While I agree with you that Rodney Harrison was the true MVP of SB 39 (like I thought Ty Law was the true MVP of SB 36), the award went to Deion Branch, not David Patten. If you're going to flog some point about how much more football you know than other people do, it helps to get some simple facts right.

Yes yes, receivers can't get anything done without a QB to throw them the ball or an O-line to block for the QB... What of it? Running backs don't get very far without O-lines. Quarterbacks don't get very far without receivers who can't get open. All you're proving is that football is a team sport, and it's disingenuous to bring up receivers' dependency on teammates as support for that increasingly indefensible contention that a wide receiver is worth as much as a punter. Punters are on the field for a handful of plays every game. Wide receivers are on the field for... well, lots more plays than that. If they're not catching the ball, then they're throwing blocks for running backs, or running routes to clear safeties out of the box... Whatever. You can't suggest that a player is not valuable just because he doesn't touch the ball every play -- otherwise, why are you waxing so fulsome about the importance of linemen?

The fact is that wide receivers who can run good routes, block downfield, make catches in traffic, and get yards after the catch (T.O. can do all of these things when he's not feeling sulky) are an integral part to any modern NFL offense. It's more than just hiring some fast fool to run downfield and catch the ball when it's thrown to him. There have been plenty of fast guys who couldn't make it as a receiver in the NFL because they couldn't do enough of the things on the checklist above. You're just twisting yourself into more and more awkward positions as you try to justify that silly contention about receivers and punters.

I was a big T.O. fan for most of his years with the 49ers. The game-ending clutch catch he made in the playoffs against Green Bay (I believe that was in 1997) kick-started his career and established him as a 49er playoff hero. I loved the Sharpie celebration, loved the dance with the pompoms (though I remember he didn't hand the pompoms back to the cheerleader after his dance, but tossed them on the ground -- an early sign of gracelessness?). I loved the dance on the Dallas star. I felt, for a long time, that T.O.'s sins were not sins of apathy or quitting. And then, the more time he spent in San Francisco, the more he degraded. He started quitting on routes and short-arming passes. He started publicly berating his coaches and his QB. When he used the media to smacktalk his team, that's when I changed my opinion on him.

When the Eagles signed T.O. after that abortive mess with the Ravens, I thought, "Oh great, that asshole is going to get himself a championship now, and the Eagles are getting themselves a championship by cooperating with that asshole." I figured that T.O.'s happy act would last about a season long, and I was right. At least I was wrong about them receiving a Super Bowl victory for selling their souls.

The fact that T.O. wore an Irvin jersey after the loss to the Cowboys is funny on a few levels. Not only is he wearing the jersey of a retired standout player from a (deservedly) hated division rival, but he was wearing the jersey of a player whose career ended in Philadelphia. For those who don't remember, Michael Irvin fell on his head during a game in Philadelphia. He was taken off the field with a neck brace. Scary-looking injury. The fans in Philly? They cheered. I think Irvin was one of the most classless and obnoxious people in sports, but they cheered a career-ending injury. Forget that Santa Claus incident. They cheered a potential crippling.

Those punks got what they deserved from T.O. Remember the last line of the parable about the woman who rescues the wounded snake: "Bitch, you knew I was a snake when you picked me up."

If Mr. 23D was so offended by the shirt, he could just have gone over there and said, politely but firmly, "I find your shirt offensive, do you think you could put something on over it?" Maybe he would have gotten some sassy comment from the juvenile delinquent in question, at which point, it may well be the proper thing to complain to the flight attendant. It's passive-aggressive and lame to just sit there and stew and mutter about it and try to get the girl in trouble without talking to her first.

I suspect, however, that Mr. 23D was just happy to bitch and moan to everyone and anyone except the one person who could most directly change his uncomfortable situation. I find that a lot of people would rather complain uselessly about a problem than address it directly. I guess being offended is the closest thing some people get to emotional fulfillment in their stale, frustrating lives.

I'm right there with you, Jim M. Somehow the message of peace, love, and charity got turned into judgment, exclusion, and power-mongering. I've heard way too much use of the codeword "Christian" as denoting only the very narrow stripe of rabid Evangelical Protestantism, excluding Catholics and Protestant denominations who don't believe in a literal Apocalypse and Rapture. It's the religious equivalent of the right-wing hijacking of the word "patriotism".

I was watching the 2004 election results roll in with a couple of friends, one of whom was an atheist. When the news from Ohio and Florida started turning grim, the atheist wailed, "God is the problem!" I corrected her. "God is not the problem. McJesus is."