Rules for debating/arguing

Constructing a Logical Argument

Introduction

There is a great deal of argument on Usenet. Unfortunately, most of it is of very poor quality. This document attempts to provide a gentle introduction to logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.

Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, we determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.

One does not need to study logic in order to reason correctly. However, a little basic knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing or analyzing an argument.

Note that I am not claiming that logic is universally applicable. That issue is very much open to debate. This document only explains how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool for the job.

Note also that this document deals only with simple boolean logic. Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey different rules. When people talk of logical arguments, though, they generally mean the type being described here.

Basic concepts

The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also called statements. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example:

"The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge."

"Dogs cannot see colour."

"Berlin is the capital of Germany."

Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied (said to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny", not the everyday meaning.

The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular arrangement of words used. So "A God exists" and "There exists a God" both express the same proposition.

What is an argument?

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition". There are three stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and conclusion.

Stage one: Premises

One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.

Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because", "since", "obviously" and so on.

(The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting dubious premises. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to question it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when you've heard the explanation.)

Stage two: Inference

The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid inference.

The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or "therefore".

Stage three: Conclusion

Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

Types of argument

There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive. A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its conclusions; if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid, but we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other arguments. We can also discuss how probable their premises are.

There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive nor inductive. However, this document concentrates on deductive arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.

Here is an example of a deductive argument:

• Every event has a cause (premise)
• The universe has a beginning (premise)
• All beginnings involve an event (premise)
• This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)
• Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)

Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another argument. A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion with respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation.

Recognizing an argument

Sometimes an argument will not follow the order described above. For instance, the conclusions might be stated first, and the premises stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly valid, if sometimes a little confusing.

Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument. Some statements look like arguments, but are not.

For example:

"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar, or the Son of God."

The above is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It does not assert the premises which are necessary to support what appears to be its conclusion. (Even if we add the assertions, it still suffers from a number of other logical flaws -- see the section on this argument in "Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions".)

Another example:

"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."

The phrase "do your duty to God" is neither true nor false. Therefore it is not a proposition, and the sentence is not an argument.

Causality is important. Suppose we are trying to argue that there is something wrong with the engine of a car. Consider two statements of the form "A because B". The first statement:

"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine."

The statement is not an argument for there being something wrong with the engine; it is an explanation of why the car will not start. We are explaining A, using B as the explanation. We cannot argue from A to B using a statement of the form "A because B".

However, we can argue from B to A using such a statement. Consider:

"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not start."

Here we are arguing for A, offering B as evidence. The statement "A because B" is then an argument.

To make the difference clear, note that "A because B" is equivalent to "B therefore A". The two statements then become:

"There is something wrong with the engine, therefore my car will not start."

And:

"My car will not start, therefore there is something wrong with the engine."

If we remember that we are supposed to be arguing that there is something wrong with the engine, it is clear that only the second statement is a valid argument.

Implication in detail

There is one very important thing to remember: The fact that a deductive argument is valid does not imply that its conclusion holds. This is because of the slightly counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more carefully.

Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However, an argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.

For example:

• All insects have wings (premise)
• Woodlice are insects (premise)
• Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false. If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true. The argument is thus entirely valid.

More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises, as in:

• All fish live in the sea (premise)
• Dolphins are fish (premise)
• Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)

However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid inference from true premises.

We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.

Premise Conclusion Inference
  A        B        A=>B
----------------------------
  F        F         T
  F        T         T

-- If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false.

   T        F         F

-- If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid.

   T        T         T

-- If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true.

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful not to confuse sound arguments with valid arguments.

Of course, we can criticize more than the mere soundness of an argument. In everyday life, arguments are almost always presented with some specific purpose in mind. As well as criticizing the argument itself, one can criticize the apparent intent of the argument. Such criticism is outside the scope of this document, however!

Further reading

For a readable introduction to logic, try Flew's "Thinking Straight", listed in the atheist resources document. The document also lists LOGIC-L, a LISTSERV mailing list devoted to discussing the teaching of elementary logic.

---

Fallacies

To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It is simpler and probably more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known as fallacies.

In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs. This is fair enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or convincing.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being misled by them.

Below is a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical devices often used in debate. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right". The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.

For example:

"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".

The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.

For example:

"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."

Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This is a valid way of reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not Argumentum ad Hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false. To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of the opponent's particular circumstances. For example:

"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing the opponent's argument.

This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion. For example:

"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is also known as "poisoning the well".

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)

Examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

Argumentum ad populum

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

The fallacy of accident

The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the specific. For example:

"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists."

This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.

Converse accident / Hasty generalization

This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases. For example:

"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."

Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter

A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.

Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc

These are known as False Cause fallacies.

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:

"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."

The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event. For example:

"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy is similar to Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It asserts that because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

Petitio principii / Begging the question

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.

Circulus in demonstrando

This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:

"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office."

Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees. Another example is the classic:

"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition

This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like:

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:

"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"

or

"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"

Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.

Ignoratio elenchi

The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.

Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more favourable light.

Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms

Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. For example:

"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."

