they do that? Was it someone's last day? Was there a surge in the hiring of the mentally handicapped? Free food in the lunchroom? I don't get it. You're advertising Microsoft products and you're displaying a Mac. Nice job, Mac-hole! Too bad someone couldn't have explained that concept to said awful, hopefully now unemployed, Photoshop guy. Perhaps at the same time they could have explained that you need to have your peripherals plug INTO something!

Why does the woman's keyboard have a cord that goes to absolutely nothing? Why do the legs of the man (in whichever color) in the middle not seem to line up with where his body is? The woman's left eye (so the one on your right) seems awfully dilated; is she having a stroke? She might be as the front of her jacket there is awfully dark in that one area. Perhaps a stronger anti-perspirant might have been a better choice that morning? (Or maybe just an employee who knows how to use Photoshop.) The whole bloody thing is just a freakin' mess. But it's not like this is the first time that a company's ad was horribly edited. There have been others. Hoo-boy have there been.

Then there was another Microsoft ad, this one for Office. The picture they're using is like some sort of M.C. Escher inspired track runner. Where does he start? Where does he end? Where is the never ending staircase on his head?

Take this gem from both ASUS and MSI who, apparently, both decided to use the same stock photo for their ad. MSI, however, decided to enhance theirs just a bit. I'm guessing because they have a huge client base of elves.

There was this ad for the Lexar Professional 8GB. It was the step up from the 4GB. Unfortunately, the Photoshop job didn't take that same step up. (Note to self: Always check the shadows.)

But I think that my favorite is probably this ad for a computer desk. Thanks for PC World for highlighting this bit of amusement for me. Judging from the size of the monitor and the style of the clothing (not to mention the Bowl Extreme haircut on the blond chap there), I'm guessing we're looking at a preview of the first budding Internet porn addict.

moreless

More Truth Stretching at MSNBC

How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job? OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. (It's not, but I can try to pretend that he has employable qualities that I don't find loathesome.) How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job at MSNBC doing anything that involves anything more than pushing a mop? I'm not totally sure of the circumstances which enabled him to have his current job as a newshole for MSNBC and I really don't care. All I care about at this point is what circumstances it will take to have him removed from any sort of a position which involves his conveying information to the public under the guise of it being 'news'.

I'm not a big fan of cable news, mainly because the newsholes that run these shows are abhorrent human beings. They clearly have an agenda, but they act as if they don't. I don't know what purpose that serves, other than it technically allows them to have a job title with the word 'news' in it.They are far more commentary disguised as news than they are actual news. Regardless, I am aware of some sort of childish feud which seems to be going on between Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and a one Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.

I use the term 'feud' to be polite. The more correct but also more crude term for what their deal is would be a pissing match. And it's been going on since 2003! It seems to include little more than each one of them belittling the other one on their show. I don't know if they're holding their urination contest nightly these days, but if it isn't nightly, it's damn close.

And just to clarify, these are two grown men who each have their own cable "news" show. Real mature. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George became obsessed with being able to use his snappy comeback for an insult that happened many days before. It was like he was going to literally explode if he didn't track this guy down and tell him, "Oh, yeah? Well, the jerk store called. They're runnin' out of you!" The problem with that was that the guy was quicker on his feet than George and managed to whip out a snarky comment immediately. When that happens, there's nothing else to do other than tell the guy, "I slept with your wife!" Gets 'em every time. Unless the wife is in a coma. But I digress.)

But here's where it goes from a pissing contest to irresponsible journalism, also known as flat out lying. It even goes past lying. This goes under the category of "Making The News What I Want It To Be" by Keith Olbermann.

It seems that on August 24, Bill O'Reilly made this statement on his show: "They have no audience. Nobody. What you just said is like saying 'All right, the Toledo Mud Hens are going to be mad.' OK? I'm not insulting the Toledo Mud Hens, but they're a Double-A baseball team....What they think about the New York Yankees doesn't matter." Wow. A Toledo Mud Hens reference. Didn't see that one coming. Anyway, that was supposed to be some sort of an analogy explaining why the White House should allow President Barry to appear on Fox News even though it would likely cause the folks over at MSNBC to go ape-dung. It shouldn't matter if the folks at MSNBC get miffed because no one watches them, so who cares if they get upset? Fair enough. Lousy analogy, but fair enough.

