Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Crazy Astronaut Love Triangle, Ted Haggard Loses The Gay, Conversion Therapy, And Mismanaged FEMA Money (Tuesday's First Hour)

Hi everyone! Before we start I think I need to inform you that the world is obviously ending. How do I know this? Today I received my copy of Newsweek and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are on the cover. No, I'm not kidding! Newsweek! The raining frogs can't be far behind. Anyway, tonight Anderson begins by talking about Ted Haggard, but this time I'm not fooled. I know what they're leading with. In fact, Anderson and I even say together, "but, first, astronaut..." Yeah, I don't know if I should find that funny or disturbing. There was a little part of me that held out hope they would forego it to lead with hard news, but no such luck. And I had a gold star ready and everything.

Our first piece is from John Zarrella and he lays out all the astronaut freakiness. Astronaut Lisa Nowak has been charged with attempted murder of her romantic rival, Air Force Captain Colleen Shipman. Nowak wanted to confront Shipman so she drove all the way from Houston to Florida wearing a diaper, so she wouldn't have to stop. Um, WTF? Then she followed Shipman to her car and managed to spray her with mace, but Shipman got away. It was found that Nowak's bag contained a knife, mallet, and bb gun. Uh huh. Yeah, she wasn't playing. Needless to say Nowak now has GPS strapped on her and she's not allowed near Shipman. Okay, I know this is all very shocking and scandalous, but...who cares? Is this all because she's an astronaut? Because unless they tell me she did this because she went space crazy I really still don't see how this is a big news story.

But unfortunately for us, 360 is determined to make it a huge news story. Next we have a background piece on Lisa Nowak from Randi Kaye. We learn that Nowak is 1 of just 38 women to go up in space and she is newly separated from her husband. So, she's been under stress and she snapped? Who knows? But hey, why don't we speculate about it with a sex therapist. Won't that be fun? For the love of God. Joining us is, I kid you not, sex educator and therapist Laura Berman. This is news? Although I do have to admit I got a laugh out of Anderson asking, "What kind of a person stalks somebody?" I imagine that's a question he's very interested in. The guy's got some crazy fans. They give the rest of us a bad name. Anyway, this whole interview is a waste of time and at one point I have to acknowledge to myself that, "yes, I am in fact watching Anderson Cooper and a sex therapist discuss a woman driving cross country in a diaper." I feel so informed!

Anderson then intros a Miles O'Brien piece by informing us all that astronauts are actually human beings. Really?! We learn from Miles that it turns out being an astronaut isn't all puppies and flowers. After the high of a space flight coming back to earth can be kind of a downer. In fact, it almost sounds to me like they sometimes suffer from something sort of like postpartum depression. Well, you get the idea anyway. Astronauts are pretty much all type A personalities and the divorce rate is high with affairs not uncommon. A lot of their problems most likely stem from the fact that the competition is almost inhumane. There are way too many people vying for few too many seats. After the piece we get Miles live. Miles it is way past your bedtime mister! Miles actually met Nowak and he found her shy and tentative. He explains after all the initial tests astronauts go through it's really up to them to step forward if they have emotional problems later on and who's going to do that when it could disqualify you from the program? Hmm, sounds like NASA's got some big kinks. This piece didn't bug me like the sex therapist because I feel like I actually learned some stuff about NASA. Plus I like Miles. He's such a goofball. All in all this story took up 25 minutes of the first hour. Way too long.

Transitioning now to an Anderson piece on Ted Haggard. You might remember Haggard as the president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Well, at least that's what he was before he decided to buy himself some meth from a gay prostitute that claimed a three year relationship with him. Ahem. Needless to say he was fired and then he sent a letter to his congregation stating that he was guilty of sexual immorality. After that he went into counseling and we didn't hear much else. Well, guess what? He's back and he is free of gayness! That's right folks, he no longer has the desire to taste the rainbow. So apparently all it takes is three weeks to completely change a fundamental part of your being. And I don't expect to read a story six months from now about him sneaking tricks. No I do not.

