 |
| Always time for some Hi-Fi 8-Track Multi Sound Experiences |
 |
| Maxxin and Relaxxin |
 |
| May Pitfall never end! Oh, it doesn't. |
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Lounging Around
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Character Profile #1
NAME: Bob
OCCUPATION: Main Character
HOBBIES: Meh, whatever.
DESCRIPTION: Bob, apparently a former pilot for the Rebel Alliance, is the main subject of photography in this blog of BS. He tends to do whatever he seems fit for the moment and is a generally likeable person/figure. Although not extremely poseable, he does seem to adapt to whatever situation he runs into.
Friday, September 17, 2010
A New Leaf!
Well hello there, and welcome to the new B.S. by Bob!
So instead of writing lengthy dialogue that no one will ever read, I've decided to take photographs of all of the wonderful junk that I keep in my basement, and create a strange world for all of you to enjoy.
On my last post for the Facts of Bob's Life, I shot a whole bunch of photos using the various 'collectible' items I have in my possession. This ended up leading to one thing and to another, and you know what happened? I started to have a great time with it and shot an ***load of photos of my trinkets and toys doing amazing things. Not only that but I built a world and a strange story for them to play around in.
My goal for this is to set up characters, vague plots, situations and just share my results through this blog. I don't want to spoil too much right now because this is definitely a work in progress, but I will say this: it will be fun for all! Even for me!
Enjoy!
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Must Read My Ass!!
If you're even semi literate, I'm sure that you have heard that the 'oh so great' J.D. Salinger died a few days ago. He was the author of the classic book Catcher in the Rye, and also spawned a small collection of various short stories in a short early burst in his 91 year long life. I don't know the exact details of his death, but I can only assume that he died of boredom in some reclusive cabin in the woods that's very reminiscent of the one in the Evil Dead films.
In case you didn't know, according to every literary critic on God's Green Earth (ie New York), Salinger's literary work was some of the most iconic and transformitive writing that was ever blessed upon mankind. That work of course being the one book he published, Catcher in the Rye. Since it was published in 1951 the book has gone on to sell oodles upon oodles of copies to angsty, alienated teenagers, and snobby university types who feel it is required reading for anyone to progress further in life.
I myself have read it only once, and found the book to be a piece of utterly boring nonsense.
When I first heard about the book it was of course about the psycho who shot John Lennon who was also at the time desperately holding onto a copy of Catcher in the Rye as well. Also, I had read about other wierd psychotic types out there in the world who for some reason or another, had professed that their madness was caused by reading said book. I'd also read that at one time the book was considered dangerous for it's time, that it broke certain boundaries. As a young man I wanted to see what all the hub bub was about and immediately went out to the library to find a copy.
I remember being terrified to actually read it. What the hell would happen to me if I started to read this book? Would I end up killing my whole family and boil the marrow out of their bones to use as bouillon for my Ramen? Or go on a kill crazy rampage through my local supermarket because the book opened my eyes to something horrifyingly new? Nope, not at all. Instead I was just bored to death.
For those of you who are not in the know, I am going to spoil the entire book for you right now: Boy is on vacation from prep school, boy pouts all day and calls everyone phonies, boy goes and gets drunk even though he doesn't know how, boy buys prostitute and is too scared to have sex, boy goes home and cries, everyone is still phonies. Amazing.
I literally spent the whole time reading the book waiting for something to happen, which was the only real reason I kept reading the book. Instead it was like listening to my kid brother saying 'everyone's stupid' over and over again for three hours. So basically, for me, Catcher in the Rye is like taking my kid brother to a bar.
.
Whenever I bring my opinion of this book up to anyone I only get one of two responses. Either A) the person completely agrees with me, and cannot understand why they wasted their time reading the damn book when they could have done something more constructive like burn a bad book that shouldn't be read, such as the DaVinci Code, or I get B) the person who drops their jaw and says in an exasperated manner "You didn't like Catcher in the Rye!?!?", as if I had committed some kind of cardinal sin.
With the type B response I almost always get into an argument, bring up my valid points which cannot be argued, and then unreasonably expect said argument to be over with right then and there. But things don't always work out the way you want them to. The usual retort I get back is "Well, you have to take into consideration the time it was written". I have always been the type of reader that has been able to take into consideration for when a piece of literature was written. So yes, I understand the whole Post War generation thing, and that people were boring back in the fifties and were looking for something different, and that they didn't have High Definition Television yet. It still doesn't change the fact that the book...is...boring.
There was an article on Newsweek.com, where the author said basically the same things I am. I was surprised to read it, because usually when people like Salinger die all you will find is how amazing and awe inspiring said person was to the world. What was even funnier were the comments left by readers of the article. They posted some of the most spiteful things you could imagine, like this guy had just pissed in their Aunt's mouth or something. All of them said something which read like "If you don't like Salinger then you don't like reading". The overall tone was that these people just couldn't understand how anyone could not like Catcher in the Rye.
What this reminds me of is how upset people would get by me saying that I hate Romeo & Juliet, or almost all of Shakespeare for that matter. I can't even transcribe in text the amount of flak that I received. It was mostly along the lines of "He was the greatest writer ever" or "Romeo & Juliet is the best love story ever written" and so forth.
For me, I could never subscribe to that way of thinking. All of that man's writing is so horrendously boring it borders on self suffocation. Every play, story or whatever the hell he wrote is the most simplest crap, that the only way to make it interesting is to have it shown in a theatre with everybody dressed up in garrish colors and feathers in their hats. Which they did. It's just that everyone is so drawn in by the unending supply of "forsooth" and "Yay, verily" that comes bound in every package, that it makes it seem so much more complicated than it really is. Nobody can see the turd that it is because it's wrapped in so much green saran wrap.
For example, Romeo & Juliet is not a tragic love story of epic proportions, it's a story about two teenagers who need to get off as quickly as possible. Out of fear of catholic damnation, and being grounded by their parents, they need to get married to bump uglies...in secret. So after they do get married and make awkward first time love, in secret, they realized that just once is not enough, and decide like all horny teenagers who just get married for sex, that they need to run away together. Then when a strange little death/suicide scheme is concocted that makes absolutely no sense, one finally realizes that life is not worth living if there is no Taco Time, and kills himself on purpose/accident. Like wise for the other. This isn't storytelling at it's best, it's an episode of General Hospital.
