JemeHill Writes About Troubled Athlete Three Days After Saying She Wishes Fewer People Would

Today Bill Simmons recounts the last days of his pet dog's life for his column. I personally love animals much more than I love humans, so I can find no way to make fun of him for this. I could try and mention maybe his dog was not as special as Bill thinks he was, but everyone's animal is special to them, you can't really compare animals like you can compare sports teams. I could mock him for bragging about how good he got at throwing the tennis ball or how he gives his dog credit for patenting things all dogs do, or talk about I don't know how he let his little daughter (he has kids? I have never heard about them) get out the front door without him knowing or the child went into the street, which seems kind of dangerous for a toddler. This was the first column I have actually enjoyed by Bill Simmons in a long while, even though it had nothing to do with sports and talked about his family the whole time. Maybe ESPN did not need Rick Reilly after all.

Enough sentiment, let's talk about what a contradictory hack JemeHill is. You may remember her article on Myron Rolle and this sentence:

I wish I'd seen the Myron Rolle interview in which he expressed his desire to bring specialized medicine to underdeveloped countries as much as I've seen the grainy footage of Adam "Pacman" Jones frequenting yet another strip club.
I wish Rolle's 3.75 grade point average at Florida State was considered as scintillating as the recent rumblings about Terrell Owens, who reportedly might be on his way out of Dallas.

Or this:

I'm as guilty as most columnists. I've written twice about O.J., once about T.O., and once about Brett Favre, giving selfish athletes a platform when Rolle has done something so extraordinary it's worth 100 columns.

Or this:

I'd rather read 1,000 more stories about Rolle than one more about whether Plaxico Burress should remain a Giant.

At this point if you really think her next article is going to NOT be about a troubled athlete who is currently in jail, the same athlete that has hundreds of articles written about the background behind his current jail time, the one that blew all of his money before he went to jail, was found to have drugs in his system while under investigation, and somehow has supporters who think the system has done him wrong...then you would be wrong. Has anyone ever heard of this Mike Vick fellow? Let JemeHill be the first to write the obligatory, "Mike Vick deserves another chance" article, as if everyone thinks he should be hung or perhaps whipped on a rape stand for one past conviction.

Some day very soon -- maybe by the end of the month -- Michael Vick will return to society.

I say this with all sincerity. I have not missed Mike Vick. If there is an athlete I dislike more than Mike Vick, I can't think of him/her right now. Vick went to Virginia Tech, a school I don't like, played for the Falcons, a team I don't like, was the poster boy for the new QB in the NFL despite the fact he was an average QB at best...but he could run! The fact that he always seemed like a real asshole and it turns out he was, only made me dislike him worse. I am biased...but still I think he deserves a shot in the NFL...possibly a helmet to helmet shot on his blindside by Shawne Merriman, but a shot nonetheless.

Some people -- (cough) PETA -- seem to think Vick shouldn't be let near anyone until he has his head examined. Literally.

How silly. There is clearly nothing wrong with a man who raises dogs to fight, abuses them to unnaturally piss them off, kill dogs that don't fight well, holds dogs in cages that are too small to fit all of them, slams dogs to the ground to kill them, and allegedly even puts family dogs in the ring with his fighting dogs. Normal people do that.

Do I find it ironic JemeHill insinuates there is nothing mentally wrong with Mike Vick and yet if you did some of those things to humans, it would sound a little bit like slavery or torture, which I am assuming she is against? Yes, I do find it slightly contradictory, if not ironic. If someone did these type things to humans, JemeHill would want that person's head examined.

I know what people say, "dogs aren't humans, they are animals," which really makes me think there is something clearly wrong with Mike Vick's head because the animals did nothing to deserve this, and really, the animals can't defend themselves like a human can. Also, studies have shown most murderers tend to start off with harming animals at a young age, and I think we could all argue there is something messed up in the head of people who kill. I am getting way off base here but to think there is nothing wrong in that little head of Mikey Vick is incorrect.