Amphiboly

Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

Accent

Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized. For example, consider:

"We should not speak ill of our friends"

and

"We should not speak ill of our friends"

Fallacies of composition

One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts of something must apply to the whole. For example:

"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight."

The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a number of individual items is shared by a collection of those items. For example:

"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

Fallacy of division

The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition. Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume that a property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example:

"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."

The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item. For example:

"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."

The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

"A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar. Examples:

"Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of history?"

"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a form of Christianity?"

"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"

Affirmation of the consequent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for implication given earlier.

Denial of the antecedent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy. Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa. The latter has the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B at all. Here, the problem is not that the implication is invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce anything about B.

Converting a conditional

This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been."

Argumentum ad novitatem

This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else.

Argumentum ad crumenam

The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

Argumentum ad lazarum

The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the argumentum ad crumenam.

Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.

Bifurcation

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Plurium interrogationum / Many questions

This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex question.

Non sequitur

A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which are not logically connected with it.

Red herring

This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.

Reification / Hypostatization

Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.

Straw man

The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position, then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

The extended analogy

The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.

This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about anti-cryptography legislation:

"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."

"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported Martin Luther King."

"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"

Tu quoque

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to be acceptable because the other party has performed it. For instance:

"You're just being randomly abusive."

"So? You've been abusive too."

This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of Argumentum ad Hominem.

Audiatur et altera pars

Often, people will argue from assumptions which they do not bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of one's assumptions; however, it is often viewed with suspicion.

Ad hoc

There is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it is an explanation.

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which does not apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:

"I was healed from cancer."

"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."

"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"

"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."

Argumentum ad logicam

This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false merely on the grounds that it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

mathew

4 year old accused of improperly touching teacher

by Jennifer Kent

BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school administrators have a different story.

http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699

Justice For Titasheen Mitchell

This myspace page has been created by the friends and family of Titasheen Mitchell as an objection to her unfair treatment and prosecution by the Town of Stratford and the State of Connecticut.

This is not a story on racism- though the local media has attempted to portray it as issue of rasism- it is merely the story of a troubled, aggressive police officer mishandling an already volatile situation. Based on news reports and first hand witness accounts, here is that story.

On March 21st, 2006 Titasheen Mitchell was in her mother's store when an altercation broke out in a nearby business.

At some point, a police officer (Officer Gugliotti) entered the store ostensibly looking for two of the alleged melee participants that had been seen entering the store. Once inside, the officer in a rude and brusque manner began addressing one of the young ladies.

Concerned with the negative image that this represented coupled with the effects that the aggressive officer's mannerisms were having on her nearby sibling, Titasheen Mitchell politely asked the officer if he could please lower his voice. Apparently this reasoned question from a 14 year old girl displeased the officer.

The officer then continued to exhibit behavior unbecoming of an officer of the law and was once more politely asked to lower his voice; the response was indirectly disproportionate to the manner with which the request had been made.

The officer proceeded to ask in a surly and exasperated manner, "What?!" The question seemed to have been asked in a tone of incredible disbelief cloaked in a fit of rage. It appeared that there was an air of disbelief from the officer that a 14 year old girl would deign to ask him if he could please lower his voice.

At this point, the enraged officer grabbed Titasheen Mitchell by the collars of her jacket, lifted her off the ground and headed towards the front door without a single explanation as to why. Concerned for her safety and without having an explanation from the officer as to why she was being manhandled by the 5'10" inch 285lb police officer, the 5'2" 115lb 14 year old girl resisted her brutal treatment. She did not resist with force, she resisted with the words, "Put me down! Put me down! Put me down!"

Once she had been carried to a patrol car, another officer had said to her, "Don't resist arrest." To which she did the following; she put her hands behind her back and said, "Ok, arrest me then." The officer then proceeded to arrest Ms. Mitchell but omitted to read her Miranda Rights.

Once at the station, Titasheen's mother, Marcia Mitchell-Davis, demanded that her daughter receive immediate medical attention because she had heard that her daughter had been struck by a police officer. This request was denied. Marcia Mitchell-Davis repeated her request every 15 minutes for 2 hours, and was repeatedly denied. In fact, she was told that if she were to make the request again, she would be arrested. She defied this threat and outward intimidation and continued to make the request that her daughter receive medical treatment, which 5 hours later was granted. She was brought to the Bridgeport Hospital by her mother for that treatment.

During the interval from arrest to her subsequent release for medical treatment, Titasheen's mother along with her request for medical attention for her daughter also asked to file a citizen's complaint against the police officer and was told by the Captain of the station that he was too busy to take her complaint and to return the following day.

Since the time of the arrest, the Mitchell-Davis family has been subject to routine harassment from the police department including but not limited to:

*Being followed by Stratford police, who would turn on their lights, force the Mitchell-Davis family to pull over and then speed off. *Forced to remove business signs by the police. *Supremacist groups distributing paraphenalia and literature outside the Mitchell-Davis business. *Threatening phone calls. *Police harassment of patrons of the Mitchell-Davis store.

