Thing is: the Vikings have another reasonably good RB anyway. Yes, there is a dropoff from Peterson to Chester Taylor, but it's not so large that it will affect the outcome of most of their games. If the Vikings want to be a Super Bowl team, they should keep AP out until he's completely healed. They are not good enough for a Super Bowl run this season in any case, and it seems undesirable to risk the future of a very talented RB just so the Vikings can squeak into the last playoff spot.

chupacabra: I'm guessing the column was written and submitted last night. In any case, it's not "disrespect" to not talk about something that everybody else is talking about, or going to talk about.

"Favre is having his best statistical season, ever."

And that's good enough to be perhaps the 4th best season by a QB _this year_. Brady, Manning, and Romo are all clearly superior to Favre right now.

Favre is an all-time great but the pretense for giving him this award for this season is very thin. Historically, SI has given the award to a sportsman performing at the highest level of the sport _that year_.

Meanwhile, Roger Federer wins 99% of the matches he plays.

I think we no longer live in an age where we can idly play "by the rules" while the opposition is seeking to deny rights. By this I mean, while it would be laudable to declare Romney's religious beliefs off-limits, I think that when he opens the door to using religion as a political weapon, then it is entirely relevant to question his authority on this particular subject. Why is any melange of religious beliefs considered sacred and off-limits for political discourse when we have presidential candidates making openly bigoted comments against people who do not happen to believe in their religion?

If Romney's conception of freedom is grounded in his religion, and he cannot possibly conceive of a concept of freedom not grounded in (his) religion, then I think it is entirely relevant to examine the foundations of his belief system. This is particularly so when his religious belief system is openly at odds with the requirements of his desired office, one of whose duties is to protect the Constitution of the United States. In said Constitution, the notion of a religious test for office is explicitly rejected. But Romney has no time for such niceties. Why is it that we cannot refer to the obvious connection between his religious beliefs and his open contempt for the delineated duties of the office he is seeking?

that there are commenters here actually agreeing with the dribble uttered by Romney. "Freedom requires religion". Uh, no it doesn't.

Religion(s) require a surrender of freedom. Without that kind of surrender (conscious or not), there is still freedom.

This is Orwellian gibberish.

Yes, Gandhi and MLK, Jr. were religious leaders. They were not, however, secular leaders. I have no problem with religious leaders participating in politics. What I have a problem with are religious leaders claiming that their way is the only way to understand the universe, which is typically followed up with smearing of the non-religious as part of their campaign to pander to the religious majority.

When Romney says "freedom requires religion", he is saying "non-religious people are bad people". That is the implication, since his statement logically implies the idea that a religion-free society would not be "free".

Again, I'm surprised that some Salon readers would assert their voices to such an odious point-of-view.

I love the phrase "too-broad denial" used by Mickey Kaus. That really is priceless. Apparently if it's legitimate to criticize a politician for a non-denial denial, as was popularized by Woodstein, then the "opposite extreme" of denying a claim forcefully and distinctly is also bad.

I'm so happy Kaus has a prominent place in today's political media!

Sure, Senator Specter said that the bill set civil rights back 900 years just before he voted for it. But it's not like he said that was a bad thing.

I've been bored with hockey for about a decade, and I was thrilled to watch the outdoor game. Made me remember the joy of playing outside as a kid.

Hockey has so many problems these days I don't know how they can recapture the excitement level of the 70s and 80s. But a few outdoor games certainly wouldn't hurt. Also, it was smart to feature the Penguins with young hotshot Sidney Crosby.

One addition I would suggest: the penalty box should be underwater.

What Americans have to realize is that there is a set of people who want war with Iran, and who have been trying for at least the last 6 1/2 years, and it would probably be more accurate to say much longer than that, to get the US to initiate a war with Iran. We have seen them trying psyops time and time again to get a war started.

At this point, the "hawks" have no credibility left. Americans really need to wake up and see that there is a set of American warmongers who use the American military for their own purposes, and do not have the best interests of America at heart in the least.

King, you've listed Saturday's games as 1:30 EST and 5:00 EST. You scared me a bit, since I had been planning on watching the Pats game in the evening. They are actually at 4:30 EST and 8:00 EST respectively.