Burnettiquette

Judgmental Declarations

Greetings, sports fans. I took Friday and the weekend off so Mrs. B and I could informally formally (does that make sense?) celebrate our third anniversary, which was actually last Tuesday.

But time to get back in the saddle.

So take both the title phrase. It's ominous. It sounds gloomy. Read it again, and admit the slight twinge of discomfort you feel 'cause of what "judgmental declarations" implies.

The automatic assumption - because for decades certain segments of our society of beaten us to death with "judge not least ye be judged" - is that if you pass judgment on a person you are denigrating him.

Not necessarily so.

Take the case of retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a Barack Obama supporter and adviser, who said in an interview on CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday that  John McCain's "riding in" a fighter jet and being shot down in combat did not qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief.

Before you explode - if you're so inclined - take a minute and think about Clark's opinion and assertion. He didn't say John McCain was not qualified to be President of the United States of America or Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. He called McCain a hero, but said that "riding in" a fighter jet and being shot down did not necessarily qualify him to be C-i-C.

Now, I'm not delusional. Clark is a Democratic operative on a mission to see Obama win the White House. His name has even been bandied about as a possible VP for Obama. And Clark is not a stupid man. He was a Rhodes Scholar for cryin' out loud. He does not use words accidentally. So I thought his choice of "riding in," as though McCain was just a casual passenger on the jet, was a cheap shot.

McCain is as qualified to be president as any president we've had in recent years. And in terms of commanding the military, you can't take away from the fact that he served...in active duty. Don't get me started on all the other government leaders on both sides of the political spectrum who can't make that claim.

But what's most fascinating about this hubbub over Clark's assertion is that Republican cheerleaders are calling on Obama to condemn the statement altogether.

For what reason? That it isn't true? That Clark's opinion was mean?

It seems to me that Clark's statement was valid. It didn't take away from McCain's patriotic hero status. It wasn't a "gentle" statement. But I think it was based on a fair question: Does being a prisoner of war make you better qualified to command the military? That you serve your country in the military is admirable and patriotic, that you got shot down from the enemy means that you're brave and that, unfortunately, the enemy had good aim, and that you survived a torturous captivity means that you are a rock and not easily broken. I could see supporters of McCain arguing that those qualities would make a perfect military leader. But I think I get the notion that Clark was trying to challenge.

How's this for devilish advocacy? Take that death row inmate who after a decade of torture and abuse behind bars is exonerated and freed. He's been in the system 10 years. He's seen the worst of it. Does that experience in and of itself qualify him to take command of and shepherd his state's prison system, or the justice system that sent him away in the first place?

I once told a dude sporting an arm full of needle tracks, burnt finger tips (indicative of crack pipe usage), a general rag tag appearance, and a bad odor to get his crack head behind out of my stuff. I was moving from one apartment to another and had sat some boxes on the curb, waiting for a buddy to swing back by with his truck. You know how this guy responded? "Hey! That's not nice. You shouldn't call people crack heads!"

Why not? It was true.

Passing judgment on another person isn't always a bad thing. Passing false judgment is a different story altogether. And there's no way to know whether Clark's opinion about how well P.O.W. status prepares you to lead the military is true or false. But it is valid.

What do you deserve for good behavior?

What's crackin, folks? As I type this I am trembling like I have the DTs, from inhaling too much coffee this morning.

Couldn't help it. Today was my weekly TV thingie, and that required me to be up and at 'em at the butt crack of dawn. Not my preferred time of day. Anyway, if you're inclined to watch, here is the link.

But if you can't stand several minutes of my brand of pretty, here's a recap: We talked about Fan Meizhong, the high school teacher in China who was fired for alleged cowardice after it was learned he ran from his classroom and school building during last month's deadly earthquake, without warning his students or waiting to make sure they got out with him. Fan later said he had no shame and that there was no way he was gonna risk his life for his students or anyone else, except his own daughter.

I blogged about this earlier in the week, and I have to admit I was surprised - not in a bad way though - that many of you felt like Fan was perfectly justified and that he didn't owe anything to those kids or their angry parents. Hey, you can't argue with self-preservation, I guess.

Anyway, moving write along, our second topic this morning was the 12-year-old girl in Chicago who won a new car for having perfect attendance in school.