"Saying sorry and getting his ball back after being caught enjoying killing dogs in hideously cruel ways for many years doesn't cut it," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk told The Associated Press on Thursday.

For a variety of reasons I believe that, despite PETA's grandstanding objections, Vick deserves another shot to play in the NFL.

Shockingly, JemeHill has yet again missed the entire freaking point. PETA is not "grandstanding," they are saying they want him to be psychologically tested before he comes back to the NFL. It seems they have no problem with Vick playing in the NFL again, they just want him to be tested first. How stupid can JemeHill be? She has a huge problem understanding what people are saying, maybe she some psychological disorder that doesn't allow her to understand what people are saying and causes her to draw her own conclusion that is way off base. PETA is not saying he doesn't deserve to be in the sport of football, they just want to make sure he won't do this again. JemeHill writes like a fucking fifth grader.

"The sky is blue and I like it. And that is why I think the color blue is so nice."

Speaking of grandstanding, I wonder if JemeHill's short term memory loss precludes her from remembering these statements she made about Don Imus:

Days have passed since Imus, executive producer Bernard McGuirk and sports announcer Sid Rosenberg took turns taking cheap shots at the Rutgers women's basketball team, but I'm still boiling because too many people continue to defend Imus behind lame free-speech arguments -- remember, speech is free, but consequences are not --

Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics. He is routinely offensive to people of color and women, and if he needs to lose his job to understand that there is no place for that, so be it.

If it were up to me, security would have escorted the longtime radio jock out of his CBS Radio cocoon with belongings in tow days ago. But for now, I'll have to settle for a two-week suspension that doesn't begin until next week.

Don Imus used words that JemeHill, so she wants him to lose his job and presumably not get another one in the radio industry. He exercised his free speech, as offensive as it was, and she wanted him gone from his job forever. No other chances.

Mike Vick killed dogs, which IS a crime for those that insist it is not a big deal, and he killed those dogs because they either lost at dog fights or were not good enough to dog fight. Last time I checked, dog fighting was a crime. JemeHill thinks PETA is grandstanding by asking he gets psychologically checked before going back to his sport of football.

To recap, Don Imus commits no crime, but he should be gone forever because he is offensive to other people, Mike Vick commits a crime and goes to jail, but should be let back into football with no strings of any type attached, because "he has done his time."

I am not comparing Vick to a child molester specifically but people who commit a crime to a child and other people who commit violent crimes sometimes have to undergo psychological testing, I see no reason why Vick should not have to prove he won't do this again. He has paid his price, but last time I checked the purpose of jail is to be a deterrent and how do we really know if it has deterred Vick if he can't at least prove he is not prone to do this again? I don't think we should hook him up to a machine and torture him, I think the league should see he is remorseful before he comes back and won't do it again. I actually don't care if he gets tested or not, but PETA does, and Vick should agree to do it in a good faith gesture, in my opinion.

I hate JemeHill and her writing. She is hypocritical and has done more grandstanding in her lifetime about issues that she deems "important" and tries to hide issues like steroid use and cruelty to animals under a veil of "unfairness" to the perpetrator of the act.

In fact, I would much rather see Vick be the beneficiary of Goodell's benevolence than Adam "Pacman" Jones, who has been a wart on the NFL's image since entering the league three years ago.

This is her "Look, something shiny" distraction argument and has nothing to do with Vick. We can't compare the two, they are different people, but if she compares Vick to Pacman Jones, all of a sudden Vick's one crime doesn't look as bad as Jones' constant run-ins with the law.

Jones is currently out of work and, if NFL teams have any common sense, it will stay that way. He has shown little remorse or contrition, and it's become clear he would rather be painted as a victim than assume any responsibility.

This has nothing to do with Mike Vick or if he should undergo brief psychological tests after leaving prison. Stay on topic, it tends to help your argument.

