It's Dead And It's Funny

This one speaks for itself. It's a little girl whose dog has just killed a squirrel. Or, as she says it, a squeel. Yep. Cute kid playing with a dead rodent. Try not to crack up right around 1:30 when she starts making the dead creature's head bob up and down. Apparently, there are people out there (ie, on the Innerwebs) who are freaking out that this guy would let his daughter play with a dead animal. Hey, kids need to strengthen their immune systems. I'm not saying that they should always go about it by toting around furry animal carcasses, but a few germs are only going to help them in the long run. It wasn't foaming at the mouth or anything. She'll be fine. And if she isn't, then all of the people who were freaking out about it can say "I told you so", which really seems to be what they want, more than anything for some odd reason. Anyway, here's a cute little girl playing with a dead squirrel. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

Getting A Little Squirrelly

I'm not a fan of "The Most Expensive ____" (put whatever you want in the blank) because there's no reasonable scale on which to judge something. I can say that I have a pair of socks for sale for one million dollars and that they are the most expensive socks in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make them so, you know what I mean? It's just like having "The World's Biggest (insert food item here)". If it's a food that you're growing in the ground or on a tree, that's fine. But if it's a food that anyone can make, that's ridiculous. Sure, you can have the World's Biggest Hamburger and have it weigh 750 pounds, but what is stopping anyone from having a 751 pound hamburger (other than sheer sanity)? Not much. World records that are the biggest and the most expensive should have a small degree of luck or chance to them.

That's all why I was not overly interested when I heard that, at $770 per bottle, a brewery in Fraserberg, Scotland, is selling a new Belgian blonde ale which is 55 percent alcohol. It's the process to make the beer which the brewers claim is the reason for the exorbitant expense. Apparently they need to keep the beer at far below freezing temperatures so that water separates from the solution. They apparently repeat that process a gazillion times and it takes hundreds of liters of the beer in order to make just one 330 ml bottle. Granted, it's a super boozy bottle, but it's still just one.

Is the process necessary? I have no idea. And while I have a fondness for beer, I don't have much of an interest in drinking a $770 bottle of beer. I just don't. That's not what beer is about. You know what else beer isn't about? Dead rodent road kill that are all taxidermied up with the bottle of beer shoved down inside them. Wait. What? Behold!

Oh, what the hell is that? That is the End of History Beer by BrewDog. According to AOL News the BrewDog co-founder, a one 29-year old James Watt said, "This is the beer to end all beers. It's an audacious blend of eccentricity, artistry and rebellion; changing the general perception of beer one stuffed animal at a time." OK, then. I'd definitely say that a $770 bottle of beer is audacious and reeks of a rebellion. But I'm not so sure that it changes the general perception of beer as much as it changes the general perception of anyone out there who is trying (sometimes desperately) to make a buck. I'm not much for gimmicks. I'm all for gimme, as in "Gimme my beer and leave me the hell alone". THAT I can totally get behind. A gimmick? Not so much.

Mr. Watt went on to say, "We want to show people there is an alternative to monolithic corporate beers, introduce them to a completely new approach to beer and elevate the status of beer in our culture." Well, that's all fine and good, but I don't know that you're going to elevate the status of much by cramming it down roadkill. I'm just saying. Mr. Watt added that (referring to beer drinkers in the United Kingdom) "are constrained by lack of choice; seduced by the monolithic corporate brewers' huge advertising budgets and brainwashed by vindictive lies perpetrated with the veracity of propaganda." I really wish he had given an example of the vindictive lies by corporate brewers. What could a brewer lie about? This beer won't get you drunk even a little bit? I don't get that. As for the constraining lack of choice, you DO live on an island, my good man. It's hard to have much variety when there isn't a lot of choice to be had. That doesn't mean that one needs to create variety by shoving a bottle of beer down a....what is that? A chipmunk? Never mind. All I'm saying is that you'll adjust the the drudgery of no variety.

Fortunately, there are only 12 bottles of The End of History. Unfortunately, they've already sold out of them. Of course they have. (In case you were wondering, the one creature is a stoat and the other one is a squirrel. There were 8 stoats available and only 4 squirrels. Apparently, stoats are more prone to getting clobbered by traffic than are the squirrels.) This is only going to make them try to do something of this nature again. They'll just strive for something a little more outrageous, is all. Maybe they'll cram a keg of ale inside of a hippopotamus or something. Or have a whole variety of beers on tap being poured from a cow's udder. Who knows? I only wish that I wouldn't have to find out.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Getting A Little Squirrelly Over At NPR

I have to admit, I really don't know what to think about this one. Either I'm missing the point or someone else is completely insane. Both very distinct possibilities.