Mr. Olbermann over there at MSNBC didn't quite see it the same way that I did. Shocking, I know. He saw it from his perspective. The one he invented. Here is his response that he gave on his show that aired on August 25, the night after Bill O'Reilly made the infamous Mud Hens Comparison (the ol' MHC): "I hate to intrude with the facts but ours is the highest rated cable news program viewers 35 and younger and the highest rated cable news program for all viewers not on Fixed News. And since Fixed News has since now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists it is not a news organization making this show the highest rated cable news program, period." Wait. What now?

Sooooo.....the highest rated cable news program for one age demographic? And you're also the highest rated cable news program amongst everyone who isn't watching Fox News? Well, that right there is an extremely handy exclusion to include! That's like if you're running a race and come in 6th and you say, "I was the fastest runner of all runners not crossing the finish line before I did." How convenient! Convenient perhaps, but hardly true or factual.

In fact, Keith Olbermann is not only misrepresenting the facts, it would appear from looking at the ratings over there at TV By the Numbers that he's flat out lying. According to their data,in the 25-54 age group and the 35-64 age group at 8PM The O’Reilly Factor managed to grab the attention of 3,440,000 viewers (916,000 in the 25-54 range and 1,593,000 in the 35-64 range). Meanwhile, over at MSNBC,Countdown with Keith Olbermann reeled in a comparatively paltry 1,114,000 viewers (323,000 in the 25-54 range and 521,000 in the 35-64 range).

Now, if you're looking at the networks viewership ratings overall, the numbers are a lot closer, with Fox reining in 94.82 million households and MSNBC garnering 93 million households, a difference of only 1.82 million households. I don't know if a household equals a viewer (let's see....three feet in a yard....four quarts in a gallon....takes one to know one....nope, not sure if a household equals a viewer), but if it did, that 1.82 million more that Fox has is just a little bit lower than how many more viewers Bill O'Reilly has than Keith Olbermann does. If I'm going to use Keith Olbermann logic and calculations here, I would conclude that Bill O'Reilly is the reason that Fox has higher ratings overall than MSNBC does. But I'm not Keith Olbermann, thank God, so technically, I won't say it. Then again, you can't go back and un-ring a bell either.

And just to clear things up even more, here are the cable news shows ratings for August 24:

The O'Reilly Factor - 3,440,000 viewers

Hannity - 2,937,000 viewers

Glenn Beck - 2,810,000 viewers

On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren - 2,450,000 viewers

Special Report with Bret Baier - 2,066,000 viewers

Fox Report w/Shep Smith - 1,860,000 viewers

Countdown w/ K. Olbermann - 1,114,000 viewers

Larry King Live - 1,063,000 viewers

Olbermann isn't just behind in viewers to O'Reilly; he's behind in viewers to almost everyone. Olbermann is just barely ahead of 127-year old Larry King (Barely A-)Live. And those numbers were for the 8pm time slot. If the shows had aired earlier, Larry King might well have beaten Olbermann, as by 8pm, most of the people who watch Larry King (who are at least as old as he is) have been in bed for 3 hours.

For Keith Olbermann to sit there and flat out claim that he has higher ratings than Bill O'Reilly demonstrates that Olbermann has an agenda (himself) and that he doesn't care what the truth is, he will only say what he wants to say and how he wants to say it, regardless as to whether it is true or not. And in this particular instance, his statements are false. For Keith Olbermann to claim that Fox is spouting propaganda to it's brain dead audience just gives you a little insight as to how brilliant Olbermann thinks that his audience is. If Olbermann thought that his audience had half of a functioning brain cell inside of their teeny, tiny little pin heads, he wouldn't be lying to them by providing them with false information about his own ratings.

Olbermann claims that those who watch Fox News are "tin foil hatters". Mr. Olbermann likely knows a little bit about hats as he seems to be quite the asshat himself, specializing in his own brand of asshattery, apparently.