Vick, after initial denials, did eventually come clean and his prison time in Leavenworth clears up the issue of his taking responsibility. Vick didn't have a choice.

Coming clean because you have to is now an honorable thing. Welcome to JemeHill's messed up perception of the world.

He stood before a federal judge and the media and admitted he financially supported the sickening practice of fighting animals.

Because there were three witnesses against him and he would do less time if he admitted guilt. This is not honorable, Vick was trying to save his own ass and get out of jail quicker.

There are many reasons to see Vick play again. Let's just focus on these five:

No one is arguing Vick should never play football again. No one is arguing this point of view. PETA wants him to undergo a test, that's it. I love how JemeHill knows the test is no big deal, so she turns it into "why Mike Vick should be allowed to play football again," though no one is arguing this fact if he is rehabilitated or at least remorseful.

5. Remorse. If ever someone wished he could hop in a DeLorean and go back a few years, it would be Michael Vick.

How do you know this? Vick hasn't done interviews in over a year, you are just assuming this to support your argument. JemeHill sucks at arguing. She is bad. I am sure there are plenty of other people who wish they could hop back a few years more than Mike Vick does, maybe someone who has done more time than Vick's long, long stay of under two years in prison. If he has done that much time. I would imagine there are prisoners who have spent life in prison that would much rather get in that DeLorean.

I think a simple psychological test would not be a big deal after this horrible "ordeal" Vick has put himself through.

4. Redemption. This is a nation that loves to see people rise after they've been stomped into the ground. None of us are without flaws. And while we don't all make criminal mistakes, we tend to like it when people show that they've changed.

Proving he is psychologically capable of having a pet and would not try to put it on a rape stand or drown it could go a long way towards this redemption.

3. Hypocrisy.

Steelers linebacker James Harrison, who is headed to the Super Bowl, completed anger management and psychological counseling, prompting prosecutors to drop charges against him for slapping his girlfriend.

First off, he underwent psychological counseling, which is part of what PETA wants Vick to do. James Harrison also has nothing to do with Vick, but let the retarded ass JemeHill keep bringing up non relevant points.

The key point is that PETA is not arguing Mike Vick should not be able to return to the NFL you dumbass.

2. Accomplishments. Unlike Pacman Jones, Vick has actually achieved something substantial in the NFL. Jones has never been selected to a Pro Bowl.

"Yes, I would like to have two orders of Pacman Jones and NFL career individual accomplishments for this column. Can you also serve it with a side of non-relevance to whether Mike Vick should return to the NFL or not? You can? Thanks."

You could argue that Vick, at certain points in his career, was one of the five best players in the NFL, regardless of position.

You could...and then I would argue that you are wrong. Of course you are JemeHill, so naturally you are inherently wrong.

Personal accolades should have nothing to do with whether Vick should return to football. It should not matter if he was a Pro Bowl QB or a special teams saftety. If he is rehabilitated and done his time, PETA has no problem with him rejoining the NFL, as long as he takes a psychological test to make sure he is not prone to do this again. I am repeating myself, but I am being forced to.

The buzz and ticket sales alone make Vick a worthy risk. And with the Wildcat offense taking off in the NFL, Vick could be productive immediately with the right team.

No one is arguing this point at all. You are arguing with yourself at this point.

I bet lions chasing the players would also cause ticket sales to increase and would give the league a lot of buzz. Maybe the NFL should look into that also.

But if any vestiges of the old Vick remain, I would love to see it.

I would love to see it also, as long he does not play against my favorite team. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with PETA or their insistence on Vick being psychologically tested to make sure he won't hurt animals again.

If this was a persuasive argument paper, you would get a D. If this was an essay on why something should happen, I would give you a C, but since it is just a simple rambling that brings up a topic, then argues the main point without actually quoting the counterpoint argument or who makes the counterpoint argument, followed by examples that support your argument, but those examples have nothing to do with your topic, you get an F. You fail.