I've been combing the Web looking for reaction on this story. And most of what I'm seeing falls in line with my thoughts: that giving a kid this big a reward for just showing up sends a bad message.

I understand that when people - whether school kids, or adult employees - do the right thing, they should get rewards from time to time, as gestures to let them know their hard work hasn't gone unnoticed and their efforts are appreciated.

But a car...just for showing up to school? Too much. Give the girl some tickets to an amusement park or a summer's worth of free movie passes.

While Chicago Public Schools meant well, I'm sure, what will happen I'm predicting is some kids will grow to expect a reward for doing what they're supposed to do. And eventually they will expect the reward before the "good deed" is performed and not as a result of the good deed being performed.

Again, I could be wrong, but it's best pre-teens and teens learn now that you do hard work and show up everyday, because you're supposed to and because it will get you further than lazy peers, not because there's a reward in it for you.

Remember earlier this week I blogged about landlords in my town wanting the city to give them "incentives" to maintain their property and police their tenants? I argued then their only mandatory incentive is that it's their property and their tenants, and therefore, their responsibility. Next thing you know, drivers who don't speed are going to want gifts for minding the legal limit. People who don't drink (too much) and drive are gonna want trophies. Pedestrians who don't jaywalk are gonna want commendations from the mayor.

Trust me, this is not a mentality we want spreading to Generation Y. Tell your kids that they have to do somethings because those things are right, and that they don't need any other reason.

The Cowboy Code: Chapter Twelve, Witless Protection

I have a buddy, who as usual will go unnamed, because The Cowboy Code requires the protection of the innocent and the shielding of the well-intentioned.

Plus this guy was a recipient of the ancient Chictionary, a "book" my guys and I passed down to the young'ns when we left college. Contrary to what the title might suggest, the Chictionary was not about "scoring"...alone. It was about doing things the right way. 'Nuff said.

Unfortunately though, this guy has clearly not read the Chictionary in recent years, 'cause he is in his fourth consecutive faltering relationship. And the common denominator is something the "book" addressed: salvation.

I'm not talking religion. I'm talking character. My guy has the terrible habit of trying rescue women as opposed to commune with them.

Therefore, he starts off at a disadvantage when he begins a new date search, because instead of looking for a woman with whom he has things in common, and looking for a woman with whom he can bond, and looking for a woman with whom he can be partners, he looks for women who need help.

His most recent ex-girlfriend - an ex as of last Friday when he returned to his apartment after work and found her and some of his stuff gone - was physically beautiful, he says. She was quick to laugh, he says. She showed him passionate, almost animalistic adoration, he says.

Are you waiting for the but? OK, here it is. She drank waaaaaaay too much. She couldn't or wouldn't hold a job. She regularly borrowed money from him, albeit small amounts - less than he'd spend during a night out with the fellas, under the pretense of buying something for her "mother." And yet he never met her mother. She had an ex, who hadn't accepted that he was an ex, and she regularly speculated that if her ex ever caught her and my guy together he'd tear them to shreds.

I warned my guy back in the day that this would happen if he kept bringing home strays. Embarassing as it was for me I even reminded him of the unfortunate nickname I carried during the back half of my freshman year and the front half of my sophomore year in college: "Captain Save a 'Ho."

Go ahead and yuck it up. I was able to...about five years after the fact.

Anyway, my friends gave me that nickname based on the song of the same title. Yes, the title is sexist, and the song uses not so nice words. Had to get that out of the way, 'cause I'm not trying to be Imused.

But as rapper/actor Cris "Ludacris" Bridges observed in a different song several years ago, pimping oneself - whether it's selling out your body, or your pride, or your scruples, or your faith, or whatever - knows no gender, and for that he reasoned correctly, guys are hos too. Again, anyone who sells himself out - male or female - can wear that title.

At any rate, I earned the "rank" of captain, because I had a terrible habit of trying to date ragamuffins. I can't explain it to you, but I went through a stretch of nearly a year where I only dated "troubled" young women, the ones who'd been in relationships where their boyfriends had beaten them or their stepdads had forced them to pole dance for a living. I kinda felt sorry for them, and I had this misguided and antiquated fairytale in my head that convinced me I could show these young women how a "good" guy treats a girl and that would turn them into my dream girl(s). Seriously, I was Richard Gere, and they were all Julia Roberts. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs love. But some people aren't ready for it quite yet.