From start to finish, the officer- if not officers- acted improperly and without restraint. They mistreated and abused a 14 year old girl, her mother, but more importantly, the system of justice that they have pledged to uphold. Once done, they then proceeded to blame the victims for their own mistreatment. Somewhere in this story, justice must and will prevail.

For more information please visit Justice For Titasheen Mitchell. From there you can read the blog entries and donate to her defense fund. Who I'd like to meet:
Senator Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, Senator Diane Feinstein, Queen Elizabeth, the Pope, Oprah Winfrey.

Monday Morning

Not much to say this Monday morning. Been busy working, writing, building...that's it.

Conservative Underground

So good to be at home at Conservative Underground amongst my good friends who perpetually abuse me.

New Blog - New Article

I started a new blog called Strictly Politics http://strictly-politics.blogspot.com/ and this is my first post to it. I also created a forum to discuss my articles, as well as others, that can be found here http://garfieldjones.com/forum/


Ronn Cantu
asks a very interesting question in the blog
Iraq Veterans Against the War; he
wants to know, "What, Exactly, Are We Dying For?"
I am going to try to answer
that question.


First, let me dispense with the obvious, you should not have been there to begin with. It would be nice to say that you are there fighting terror, avenging the deaths of 3000+ people - not all of whom were Americans as the favored rhetoric goes since 911. It would be nice to blame Osama Bin Laden and some nebulous, loosely affiliated group of parasitic beasts called, "Al Qaeda," but their acts nor words had anything to do with civilians and soldiers being killed in Iraq.


Before continuing, a word about "Al Qaeda." "Al Qaeda" is a marginalized movement in the Arab/Muslim world given greater significance by American politicians elevating them to the level of an evil Arab/Muslim force. They have been given undue credibility by linking them to the Arab/Muslim mainstream.


Arabs/Muslims have never had any love for "Al Qaeda," considering that Arabs/Muslims more often than not, have always been the favorite target of "Al Qaeda." When things go boom and "Al Qaeda" claims responsibility, you can usually be sure that it is in an Arab/Muslim nation; though admittedly, not always the case. What's interesting is that "Al Qaeda" is to Arabs/Muslims what groups that worship The Turner Diaries is to America's world, extremely fringe.


Part of the "misunderstanding" between the American public and the Arab/Muslim public is that we do not involve ourselves in each other's media to any great extent. I put quotations around misunderstanding since that is effectively what it is. We do not hear those in the Arab/Muslim world who speak out against Al Qaeda because we do not read their newspapers, we do not watch their TVs, we do not listen to their radio, we do not read their blogs or ezine publications. When we do read about Arabs/Muslims that do condemn groups such as "Al Qaeda" and their actions, it is invariably in English and in our media. The thought never really occurs to us that there are just not that many Arab/Muslim voices in our media to reach the crescendo of condemnation that we figure we are owed, thus, we form the impression that there are more Muslims who must agree with Bin Laden, than who disagree.


We count on other people to tell us what the Arab/Muslim world is saying and if all they ever tell us is what Bin Laden wants us to say, then we are only really hearing what they want us to know. The truth is, America has more friends in the Arab/Muslim world than enemies, yet the perception is that "they all" want to destroy us. This may be a useful tool to some but obviously detrimental to all.


Blame is a two way street in this issue, the Arab/Muslim world feels that the entire western world is against them for the same reasons, they do not read our newspapers, they do not watch our TV, they do not listen to our radios nor read our blogs and ezine publications. They rarely hear the rational because or journalists, publishers, etc do not cater to their audience...nor should they have to. They hear the same thing we hear, the loud, the obscene, the fringe. They hear when noted American public figures say things such as, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert their people." They hear when Americans that speak loud enough talk of clashes of civilizations, denounce their religion, way of life, and ridicules all that they hold to be holy. They rarely hear when those same people are ostracized as being out of touch or fringe or marginal; just as we never hear the same. So fundamentally, misunderstandings are at the root of all evil on every side.


The twisted truth though, is that a misunderstanding is not the answer to "What, Exactly, Are We Dying For?" The answer to that is, when evil confluences, major evil happens, and the invasion of Iraq was a major evil. There is just no other way to describe how the US administration manipulated the misunderstandings of the public through propaganda (a willing media shares a large part of the responsibility) to create the circumstances which allowed congress to sandbag its constitutional duties, and for a large portion of the American public to become a bloodthirsty, war-mongering, throng.


I suppose it is instructive to think back and remember the mood after 911, the whole world cried out for justice, the whole world cried out for blood, and the whole world went after it; first, by demanding that the Afghan government produce Bin Laden, and second, by invading Afghanistan when they did not comply. Allow me to segue for another moment with regards to Afghanistan. We went there, not to build a nation, not to free a people, but to topple a government in order to find one man. The overriding concern there though was that one man who everyone acknowledges is no longer there. The fighting part of that mission should have ended a long while ago and we (the Western World) should be there as nothing more than peacekeepers at this point.
After 911, after Afghanistan, the US administration turned its attention to Iraq. They made allegations, assured a skeptical world that they were right, and demonized anyone and everyone that stood in the way of "their truth." Remember freedom fries, freedom wine, Natalie Maines, Democrats, Max Cleland...this list could go on and on, but you get the point. The tactic was despicably evil and un-American, but it worked, so it continued. It was interesting to watch a Fox News show on a Sunday morning, hear the latest catch phrase or attack and then watch it spread to every conservative newspaper, radio show, blog, forum, newsgroup, and affiliated television station within days.