Next up we have a Joe Johns peice on reparative or conversion therapy. It's the idea that you can take a gay person and make them straight. Uh huh. Apparently there are about 100 groups around the country that do this with it seems most of their clients being Christians who feel torn about being gay. It should be noted that homosexuality is not considered a disorder by the medical community. In fact mainstream psychiatrists think the therapy could do more harm than good because people seeking it out are a desperate and unhappy population. One woman in the piece claims the therapy helped her and now she's straight. She works for Dobson's Focus on the Family now. However, Mark Benjamin from Salon.com was unable to find even one person that had been changed that was not in some way on these group's payroll. I think Dobson needs to focus on his own damn family and leave gay people alone because you can't change nature. We've all heard about the gay penguins, right? It's not a choice. I never chose to be straight.

On now to a conversation with Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International and Mark Shields of Human Rights Campaign. Mark thinks that Ted Haggard claiming he's straight doesn't pass the laugh test. Surprisingly, Alan also seems to agree that the claim is fishy. He says that Ted's story is not the same as his own. He says he didn't chose his feelings, but his behavior was a choice. Mark thinks the only choice a gay person makes is whether or not to be open and honest about it. Hmm. Okay people. I realize there's an elephant staring at us right now, but we're just going to ignore him. Anyway, Anderson wants to know what's so bad about wanting to change if a person is unhappy. Mark explains that that kind of thing can be painful. Anderson then asks Alan what's so distasteful about being gay and Alan blathers on about how feelings aren't everything about you. Um, what? Anderson is confused too, "What does that mean? " But unfortunately Alan keeps talking off topic and we never find out. My guess? It means repress, repress, repress! Mark believes that his side is winning the debate that open and honest is better. He thinks that Alan's message could be damaging to young people. Exactly. There's a reason why the gay teen suicide rate is so high. That talk was more muted than I thought it would be. Very careful questioning by Anderson. Just saying.

The Shot tonight is a race to the top of the Empire State Building-1575 steps. Makes me tired just typing it. On now to a "Keeping Them Honest" piece from Susan Roesgen. Hey, actual news! Why are they hiding it at the end of the hour? So here's a shocker, FEMA has mismanaged money. Unbelievable I know. We meet a grad student who was turned away by FEMA yet $350 million has been given out to people that didn't deserve it. Apparently FEMA didn't go through the normal checks and balances in order to give it out more quickly. You know, I'm not really going to fault FEMA on this because it was good they didn't tie everything up in red tape. After the piece we get Susan live and Anderson echos my sentiment, saying that if they would have gone through the checks people would complain they were too slow. Susan tells us that now FEMA is trying to get the $350 million back. Ha! Good luck with that. So far they've gotten back $10 million. Hey, only $340 million to go! The show was beyond meh tonight. There is more hard news out there. I know there is. They're squeaking by with a C+

Were you guys into the astronaut story? Can you really make someone not gay? How much money do you think FEMA will get back?

32 Comments:

Anonymous jr said...

Last night's show was way better than Monday nights! I was a bit intriqued with the whole "Can I change from gay to straight" topic or should I say "debate" and was surprised that AC did a panel discussion...somehow I just thought he would of quickly run through the report instead. The astronaut thing is just plain sad and makes us wonder why but did it deserve the 25 minutes and speculation from a Sex Therapist? Probably not but then again, it was the topic of the day! Sex and Love Triangles apparently grab ratings!

At least "The Shot" came back and we saw just a little "snark" come out of AC!!!

Well, AC's on the road in NOLA on Thursday and I have my hopes up for a great show!!!!

6:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If FEMA didn't question people before they gave the money how do they intend to find people now.

Andy in NOLA - great,but wish it were next month.

6:54 AM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

I realize there's an elephant staring at us right now, but we're just going to ignore him.

Oh my yes. I was absolutely riveted to my television during this segment. I was well, riveted, okay? Sheesh. And to put it bluntly, I was the only commenter on the blog with my opinion- everyone else was agreeing with each other. One person even addressed me directly.... okay, I'm terribly sorry (not) that I don't agree with everyone else. I feel that a person can change if they want to- I don't think it's biological (genetic)... like Alan said, he might have those feelings but he chooses not to act on them and identifies as straight, not gay. He doesn't want to embrace it, what's wrong with that? I don't think it's damaging to make a choice about your life. It's like, do you want to be an alcoholic or not. You CHOOSE NOT TO. Same difference in my opinion..... I'm just sayin.