Like I had written earlier in my brilliant Avatar review that needs to be spellchecked, and the now critically acclaimed Shakespeare review I just blurted out, the opinions people hold so high of J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye are not so much fresh and new opinions, but recycled views given by people over fifty years ago. They're considered right, just and untouchable. My own opinion is that the book was good for it's time, but any revelance it had for it's day is long gone. What's sad is that people refuse to truly look at this book anew and say 'Hey, this book is in fact pretty shitty.' They cling to dear life to the classic status of this title and will never let go, no matter how much proof you wave in front of their face. When it comes to the Arts, in any form, we tend to latch onto our opinions and stick to them. There is an almost absolute refusal to change when it comes to that opinion.
I, on the other hand, can provide you an outstanding example of changed opinion. When I was a kid I loved Voltron more than anything else in the world, and for twenty some years I clinged onto that memory. As an adult I rewatched it expecting to have that same childish joy envelope my soul. Instead I got a sucky $5 anime that was edited with a hot butter knife, and sounded like it was voiced over by some cast rejects from the Care Bears.
In my opinion this is a great example of how things were good for the time. But times change. I would like to challenge all of you who read this, to take time and find one thing that you have read, watched or listened to that has been considered by millions of people to be the best thing since sliced bread, and reevaluate it. Do this by yourself, with no outside influence, and let your own personal opinion loose. I do this all the time. Sometimes you'll be surprised how well a book stands the test of time, or how horrible a film is after only a few years, or why the hell you bought a CD in the first place. It's always good to take a step back and evaluate things with a new set of eyes.
I'm usually right the first time though.
In case you didn't know, according to every literary critic on God's Green Earth (ie New York), Salinger's literary work was some of the most iconic and transformitive writing that was ever blessed upon mankind. That work of course being the one book he published, Catcher in the Rye. Since it was published in 1951 the book has gone on to sell oodles upon oodles of copies to angsty, alienated teenagers, and snobby university types who feel it is required reading for anyone to progress further in life.
I myself have read it only once, and found the book to be a piece of utterly boring nonsense.
When I first heard about the book it was of course about the psycho who shot John Lennon who was also at the time desperately holding onto a copy of Catcher in the Rye as well. Also, I had read about other wierd psychotic types out there in the world who for some reason or another, had professed that their madness was caused by reading said book. I'd also read that at one time the book was considered dangerous for it's time, that it broke certain boundaries. As a young man I wanted to see what all the hub bub was about and immediately went out to the library to find a copy.
I remember being terrified to actually read it. What the hell would happen to me if I started to read this book? Would I end up killing my whole family and boil the marrow out of their bones to use as bouillon for my Ramen? Or go on a kill crazy rampage through my local supermarket because the book opened my eyes to something horrifyingly new? Nope, not at all. Instead I was just bored to death.
For those of you who are not in the know, I am going to spoil the entire book for you right now: Boy is on vacation from prep school, boy pouts all day and calls everyone phonies, boy goes and gets drunk even though he doesn't know how, boy buys prostitute and is too scared to have sex, boy goes home and cries, everyone is still phonies. Amazing.
I literally spent the whole time reading the book waiting for something to happen, which was the only real reason I kept reading the book. Instead it was like listening to my kid brother saying 'everyone's stupid' over and over again for three hours. So basically, for me, Catcher in the Rye is like taking my kid brother to a bar.
.
Whenever I bring my opinion of this book up to anyone I only get one of two responses. Either A) the person completely agrees with me, and cannot understand why they wasted their time reading the damn book when they could have done something more constructive like burn a bad book that shouldn't be read, such as the DaVinci Code, or I get B) the person who drops their jaw and says in an exasperated manner "You didn't like Catcher in the Rye!?!?", as if I had committed some kind of cardinal sin.
With the type B response I almost always get into an argument, bring up my valid points which cannot be argued, and then unreasonably expect said argument to be over with right then and there. But things don't always work out the way you want them to. The usual retort I get back is "Well, you have to take into consideration the time it was written". I have always been the type of reader that has been able to take into consideration for when a piece of literature was written. So yes, I understand the whole Post War generation thing, and that people were boring back in the fifties and were looking for something different, and that they didn't have High Definition Television yet. It still doesn't change the fact that the book...is...boring.
There was an article on Newsweek.com, where the author said basically the same things I am. I was surprised to read it, because usually when people like Salinger die all you will find is how amazing and awe inspiring said person was to the world. What was even funnier were the comments left by readers of the article. They posted some of the most spiteful things you could imagine, like this guy had just pissed in their Aunt's mouth or something. All of them said something which read like "If you don't like Salinger then you don't like reading". The overall tone was that these people just couldn't understand how anyone could not like Catcher in the Rye.
What this reminds me of is how upset people would get by me saying that I hate Romeo & Juliet, or almost all of Shakespeare for that matter. I can't even transcribe in text the amount of flak that I received. It was mostly along the lines of "He was the greatest writer ever" or "Romeo & Juliet is the best love story ever written" and so forth.
For me, I could never subscribe to that way of thinking. All of that man's writing is so horrendously boring it borders on self suffocation. Every play, story or whatever the hell he wrote is the most simplest crap, that the only way to make it interesting is to have it shown in a theatre with everybody dressed up in garrish colors and feathers in their hats. Which they did. It's just that everyone is so drawn in by the unending supply of "forsooth" and "Yay, verily" that comes bound in every package, that it makes it seem so much more complicated than it really is. Nobody can see the turd that it is because it's wrapped in so much green saran wrap.
For example, Romeo & Juliet is not a tragic love story of epic proportions, it's a story about two teenagers who need to get off as quickly as possible. Out of fear of catholic damnation, and being grounded by their parents, they need to get married to bump uglies...in secret. So after they do get married and make awkward first time love, in secret, they realized that just once is not enough, and decide like all horny teenagers who just get married for sex, that they need to run away together. Then when a strange little death/suicide scheme is concocted that makes absolutely no sense, one finally realizes that life is not worth living if there is no Taco Time, and kills himself on purpose/accident. Like wise for the other. This isn't storytelling at it's best, it's an episode of General Hospital.
Like I had written earlier in my brilliant Avatar review that needs to be spellchecked, and the now critically acclaimed Shakespeare review I just blurted out, the opinions people hold so high of J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye are not so much fresh and new opinions, but recycled views given by people over fifty years ago. They're considered right, just and untouchable. My own opinion is that the book was good for it's time, but any revelance it had for it's day is long gone. What's sad is that people refuse to truly look at this book anew and say 'Hey, this book is in fact pretty shitty.' They cling to dear life to the classic status of this title and will never let go, no matter how much proof you wave in front of their face. When it comes to the Arts, in any form, we tend to latch onto our opinions and stick to them. There is an almost absolute refusal to change when it comes to that opinion.
