3/26/2004: Polar bears turn green

This is Sheba and her 13-year-old son Inuka in their cage in a Singapore Zoo. They're polar bears, and polar bears are white. Except Inuka there is GREEN.

What zookeepers figured out was that they had some sort of algae actually growing in their hair shafts. Not ON their hair shafts -- IN them.

Polar bear fur is not really white to begin with; it's actually clear, but reflects as white. And the follicles are hollow: because dormant air is a great insulator. But when your hair shafts get clogged up with algae, well that's gotta be embarrassing. Y'see these bears are not typically found in a warm, humid climate like Singapore...

So they treated Sheba with bleach, and were able to successfully clear up the problem, and were watching to make sure there were no problems before going ahead to bleach Inuka.

My memory is tugging at me about seeing something similar to this before - I think this happened to the NYC Central park polar bears too.

It was tugging at my memory as even having been an IOTD before too, but I'm too lazy to go digging through the archives.

Here it is. It just goes to show that polar bears are Drazi.

polar bears are more now more highly evolved -- they can photosynthesize!

Groan.

artist + glacier

thought you might be interested in this red glacier.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science....ap/index.html

He spent too much time in the hot-tub

What an asshole... did you see what he did to those fish?? not my type of "art"

I've only seen one polar bear in real life, at the Fresno zoo many many years ago, and it was also green. Apparently it's must not be that uncommon a problem.

He's an asshole because, IMHO , someone who urges people to something as cruel and wrong as that is just as bad as the person who did it and in some cases worse.

For the record I think the guy who did it was a prime ass aswell, but three scenarios could have occured:
1. accidental: He didn't really think the blenders were real (.....mabye)
2. mean: He just wanted to be cruel and got off on the whole thing (....possibly)
3. foolish: He was the idiot who does stuff so people will notice him(......quite likely)

So I don't know which one he was but I do know that the artist was well aware of what was going to happen and was actively encouraging it. That makes him an asshole.
Do you not think so?
or are you just saying that the other guy was to blame also, in which case I agree with you.

So a man who presents a group of people with an opportunity, "push this button and a dog will be given a bowl of food", is a great guy, even if no one pushes the button

and a guy who presents an opportunity, "push this button and the fish will be blended into soup", is an asshole, even if no one pushes the button?

YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT

giving a dog food doesn't hurt the dog.

So a man who presents a group of people with an opportunity, "push this button and a dog will be given a bowl of food", is a great guy, even if no one pushes the button

and a guy who presents an opportunity, "push this button and the fish will be blended into soup", is an asshole, even if no one pushes the button?

I don't think the first guy is a great guy, he's at zero, he doesn't register on my scale of goodness one way or another.

The second guy, however, could have accomplished the same artistic statement--that is, the viewers are participating in the art, their temptation/curiosity is part of it, their decision affects what the work of art is, etc.--by simply having the blenders plugged into fake outlets and instead when someon pushed the button a big flashing sign that said "Asshole!" came down over the button-pusher's head.

There is a website where you can push a button and give food to shelter dogs. I feel the people that put this website together, are very good people.

My morals are firmly in place, thank you. But just because a person presents an opportunity for something to happen, does not mean that person is good or bad.

It is the action of the person pushing the button that is the question.

I don't think the creator of the exhibit is the asshole. I think the guy that pushed the button on the blender is the asshole.

Similarly, the people who make the website to feed the dogs aren't "great people", the person that clicks the link is the great person.

It's all about choice and consequences.

If "John" gives "Bill" a choice, and "Bill" chooses poorly, and his choice has negative effects, "Bill" has no one to blame but himself. "John" isn't the dumbass. "Bill" is.

cmon.

the shitbeard that went to the trouble of riggin that fish blender made it as easy as pushing a button on impulse to end the fish's life.

are you honestly opining that the artist is not just as or more culpable than the button pusher?

really??

I notice that no one has speculated on the potential cost of replacement fish and the labor to rinse out the old one and refill with clean water yet.

Coincidence? I think not!

Who cares whether or not you people think he's an asshole.

Or rather, let me rephrase that: It's awesome that you think he's an asshole.
He certainly doesn't give a shit: He's an artist. He was making art. He was doing it to be provocative, and to get people talking about art, morals, behavior, and god knows what else. He was doing it to see how far he could push the bounds of (some) people's decency.

and he accomplished that, and more.


I guess I have a bigger problem with the iceberg one: They used PAINT to paint it ? WTF... isn't that shit toxic ? I mean, I understand the point he was trying to make, but he did it in a destructive, and possibly illegal manner. It would be like me saying "Public buildings belong to everyone", and then blowing up a federal govt. building.

and what happens when the paint rubs off onto some wild bird or whatever, and they get more easily killed, etc, etc?

The blender art is benign imo: He was giving people a choice.

The iceberg art is the asshole one: He's fucking with an entire region's ecosystem. I'm pretty sure that's illegal in some way..

No, I really don't think the artist is the asshole. Really. Now, I think, as clodfobble suggested, there were better ways of achieving the end, (the asshole sign is classic), but still, the artist is NOT the one that pushed the button.

And IIRC, it wasn't paint, it was dye. Hopefully nontoxic dye. Like...food coloring....

He didn't just leave the fish in the blenders and stand back to see what would happen. (like that wasn't inviting cruelty enough)
He ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED people to turn them on. ACTIVELY encouraging someone to do something wrong is also wrong. get it?



If you really think this is ok,how would you explain it to your kids? I was taught that this behaviour was wrong, just as much as if you stood by and watched the school bully beat on someone. not actually carrying out the act is irrelevant and it doesn't imply innocence.

you two had posted by the time I finished this. I'm all for art and pushing boundaries etc., but there's no need to grind up any live being for art. I may be coming across as a save the world type. I'm not- I just don't like pointless cruelty. (I don't like cruelty with a point either )

I just don't buy into the whole "weird shit as art" thing. If all it took to be an artist was to be a shit disturber, well, there'd be a lot more rich folks on the cellar.

Back to polar bears

You know that they are just rectangular bears that have undergone a coordinate transform?