7:11 AM  
Anonymous Gissou said...

Sharla,
Medical research leans toward the fact that there is some biological tendency to homosexuality. In fact years ago they looked at head CTs of homosexuals vs straight people.There is a difference in the brain morphology. Furthermore, homosexuality does exist in nature amongst animals. Having said all of that, one can certainly argue that you don't have to act on your biological tendencies. And here is when I'm going to offend all your readers so I'm going to get ready to duck..I think here in the West we generally have the attitude that just because something is biological or feels " natural " then one should not resist it. It is interesting to note that those who defend homosexuality would not use the same argument against alcoholism, pedophilia, gambling....all having clear biological tendencies. Why is that? Westerners love to label themselves open-minded but their logic can be without much foundation.
Sorry Eliza, you opened the can of worms... Ok, I'll just hop off my soap box now and get ready to duck.

8:17 AM  
Anonymous Jan said...

I realize there's an elephant staring at us right now, but we're just going to ignore him.

I was really nervous about this segment for Anderson. I think he handled it fairly well. I think he was a little nervous about it himself, but I am happy that he did such an extensive piece on it. I wonder what he thought about Mark's comments "thinks the only choice a gay person makes is whether or not to be open and honest about it." Mark pointed this out a couple of times.

Unfortunately, the Astronauts story was on all the news shows, even Wolf's, so I wasn't surprised that Anderson covered it so extensively.

I am looking forward to tonights, show about the group from the Congo and tomorrow night when he goes back to NOLA

9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I'm not going to throw to certainty that we can make someone straight, I do believe each of us carry ultimate strength and force of our own destiny. In my work, I've been ricipient of financial gain due to such choices of gay to straight and straight to gay. For those that began a love journey as a gay person, later embracing a straight lifestyle, were a handful of highly motivated personalities. I do believe how we choose to live our lives is a choice. Attraction is biological, but whether we act upon instinct and what feels good versus careful contemplation and consideration of what makes us happy as a whole person, is two different things. If we act upon flippant urges of physical passion and pleasure without attention to the whole picture, our lives would be quite different. Whom would you have ended up with?

9:42 AM  
Blogger eliza said...

@jr-sex and love triangles are their bread and butter.

@anonymous 6:54 AM-I'm not quite sure, though obviously they have some of their information since they mailed them a check. I think they're hoping that people voluntarily give it back, which is pretty laughable.

@sharla-but let's flip society around and say that you're the same, but in society being gay is the norm. Could you make yourself love women and be happy?

@gissou-you can open that can. Just no one open the elephant can.

@jan-I think Anderson did well. Very careful. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next couple shows too. Hopefully I won't be disappointed.

@anonymous 9:42AM-but being gay isn't just about flippant passion. There are plenty of gay couples that have been together for years.

10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eliza, you're correct. But isn't it not the gay couples together for years that are the forefront of discussion? It seems to be the individuals that either attempted to "change" or are entertaining the the possibility.

10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone else think it was strange that Anderson didn't read any of the comments on air from the blog last night. Usually, when they cover a topic that is on the show, they read comments from the blog.

Or am I making to much out of it?

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

Nope, I noticed that he didn't read any comments either. And like Eliza said, I'm not opening the elephant can.

That said, I will address the can o' worms that Gissou mentioned. Those "gay animals" that you are talking about are expressing dominance. That is NOT the same thing as mating for love/pleasure which is the only way I can describe it in human terms. And those research claims you're talking about? I read them. They were done by homosexual professors with nineteen whole people as test subjects. I'd like a repeat of that information, with a larger sample and an impartial panel of experts. Prove it. I'd like to see that.

@Eliza- if it were the opposite, and being straight were not the norm and being gay was? As in, me loving men was the odd way out, could I change it? I don't see why not. Not to be gross, but as a woman, I feel that it would actually be easier, because woman naturally have an affinity towards each other. Another friend of mine and I had this very conversation yesterday (her ex husband is gay), and we decided that in the "can you change" part, it is a LOT easier for women to change than it is for me. I wonder why that is? Things that make me scratch my head......

