Yeah, Favre called him out, just like he called out Sterling Sharpe when he decided to hold the team hostage right before the opening game of the season. When he confronted Sharpe, and Sharpe relented, Favre became the Packers.

Favre apparently believes you play for the contract you signed, and don't let your teammates down. If you have a good year it doesn't mean the franchise is supposed to start throwing money at you. That's what they already paid you for. Shut up, play, and worry about the money in the off-season.

Yeah, Walker got hurt. But I think it's an indication of Favre's integrity that he'd rather call bullshit on the one legitimate wide receiving prospect on his team than sit quietly when a guy with one decent season under his belt starts going prima donna. That's never washed with Favre. Donald Driver is the counterpoint to Javon Walker. All class, guts, determination, and perseverance, no diva syndrome.

That so many people complain about Cary yet keep reading and posting. It's a quirky advice column. He wins some, he loses some. But apparently it's worth reading.

I'd address the actual letter, but I think that's been beaten into the ground already.

I am keeping it in perspective. I personally agreed with Favre whole-heartedly. You sign it, you live with it. It was stupid that his comments were regarded as "controversial." The guy doesn't like whiners. Big surprise.

"He's been injured most of this year..." Well, gee, I'm glad he's getting paid, too, and that Denver is footing the bill.

Players get signing bonuses, and have all sorts of different contractual arrangements. So, some money is in fact guaranteed. The better the player, the better the signing bonus.

Players certainly don't have to honor their contracts. They're free to go do something else, or pout and throw tantrums or hold press conferences. If they're really lucky, they'll get traded to the Saints.

What a stupid analysis. "Britpop" is really a racist segregationalist movement, and American rock isn't. Jesus. That's just inane, cheap, inaccurate...and, well, who really cares. I love British bands, American bands...If it's good, it doesn't matter where it comes from, and the Brits have been turning out brilliant music since the 60s. Still are. As to influences? I could give a crap. I don't recall there being any mandate to include "black" influences for musical legitimacy. Black music is much more rooted in the American experience that it is in Britain's. Boy, there's a revelation.

Perhaps it's the case the we get the media we deserve. But to acknowledge our own complicity should not be to ignore or absolve the motives and machinations at work on the other side.

I think the American public is struggling to come to terms with how far the media have fallen. Just as many don't want to believe the worst of the last seven years, or don't want to include their representatives among the problems in Congress, neither are they ready to come to terms with how deep their skepticism logically needs to extend.

It's one thing to impugn the motives and integrity of "liberal" or "conservative" outlets or sources, but another to condemn the entire enterprise.

Americans have traditionally been a very credulous bunch. The vast majority of us don't question our national myths, indeed, don't really have a framework to do so. Even as they unravel around us, people cling to them all the more fiercely. No atheists in foxholes, I guess.

It's a terrible confluence we're witnessing: corporate ownership of government and media; a confused and fearful populace; a neutered/collaborator press corps; divisive and toxic political maneuvering based on fear in lieu of statesmanship; and I could go on.

In short, the cockroaches have managed to gain control over the light switch, and we're too afraid to go into the kitchen, or to face up to what the cockroaches have achieved. It's more comforting to rationalize not needing to go into the kitchen than confront why you don't want to.

So, sure. Would I rather see Hillary win than Huckabee? Of course. But I'd feel a lot better if we could give Edwards a shot to see if he can really put his money where his mouth is. We need as much transformational change as possible, and Edwards' position regarding money and politics cuts closer to the heart of the matter than what the others are prescribing. The problem Edwards faces is that Congress will still be bought and paid for even if he isn't. But better for a lot of people if we just avoid that whole topic altogether and ignore or dismiss Edwards.