Almost always, what I got for my trouble was dumped. Inevitably, the ones I dated were fine for a few weeks. They ate up the attention. But then they began to squirm under the figurative hot spotlight of good treatment. And eventually they'd slink back to the abusive boyfriends, acknowledging along the way that they were likely to be mistreated again. But they just loved the abusive guy so much that it wasn't fair to not give him second third fourth fifth as many chances as it took to do the right thing.

I eventually learned my lesson by doing the math on one young woman in particular. I'd spent a month doting on her. I showed her a good time. I demonstrated care. She ate it up, or appeared to. But in the end she went back to her boyfriend, who before the school year was over beat her into the hospital. At the end of that adventure, it struck me like the voice that struck the Apostle Paul on the Road to Damascus: I had nothing in common with this woman. Our only common ground was physical attraction. I was trying to "save" her, to make her into my dream girl. And she was resisting, because being dream girl didn't interest her.

That was the last time I answered to Cap'n. I resigned my commission and returned to the real world of screwed up relationships - those "old fashioned" relationships marred by simple things like bickering and cheating and what not. I'm kidding. I just grew up...and today am happily married.

Anyway, to recap, The Cowboy Code says seek a mate who is already on your level or on a higher plane, some place you'd like to be. If you spend all your time trying to rescue your significant other and pull them up from some muck, you will inevitably lose ground and slip into some bad habits.

Things I still don't know

Today marks three years since Mrs. B and I said "I do."

And at the passing of each of those years, I've tried to write something profound about being a good husband and so on. It'll no doubt make some of you laugh to read what might appear to be angst after just three years, 'cause you've been married since wedding bands were made of ivory and flint and hard-packed dirt. But cut me some slack. I'm still learning.

Anyway, this year I don't have any profound lessons learned to share with you.

We made it another year. And I'm a year humbler, and a year deeper in love with my wife.

That's right, no shame!

I still haven't learned to forgo the last word and go to the neutral corner when we're sparring over something stupid. I could stand to do that more often.

I still haven't learned to get out of bed extra early sometimes to accommodate Mrs. B's early rising schedule and keep her company. I could stand to do that more often.

I still haven't learned to grit my teeth and smile while cleaning the litter box of the stupid cat who plucks my nerves and scratches my stuff. I could stand to do that more often - grit my teeth and smile, not clean that box more often. I have my limits.

I still haven't learned to put my foot down and assert myself at times that I know she's pushing my buttons in a passive-aggressive effort to get me to assert myself. I could stand to do that more often.

I still haven't learned to tell Mrs. B she looks pretty everyday. I remember to do it sometimes. But I could stand to do that more often.

And I still haven't learned to say "I love you" enough. But when is enough? I could stand to do that more often.

All things considered though, I have no regrets. What I do have is 12 months to work on these things.

Sometimes repeating yourself gets old. Sometimes repeating...

I have written about personal responsibility on this blog more times than I can count. I've used that exact phrase - "personal responsibility" - dozens, maybe hundreds of times.

In fact, I've gotten to the point where I'm sometimes bashful about using it, 'cause I don't want to sound like a broken record player, and it's a phrase that has come in some circles to represent overbearing stodginess. And that's a shame.

But I saw over the weekend that model Naomi Campbell got yet another walk for assaulting people who'd pissed her off, and I had to weigh in again.

Seriously, there is some kind of pathology spreading around that has adults, grown folks, convinced that "it's not my fault!"

Campbell got 200 hours community service and a couple of fines that amounted to about $5,000 American. You spit on a cop and start swinging at flight crew members and see if you get community service, a few hundred bucks out of your pocket, and no jail time. Last year Campbell served a week of community service in NYC, after she was busted for busting an aid in the head with a cell phone. Before that she got anger management for hurling a phone at another aid in Canada.

Last week Christina Szele of Queens, NY, was removed from a JetBlue flight and arrested after the apparently drunk Szele lit a cigarette mid flight. A flight attendant snatched the cig from her mouth and put her in plastic flex-cuffs. Szele broke free and punched the attendant in the mouth. She also allegedly called him the N-word. Szele's friends say she's a good person when she's not drinking. Hmmm. I'm only a drunk when I drink. Gotta remember that one. And her brother says she's not a racist but just uttered some "drunk talk." Sorry, but in my experience, booze is truth serum. Reportedly, Szele blamed her "condition" partly on the fact that flight attendants continued to serve/sell her booze, when she didn't need anymore. They did this to her. They made her buy and consume booze.

