Reality Steve

The Bachelor 15 - Brad

The Bachelor Recap – 2/7/11

-Before the cocktail party, Michelle gives Brad an “unexpected” visit in his room. Really? We’re expected to believe she did that all on her own? As I’ve stated numerous times, I don’t hate Chris Harrison. He collects a fat paycheck to basically add nothing to this show and is just a mouthpiece saying all the politically correct things he’s supposed to say. Guess I can’t fault him for that. But when he says stuff like this in his blog today regarding Michelle’s “unexpected” visit, you just have to laugh:

“…As for her late night visit, Michelle waited until all the other girls had gone to sleep before she quietly snuck out. Again the entire property was ours so it wasn’t difficult for her to find his place, which was just above their suite.”

See, it’s answers like this that are so transparent where Chris is covering for the show. That’s my whole problem with him. He’s selling his readers and the viewers on stuff that just isn’t true. Tell it like it really happened. You guys told Michelle to go there (just like you did Rego last season) and not tell the other girls, then you’d plant the seed into the others girls heads that someone snuck off to see Brad last night so you’d have your “conflict” at the cocktail party. Which is exactly what happened. So phony.

-Michelle had a great conversation with Brad when she went to see him. This was awesome. I loved this exchange:

Michelle: “I know you had a rough night. Saw you sent Alli home.”
Brad: “Wait, how’d you know that?” (Thinking maybe he’s caught her on something).
Michelle: “Uhhh, we saw them take her luggage away, dumbass.”
Brad: “Oooohhhhhhh…”

So apparently Brad never watches this show either even though he’s been on it twice now. Yeah, Brad when you go on a 1-on-1 or 2-on-1 and one of the women gets sent home, they make this big deal back at the house of the $8.00/hr extra to come in and pick up her bags so they can get a reaction from the women. I’m glad you’re such a big fan of the show and keep up with these things. Anyway, my second favorite moment came when Michelle ran down the order of the elimination she thinks the women should be going home in. Michelle: “I think it should be Jackie, Britt, Shawntel, Chantal, Emily, and Ashley. Then that leaves me.” Ha ha, man, I’m beginning to think this chick does read Outside of her being the final one standing and reversing the Emily/Ashley order, she pretty much has it nailed. She’s crazy like a fox, that one. Maybe next season, I just have Michelle write a guest column to give you all the spoilers.

-Brad meets the women at the cocktail party and basically tells them he’s PMS’ing. Suck it up, wuss. You’re in Costa Rica on a free vacation with a bunch of women that all want to do you. Quit pissing and moaning that things are tough and you’re emotionally drained and go back to your lavish all expensed hotel room and suck your thumb. Or not. Brad pulls Emily aside first and she apologizes immediately for being such a Debbie Downer in the jacuzzi before when Brad wanted some nookie and she’s putting up her walls. Brad: “I’m scared of you.” Why does he keep telling her this? What’s his deal? What a little weenie. Quit telling women you’re scared of them, dude. Emily: “I feel like the biggest idiot telling you I have the tendency to pull away.” More of the same with these two. At least with Brad and Chantal we get some action every time they’re together. These two is like watching two 5th graders on a playground. Silly nonsense and I’m bored by them.

-The women are back trying to figure out why Brad is on the rag and who put him in such a crappy mood. They’ve pretty much figured out that someone went to see him the night before, and Chantal has pegged Michelle. Chantal: “Michelle looks at this as a competition and winning.” Ummmm, maybe she does. And you don’t? Please. If anything I think Chantal comes off as desperate. Trying to convince yourself you’ve moved on from your marriage even though you hadn’t it’s very apparent after hearing what I’ve heard, then watching her on this show, that Chantal was going to try her hardest to fall in love with whoever the Bachelor was. It’s all about winning for her. This chick is going to eat up being on the cover of magazines and doing the talk show circuit with Brad, you watch. If any of you watching this show truly believe that Chantal is sincere, and think she meant it when she said she “fell in love” four weeks into filming and two 1-on-1 dates, I really hope you’re preparing yourself for the inevitable when these two don’t make it. The hopeless romantic in you is getting the better of your judgment. She’s a fraud, and she’s in this to win a competition and nothing else. I just hope Brad can see it. Time will bear this out. Trust me.