I, on the other hand, can provide you an outstanding example of changed opinion. When I was a kid I loved Voltron more than anything else in the world, and for twenty some years I clinged onto that memory. As an adult I rewatched it expecting to have that same childish joy envelope my soul. Instead I got a sucky $5 anime that was edited with a hot butter knife, and sounded like it was voiced over by some cast rejects from the Care Bears.
In my opinion this is a great example of how things were good for the time. But times change. I would like to challenge all of you who read this, to take time and find one thing that you have read, watched or listened to that has been considered by millions of people to be the best thing since sliced bread, and reevaluate it. Do this by yourself, with no outside influence, and let your own personal opinion loose. I do this all the time. Sometimes you'll be surprised how well a book stands the test of time, or how horrible a film is after only a few years, or why the hell you bought a CD in the first place. It's always good to take a step back and evaluate things with a new set of eyes.
I'm usually right the first time though.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Free Political Awareness
Politics had never been an interest in any way, shape or form in my life until late last year. I had always considered politics to be one an issue that one person, the common man, could never truly have an effect upon. Primarily because all of the decisions made in this realm were never really made by said common man, but instead by a gaggle of old men who were bred and groomed for their positions at a certain age, and made all of the decisions for the "good of the country" for us. Any opportunity for us, the public, to vote or to participate in the political field felt very moot to me, and assinine. Especially since even when we do vote on anything it was still left up to senators and what not to make the final decision for us. There was literally no point in me being active in something that was going to be decided by a panel of 60 year olds with nothing but there best interests in mind.
Sadly, my good friend Tim was nice enough to open my eyes to how it was actually quite the opposite. I refuse to go into the details of our conversation, since that would be practically a college thesis in itself, but to reiterate everything that he imparted onto me, he basically said that even if you feel that you're participation/vote in everything doesn't matter, it is at the very least important to be informed on the going on's of your country and the government itself. Not only that, but to be properly informed. Plus, despite what you may believe, your participation/vote DOES make a difference, because you're participation/vote is an influence on a decision. At least that's what I remember from our conversation.
If Tim is reading this right now he's probably shaking his head, or spitting out his coffee yelling out "What the Hell?!" because that's probably not how the conversation went at all. There was a lot more beratement on his part, telling me how much of a simple minded idiot I was. I do remember crying alot that night.
I'm sure that all of you out there with at least one working ear have been bombarded with endless news on the Television, Internet, Newspapers, Telegraph about absolutely everything our President has or has not done during his first year in office. The most obvious one lately being the battle for free Health Care for this country. Or I should say the attempt to try and bring free Health Care to this country.
Ever since this whole...thing got started everyone in the political realm has been up in arms. Mainly ranting about how it is the worst thing in the world that could happen to American Citizens, unless of course the Ebola Virus mated with the Swine Flue. Somehow, the idea that people who could not afford Health Care could magically have Health Care is a terrible, terrible concept. Right out the door every Republican said that they would do every thing that they could to stop the bill from passing, giving absolutely no legitimate reasons other than the bill itself is too big, or it costs money, and something about a public option. Democrats have generally been no better, and they tend to ramble on about the same exact things.
But it didn't stop there. No, a few months after the wheels of change that our President promised us started to turn the ridiculous rumors started. Things like Death Panels and Health Care for Illegal Immigrants. Though I won't open this can of worms because I can't find the exact quote on it, there was an assload of humbug about something to do with abortions, but then again when isn't there?!
Then as if all of that wasn't enough, some A-Hole group called the Teabaggers came out, who have decided that anything that our President does is against God and Immoral. Literally, I think they are out on the White House front lawn right now protesting the fact that President Obama is eating dinner without the appropriate utensils. They are constantly upset about the nation having free Health Care, usually repeating some nonsensical rhetoric from whatever Senator that currently supports them. Usually what they spout out is crap that sounds like chain e-mails they received that morning. So if they got one of those e-mails that said "Free Health Care will let Joe Biden kidnap your children", you better believe they believe it.
So after all of this time was spent arguing over what was right and wrong with the proposed Health Care bill, everyone getting upset because apparently Health Care for everyone is immoral, countless rewrites to try and appease every old soul in Washington, it finally came down to the wire for our countless Senators to vote and make changes to the bill.
The second the cameras started rolling when it was time to see who would and would not support Free Health Care for Americans, something pathetic happened. All of this controversy, all of this hate, and all of this utter confusion about this damn bill has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of our country, it's citizens or the future stability of our nation. Not one bit. Every last bit of angst that has been thrown out into the media and shoved into our faces has been about nothing but Self Preservation. Everyone that has been trying to kill this bill before it starts is just wanting to survive.
All of the republicans kept to their guns that they didn't want Health Care to pass, because they don't like our President. When it came time to everyone else though, they brought up all of their strange ideals how it was evil, horrible and then they said they would support it IF they got their way. If the government paid off certain debts to the state they support, if they received certain concessions, got a couple of IHOP coupons, then oh yeah, they'd support it 100%. What's more depressing is that the demands were met.
What all of this goes to show is that nobody in congress wants things to change from the way things are right now, not one damn bit. There is too much money to be lost with lobbyists and not enough to be made if things change. That is it. They can make any lame brained excuse about who is going to be left out, when it's going to be activated, if there should or shouldn't be a public option in it, but it all boils down to several key factors:
I am the last person to sit hear and pretend that I know absolutely everything there is to know about politics. Far from it. I am learning every day. I am still trying to figure out what the difference between a Democrat and Republican is other than their logo and the color red and blue. Maybe it's the accent? I don't know what defines you as a leftist. Idiocy? I've looked up what the Public Option is, and I'm still not quite sure why it's such a horrible thing that needs to be removed. Probably it was just the first thing that was noticed on the bill? I wrote this primarily to just blurt out and say it, that not passing this bill is an excuse for the people in charge of our country to just keep things the same. They may preach that it is better for all of us to not have it, but in what way? I have yet to hear a valid reason from anyone who has opposed this bill other than "I cannot approve something that I don't morally agree with". How can you morally agree with not giving Health Care to people without it free of charge? Several states are even suing the government for giving them Free Health Care. Why? Because "It's unconstitutional". I can't even come up with a good reply to that!
