Brett Favre retired from playing football earlier this year. I knew it probably was not going to last because he has more or less been on the same road for the past 5 years or so... I just figured that he would pull the same crap and come back anyway because his team was actually good. Anyway, he actually did retire and then about a few weeks ago, he decides he wants to play again. Along with that has come an entire blizzard of questions and statements that say the team has moved on and how they are terrible for not welcoming Favre back with open arms. Now Brett himself seems to be bitching about it, but even in doing so, he specifically states that he may not play anyway.

Take a look at this report and see for yourself what I mean. He says he wants to play again, that it was a mistake to retire and that the team should welcome him back. He then says that if they want him back, he won't want to be a back-up. He also says that if they won't let him play that they should release (or trade) him so that he can play. Then he states that even if those things were to happen, he may not play anyway. It is possible that, with him being a jock, he may just be stupid and therefor not know how to speak. It may help to know that he may just be confusing himself in the process of explaining his needs and wants to the team/media.

My suggestion is that Mr. Favre stops bitching and either says that he will or will not play. Period. The team has the right to not accept him back, because I'm sure that they have already begun incorporating Aaron Rodgers into the system, and probably don't want to have the locker room split between two QBs.

I was just asked whether or not I would be interested in playing inner tube water polo as an intramural sport. I immediately said that I wouldn't, mainly because I don't really care for swimming that much. Then it occurred to me that "inner tube" was part of the equation... I asked why there would be inner tubes involved, to which the answer was that some people cannot swim.

I then made my argument that people who cannot swim should not be diving in pools to play a sport that involves swimming. The rebuttal was that the inner tubes were there for that very reason and that there would be a lifeguard as well. I then stated that regardless of the presence of a lifeguard, that people who cannot swim still should not think it a good idea to go traipsing in the very liquid through which they cannot travel without the aid of a rubber tube.

Once again, I was told that it would be safe due to the lifeguard and the added security of an inner tube. I then asked if this person would knowingly engage in sexual acts with a person riddled with various STDs including, but not limited to HIV. The answer, of course, was no. I then asked them if they would do it if I promised that a physician would be present and that a condom would be used... The answer was then. "Well, if you put it that way... I suppose it isn't a very good idea."

I suppose that we will also have contests of marksmanship, William Tell-style, with the security of EMTs and a helmet.