This instance makes twice in the past ten days that a purported news program on MSNBC has deliberately misled the viewers into believing that something was a fact when, in fact (ironically enough) it was not a fact AND those doing the 'reporting' knew it was not factual information that they were providing. While both O'Reilly and Olbermann are being ridiculously childish and using their platform of cable television news programs to hurl insults at each other on a semi-nightly basis, at least O'Reilly (in this instance) didn't lie. The bottom line here is that if you want to watch a cable news show that will give you the facts without distorting them or lying about them, don't turn to MSNBC for that information. I'm not saying you should turn to Fox, I'm just saying that you'll probably want to turn to a channel that has not lied to the viewers in the past ten days. That's all.

moreless

Bear-ly Reenacting the News

When you think Cleveland, Ohio, I'm going to guess you don't think 'bears'. I think of Cleveland as a place where you can shop for clothing and have at least 50% of your selections to choose from be sports apparel. But I still don't think 'bears'. I'm going to think 'bears' now, however. I'm also going to be thinking that Fox News seems to believe it caters to a target audience in the 4-5 year old range of viewers and is now gearing the newscast segments toward those children.

The Fox News affiliate in Cleveland, Fox8, did a piece back around June 25, 2009 about a black bear that had made its way into a northeast Ohio neighborhood and had been sighted by several residents. Since there are hardly ever bears in Cleveland, this is definitely a news story. However, it would appear that what is also a news story is that you can produce a news story for television with a) very little experience in doing so, b) the skills of a kindergartner and c) very little hesitation in airing the piece (which resembles that done for a class project...that you'll end up getting a "C" on) on actual television.

The segment starts off harmlessly enough, with a woman talking about how she called 911 after spotting a bear in her wooded yard. The reporter, a one Todd Meany, is narrating and after only about 12 seconds, you hear a sentence that indicates great hilarity will be ensuing shortly. He says, "Nina was too stunned to get a picture, but here's what the bear probably looked like...except real." And with that the viewer sees a cardboard cut-out shaped like a bear, propped up next to a tree in the woods. Good Lord people. Behold!

Well, you can barely (pun probably intended) see what that is. Are we sure that it's....

Oh. So it really is a cardboard cutout of a bear. Sort of a stand-in for the real bear which was unavailable for the filming of this segment. While I find this highly amusing, it's also a tad bit disturbing. Next thing you know, we'll be getting rid of the weather forecasters and just having some sort of cut-out ladybug on the wall wearing a raincoat if it's going to rain or watering flowers if it's going to be sunny. Why not get rid of all of the newshole newscasters as well?! We'll have the South Park kids read the news. They're cutouts. Sort of.

And while I'm sure it's hard to imagine, it actually gets better after the first shot of the reenactment bear. You can't just recreate the bear without explaining what it is that the bear might have done! Thus, you guessed it, we are then treated to seeing how the bear might have ran if it were real and if it were there.

Amazing. I'll hand it to Todd. That's pretty gutsy. It's not like there isn't video technology available to recreate what a bear running through a forest looks like!

But then there's this woman that shows up, a one Carly Martin. She is very excited to have found some ursine defecation! (Translation: Bear poop.) Oh! But not just any ursine defection. Fresh ursine defecation! Probably still warm. I'm sure she checked it.

So while she is explaining that bears are capable of climbing trees, our friend the cardboard bear makes another appearance, this time...you guessed it! Climbing a tree. Behold!

Man, the worse it gets, the funnier it gets. Holy canoli. So we have cutout bears running, cutout bears climbing trees, a crazy naturalist talking about bear excrement. Man, if there's one thing this story needs right about now, it's a guy dressed up in a giant rabbit costume. Behold!

For reasons that are inexplicable, the large rabbit fellow there came on the screen as they were telling the viewer that bears do not want to eat humans or other creatures. Which makes perfect sense. Whenever I'm explaining the food chain of a particular animal, I always break out and don the big bunny costume to really hammer home my point. (And if I actually did that, my point would be that I'm insane.)

As our naturalist explains to us, "We'll get a report of a bear, you know, it's at this part of the river one day. And then it moves on. And moves on. And moves on. And then....we don't hear about it for a year or two." So this "bear" of which you speak, it...moves? On it's own? Repeatedly, you say? Hmmm. Interesting. It's almost like it's a regular living creature and of course it freaking moves!

The video of this child-like, yet extremely amusing bear re-enactment is below. No cardboard bears were harmed during the filming of the reenactment.

moreless