Perhaps I'm not even the best person to try and argue about this topic since I already have free health care through the V.A. But my family doesn't, my daughter doesn't, and I'm pretty damn sure that the government would be able to provide a far better plan for free than the crap ass plan that I have to pay for monthly for my daughter that barely gets her anything.
Unfortunately, as far as this bill has come, it looks like it will fail because of a giant group of old men and women who misleadingly present themselves as crusaders for the nation, and champions for America, only have their best interest in mind instead of ours.
Like our President said "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig".
The things that have been said during all of this debacle have gone from ridiculous to downright insane. I won't get all preachy and reference dozens of direct quotes, from dozens of politicians whose names won't mean a damn thing to any of us. I promote research and reading. And when I say research I mean PROPER research, not just googling and clicking, but going to legitimate resources. As in the last post I'm going to leave you with some more links to where I go for my information:
Time - This is a very well balanced site that is kept up to date.
Newsweek - More opinion pieces than anything else, but has some great balance and views.
Huffington Post - I go here mainly to get a wide variety of other people's point of view & topics, also has up to date news as well on politics. News is very unbiased surprisingly.
Cnn - Hey, we all just need up to date news
I did bring up the topic of my past political involvement up, and my conversation with my best friend Tim, for a reason. Being ignorant about topics such as this feels safe, it puts you in a comfort zone, which is exactly where I was at for a good majority of my life. Being uninvolved and uninformed puts you in a situation of ignorance to where if the topic of discussion like this comes up you can safely say "Well, I didn't know, I didn't vote, so I can't be blamed. It's everyone elses fault. I don't care.". Having that sort of blank set of ideals where uninvolvement will not affect anything is not the path our country needs to be headed in. Being informed and involved is important. I'm not saying you need to run out right now, pick a political party to align with, go buy a hybrid car and change every aspect of your life. I'm just saying it is in your best interest, this country's best interest, to at the very least be properly informed.
Sadly, my good friend Tim was nice enough to open my eyes to how it was actually quite the opposite. I refuse to go into the details of our conversation, since that would be practically a college thesis in itself, but to reiterate everything that he imparted onto me, he basically said that even if you feel that you're participation/vote in everything doesn't matter, it is at the very least important to be informed on the going on's of your country and the government itself. Not only that, but to be properly informed. Plus, despite what you may believe, your participation/vote DOES make a difference, because you're participation/vote is an influence on a decision. At least that's what I remember from our conversation.
If Tim is reading this right now he's probably shaking his head, or spitting out his coffee yelling out "What the Hell?!" because that's probably not how the conversation went at all. There was a lot more beratement on his part, telling me how much of a simple minded idiot I was. I do remember crying alot that night.
I'm sure that all of you out there with at least one working ear have been bombarded with endless news on the Television, Internet, Newspapers, Telegraph about absolutely everything our President has or has not done during his first year in office. The most obvious one lately being the battle for free Health Care for this country. Or I should say the attempt to try and bring free Health Care to this country.
Ever since this whole...thing got started everyone in the political realm has been up in arms. Mainly ranting about how it is the worst thing in the world that could happen to American Citizens, unless of course the Ebola Virus mated with the Swine Flue. Somehow, the idea that people who could not afford Health Care could magically have Health Care is a terrible, terrible concept. Right out the door every Republican said that they would do every thing that they could to stop the bill from passing, giving absolutely no legitimate reasons other than the bill itself is too big, or it costs money, and something about a public option. Democrats have generally been no better, and they tend to ramble on about the same exact things.
But it didn't stop there. No, a few months after the wheels of change that our President promised us started to turn the ridiculous rumors started. Things like Death Panels and Health Care for Illegal Immigrants. Though I won't open this can of worms because I can't find the exact quote on it, there was an assload of humbug about something to do with abortions, but then again when isn't there?!
Then as if all of that wasn't enough, some A-Hole group called the Teabaggers came out, who have decided that anything that our President does is against God and Immoral. Literally, I think they are out on the White House front lawn right now protesting the fact that President Obama is eating dinner without the appropriate utensils. They are constantly upset about the nation having free Health Care, usually repeating some nonsensical rhetoric from whatever Senator that currently supports them. Usually what they spout out is crap that sounds like chain e-mails they received that morning. So if they got one of those e-mails that said "Free Health Care will let Joe Biden kidnap your children", you better believe they believe it.
So after all of this time was spent arguing over what was right and wrong with the proposed Health Care bill, everyone getting upset because apparently Health Care for everyone is immoral, countless rewrites to try and appease every old soul in Washington, it finally came down to the wire for our countless Senators to vote and make changes to the bill.
The second the cameras started rolling when it was time to see who would and would not support Free Health Care for Americans, something pathetic happened. All of this controversy, all of this hate, and all of this utter confusion about this damn bill has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of our country, it's citizens or the future stability of our nation. Not one bit. Every last bit of angst that has been thrown out into the media and shoved into our faces has been about nothing but Self Preservation. Everyone that has been trying to kill this bill before it starts is just wanting to survive.
All of the republicans kept to their guns that they didn't want Health Care to pass, because they don't like our President. When it came time to everyone else though, they brought up all of their strange ideals how it was evil, horrible and then they said they would support it IF they got their way. If the government paid off certain debts to the state they support, if they received certain concessions, got a couple of IHOP coupons, then oh yeah, they'd support it 100%. What's more depressing is that the demands were met.
What all of this goes to show is that nobody in congress wants things to change from the way things are right now, not one damn bit. There is too much money to be lost with lobbyists and not enough to be made if things change. That is it. They can make any lame brained excuse about who is going to be left out, when it's going to be activated, if there should or shouldn't be a public option in it, but it all boils down to several key factors:
Money
Power
Comfort
I am the last person to sit hear and pretend that I know absolutely everything there is to know about politics. Far from it. I am learning every day. I am still trying to figure out what the difference between a Democrat and Republican is other than their logo and the color red and blue. Maybe it's the accent? I don't know what defines you as a leftist. Idiocy? I've looked up what the Public Option is, and I'm still not quite sure why it's such a horrible thing that needs to be removed. Probably it was just the first thing that was noticed on the bill? I wrote this primarily to just blurt out and say it, that not passing this bill is an excuse for the people in charge of our country to just keep things the same. They may preach that it is better for all of us to not have it, but in what way? I have yet to hear a valid reason from anyone who has opposed this bill other than "I cannot approve something that I don't morally agree with". How can you morally agree with not giving Health Care to people without it free of charge? Several states are even suing the government for giving them Free Health Care. Why? Because "It's unconstitutional". I can't even come up with a good reply to that!