Whether it was an attack or a defense, it was and is a well-oiled machine that disseminated information to the rank and file at a blistering pace. The rank and file was just not any rank and file, theirs were hungry, eager participants in any deception that was asked of them, ready and willing to regurgitate anything that was fed to them happily- why? Because they were team players and they were on the winning team. They were doing the beating and not being the beaten and in this new world of "for us or against us," there could be no inkling of being for anyone that was not on "MY" team, not on God's team. When you mix all that with that heady dash of religion, that God is on our side and nobody else's, you now have the ingredients for a free people, willingly making idiotic blunders in the name of truth, freedom and the American way, using lies, oppression, and decidedly un-American tactics to get their way.


The thing I find odd is that goodness, justice, right, and God is on everyone's side. I remember reading recently, with stunned incredulity, a statement made by Kim Jong-Il that justice was on his side and that because of that, the DPRK would and could withstand any challenge. Bin Laden claims God his on his side. Hussein claimed that God was on his side. George Bush claims that God is on his side. Everyone claims that God and/or justice is on their side- and they know it without a shred of doubt- and that they are, in fact, acting justly and honorably. Gentlemen, God is on her own side!


The beautiful part about what they did and how they did it is some of the creative rhetoric and blatant manipulation that they employed. Nowadays, should I dare ever bring up the present circumstance in Iraq to try to square it with what was being argued at the time, the answers I get- usually in the form of questions- would lead me to believe that we all just jumped into it holding hands. They would have you believe that there was no debate at the time, that we all agreed that invading Iraq was the right and only thing to do. They cannot remember answering concerns with obfuscations, they cannot remember answering evidence with lies (nor producing lies as evidence), they cannot remember answering doubt with fear mongering, they cannot remember their own complicity. Though I must admit, the last part of that statement applies less and less since there are many who willingly admit, that today they realize that they had been lied to and manipulated.


I am moving off topic way too often, so let me conclude this with my actual answer to Ronn Cantu:


At this point you are there in Iraq because somebody…not going to name names here…somebody came up with reason after reason of why Iraq was dangerous. Somebody, said, “You are either with us, or against us.” Somebody said, “…Axis of evil,” “mushroom clouds,” “Terrorism,” “9 1 1,” “Terrorism,” “3000 dead,” “Saddam Hussein,” “He gassed his own people,” and so on. I like the last one best considering that they never mention where he got the gas from and they never mention how they reacted when he allegedly did so. They also never mention the disputes with regard to this, disputes that they were complicit in concocting.


Anyways, you are there because at this point not being there may be far worse than making a political about why you should not have been there in the first place. Americans put on the blinders and allowed their leadership to manipulate them into a situation that cannot be manipulated out of. Now Iraqis and Americans are paying a high price in blood that cannot be stopped any time soon.


The interesting thing is that some estimates have Americans killing as many Iraqis in 5 years as they had for Saddam killing people over a 35 year span; it kind of begs the question, are the Iraqis better off? Some Americans would argue that it’s a high price but a worthy price to pay for freedom and democracy. Yet if you were to ask the question, would you be willing to see 300000 Americans die to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq or Iran or North Korea, how many would say it’s a terrible price to pay but one that is worth it?

NFL week 8

Arizona at Green Bay 1:00 p.m.
Arizona breaks out of their funk
score ARZ 23 - GB 10

Atlanta at Cincinnati 1:00 p.m.
Score CIN 26 - ATL 17

Baltimore at New Orleans 1:00 p.m.
score NO 30 - BAL 27

Houston at Tennessee 1:00 p.m.
score TEN 18 - HOU 15

Jacksonville at Philadelphia 1:00 p.m.
PHI 24 - JCK 21

Seattle at Kansas City 1:00 p.m.
SEA 20 - KC 10

San Francisco at Chicago 1:00 p.m.
CHI 33 - SF 13

Tampa Bay at N.Y. Giants 1:00 p.m.
NYG 26 - TB 23

St. Louis at San Diego 4:05 p.m.
SD 17 - STL 14

Indianapolis at Denver 4:15 p.m
IND 23 - DEN 21

N.Y. Jets at Cleveland 4:15 p.m.
NYJ 17 - CLE 10

Pittsburgh at Oakland 4:15 p.m.
PIT 30 - OAK 6

Dallas at Carolina 8:15 p.m.
The coach is making some suspect decisions with my Cowboys.
CAR 27 - DAL 17

New England at Minnesota 8:30 p.m.
NE 36 - MIN 27

NFL results

Oh boy what a stinker of a week that was. That's what happens when you have no time to take a really good look at the match ups. This week will be no differnet since I may not have the time.