Two weeks ago I sat in on a meeting at City Hall, in my little town, where city officials unveiled part of a plan to crack down on prostitution and misbehaving homeless  folks and drug abusers/dealers whose behavior threatens to permanently taint my 'hood. I've put too much $$$ into my house and sweat equity into this 'hood to let it get overrun. So if the city folks hadn't done something I'd have gone on an ass-kickin' campaign of my own...to the extent it wouldn't get me locked up, 'cause I really am too pretty to go to jail. But that's another post.

At the meeting, one of the plans the city unveiled involved cracking down on landlords who don't maintain their rental properties and who rent to any schmo with a fist full of dollars. Most of the people in the room applauded the plan. Who do you think objected? A couple of landlords who asked what the city planned to do to help the landlords maintain their properties. They both lamented that in the bad economy, many landlords are operating at a loss and can't afford to keep their properties up. They wanted to know what their incentive was to go along with the plan.

Let's explore this for a minute. There is no law that I'm aware of requiring anyone to buy a rental property, or two or 10. I own a home in this 'hood. I'm not getting any help from the city to maintain my property. I bought one house, 'cause that's all I could afford there. I know and like both these guys, by the way. But I'm sorry. No one forced them to buy more property than they could afford to keep up. I know landlords in my 'hood who are doing OK. Why? They didn't let their eyes get larger than their stomachs, or shall we say they didn't let their budgets get larger than their wallets. What happened to old-fashioned "All American" hustlin'? My tip to landlords? If, for example, your rents are down and your monthly lawn service is eating away your budget, fire the service. Dress down and take your own lawnmower to your properties and cut the damned grass your self already! All it'll cost you is time. You don't need city help to be responsible for what's yours.

Always someone else's fault. How do we fix this?

Coward or credible?

So I read something last night about a teacher in China who was fired from his job and virtually ex-communicated in his town because of his actions during the devastating earthquake that killed 70,000 people in May.

But I believe in giving credit where it's due, so I might not have remembered to write something about this if Footy, a chat show host, hadn't brought it up on the radio this morning as I drove to work.

Here's the deal: Fan Meizhong taught at a private high school in Dujiangyan. When the earthquake hit, Fan hit the fan bricks, bolted from the classroom like O.J. in a Hertz commercial and left the kids behind. He didn't even call out over his shoulder "follow me, boys!"

Surprisingly, Fan acknowledged later in an interview that he was indeed the first person out of the school building and onto the nearby soccer field.

Nothing about earthquakes is funny, but I have to admit that when I heard this story I immediately thought of George "the hero" Costanza. If you don't remember "The Fire" episode of Seinfeld, you'll get the point in the first 60 seconds of this video.

While George got a second chance with his girlfriend, Fan has since been fired, and parents and other residents of Sichuan have verbally thrashed him for cowardice. Some have pointed to other teachers at other schools who reportedly died trying to protect the kids in their classrooms during the earthquake.

They've even nicknamed him "Running Fan."

So my snap judgment is that Fan's critics are correct. He took the punk's way out, scramming like Road Runner and not even taking the kids with him.

Something fascinating about Fan though is his attitude. He has zero shame about what he did. In fact, he's basically said "damn right I ran! I'd do it again, too!" Reuters reports that Fan wrote on a Web chat portal "At such a life-or-death moment, I would only consider sacrificing my life for my daughter. I would not do it for anyone else, even my mother."

"...even my mother."

So here's the question: is Fan a terrible person, hands down, or does he deserve something, anything, for his brutal honesty?

I know, for example, that if you ask me during a peaceful moment how I'd react if a disaster struck my room full of people, I'd tell you that I'd try to help the weakest and I'd take a lesson from the Marine Corps and leave no one behind. And I'd mean it. Why? 'Cause that response is the right thing to say...and do.

Not excusing Fan, but faced with a real disaster and not just conversation about one, can any of us say for certain that we wouldn't go into automatic self preservation mode? I can't. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pull a Fan or a Costanza. I'm pretty sure my feet would remember my words. I hope they would.