Perhaps I'm not even the best person to try and argue about this topic since I already have free health care through the V.A. But my family doesn't, my daughter doesn't, and I'm pretty damn sure that the government would be able to provide a far better plan for free than the crap ass plan that I have to pay for monthly for my daughter that barely gets her anything.
Unfortunately, as far as this bill has come, it looks like it will fail because of a giant group of old men and women who misleadingly present themselves as crusaders for the nation, and champions for America, only have their best interest in mind instead of ours.
Like our President said "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig".
The things that have been said during all of this debacle have gone from ridiculous to downright insane. I won't get all preachy and reference dozens of direct quotes, from dozens of politicians whose names won't mean a damn thing to any of us. I promote research and reading. And when I say research I mean PROPER research, not just googling and clicking, but going to legitimate resources. As in the last post I'm going to leave you with some more links to where I go for my information:
Time - This is a very well balanced site that is kept up to date.
Newsweek - More opinion pieces than anything else, but has some great balance and views.
Huffington Post - I go here mainly to get a wide variety of other people's point of view & topics, also has up to date news as well on politics. News is very unbiased surprisingly.
Cnn - Hey, we all just need up to date news
I did bring up the topic of my past political involvement up, and my conversation with my best friend Tim, for a reason. Being ignorant about topics such as this feels safe, it puts you in a comfort zone, which is exactly where I was at for a good majority of my life. Being uninvolved and uninformed puts you in a situation of ignorance to where if the topic of discussion like this comes up you can safely say "Well, I didn't know, I didn't vote, so I can't be blamed. It's everyone elses fault. I don't care.". Having that sort of blank set of ideals where uninvolvement will not affect anything is not the path our country needs to be headed in. Being informed and involved is important. I'm not saying you need to run out right now, pick a political party to align with, go buy a hybrid car and change every aspect of your life. I'm just saying it is in your best interest, this country's best interest, to at the very least be properly informed.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Where's the Revolution?
Over the weekend I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to watch the life changing film Avatar, which as you may or may not know, was created by renowned filmmaker James Cameron. I have to say it was one of, if not the, most wasted moments of my life I have ever spent in a dark room crowded with people.
For months on end I have been hearing, reading, and been plain bombarded about how the King of The World (look it up) has been creating this turd of a film for over a decade. Not only has he just been making a film, but he has also been making some form of revolutionary 3-D filmmaking technology that will revolutionize film as we know it. I've read quotes from such esteemed filmmakers as Soderbergh, Spielberg among countless others, stating that it will blow our minds away and change the way we see movies forever.
The entire time I sat through this horrid cliched mess, I kept waiting for this amazing film to appear. You know, the one everyone kept talking about all over the internet, in print magazines, on television for almost a year. The film that was a visual splendor, that had action, romance, drama, intensity, 3-D visual splendor that would make me give up sex. Instead I was treated to a mish-mash of characters that had been borrowed/stolen from previous Cameron films, as was the production design, music and nonsensical plot, and the most laughable dialogue I have heard in god knows how long. In between all of this I was given a fairly high dose of a hallucinagenic, night-brite infested nightmare. This was promptly followed by Dark Elves riding Pokemon through plot holes big enough to fit the reputation of 12 dozen John Holmes through.
I know that you are dying for me to elaborate so I won't waste any time.
I'll start with the easiest, which is the production design. The majority of the futuristic quasi-helicopters that fly throughout the jungle planet of pandora, and the mech combat suits, are literal carbon copies of the same production design used in Aliens. They just added a little 'umph' (more guns and length) to diferentiate it. When the reveal shots first...uh, revealed all of this futuristic technology on screen, the first thought that popped into my head was "they didn't even try". If I was an extremely influential man of film, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and over a decade of my time on making a film, I would try a teensy bit harder on trying to make things look more unique then just putting a cockpit from a gunship from a prior movie I made on a shoebox and then call it a big gunship. That's just me though.
When it came time to be introduced to the characters I noticed something even more glaringly familiar. Almost every one of them was taken from a previous film made by our King of The World. Sigourney Weaver's character is the bitchy scientist that Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio plays from the 'Abyss'. Michelle Rodriguez is the rough and tough female marine from 'Aliens'. Giovanni Ribisi is the scuzzy corporate man we love to hate that Paul Reiser played in 'Aliens'. The nerdy guy is the nerdy guy from 'True Lies'. And good old Sam Worthington is a combination of everyone! He's part Michael Biehn from Terminator for his man on a mission enthusiasm, part Jack from 'Titanic' for his I love you more than being a bum/marine personality, as well as Ed Harris from the 'Abyss' for his I will put my hand in a toilet so it turns blue to get my wedding ring and do anything for you attitude. As for the gummy bear aliens themselves, they just seemed like the cast of 'Dances with Wolves', which I know isn't a James Cameron film, but hey, the shoe fit.
As for the story, well, that's a whole can of wastefulness that I shouldn't even mention it. But I will. I won't nitpick the millions of problems, plot holes, and obvious film comparisons (Fern Gully) that are apparent in this epic masterpiece, I'll leave that to the rest of the internet. What I will do is tell you why the script is written to be a predictable mess.
The problem with James cameron is that he doesn't so much make films as he does make new technology for film itself, and then decides to slap a story to fit around it. If you watch the documentaries on most of his films, which are available on DVD, you'll see that he spends most of his production trying to push the envelope making bigger and better special effects (T2), immersive visual environments for the audience (Aliens, Abyss, Titanic), while simultaneously trying to pioneer new technology for making films(Abyss, Titanic, Avatar...apparently). The film itself? Well, that will just evolve out of the awesome world and technology that was created because it is just that powerful. Right? No. Somehow along the way it all gets lost in the razmataz of a special effects jizzfest, which is sad for us as an audience because we don't get to see any of that creativity at all. All we get to see in Avatar's case is a bottom of the barrel story that has been told before, and better, by other directors. As I mentioned above, James Cameron's hope was that you as an audience would be so enveloped by this magical world that he created you wouldn't give an Elephant's shit that the story is so basic that you feel lik you are having your hand held through the entire movie with someone telling you what's going to happen next.