overall record for the week
5 wins - 8 losses

For the season
65 wins - 35 losses

Abbr week 7 picks

I do much better when I have more time to this but we can only deal with what we have.

season totals so far 60 wins - 27 losses

Carolina at Cincinnati 1:00 p.m. 130 119
Carolina to win
score CAR 19 - CIN 16

Detroit at N.Y. Jets 1:00 p.m. 125 158
Jets to win
score NYJ 24 - DET 21

Green Bay at Miami 1:00 p.m. 147 107
Miami to win
score MIA 27 - GB 24

Jacksonville at Houston 1:00 p.m. 110 144
Houston to win
score HOU 27 - JCK 21

New England at Buffalo 1:00 p.m. 146 143
Patriots to win
score NE 33 - BUF 19

Philadelphia at Tampa Bay 1:00 p.m. 122 181
Eagles to win
PHI 37 - TB 24

Pittsburgh at Atlanta 1:00 p.m. 118 153
PIT to win
score PIT 23 - ATL 19

San Diego at Kansas City 1:00 p.m. 152 123
SD to win
score SD 34 - KC 12

Denver at Cleveland 4:05 p.m. 117 107
Denver to win
score DEN 28 - CLE 16

Arizona at Oakland 4:15 p.m. 110 147
Arizona to win
score ARZ 31 - OAK 17

Minnesota at Seattle 4:15 p.m. 130 143
Seahawks to win
score SEA 20 - MIN 17

Washington at Indianapolis 4:15 p.m. 125 123
Indy to win
score IND 33 - WAS 15

N.Y. Giants at Dallas 8:30 p.m. 125 123
Dallas to win
score DAL 24 - NYG 21

Abbr NFL week 6 predictions

Buffalo at Detroit
Buffalo to win and cover BUF 24 - DET 21
Carolina at Baltimore
Ravens to win and cover BAL 19 - CAR 16
Cincinnati at Tampa Bay
Cincinatti to win and cover CIN 27 - TB 19
Houston at Dallas
Dallas to win but I pick Houston with the 13 point spread DAL 27 - HOU 17
N.Y. Giants at Atlanta
Giants to win NYG 23 - ATL 20
Philadelphia at New Orleans
Saints to win NO 30 - PHI 27
Seattle at St. Louis
St. Louis to win a very close game STL 33 - SEA 30
Tennessee at Washington
Washington to win but I take the Titans with the 9.5 spread WAS 20 - TEN 17
Kansas City at Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh to finally win again but I take the Chiefs with the spread PIT 29 - KC 27
Miami at N.Y. Jets
Jets to win and cover MYJ 27 - MIA 10
San Diego at San Francisco
San Diego to win but I take the 49'ERS with the 10 point spread SD 30 - SF 24
Oakland at Denver
Denver to win and cover DEN 40 - OAK 12
Chicago at Arizona
Bears to win and cover CHI 34 - ARI 17

NFL week 5 results

Abbreviated results this week.

Another miserable 9-5 week.

Season so far:
52-22

Evil v. Evil

Choosing between evil and less evil only means that evil wins.

NFL week 4 results

Oh my my my, what a tough week for the football pundit. Things did not go exactly as foreseen, placing a noticeable dent in the record. But there is always next week! This week's record with the spread was absolutely dismal in the most pathetic of ways...are you ready for this?...5 measly wins, 9 excruciating losses. Bad enough for me to say that when it comes to the spread, if I say go left, the smart move would be to go right.

Without the spread was not all that exciting but at least it was on the winning side. I know a lot of teams late in the season that would be excited- positively thrilled- to have it; 9 wins, 5 losses. The overall record for the season stands at 43 wins, 17 losses which is still pretty respectable in a league that places great value on 50/50. Anyways, enough of this low self-esteem, beating myself about the head- it is off to the results.

IND vs NYJ - Colts are favored by 8
Prediction: IND 30 - NYJ 19
Result: IND 31 - NYJ 28
Can there be any doubt that the Jets are for real? I keep expecting Pennington to self-destruct with that shoulder of his but he seems healthy as a thoroughbred. Barlow keeps running in TDs and the Jets just keep giving teams that should whip them, trouble. Manning, Manning, Manning! This guy has a nose for winning: win by whatever means necessary! If he has to run the ball himself, that's what he will do, and he will not fail! Indy scored a lot of points so what does it say about that D allowing so many points? When they meet a team with an exceptional defense and a good enough offence, can the Colts come through? Doubt it.

SD vs BAL - Chargers are favored by 2.5
Prediction: BAL 20 - SD 17
Result: BAL 16 - SD 13
We were close in this in this one. The Ravens defense is a marvel to behold. Not much to say about this game, it was not exactly "memorable."

BUF vs MINN - Buffalo is favored by 1
Prediction: BUF 23 - MINN 15
Result: BUF 17 - MIN 12
I knew those Vikings were imposters! I mean come on, the Vikings winning football games without a QB and WR...I mean, how long did you expect it to last? They are now 2-2 and heading to where I expected them to be, the cellar. Da Bills (sorry Bears fans) on the other hand, are going to threaten to push one of the "elite" teams out of the playoff race. Mind you it is a little too early still to say that one 2-2 team is on the way to the playoffs and the other 2-2 team is on the way to the dungeons, but it's just a feeling.