11:21 AM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

I meant to say, it seems a lot easier for women to change than for MEN to change, oops. Freduian slip?

11:23 AM  
Anonymous mizzkel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alan Chambers and other people associated with Exodus tone down their message quite a bit when appearing in the mainstream media. Anyone associated with James Dobson is virulently ant-gay.

What bothers me most is that people are being charged $200 an hour for this quackery.

Personally, I think human sexuality is more flexible than most Americans are capable of admitting...50+ years after Kinsey and we still can't accept it.

Anderson handled this discussion superbly. Anyone who calls him a coward on this issue needs to look again.

12:55 PM  
Blogger eliza said...

@anonymous 10:40 AM-I don't think I understand what you're saying.

@anonymous 10:48 AM-I think you're making too much out of it. There's lots of times they don't read the blog comments. Just another show inconsistency.

@sharla-I haven't seen the research you guys are talking about (though I'm sure it's more than just one study), but I do know that they tried to get the gay penguins to couple with members of the opposite sex and they weren't having it.

That's interesting that you think you could be with a woman if that was society's norm. I don't know that I could.

@anonymous 12:55 PM-Yeah, Dobson is a total homophobe. Maybe he's even gay himself because, man, it seems like all the people that are most outspoken about it turn out to be gay.

3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The men I know that successfully
"changed" from being gay to being straight, did so on their own accord. They were not provoked. They were also not in 10-yr long monogomous relationships with men before they were with a woman. In each of these cases, it was a choice, their choice. They chose a traditional family after having gay relationships.

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

Well, if you want to get all technical about it :) Dr. Gupta had a post up a few weeks ago about the "science of love". Apparently, they were talking about how they scanned the brains of people who described themselves as being "madly in love"... the interesting part was that their brain scans very closely resembled the brain scans of the severely mentally ill.

Go figure.

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

Oops, it was on Valentine's Day last year that the post was up (I was reading archives). It was a rather interesting little post if you want to see: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/02/love-is-many-splendoredmental-illness.html

3:53 PM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

Argh:

Click here.

3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting show last night. Covered lots of different points of view.

4:10 PM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

Ok so I saw two references about the gay penguins. I went and read it (New York, 2004)... interesting. So..... because a male wolf decides that he doesn't like the other male wolf and he tears his throat out with his teeth, that makes it okay in human society?

Back to science: humans are 99.9% genetically identical to each other. And apes are 98% identical to humans. However there is one great big major difference between the human animal and every other animal on the planet: cognitive abilities.... and the ability to make a choice about who we are and who we want to be.

I would say as an example, anger therapy. You take Joe, Mr. Pants on Fire mad guy, and he goes to therapy to change himself. Does this work with pedophiles? I doubt it- they've actually got a brain dysfunction. Oh my, back to "nature vs. nuture".....

4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to disagree about one thing. I'm a straight woman and there is no way I could just make myself fall in love with another woman. I've had some gay male friends that can't be 'made' to love a woman either. Perhaps some people can but I don't think sexuality is all or nothing. Some people are homosexual and some hetro but there are many inbetween too.

I don't think it's really anyone's right to judge someone else's life, especially when it's not affected anyone but themselves. The extreme right wingers like to pass judgement on others about their lives. It urks me because I'm sure their life is far from being perfect. When someone's life is perfect and they are free from whatever "sin" is then they can preach about morality and judge others.

Whether it's Anderson or anyone else it should be their right to lead their life the way they want as long as they are concenting adults that aren't hurting anyone. Love is love and if anyone is lucky enough to find it then more power to them. There's too much hate and judgementalness in the world as it is.

4:56 PM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

@anon4:56- this issue always, always comes down to religion, tolerance, and personal belief. I'm with you on the "there is too much hate"... yes, there certainly is. And as for 'make me like another woman', well, I didn't say I was leaning that way, I was just feeling that homosexual feelings are just like any other feeling, and we can change them. And therein is the big issue. Since this show last night I have been reading article after article on the subject and I'd say it's pretty much neck-and-neck as to whether it's nature or nuture. Which one to choose? Most people will choose whichever one makes them feel okay with themselves inside, and disregard any evidence to the opposite view. Personally I found the brain study particularly interesting....