-Once he pulls Michelle aside, it’s on like Donkey Kong. Brad: “You’re scaring me. You’re scaring me badly. Feel like we took 10 steps back. I’m afraid of the direction you and I are going.” Awesome. She didn’t really come back with any sort of response before Brad pounced again. Brad: “What makes you so confident that you know I’m not supposed to be with these other women?” Michelle: “I know I’m supposed to be here (starts crying)”. Huh? How’d that answer anything? First time Michelle was cornered all season and she basically cowered. I think at that point she should’ve just gone back to her room, updated her resume, got some clips together for her demo reel, and been on her way. Lets face it, of course she went on this show because she wants to be famous. Just cop to it and all is forgiven. And I’m sure when we see you on “Bachelor Pad 2”, that won’t be for more exposure too, right? Hey, I’ll be the first one to nominate you for that show, but just admit that’s why you’re doing it. Michelle’s one last ditch effort to sell us on why she’s here. “I want to be married. I want more children. I want someone like Brad.” Well, you’re not gonna get it, so move on. I’m sure another NBA player wouldn’t mind another roll in the hay for a while.

-Shawntel’s time to be alone and she actually gets creative. She plays the silent game with him. Shawntel: “The rules are, we can do anything but talk.” Gee, I wonder what she was insinuating with that game? Real tough to figure that one out. But hey, I give her credit. At least it was original (Well, it was for her. Michelle played the same game last week). And dammit, what guy wouldn’t want to play that game with his girlfriend all the time? You kidding? You don’t talk, I don’t talk, and we can do what we want to each other? Weeeeeeeee!!!!!!! You know who I bet is an expert at that game? Destiny. Lets hope Shawntel learned that one from her younger sister because now I have visions of Newton sisters playing silly games with each other in their pajamas that I probably shouldn’t be having. I’m a HUGE fan of the silent game. HUGE fan. Who wants to play? I swear, I’ll never talk.

-Michelle finally cops to going to Brad’s room the night before. “We all know where he stays. And I don’t see why anyone else couldn’t have done it. I just happened to be the one that did it.” No, you just happened to be the one that was ALLOWED to do it. Big difference. You can’t just roam around the set at night whenever you want to and do what you please. Doesn’t work that way. Totally all orchestrated so they could have their drama the next night at the cocktail party. So after Chantal hears what Michelle confesses to, no shock whatsoever that she goes running to Brad and dials up the desperation meter to full blast. “I have fallen in love with you. I love you.” Brad: “What makes you think that?” I don’t even remember what her answer was at this point only because I was too busy checking out the direct panty shot we got of her sitting on the couch in her hooker leopard print skirt. Really? Does this chick own any dress that doesn’t boast some sort of animal pattern on it? Tacky. Does she have a waterbed too? I’ve said what I feel about Chantal. I think we’ll eventually see her true colors when everything plays out and she basically went on the show for fun, to win a competition, and did everything in her power to make sure that happened. Congrats to her for “winning”. Too bad that won’t translate into real life. Now with that said, I think that red crochet knit bikini she has on in the photo shoot next week is outstanding. Think she’s not eating up that fact she’ll be in the SI swimsuit issue? Not that Michelle and Ashley aren’t, but I get the sense that Chantal is thinking bigger things.

Page 4 of 512345


  1. mamak

    February 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM

    OMGosh, now I remember why I stopped reading your blog during work hours, I can’t stop LMAO!!!! Your are so funny and I am at my desk just laughing away. You really do entertain us Steve! Thank you!

  2. Voiceofreason

    February 10, 2011 at 1:47 PM

    To all of you hailing the theory, yes “theory,” which means unproven, of evolution and the supposed science behind it, please consider the following – if we all evolved from monkeys – all six billion of us – then please tell me why we can’t find one SINGLE fossil that came from a half-man/half-ape. Over the course of history there have been a paltry few claims of such a finding, but every single one of them was proven to be a fraud (see the “Piltdown Man” – famous anthropolgical hoax which was used as hard proof of evolution for 40 years before being exposed as a forgery) or as being a mistake.

    If you want to take the time to read the rest of my post, instead of blindly following after the evolutionary theory, you might find this interesting-

    The Oldest Tree
    A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.

    The Oldest Reef
    The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.

    Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.”

    Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it?

    Earth’s Slowing Rotation
    Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood. The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.

    In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years.1

    Declining Magnetic Field
    Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

    Fast-Eroding Niagara Falls
    After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.

    Factoring a worldwide Flood into the equation, scientists arrive at a higher initial erosion rate for the 71?2 mile Niagara Gorge. Since an increase in the quantity of water is directly related to the rate of erosion, the great volume of water receding after the Flood could easily account for half of the erosion of Niagara Falls. Using the evolutionist time frame, Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie. The reason why Niagara Falls has not eroded farther over the “millions of years” of the earth’s existence continues to elude evolutionists. Science always seems to correspond with the creation time line while evolutionists struggle to make their assumptions and theories plausible.

    Salt in the Oceans
    The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

    Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.