So over there at The Denver Post there's a story about public radio station KRCC. Public radio is financially dependent on donations from its listeners. Twice a year, KRCC holds a pledge drive in order to raise those their funds. For some reason, KRCC wants people to donate early. They want people to donate early so badly that the station "...likes to offer members a thank-you gift" for those who do donate before the pledge drive actually starts. I guess the reasoning being that maybe you will be more likely to donate if you're getting something in return. (Of course, that's usually called 'buying', but I'm really not going to argue semantics with NPR.) Some years they've given out symphony tickets. Other years they've given out museum passes. This year they're giving out neither symphony tickets, nor museum passes.

This year they're giving out squirrel underpants.

Behold!

Uh, underpants for what? Oh, for squirrels? REAL squirrels?! OK, see, squirrels don't need underpants. They're squirrels! What the hell?

According to one KRCC general manager (and future mental patient) Delaney Utterback, "They are really tiny cotton underwear," Well, I imagined they would be if they were for squirrels! I wasn't having a problem with the term "squirrel underpants". I was having a problem with why anyone would want squirrel underpants, even if they're a squirrel! What are they going UNDER?? Nothing! That's right! Because they're squirrels!! They don't wear pants! Thus, they don't need underpants! They're pantsless all the way around!

What am I missing? Perhaps it is the distributor of said squirrel underpants, the "Seattle based oddity peddler Archee McPhee." Just in case you're unfamiliar with that particular product distributor, I will tell you that Archee McPhee is also the "purveyor of the inflatable fruitcake and the unisex prosthetic chest hair" and markets the rodent undergarments as "The underpants squirrels prefer!" Good Lord. Wait. What?!

Behold!

(Side note: They also have inflatable toast!)

I should mention that the Squirrel Underpants are apparently not just for squirrels. Oh, no! No, it's claimed that they're " Also good for hamsters, frogs and gerbils!" (You know, I'm going to disagree! Hamsters, frogs and gerbils are all quite a bit different from each other, let alone from the squirrel! Besides, they have a three inch waist. If you have a frog with a 3-inch waist, you've got quite a problem on your hands and I don't think underpants are going to fix it. And I will again reiterate that we are talking about underpants for squirrels! Think about that!)

For some reason, the Denver Post article also informs us that "The 100-percent cotton tighty-whiteys have a 3-inch waist and are machine-washable." Well, good. I'll be sure to let the squirrel know because I am not doing his laundry! He's on his own!

Below is a one Jennifer Newman. She is (currently) the membership coordinator for KRCC. (No word on whether or not she'll still be the membership coordinator after endorsing the Squirrel Underpants promotion.) She says that it's true! Every early pledge donor will receive at no extra cost and theirs to keep as their free gift, a package of Squirrel Underpants! Hurry and pledge today! Operators are standing by!

OK, OK, that's enough of this! What are they doing?! Is the "Squirrel Underpants" novelty just such a...a....OK, a novelty that they're willing to be that their early pledges just go through the roof by giving away these things? I mean, novel they may be, but they sell for $6.95 each. I'm guessing that symphony tickets or museum tickets were a bit more than seven bucks. Even still, all I'm saying is that I just don't know that they're a tool for economic prosperity in the public radio industry. That's all.

Not only are the Squirrel Underpants available at Archee McPhee's website, the Squirrel Underpants have their own website! (Of course they do.) Squirrelunderpants.com, where they ask you to "Help a squirrel hide his nuts for the winter." It is there that you will learn that they are endorsed by S.A.D., which stands for Small Animal Decency. (Of course it does.) And of course you know that they have their own website as well.

The S.A.D. website claims to be "...an organization that works to keep animal nudity away from the eyes of innocents." Good Lord.... They also claim that "...you don't have to be human to experience shame." And while I'm sure that may be true for all of the pantsless squirrels running around the forests of the world, it's still unclear to me as to whether the Squirrel Underpants would remove the shame or if they would induce it. Tough call, really.

So what have we learned? Not enough from our past, I'll tell you that much. But from this, we've learned that the NPR station in Colorado is betting the farm that the naked squirrel epidemic will result in a stampede of pledges never before seen in our lifetime (or something like that). We've also learned that to some, hamsters, gerbils and frogs can be similar enough to a squirrel that they can mix and match their clothing. (Sort of like a real life version of Garanimals!) And while that may be some of what we've learned, what has been apparently forgotten is that squirrels are animals. Animals, as a general rule, don't need clothes. They're animals!

But KRCC does need donations, so don't let my little hang-ups about keeping the denizens of the forest unclothed stop you from giving as generously as you feel like if that's what you're so inclined to do. And if you do, lemme know how those Squirrel Underpants are working out for that special squirrel in your life.

Sphere: Related Content