Yeah, Fan's a punk, a buster, any name you wanna call him for leaving the kids behind. But he made his case: I'd trade my life for my daughter's 'cause she's important to me, and none of the rest of you are. So one more time, does Fan regain a half a point for at least being bluntly honest and not even pretending to be a hero, or should he just pack it in and go live in isolation in a cave somewhere?

No statute of limitations on stupid

So I was on Miami's CBS affiliate this morning talking about what's happenin' in the world...and the blogosphere, and one of the topics we hit on was the recent controversy over TV chef Rachel Ray and the Dunkin' Donuts ad featuring her that was yanked off the air. We also talked about the Associated Press considering a crackdown on bloggers using AP content without paying for it or crediting the AP. I said I thought the AP should make a distinction between people blogging as a hobby and people blogging as journalists. Not that journalists are better bloggers (just the opposite, I'd argue 'cause we have restraints). But if the AP can't distinguish between the two sides they can't treat the hobbyist as though he's attempting to profit off their work.

But that's another post. Click the link and watch the video if you want, but for now let's talk Rachel Ray's donut fashion.

If you're not familiar with the story, Ray was in an ad wearing this ↓ scarf.

Shortly after the ad began airing though, a blogger wrote that Ray's scarf was too much like something he ↓ would wear.

Political blogger Michelle Malkin followed up on the original blog, and described Ray's scarf as "jihad chic."

Here's the problem though: I don't believe bin Laden and friends are that into frilly fabrics and designer patterns, 'cause while Ray's scarf was lined with fringes, it's made of silk and the pattern on it doesn't translate to Death to America or anything like that. The pattern is paisley - you know, that kidney bean and amoeba-shaped crap we all used to wear too much of (especially on our neckties...and scarves) in the 1980s and early '90s.

My pops used to say from the pulpit all the time that there is a fine line between faith and foolishness. Taking religion out of the equation, there's also a fine line between patriotic vigilance and paranoia.

This hubbub over a donut and coffee shill's scarf is paranoia, my friends.

Anyway, if we don't want to advertise and publicize images of things terrorists and terrorist sympathizers "MIGHT" wear, then we should probably kill all those GAP ads, 'cause from what I've seen, this ↓ guy wears tons of khaki.

A comment on culture

There was a time in my life - just a few years ago, actually - in which I bought into the stereotypical definitions of a stuff shirt and a prude.

Yet any time I found myself judging someone with one of those labels, I found myself conflicted, because deep down inside, I knew my criticism wasn't completely fair. And I knew the stances we usually base those labels on are not all bad.

Seriously, as teen and a 20-something, as frustrated as I got sometimes with parents and nosy neighbors, and school principals, and sometimes clergy, and neighborhood police officers - you know, the old school kind who walk the beat and know the neighbors by their first names, I often found myself silently agreeing with them that this behavior or that attitude just wasn't right. I'd never have admitted that to them. But that's another story altogether.

So when I found myself a couple days ago draped across the couch, channel surfing, I landed for a sec. on MTV. On screen I saw Tila Tequila, "star" of the show A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila.

Normally, I'd have immediately switched the channel, 'cause I hate stupid TV, unless it's Family Guy, or Futurama, or The Simpsons, or My Name is Earl.

But I remembered Mrs. B had told me the day before that she'd given in to temptation and watched some of A Shot at Love. And she'd said she was appalled at what she saw.

So here's the rub. In an effort to not feel too "old," too stuffy, too elder-like, my almost instinctive reaction was to teasingly call her a prude. She's not. But hey, it was my defense mechanism!

Anyway, I watched the show, which I've seen before, for about 20 minutes, and I got what Mrs. B meant. Tequila, while visiting the home of one of her finalists, made out with the guy's mom...and his sister...while his dad watched, apparently enjoying the whole scene.

Now, keeping in mind that MTV's target audience is roughly 12 to 34, and keeping in mind that the lion's share of that audience is on the younger end of that scale, I gotta say this show and crap like it is just wrong. Not religious wrong, not philosophical wrong. Nothing that deep. Just wrong.

That's it. That's all I have to say about it. It's wrong. I don't have a long rant about how we have to do something about it. What's there to do? I don't believe in censorship, unless it's a matter of physical safety (like not letting folks yell "fire" in a  crowded theater).