  3. SherryfromD

    February 10, 2011 at 2:15 PM

    Like some of the others noted above, I really, really hope the US magazine article about Laurel is not the scoop that Steve was referring to when he said something to the effect that we would know it when we heard it, it was coming and it was going to be like a train hitting and it would make everyone question how this show was real…or whatever he said. This story just doesn’t seem that big of a deal, so I hope there is more…

  4. SherryfromD

    February 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM

    And I’m going to second what AJ13 said. Did the person in the post right before mine REALLY just post all that science/evolution crap?? Who cares! Not what this blog is for.

  5. tamtam

    February 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    Re: US Magazine article
    1) Who proposes marriage via text?
    2) Who takes a texted marriage proposal seriously?

    Re: Your blog
    1) Hysterical as always! Well done! lol

  6. tinytotsmom

    February 10, 2011 at 5:55 PM

    @ Voice of Reason I LOVE YOU!!! You are awsome! Thank you so much for taking the time to post your comment. And to those that don’t like it you don’t have to read it, yes that isn’t what Steve’s blog was about but he also didn’t expect a bunch of people from the Church of Evolution to go all ape sh** (pun totally intended) and start feeling the need to ‘enlighten’ poor Mr. Reality Steve. Honestly, I don’t think he cares what any of us think about the subject, but if you feel the need to say things like “shame on you” as Shar-girl and others did than in the interest in actually providing something informative and interesting to read I thank ‘Voice of Reason’ for doing that. And to add, I laugh when people use carbon-dating as ‘evidence’ for evolution. Do you know that scientists found stalagmites on the Statue of Liberty that carbon-dated to be 10s of thousands of years old!? For those of you that are not history buffs. We haven’t had the Statue of Liberty around for that long…It is only 124 years old, so it can’t have 10 thousand year old stuff growing on it. I shouldn’t have to mention that but since so many of us graduated from the Public School System (myself included, but praise God I somehow managed to graduate without being completly uniformed)I guess I do.

  7. jennstinn

    February 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

    I think you need a new handle name!

  8. Nobody

    February 11, 2011 at 3:00 AM


    Funny how you totally ignored the fact that dinosaurs once existed. We have proof they were here long before Jesus’ time. Its ok, though. Even the bible fails to mention that they existed, even though their bones are scattered all over the planet.

  9. Dianne

    February 11, 2011 at 6:11 AM

    Me thinks voiceofreason has wayyyyyyyy too much time on her/his hands. Was that post really necessary, voice? Can we all please get off of the “how old the earth is” kick and get BACK to what this site is all about? Thank you, thank you very much.

  10. Voiceofreason

    February 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM

    To Dianne – I expected people to say that, and deservedly so 🙂 I had no intention of coming to to give a dissertation on all things related to the creation of the universe (and, admittedly, my post was realllllly long – but I didn’t set there andtype it all out, I found much of the content from a science website. I wish I had that kind of time!). I just became a bit incensed by the multiple posters looking down their nose at RS’s estimation of the age of the cave and talking about evolution as if it was hard fact.

    To Nobody Says-
    I appreciate you bringing up this topic because you are right that it is an interesting issue. Here is some information I found that you might find helpful:

    Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question [what happened to the dinosaurs]. Because of their belief that dinosaurs “ruled” the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this “mysterious” disappearance [note – this doesn’t even address the complete absence of any “evolving” dinosaur fossils – i.e. half-dino/half-alligator, which is what the evolutionists would say].

    When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:

    Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.

    It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, “A New Look At the Dinosaurs,” the author made the statement:

    Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists (Alan Charig, p. 150).
    But, one such explanation does exist. If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense:

    At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).

  11. Voiceofreason

    February 11, 2011 at 12:31 PM

    Also – to Tinytotsmom – thanks!! I almost didn’t say anything at all because I just didn’t have the energy to try to fight this battle, but I figured it might be enlightening. And I’m so with you on carbon dating (that could be my next encyclopedia entry on here, hmmmm 😉

  12. Voiceofreason

    February 11, 2011 at 12:42 PM

    Also, we can debate back and forth all day long about the “science” supporting or disproving evolution/creationism. I will be the first to admit that I cannot definitely prove the story of creation. Just as I would expect any reasonable person to admit that you cannot definitely prove the theory of evolution. It really just boils down to one question – do you believe in an all-powerful God or not. If you do not, then there is really no basis for you to buy creationism. If you do, then you must also accept that God created everything (including the “laws of science,” which we then try to use to bind him), and had the capacity to create the earth as he pleased, which would include having the capacity to create things at an advanced age. For example, if you believe in the Bible, then you believe that Adam was created as a man – not an embryo. God also created full-grown trees and plants and animals. Thus, God could have also chosen to create canyons and rocks, and any number of things that were later in their life cycle. In that case, it is entirely possible the some of these things may in fact be “millions of years old” – just as Adam was x years “old” when he was created, these canyons could have also been 20 million years “old” when they were created. This can all be true and yet still coincide with a literal 7 day creation.

