If people truly understand their point when defending Vick.

Well, not defending. Some thinkers wonder why we're so quick to hang Michael Vick for his dog fighting ring. What gets me is how quickly people condemn dog fighting, pointing out how disgusting the descriptions of the dead dogs in the indictment, yet do their best to teach us the mastery of judgment while Vick's name appears on the indictment 47 times (quick scan).

For example, Deion Sanders tried to bring the reader into Vick's mind. Why? I have no idea. And I doubt Deion does either -- other than trying to capitalize on the revolutionary thinking that we should hold judgment on Vick.

"What a dog means to Vick might be a lot different than what he means to you or I," Sanders wrote. "Some people enjoy proving they have the biggest, toughest dog on the street. You're probably not going to believe this, but I bet Vick loves the dogs that were the biggest and the baddest. Maybe, he identified with them in some way.You can still choose to condemn him, but I'm trying to take you inside his mind so you can understand where he might be coming from."

Sanders wrote a follow up in which the NFL prevented from being published. Keep in mind that Sanders works for the NFL and all opinion regarding the NFL is property of the NFL.

On my way into work, I listened to Mike and Mike in the morning on ESPN radio and there was a short 20-30 second blurb with Jay Harris. He compared the NFL refusing to let Sanders follow up a case of "censorship". He said that this is was the same thing during the Iraq war that if you were against the Bush administration, you were branded a "traitor".

I know people make radical comparisons to drive home an already weak point. But that was weak as hell. First of all, EVERYONE is censored when it potentially violates their contract. I ask Jay Harris what would happen if he slammed ESPN for one of many mainstream talking points. He'd probably giggle knowing you just can't slam your employer while under contract.

That's not censorship. That's not a violation of free speech -- which I'm 100% sure is what Harris was trying to drive home. Free speech, in the Bill of Rights says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can twist it and interpret how you like. But there's nothing in Jay Harris' point that says the government is preventing Deion Sanders from doing a follow up piece in a local newspaper about a professional athlete and his methods of killing dogs. Sorry, allegedly killing dogs. Damn, Deion and Jay would be disappointed with me.

If we're really that gripped about Bud Selig's appearance for Bond's record.

I'm amazed at the level of interest whether or not MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, will be present when the eventual homerun is hit that will break Hank Aaron's historic home run record. Should the Commissioner be there? If he's not there, would people automatically believe he was protesting Bonds' authenticity? Selig, it seems to me, is in a lose-lose situation. If he goes, and he genuinely believes that Bonds "cheated" (which you kind of get that impression), then he'll be on hand to congratulate the man that broke the record. If Selig doesn't go, then he's going to be hounded by questions for his absence.

In the end, does it really matter? Consider for a moment that the general feeling about Selig is that he's fumbled a lot. He's not well respected as a commissioner from fans or commentators And when he does break the record, most people will start concentrating about Bonds' legacy -- not Selig's itinerary.

Now if Greg Anderson showed up, that would be a story.

If Michael Strahan is playing a game that he's bound to lose.

This has become an interesting story -- which includes the standard self-absorb greedy millionaire player. The juvenile and suddenly disrupting choice to "mull retirement" has shown to be nothing more than a "professional" (and I use that term loosely) believing he should have more money. Not only that, but the fact he choose to mull retirement NOW when he could have expressed this during a period in which the Giants could have picked up a player to replace him is "betrayal" -- for a lack of better words.

But let's be honest. You know Michael, honesty? This isn't about retirement, it's about money. Big Blue View (network resident NY Giants Blogger) agrees. You're threatening retirement to push the Giants into renegotiation. The best part of this story, is that the Giants are moving and even publicly calling his bluff.

One of these days players will fulfill one contract. Just one. You demand a long term contract and you get one that some 60-hour a week blue collar horse like me observes. Then halfway through the contract, you become bitter. Grow the hell up or get the hell out. We're a lot more worried about whether or not 90% of the remaining cable subscribers will have the NFL Network than you feeling sorry for your contract because you had a small tussle with your wife. Get over it. Go to camp and make Big Blue View happy. Oh, and there's nothing worse than being proud of a record that was handed to you (see: Brett Favre laying down for you).