Kissing ain't wrong. Finding love ain't wrong. Taking shots of Tequila ain't wrong...although this particular Tequila might send you to the hospital in search of a different sort of shot. What makes this kind of crap wrong is that it's just gratuitous and simply sends a bad message about "managing" one's sexuality to the mush-filled young heads at home watching it. I know the age range of MTV's audience goes into the 30s. But trust me. The only 34-year-olds at home watching A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila are the ones who have been married 10 years and have eight kids, or the ones who lack social skills and don't have dates, or the ones who like watching kinky things but can't afford a porn account on the Web. The show is aimed at kids. And if you don't believe that, then you probably believed back in the day that Joe Camel was meant to get more adults to smoke cigarettes.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's Tequila's right to be a sexual being and be demonstrative about it. But I can say translating those things into a 1-hour TV show aimed at kids is wrong.

Whatever. I should probably stop fighting it though and just face up to the fact that I've become a prude.

Pardon me while I go lobby the TV writers for the return of Little House on the Prairie and Matlock.

Still Alive!!!

Sorry for no posts the past several days. Been buried. Will resurface this afternoon with a new post.

I write this post grudgingly

So I have a major character flaw.

I hold grudges. It would be disingenuous of me to say I don't mean to or I can't help it. Because I know I can help it.

Either you're genuinely, deeply wounded and the emotional scars cause you to not let go, or you're like me, and you find holding a grudge is sometimes deliciously evil. It's the emotional equivalent to letting the air out of your enemies tires, or posting pictures of his wife or her husband in a compromising picture online. There really is no marinade like your own stew of anger and righteous indignation.

Anyway, what reminded me of my big flaw was this Today Show survey I stumbled across. If you have a minute follow the link and take it yourself. What's interesting is the figurative asterisk next to my grudge-holding admission is that I don't usually hold grudges against Mrs. B. I'll hold 'em against anyone but her. There are times she annoys the hell out of me (and I her, I'm sure). And there are times where if I wanted, I could say "told you so!" But whatever anger I may develop toward her usually fades pretty quickly. And my answers in the survey reflected as much.

Anyone else though is fair game.

So I have a situation that touches on this coming up soon. I once had a dude who was a best friend. And "best" is not a word I use often with friends, 'cause it seems so middle school to categorize my friends like that. This guy was an exception. We were thick as thieves.

To make a long story short, after an eight year friendship we had a falling out last year. Granted, you're only getting one side to this story, but with all the solemnity I can muster, I swear on a stack of (your Holy book here) that I am telling the whole truth and nothing but. This guy, over a short period of time, badmouthed my wife, bungled a professional enterprise we'd partnered on with a third friend and then blamed us, told us he was only our friend because it was potentially beneficial to his career, gave one other buddy grief after the other buddy came out and revealed to us that he is gay, and in a drunken stupor threatened extreme physical harm to me. This guy also had a habit of saying unnecessarily mean things to people without thinking first and then hiding behind the mantle of "keeping it real," thus immunizing himself from being responsible for his words, and when I would experience anything good at work this guy would downplay it as a result of me being a pawn of "the man."

So after seven years of pretending this guy was just being rambunctious, I finally had enough and cut him off last fall.

Switching channels for a moment, I have another friend, a young lady whom I've considered a little sister of sorts for about 10 years. She's good as gold - good-hearted, good-spirited, etc. We've always had a sibling-like relationship. And I've always felt like I had to look after her, even though she's grown and can take care of herself.

So, the two of them are now dating. Yeah, it bugs the crap out of me - not 'cause they don't have the right to do what grown folks do, but because I'm holding a grudge against him, and I can't reconcile his behavior and sour spirit with her behavior and her good spirit.

I'm gonna see them both next month at a convention. I know I should be the bigger man and wish them her them well. But I can't. I wish her well, 'cause she's like my little sis.

But him? I don't know how to get over this flaw. I'll tell you what my problem is: I believe in Karma. And my "faith" is wavering 'cause it never seems like this guy suffers any consequences or sees the downside of his actions. You can't say "Oh, he's lost friends," 'cause he doesn't care. To him, that just means he never needed you as a friend in the first place.

Anyway, I'm done rambling. Take the grudge survey, and tell me how you get over grudges...if you do.