    But again, all of this is hocus pocus if you don’t first believe in an all-powerful God. If you do not, then I completely understand that you will tell me this is nonsense and a made up story. I accept that, though I pray that you would explore the basis for your beliefs. Both creationism and evolution involve an element of faith. I, for one, think it takes more faith to believe that the impossibly intricate world in which we live came from a primordial soup or a random explosion, than to believe that it was created by God.

    Yes, you may say I have too much time on my hands, but I think this is an important enough topic to spend my time on.

    Have a great weekend!

  13. scavanau

    February 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM

    To those of you who could do without the sexual inneuendo – that’s 90% of Steve’s blog. Why do you read it? Bring on the talk about boobs and hard-ons!

  14. jessica1

    February 13, 2011 at 12:18 AM


    I’m glad to learn you didn’t type all of that yourself – but please go back to the science site from which you appropriated that content and make sure you haven’t just committed a major copyright infringement. You can’t lift text or other authored material w/o payment or credit.

  15. cellardoor1116

    February 13, 2011 at 8:28 AM

    “So Jackie rappels down the waterfall about as confidently as a barely legal coed approaches a date with Ben Roethlisberger.”

    Steve, you got me. I just actually holler-laughed out loud.

    And as far as all of the people getting up in arms about his lack of knowledge about the earth’s geological chronology- um, this is a blog about THE BACHELOR. You should probably take this blog about as seriously as the show. And at least Steve has a leg up on the contestants, whom, Chris Harrison admitted in his blog, “were extremely excited to head to Costa Rica even though most of them had no idea exactly where it was, and most thought it was an island.”

  16. cellardoor1116

    February 13, 2011 at 8:32 AM

    p.s. During this episode more than any previous, my friend and I were both saying how differently he acts with Chantal than Emily. I totally agree with you- even if I hadn’t accidentally come across the spoilers back at the beginning, I think it’s painfully obvious that his “connection” (read: bonerability) with Chantal trumps his “connection” with anyone else. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional.

  17. MidwestGirl

    February 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

    When he says -Um ok a 100 times a show, I wonder if he’s had a small stroke or trying to stall while the little voices in his ear piece tell him what to say next.

  18. Rikki-tikki-tavi

    February 13, 2011 at 10:32 PM

    Am I the only one who appreciated Britt’s humor — “Jackie may have soiled herself” — at the waterfall rappelling date?

    Alli’s beetle freakout scene seemed staged to me. 1st clue? The camera is focused on the bug before Alli & Chantal enter the room. Her explanation about bugs that crunch was likely filmed before this scene in response to a probably milder incident. So the producers figured they could get a good rise out of her if they enlisted the help of another girl. I bet they didn’t imagine it would be this good.

    I’ve only been watching since the Jason season and find that your spoilers about the show don’t make a lot of difference, so I agree about your points about that. Apart from watching the show, your blog is my only source of information about it. I have no interest in chasing the latest tabloid story. So your “spoilers” about the personal lives of the shows participants truly are spoilers especially for people that I see as quite likable as they are revealed on the show. Knowing the reality behind the reality show can detract from its entertainment value.

  19. lemon-lime

    February 14, 2011 at 4:52 PM

    I don’t give a crap about what other people believe in as far as religion/evolution. But when folks like voiceofreason start posting their ignorance and/or lies couched in scientific terms, it gets to me.
    Voiceofreason: when are you going to put up a post about how the theory of gravity is nothing but junk science. Or try to disprove germ/disease theory. Because theory means unproven, you know. Better yet, when are you going to pick up a science 101 textbook and learn what the word theory means in scientific terms? & maybe a biology 101 textbook to learn what evolution is & isn’t. B/c you totally don’t get it.
    If you want to believe that the earth is 5000 yrs old, fine. But don’t try to discuss concepts you can’t grasp.
    Sorry I’m yet another poster who’s off topic. But I’m pretty sure RS mentioned the age of the earth thing to get everybody’s panties in a wad.

  20. sweetness34

    February 16, 2011 at 4:57 PM

    Steve–I appreciated your Goonies reference, but have to say that Brad’s date with Alli felt more like Scooby-Doo. Alli just needed some glasses, an orange sweater, and a red skirt, with the bats sweeping down to steal her glasses. Perhaps she could have pulled the mask off Brad to reveal that he is not Brad at all, but Jake Pavelka in disguise.

  21. smd64

    February 17, 2011 at 7:02 PM

    omg…seriously steve makes one comment about a cave not being 40 million years old and he gets a ton of posts about theories of evolution. NO ONE CARES!!!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

  © Copyright - All rights reserved

To Top

Privacy Preference Center

Close your account?

Your account will be closed and all data will be permanently deleted and cannot be recovered. Are you sure?