5:54 PM  
Blogger Stacey said...

I was fascinated by Alan Chambers last night, "feelings aren't everything about you, and I live beyond those feelings"...

WTF? Talk about reprogramming your wiring. You hit it right on the head with repress though, I'm sensing he never missed a class on that subject.

I found the second hour more interesting, but not by much. I could have done without the whole Lisa Nowak story - although the fact that she drove across the country in diapers did catch my attention for a second. It's probably my fault, I read a lot of news, and it was all that was on anyways. I guess by the end of the night I had had enough!!

I'm looking forward to the 'Bloodshed over oil' in Nigeria segment tonight, should be a good show.

7:01 PM  
Anonymous Truly said...

FEMA - so, what Randi Kaye's story was trying to tell us is that FEMA screwed up? They gave money to people who didn't deserve it and didn't give money to people who did. We knew this, didn't we? Was there NEW information in this story? Is FEMA going to be re-evaluating rejected claims? Is this grad student going to reapply and try again to get Federal funds for which she qualifies? Has FEMA changed anything to prevent this sort of thing from happening again - do we have proof or just their word?

ASTRONAUT - I agree that the show spent way too much time on this. It's tabloid news and speculation, at least the way it's being reported. The most interesting part to me was that NASA does all this psychological testing prior to people entering the astronaut program, but they don't do any afterwards - even though they continue to do physicals. That seems like a huge disconnect, especially in such a high-pressure and highly competitive field that has a history of domestic issues among its members. Rather than giving these people the impression that they have to hide their feelings in order to keep their jobs or be promoted, it makes more sense to establish something from the beginning that allows them safe ways to deal with the pressures and not letting the little things build to a point where they can't stop themselves from acting out.

HAGGARD - so he's cured. 3 weeks - who knew it would be so easy?

I find it interesting, though, that all the bad behaviors (the lying, cheating, drug use, etc), get pinned on the homosexuality - that that is the root of all the other evil things these people do. Few ever seem to say it was the fact that they felt that they had to hide who they are that lead to everything else - it wasn't being gay that caused them to do bad things it was feeling like they had to lie about being gay.

And, just to get one things clear - there is a big difference between denying that you're gay and simply refusing to talk about it. What is so bad about being gay? An excellent question Anderson! Nothing. There is nothing wrong with being gay - whether you believe people are born that way or they choose to be that way makes no difference - there is nothing wrong with it. Two men loving each other is love. One man physically or mentally hurting another man because of whom he chooses to love is hate. Which do you want to be party to - love or hate?

But as far as everyone needing to know that you're gay or straight - well, who's business is that anyway? Not your co-workers, not the general public. Your wife or husband should know - if you want a good marriage. But otherwise it's really no one's business.

So, back to Haggard - what got him into trouble was the lying and the deception and the hypocrisy.

8:20 PM  
Blogger Anne said...

Guess I'm going to jump on Sharla's bandwagon and say that I feel more like sexuality is a choice.
As far as medical research goes, scientific findings aren't always telling the whole story. To use a Time's piece on belief in God as an example, researchers found that there is a difference in the brains of believers vs. non-believers. They could not say with certainty whether the difference was present at birth or if it happened as the believer had certain experiences. It is a fact that experiences change our brain. According to the NIMH (National Institute for Mental Health) there are certain areas of the brain that are smaller in people who have been abused as children and war veterans. Obviously, these changes occured during life, and were not present at birth.
It makes perfect sense to me for a person's brain activity to reflect their sexual preferences.
Now, having said all that- I have a sister-in-law who is "ex-gay". She wasn't sent to a religious camp or given "therapy", it was a change that she made in her life, around her mid-thirties. As long as she's happy, no one in our family cared. We hung out with her girlfriends, now we hang out with her husband. It can happen, but I don't think anyone should ever be forced into changing who they love or want to sleep with. And it really goes without saying that sometimes those are not the same people at all.

8:39 PM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

This topic lit up blogs across the country. I’ve read quite a few debates on the subject today. I noticed, however, that on this blog, I was the only one posted that had a different opinion than the others (other than Anne).