DAL vs TENN - Dallas is favored by 7.5
Prediction: DAL 27 - TENN 20
Result: DAL 45 - TEN 14
How about them Cowboys?! Steamrolling towards their date with Baltimore in the Superbowl. OK, so it was the Titans, so it was the Titans at home, it was still the Titans. I should have known better than to think that the Titans could run with the Boys. Question. Will the Titans win a game this year? The watch is on.

KC vs SF - Chiefs favored by 7
Prediction: KC 22 - SF 19
Result: KC 41 - SF 0
OUCH!!! What a whupping! What an embarrassment! Niners, Niners where are you Niners? What is with the emotional rollercoaster, one week up, one week down, one week stinking to high hell?! Two weeks ago you come out like champs against the Rams and since then nothing. I mean really, is it emotion? Do you guys have to be emotionally ready for every game or are you warriors? I mean, I can only throw my two cents of questions in with everybody else's after this pitiful effort. Nice win KC.

CAR vs NO - Carolina favored by 7.5
Prediction: NO 27 - CAR 24
Result: CAR 21 - NO 18
Should have seen the letdown coming after a big win 6 days earlier. The pride was gone, the fun was not there, the swagger was gone...come on Saints, keep marching in! What's with the Panthers? This team is supposed to dominate this year and for some reason they are having a heck of time winning games: they just keep squeaking through.

ATL vs ARZ - Atlanta favored by 7
Prediction: ATL 19 - ARZ 13
Result: ATL 32 - ARZ 10
Let's face it, the best thing about Atlanta is not Vick and the offense, but defense and special teams; and that just might be good enough to make the playoffs. I though the offense would have been just as mad as the defense about being embarrassed, but I guess there is only so much you can do with 6 plays. Arizona needs to make that QB change at least for a few weeks, may as well give the new blood a bit of time on the field.

MIA vs HOU - Dolphins favored by 4
Prediction: MIA 17 - HOU 14
Result: HOU 17 - MIA 15
OK, let's officially put an end to all the talk about Miami being a good football team and contending for a playoff spot this year; this team is going nowhere!

STL vs DET - RAMS are favored by 6.5
Prediction: STL 33 - DET 17
Result: STL 41 - DET 34
ST. Louis at home is always a great show and they did not disappoint. But what's with the Lions scoring 34 points? A lot of people had a great game in this shootout. Too bad Detroit was looking for their first win in ST. Louis, it's not the place to expect that to happen.

CIN vs NE - Bengals favored by 6
Prediction: CIN 40 - 28
Result: NE 38 - CIN 13
Boy did I goof on this one. Hail to the Patriots, they are back! Looks like they didn't need Branch and what was that other guy's name?...Who cares, New England has Brady, Bellichek, Dillon, Gabriel, Watson, Maroney and Bruschi-that's right, we are starting to remember their names- winning is back in the New England spirit. The rest of the league had better watch out because the old guard is not ready to step down.

JCK vs WAS - Jags favored by 2.5
Prediction: JAGS 23 - WAS 20
Result: WAS 36 - JCK 30
My coin flip turned out wrong. It was a tough game to call and a hard won Redskins victory.

CLE vs OAK - Cleveland favored by 1.5
Prediction: OAK 21 - CLE 17
Result: CLE 24 - OAK 21
Oakland now joins the official list of this years losers that we can say, without reservation, will not make the playoffs. Will they win a game? In keeping with my thought that no team goes unbeaten in the NFL and no team goes winless, they will have a few chances to win just 1 game; next week in San Fran, Oct 22 in ARZ, and at home Dec 3rd against the Texans. The rest of the schedule is pretty tough for them and they may do the impossible- go the entire season winless. Too bad they could not meet the Titans to guarantee that only 1 team will go winless this season; we might have two.

CHI vs SEA - Bears favored by 2.5
Prediction: CHI 26 - SEA 23
Result: CHI 37 - SEA 6
Are Da Bears the best team in football? Hard to argue against it the way they mauled the Seahawks. I have reservations against claiming them the #1 contender because the Hawks were missing Alexander, but how much of a difference could the reigning MVP make?...that's where my reservations come from. Should be an interesting game next week against that Bills offense.

PHI vs GB - Eagles are favored by 10.5
Prediction: PHI 27 - GB 24
Result: PHI 31 - GB 9
Well, at least they kept it close for 1 half. This one was a little strange. I am used to the Eagles coming out early and scoring a lot of points and then wearing down as the game goes on. For them to be strong late, tells me that this team is back on track. And how about McNabb? When he decides it, he can put this team on his shoulders and walk them to the promise land, if only he could also play special teams and defense, this year's Superbowl would be all but locked up. That's not to say that the Eagles are lacking on special teams and defense, but imagine calling the play by play, McNabb with another TD, McNabb runs the kick all the way back for a TD, McNabb blocks another one, McNabb with yet another sack...McNabb is Superman!