In the end that's exactly what avatar is. A film that is set up for cameron to show off whatever revolutionary technology he's made, for him to publicly stroke himself for all of us to see, to show off what he's made. The problem is that the whole thing looks like a bad direct to dvd childrens movie. Nothing in the film comes off as fresh, new or quote un-quote revolutionary in any way at all. You can't even argue that the 3-D elements added to the film or breathed any life into it. Matter of fact, the 3-D is practically non existent, only adding up to probably a few minutes. Oddly enough I've read everywhere now, online and in print, where people make excuses for that, making comments along the lines of "what's beautiful is that you don't notice it", and "that it's not in your face". Bullshit! If I pay $14 for a 3-D show, I want to see bullet casings fly into my damn face and blue alien innards splattered all over the screen. Not the date and time of a video log that Sam 'useless' Worthington gives, float one inch in front of his face. That is the future of film? People see that crap when they're on ecstacy!
So why doesn't anyone notice that this film is nothing more than a shot of phlem that James Cameron has spat in our faces? Why do all of the critics in the world keep praising this as the most amazing thing since Kraft singles? Every review you will find of 'Avatar' points out all of the films flaws, yet still gives it high praises. They all say something along the lines of "Yeah, the story is predictable and been told hundreds of times, the characters are hollow and typical Cameron fare, the majority of the movie is unimaginative and cliched, but the last few minutes are really neat looking, and that's what Cameron excels at. It's the best film this year!". Strange, I remember about a dozen movies this year that fit that exact same description, but got a failing grade. 2012, G.I. Joe and Transformers 2 being the most recent.
Still, why is this happening with James Cameron's crappy Avatar film? I am of the opinion that Cameron is one of those directors that, regardless of what terrible films he makes in the future, will always gets a free pass because of the films he's made in the past. It's like a form of guilt for critics. You can't say his film is bad, he made the first two Terminator movies! You can't not like the bad love story in this movie, he made the romantic comedy Titanic! All of his movies make money and are semi enjoyable, so this has to be despite that we know betteer, and we must obey! OBEY!
Yes, we are all very thankful for Cameron's previous films, some of which have become staples in the Sci-Fi Action genre. Terminator still stands the test of time, and Aliens is the textbook definition of a good followup film, though you really have to grin and bear it when it comes to the dialogue. But have you really stopped to watch any of his other films lately? Trust me, if you value your childhood memories, you don't want to. They are wretched. Aliens, while visually impressive, is filled with the most laughable dialogue and wooden performances known to man. The abyss is just...you pray for that damn crew to drown the entire film, just because of the acting and dialogue they deliver. Terminator 2, remember that movie? When that came out and took the world by storm! I remembered it being the best action movie ever made, but once I put myself through the hell of watching it again, it ended up being the most watered down action movie, whose sole purpose was only to set up for key moments to show off liquid terminator moments and that's it. Even the high on a pedestal director's cut version blows.
I wouldn't be surprised, for review puroposes, if you were to replace Avatar's credits with Dean Devlin/Roland Emmerich or Brett Ratner, the film wouldn't get such high praise from critics at all. Then if you were to do the old switcheroo back, people would feel like asses and make excuses to praise the movie to high heaven. And that's just it, critics are making excuses for Cameron, like they want him to be a good filmmaker because their memories of his older films are still firm in their heads.
It was the same case with Titanic. Terrible acting, script, dialogue, story and special effects that were even bad for the time. Yet somehow everyone thought it was the most glorious thing ever made, right next to the lightbulb! People would get physically upset when you said that Titanic was a horrible film, they would literally tear up! Everyone wanted that movie to be the most romantic, epic, action eye sore they had ever seen. Instead it was just Romeo & Juliet on the Exxon Valdez. Fortunately for James Cameron he had the sweet Swan Song of Celine Dion to entice everyone to his disaster of a film, and that worked like a charm.
I mean come on, how can this scene not be bad:
ROSE lays safely on a giant wooden door, with plenty of room for two, bobbing along the freezing ocean as she watches her one night lay, JACK, that somehow taught her the meaning of true love (orgasm?) overnight, freeze to death.
Seeing a way out of this one night stand via rescue boat, she lifts her heavy head up, barely managing to let the last words of lust escape her lips.
JACK'S frozen body makes a soft 'bladoop' sound as ROSE lets go. JACK'S frozen body slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean even though it should float to the top. Science means nothing when it comes to love. And love means nothing to ROSE when it comes to survival.
That's all I had to say, I just really hated Titanic. Back to Avatar.
One of the problems I keep running into, and reading on other blogs, is that when someone mentions they saw the film and disliked it someone is instantly there to say "You need to see it in 3-D to truly experience it". Okay, fine. Now that same person sees it in 3-D and says they still disliked it, and sure as shit someone pops out of nowhere with tears in their eyes, bible in hand to proclaim that "The only true way to behold this wonder of cinema is in IMAX 3-D". Huh. I was always under the impression that the only way to truly experience a film was visually, with your eyes.
I have always had the oh so arrogant opinion that a good film should stand on it's own merits. That any gimmicks, or add-ons should only enhance the experience of a film, not be a necessity. If it becomes a necessity to watch the film then you are robbing the viewer of the enjoyment of your own film, plus from an artist's standpoint you're castrating your own film. Now I am speaking of a film that was made in three different formats, not one that was made specifically in 3-D and only 3-D. That I can understand. Something like Captain EO can only be watched in 3-D, not on Betamax, it was never made for that purpose. Avatar on the other hand was purposefully made in 3 different flavors for everyones enjoyment, but apparently nobody can truly enjoy it without spending that extra $30 and run down to their local IMAX 3-D experience theatre. That is corporate money whoring bullshit, which ironically also happens to be one of the messages in the film: that corporate money whoring is bad.
What aggravates me most about this film is not that fact that it's terrible, which I knew it would be, but the fact that no one seems to acknowledge that it is. Like I said before everyone keeps making excuses for it to be a great film. No matter what I say, the easily impressed of the world will flock towards this methane filled turd in droves, and exclaim it was the coolest thing in the world, just like they do with every movie of the week that comes out of Michael Bay's or Brett Ratner's ass.
Finally I want to leave you with some links. You may have already heard of these two sites, but this is where I got the majority of my feedback on Avatar and the impressions from fans, critics and other filmmakers. Of course I went to other websites, but there links can be easily found through these two sites.