This issue all boils down to what you believe is right, and what you believe is wrong. It seems that those who argue that people are gay due to things in their life other than genetics (the nuture approach), are most likely thinking this because they want to believe that what gay people do is wrong.

Those who argue the genetic approach (nature), are most likely to believe this because then “God made me this way” and therefore, they are not doing anything wrong because that’s just the way they are (if they believe in God).

One side can provide what they say is evidence of proof, complete with gay penguins, or differing brains. The other side will argue that these studies and experiments have never been reproduced, thereby making the hypothesis invalid.

Which is it? I have my opinion, you have yours. I can respect that you can have an opinion that is different than mine, and have even read multiple articles and research papers today to investigate the different viewpoints. I do not hate or judge anyone either; I have quite a few gay friends. I love the person inside, not what they do.

9:23 PM  
Blogger eliza said...

It's good that you're so open about it Sharla even if you disagree with us. I think the majority of Anderson's fans lean liberal and are in favor of gay rights-hence the opinions on this blog.

10:00 PM  
Anonymous ivy said...

@gissou

It is interesting to note that those who defend homosexuality would not use the same argument against alcoholism, pedophilia, gambling.

The comparison isn't right. Those other 3 things involve physical and psycological damage to people around or to themselves. Simply being gay isn't.

@sharla -- it's one thing talking about sexuality, another about lifestyle. You can choose a lifesyle, not so much sexuality. I think people should feel free live how they want if they don't hurt others. And if relations are between adults and consensual I don't see a problem, or the reason why the public should be informed of them

11:29 PM  
Anonymous gissou said...

Sharla,
Maybe your general assumption is correct but for me personally, I just made the argument that from my understanding there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality. Having said that, there is a genetic tendency to alcoholism too, that doesn't mean you have to be an alcoholic because God created you with the predisposition.
Ivy,
I see your point but I think what it all comes down to is religious beliefs. You can make the argument that having premarital sex doesn't hurt anyone either but religion will
dictate otherwise. In the west, we tend to turn religion on its head and mold it to our likings.

7:04 AM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

You know what Gissou, after all the reading I've done in the last two days, I'm starting to agree with you.

And I think your example of alcoholism is a good one. Alcoholism runs in MY family- and I'm not one because I chose not to be! Very very good example.

9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharla Dawn, I think you have many more believers in the direction of your perspective than you think, even on this blog. It also appears that enough Anderson fans take the liberal approach in an effort to appease him, when in actuality, a fans knowledge is zilch on any subject Anderson doesn't offer up his personal opinion publically. Assumptions are ok, but in the area of real world credibility, they are useless. Personally, I enjoy reading your insights as you include a vast array of research from both sides. Kinda like the premise of AC360.

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Sharla Dawn said...

Anon9:48- I made one of those happy squee noises after reading your comment. Thanks for the compliment :)

And yes, that is true- the Anderfans (of which I am not one, thankyouverymuch) don't have a clue about what the man thinks if he hasn't said so right out loud. That's the problem with celebrity. On this show particularly, he said something about "what makes someone a stalker?" which Eliza pointed out he probably has some crazy fans. I bet he does. And I can answer that.

When I was 25 I had a stalker that turned into a voyeur that turned into a man that broke into my house while I was in it. He was convicted of voyeurism and breaking and entering but I learned something about people from that one. Now, I'm no celebrity (and I hope to God I never become one), but I imagine it's the same. A person sees someone they like, say, Anderson (since we're talking about him). They think he's cute (he is), friendly (looks that way), and passionate (without a doubt). Because the person has no idea about any of the other details about him, they make it up in their heads. This image in their heads becomes so real that they strive to make it happen. They're literally deluded. See, in their head, the Anderson-brain-person loves them. And all they'd have to do is meet him and he really would.

Hello, crazy people. Me, personally, I'd like to meet him to see what he's like. Who is he really? I haven't the slightest idea. He might be a jerk for all I know. To me, I think he's fascinating as a person because what I do see is compelling enough to wonder what else there may be inside. I kind of wish he were just the guy next door and we could be friends.

10:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com