And there we have it! The record was dismal this week but as with all things in the NFL as the season rolls on, it just gets harder and harder. The good teams will falter against the bad teams and the bad teams will rise up against the good teams. 'Any Given Sunday, any team in the NFL can beat any other team in the NFL.'

NFL week 5 predictions

We are going to put last week behind us and stop crying about the record. 9-5 was an anomaly, an abnormality, a blip in the face of football time...we hope. Without any further adieu, let's get to it.

(home teams are in bold)

IND vs TEN - the Colts are favored by 18.5
Colts are 4-0 | Titans are 0-4
18.5! That’s a big number, a really big number. It speaks to how helpless and hapless the football world sees the Tennessee Titans. I believe the only question in this game is not whether Indy will win it, but by how much. I have to believe that the 4-0 Titans have way too much pride going into this one not to put up a hell of a fight, I mean, they are still an NFL team…sort of. I am procrastinating on this one because it would be silly to pick the Colts with that big a spread, and it would be silly to think the Titans can amount to anything other than embarrassed in this one. OK, my mind is made up. I have zero face in the Indy defense to keep opponents off the board, even the Titans.
Prediction:
W/O Spread Indy
W/Spread Titans
Score: IND 34 – TEN 17

NYG vs WAS – Giants are favored by 3.5
Giants are 1-2 | WAS is 2-2
My opinion is that the Giants really are not a very good football team. They have heart, they can compete, but Shockey brings them down. A divided team is a vulnerable team and this team has had to polarize around the coach or around Shockey. Little things will be done and smaller things yet will not be done in this game. A missed block here, trying a little too hard there, and more than enough blame to go around. I say this game will serve as a wake up call for the Giants. It is the Redskins all the way in this one.
Prediction: WAS 20 – NYG 17

MIN vs DET – Vikings favored by 6
Minnesota is 2-2 | DET is 0-4
This may be a great opportunity for Detroit to break out of the ranks of the winless. I like this years Vikings, they keep surprising me with their play; except for last week, and the week before…who am I kidding, I can’t pick the Vikings! But they are at home, so maybe I should. Their defense has been pretty average, but average is a far cry better than Detroit’s sieve. Detroit has scored more points and did quite well against the Seahawks in week 1. There may be an upset but I have to lean towards the Vikes.
Prediction:
W/O Spread Minnesota
W/Spread Lions

NO vs TB – Saints are favored by 6
NO is 3-1 | TB is 0-3
If only the Bucs could score a point or two then maybe this would be interesting. Reggie Bush score his first two NFL touchdowns. New Orleans all the way!
Prediction: NO 37 – TB 13

STL vs GB – ST. Louis favored by 3
STL is 3-1 | GB is 1-3
The Packers are going nowhere fast this season but the Rams seem to stumble on the road. Favre and the Pack have too much pride not to feel the sting from Monday nights humiliation on national tv, so look for them to rebound at Lambeau. The upset is in the making.
Prediction: GB 23 – STL 20

NE vs MIA – NE favored by 9.5
Patriots are 3-1 | MIA 1-3
Miami is finished, the Patriots rejuvenated. Lookout for the rout!
score: NE 43 – MIA 23

CHI vs BUF – Bears favored by 11
Chicago is 4-0 | Buffalo 2-2
The Bears are good, really freaking good! But so are the Bills. I fully expect the Bears to win but the Bills will be a handful. They have a solid offence, and a solid enough defense to keep the Bears on their toes. The Bills will look to control possession of the ball with their running game; 11 points is way too much.
Prediction:
W/O Spread Chicago
W/Spread Buffalo
score: Chicago 17 – BUF 13

CAR vs CLE – Panthers favored by 8
Carolina is 2-2 | Cleveland is 1-3
This is a statement game for the Panthers. This game will be for them to state whether they are legitimate contenders or overblown pretenders. They should be able to handle anything the Browns throw at them and dish it back three times. This is the game where Carolina proclaims, “We are way above just average!” Carolina all the way.
score: CAR 30 – CLE 20

JCK vs NYJ – Jaguars favored by 7
Jacksonville is 2-2 | Jets are 2-2
Well! Somebody has got to stand up and be counted! This is the game of the weekend. These are two good teams. The Jets have scored more but allowed more scores than the JAGS. Should Jacksonville win this, it will be purely by defense. 7 points is too much.
Prediction:
W/O Spread Jags
W/Spread Jets
score: JCK 23 – JETS 17

KC vs ARZ – KC is favored by 2.5
Kansas City is 1-2 | Arizona is 1-3
This is a slap in the face of Chiefs who just showed the entire NFL last week that they are a force in this league. I say they prove it again by tromping all over a good Arizona defense in Arizona.
Prediction: KC 33 – ARZ 13

SF vs OAK – SF is favored by 3.5
San Francisco is 1-3 | OAK is 0-3
The only thing worse than the Raiders defense and the Raiders offence is the 49’ers defense. I am going to hold my nose and pick hapless over more hapless. I say the Niners, because they at least can put some points on the board.
Prediction: SF 31 – OAK 10