/Film
Aintitcoolnews
For months on end I have been hearing, reading, and been plain bombarded about how the King of The World (look it up) has been creating this turd of a film for over a decade. Not only has he just been making a film, but he has also been making some form of revolutionary 3-D filmmaking technology that will revolutionize film as we know it. I've read quotes from such esteemed filmmakers as Soderbergh, Spielberg among countless others, stating that it will blow our minds away and change the way we see movies forever.
The entire time I sat through this horrid cliched mess, I kept waiting for this amazing film to appear. You know, the one everyone kept talking about all over the internet, in print magazines, on television for almost a year. The film that was a visual splendor, that had action, romance, drama, intensity, 3-D visual splendor that would make me give up sex. Instead I was treated to a mish-mash of characters that had been borrowed/stolen from previous Cameron films, as was the production design, music and nonsensical plot, and the most laughable dialogue I have heard in god knows how long. In between all of this I was given a fairly high dose of a hallucinagenic, night-brite infested nightmare. This was promptly followed by Dark Elves riding Pokemon through plot holes big enough to fit the reputation of 12 dozen John Holmes through.
I know that you are dying for me to elaborate so I won't waste any time.
I'll start with the easiest, which is the production design. The majority of the futuristic quasi-helicopters that fly throughout the jungle planet of pandora, and the mech combat suits, are literal carbon copies of the same production design used in Aliens. They just added a little 'umph' (more guns and length) to diferentiate it. When the reveal shots first...uh, revealed all of this futuristic technology on screen, the first thought that popped into my head was "they didn't even try". If I was an extremely influential man of film, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and over a decade of my time on making a film, I would try a teensy bit harder on trying to make things look more unique then just putting a cockpit from a gunship from a prior movie I made on a shoebox and then call it a big gunship. That's just me though.
When it came time to be introduced to the characters I noticed something even more glaringly familiar. Almost every one of them was taken from a previous film made by our King of The World. Sigourney Weaver's character is the bitchy scientist that Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio plays from the 'Abyss'. Michelle Rodriguez is the rough and tough female marine from 'Aliens'. Giovanni Ribisi is the scuzzy corporate man we love to hate that Paul Reiser played in 'Aliens'. The nerdy guy is the nerdy guy from 'True Lies'. And good old Sam Worthington is a combination of everyone! He's part Michael Biehn from Terminator for his man on a mission enthusiasm, part Jack from 'Titanic' for his I love you more than being a bum/marine personality, as well as Ed Harris from the 'Abyss' for his I will put my hand in a toilet so it turns blue to get my wedding ring and do anything for you attitude. As for the gummy bear aliens themselves, they just seemed like the cast of 'Dances with Wolves', which I know isn't a James Cameron film, but hey, the shoe fit.
As for the story, well, that's a whole can of wastefulness that I shouldn't even mention it. But I will. I won't nitpick the millions of problems, plot holes, and obvious film comparisons (Fern Gully) that are apparent in this epic masterpiece, I'll leave that to the rest of the internet. What I will do is tell you why the script is written to be a predictable mess.
The problem with James cameron is that he doesn't so much make films as he does make new technology for film itself, and then decides to slap a story to fit around it. If you watch the documentaries on most of his films, which are available on DVD, you'll see that he spends most of his production trying to push the envelope making bigger and better special effects (T2), immersive visual environments for the audience (Aliens, Abyss, Titanic), while simultaneously trying to pioneer new technology for making films(Abyss, Titanic, Avatar...apparently). The film itself? Well, that will just evolve out of the awesome world and technology that was created because it is just that powerful. Right? No. Somehow along the way it all gets lost in the razmataz of a special effects jizzfest, which is sad for us as an audience because we don't get to see any of that creativity at all. All we get to see in Avatar's case is a bottom of the barrel story that has been told before, and better, by other directors. As I mentioned above, James Cameron's hope was that you as an audience would be so enveloped by this magical world that he created you wouldn't give an Elephant's shit that the story is so basic that you feel lik you are having your hand held through the entire movie with someone telling you what's going to happen next.
In the end that's exactly what avatar is. A film that is set up for cameron to show off whatever revolutionary technology he's made, for him to publicly stroke himself for all of us to see, to show off what he's made. The problem is that the whole thing looks like a bad direct to dvd childrens movie. Nothing in the film comes off as fresh, new or quote un-quote revolutionary in any way at all. You can't even argue that the 3-D elements added to the film or breathed any life into it. Matter of fact, the 3-D is practically non existent, only adding up to probably a few minutes. Oddly enough I've read everywhere now, online and in print, where people make excuses for that, making comments along the lines of "what's beautiful is that you don't notice it", and "that it's not in your face". Bullshit! If I pay $14 for a 3-D show, I want to see bullet casings fly into my damn face and blue alien innards splattered all over the screen. Not the date and time of a video log that Sam 'useless' Worthington gives, float one inch in front of his face. That is the future of film? People see that crap when they're on ecstacy!
So why doesn't anyone notice that this film is nothing more than a shot of phlem that James Cameron has spat in our faces? Why do all of the critics in the world keep praising this as the most amazing thing since Kraft singles? Every review you will find of 'Avatar' points out all of the films flaws, yet still gives it high praises. They all say something along the lines of "Yeah, the story is predictable and been told hundreds of times, the characters are hollow and typical Cameron fare, the majority of the movie is unimaginative and cliched, but the last few minutes are really neat looking, and that's what Cameron excels at. It's the best film this year!". Strange, I remember about a dozen movies this year that fit that exact same description, but got a failing grade. 2012, G.I. Joe and Transformers 2 being the most recent.
Still, why is this happening with James Cameron's crappy Avatar film? I am of the opinion that Cameron is one of those directors that, regardless of what terrible films he makes in the future, will always gets a free pass because of the films he's made in the past. It's like a form of guilt for critics. You can't say his film is bad, he made the first two Terminator movies! You can't not like the bad love story in this movie, he made the romantic comedy Titanic! All of his movies make money and are semi enjoyable, so this has to be despite that we know betteer, and we must obey! OBEY!
Yes, we are all very thankful for Cameron's previous films, some of which have become staples in the Sci-Fi Action genre. Terminator still stands the test of time, and Aliens is the textbook definition of a good followup film, though you really have to grin and bear it when it comes to the dialogue. But have you really stopped to watch any of his other films lately? Trust me, if you value your childhood memories, you don't want to. They are wretched. Aliens, while visually impressive, is filled with the most laughable dialogue and wooden performances known to man. The abyss is just...you pray for that damn crew to drown the entire film, just because of the acting and dialogue they deliver. Terminator 2, remember that movie? When that came out and took the world by storm! I remembered it being the best action movie ever made, but once I put myself through the hell of watching it again, it ended up being the most watered down action movie, whose sole purpose was only to set up for key moments to show off liquid terminator moments and that's it. Even the high on a pedestal director's cut version blows.
I wouldn't be surprised, for review puroposes, if you were to replace Avatar's credits with Dean Devlin/Roland Emmerich or Brett Ratner, the film wouldn't get such high praise from critics at all. Then if you were to do the old switcheroo back, people would feel like asses and make excuses to praise the movie to high heaven. And that's just it, critics are making excuses for Cameron, like they want him to be a good filmmaker because their memories of his older films are still firm in their heads.
It was the same case with Titanic. Terrible acting, script, dialogue, story and special effects that were even bad for the time. Yet somehow everyone thought it was the most glorious thing ever made, right next to the lightbulb! People would get physically upset when you said that Titanic was a horrible film, they would literally tear up! Everyone wanted that movie to be the most romantic, epic, action eye sore they had ever seen. Instead it was just Romeo & Juliet on the Exxon Valdez. Fortunately for James Cameron he had the sweet Swan Song of Celine Dion to entice everyone to his disaster of a film, and that worked like a charm.
I mean come on, how can this scene not be bad:
EXTERIOR NIGHT
ROSE lays safely on a giant wooden door, with plenty of room for two, bobbing along the freezing ocean as she watches her one night lay, JACK, that somehow taught her the meaning of true love (orgasm?) overnight, freeze to death.
Seeing a way out of this one night stand via rescue boat, she lifts her heavy head up, barely managing to let the last words of lust escape her lips.
ROSE
I'll never let go!
JACK'S frozen body makes a soft 'bladoop' sound as ROSE lets go. JACK'S frozen body slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean even though it should float to the top. Science means nothing when it comes to love. And love means nothing to ROSE when it comes to survival.
That's all I had to say, I just really hated Titanic. Back to Avatar.
One of the problems I keep running into, and reading on other blogs, is that when someone mentions they saw the film and disliked it someone is instantly there to say "You need to see it in 3-D to truly experience it". Okay, fine. Now that same person sees it in 3-D and says they still disliked it, and sure as shit someone pops out of nowhere with tears in their eyes, bible in hand to proclaim that "The only true way to behold this wonder of cinema is in IMAX 3-D". Huh. I was always under the impression that the only way to truly experience a film was visually, with your eyes.
I have always had the oh so arrogant opinion that a good film should stand on it's own merits. That any gimmicks, or add-ons should only enhance the experience of a film, not be a necessity. If it becomes a necessity to watch the film then you are robbing the viewer of the enjoyment of your own film, plus from an artist's standpoint you're castrating your own film. Now I am speaking of a film that was made in three different formats, not one that was made specifically in 3-D and only 3-D. That I can understand. Something like Captain EO can only be watched in 3-D, not on Betamax, it was never made for that purpose. Avatar on the other hand was purposefully made in 3 different flavors for everyones enjoyment, but apparently nobody can truly enjoy it without spending that extra $30 and run down to their local IMAX 3-D experience theatre. That is corporate money whoring bullshit, which ironically also happens to be one of the messages in the film: that corporate money whoring is bad.
What aggravates me most about this film is not that fact that it's terrible, which I knew it would be, but the fact that no one seems to acknowledge that it is. Like I said before everyone keeps making excuses for it to be a great film. No matter what I say, the easily impressed of the world will flock towards this methane filled turd in droves, and exclaim it was the coolest thing in the world, just like they do with every movie of the week that comes out of Michael Bay's or Brett Ratner's ass.
Finally I want to leave you with some links. You may have already heard of these two sites, but this is where I got the majority of my feedback on Avatar and the impressions from fans, critics and other filmmakers. Of course I went to other websites, but there links can be easily found through these two sites.
/Film
Aintitcoolnews
Monday, December 21, 2009
Welcome To My B.S.
Well here we are, knee deep in my B.S., and I welcome you!
As you may or may not know (hopefully you fall in the may category) I am the proud owner and creator of the revered Facts of Bob's Life Blog, which is now cosmically linked to this little blog. If you are/were a proud reader of the Facts of Bob's Life I expect you to spread the word through the wide world of the web and let everyone know that this place exists. It is your duty.
So why did I create this damn thing? To be partially honest, it is to vent. My other blog's sole purpose is to dramatize my life in a comical fashion for others to enjoy and mock. With that blog I hardly ever get the time to truly vocalize and force my opinion on others like I truly want. This blog gives me that opportunity.
The knowledge (i.e. B.S.) that I plan on bestowing on anyone that happens to wander into this blog, would be my opinions on such topics as Film, Politics, Philosophy, Science, History, anything I damn well want. Which is why you can guess I titled this blog B.S. by Bob, since I can't really pinpoint any one subject I would be discussing. It's just a mish-mash of crap.
Good crap though.
My only hope I have for this blog is that you enjoy and agree with everything that I write without question. But since reality is the world we live in, the comment bar is always open for discussion.
Well, I hope everyone enjoys my B.S.!
As you may or may not know (hopefully you fall in the may category) I am the proud owner and creator of the revered Facts of Bob's Life Blog, which is now cosmically linked to this little blog. If you are/were a proud reader of the Facts of Bob's Life I expect you to spread the word through the wide world of the web and let everyone know that this place exists. It is your duty.
So why did I create this damn thing? To be partially honest, it is to vent. My other blog's sole purpose is to dramatize my life in a comical fashion for others to enjoy and mock. With that blog I hardly ever get the time to truly vocalize and force my opinion on others like I truly want. This blog gives me that opportunity.
The knowledge (i.e. B.S.) that I plan on bestowing on anyone that happens to wander into this blog, would be my opinions on such topics as Film, Politics, Philosophy, Science, History, anything I damn well want. Which is why you can guess I titled this blog B.S. by Bob, since I can't really pinpoint any one subject I would be discussing. It's just a mish-mash of crap.
Good crap though.
My only hope I have for this blog is that you enjoy and agree with everything that I write without question. But since reality is the world we live in, the comment bar is always open for discussion.
Well, I hope everyone enjoys my B.S.!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)