PHI vs DAL – Eagles favored by 2.5
PHI is 3-1 | DAL is 2-1
I take back my game of the weekend comment before, this is the GAME OF THE WEEKEND! I like the Eagles, but I love the Cowboys so I have to go with the Boys upsetting the birds in front of all those booing Philly fans. The Eagles can score, but the Dallas D can shut down just about anybody. Dallas all the way!
Prediction: DAL 26 – PHI 23

SD vs PIT – Chargers favored by 3.5
San Diego is 2-1 | PIT is 1-2
The defending champs have a lot to prove in this one; it’s the game that ultimately decides their fate this year. They won their first game with Batch and have ridden Big Ben since. The question is, has Roethlisberger finally recovered from his summer stupidity? I say yes, I say Big Ben gets it going in this game against a very good Chargers team. I say Pittsburgh puts the rest of the NFL on notice by winning this tough game on the road. They will want the other teams to know that to be the champ, you gotta beat the champ!
Prediction: PIT 23 – SD 20

DEN vs BAL – Denver favored by 4
Denver is 2-1 | BAL is 4-0
Denver is favored? That thin mountain air must have infected somebody’s thought patterns. OK, so Denver is at Mile High, so what…well not exactly so what, it’s a tough place to win. Baltimore is one of 4 teams that can walk into Denver and shut down that offence: the others are CHI, ATL, and SD. OK, so they are 1 of 2 teams (Chicago) that can do it; and do it they will.
Prediction: BAL 17 – DEN 14

NFL week 4 results

Oh my my my, what a tough week for the football pundit. Things did not go exactly as foreseen, placing a noticeable dent in the record. But there is always next week! This week’s record with the spread was absolutely dismal in the most pathetic of ways…are you ready for this?…5 measly wins, 9 excruciating losses. Bad enough for me to say that when it comes to the spread, if I say go left, the smart move would be to go right.

Without the spread was not all that exciting but at least it was on the winning side. I know a lot of teams late in the season that would be excited- positively thrilled- to have it; 9 wins, 5 losses. The overall record for the season stands at 43 wins, 17 losses which is still pretty respectable in a league that places great value on 50/50. Anyways, enough of this low self-esteem, beating myself about the head- it is off to the results.

IND vs NYJ - Colts are favored by 8
Prediction: IND 30 - NYJ 19
Result: IND 31 - NYJ 28
Can there be any doubt that the Jets are for real? I keep expecting Pennington to self-destruct with that shoulder of his but he seems healthy as a thoroughbred. Barlow keeps running in TDs and the Jets just keep giving teams that should whip them, trouble. Manning, Manning, Manning! This guy has a nose for winning: win by whatever means necessary! If he has to run the ball himself, that’s what he will do, and he will not fail! Indy scored a lot of points so what does it say about that D allowing so many points? When they meet a team with an exceptional defense and a good enough offence, can the Colts come through? Doubt it.

SD vs BAL - Chargers are favored by 2.5
Prediction: BAL 20 - SD 17
Result: BAL 16 - SD 13
We were close in this in this one. The Ravens defense is a marvel to behold. Not much to say about this game, it was not exactly “memorable.”

BUF vs MINN - Buffalo is favored by 1
Prediction: BUF 23 - MINN 15
Result: BUF 17 - MIN 12
I knew those Vikings were imposters! I mean come on, the Vikings winning football games without a QB and WR…I mean, how long did you expect it to last? They are now 2-2 and heading to where I expected them to be, the cellar. Da Bills (sorry Bears fans) on the other hand, are going to threaten to push one of the “elite” teams out of the playoff race. Mind you it is a little too early still to say that one 2-2 team is on the way to the playoffs and the other 2-2 team is on the way to the dungeons, but it’s just a feeling.

DAL vs TENN - Dallas is favored by 7.5
Prediction: DAL 27 - TENN 20
Result: DAL 45 - TEN 14
How about them Cowboys?! Steamrolling towards their date with Baltimore in the Superbowl. OK, so it was the Titans, so it was the Titans at home, it was still the Titans. I should have known better than to think that the Titans could run with the Boys. Question. Will the Titans win a game this year? The watch is on.

KC vs SF - Chiefs favored by 7
Prediction: KC 22 - SF 19
Result: KC 41 - SF 0
OUCH!!! What a whupping! What an embarrassment! Niners, Niners where are you Niners? What is with the emotional rollercoaster, one week up, one week down, one week stinking to high hell?! Two weeks ago you come out like champs against the Rams and since then nothing. I mean really, is it emotion? Do you guys have to be emotionally ready for every game or are you warriors? I mean, I can only throw my two cents of questions in with everybody else’s after this pitiful effort. Nice win KC.

CAR vs NO - Carolina favored by 7.5
Prediction: NO 27 - CAR 24
Result: CAR 21 - NO 18
Should have seen the letdown coming after a big win 6 days earlier. The pride was gone, the fun was not there, the swagger was gone…come on Saints, keep marching in! What’s with the Panthers? This team is supposed to dominate this year and for some reason they are having a heck of time winning games: they just keep squeaking through.

ATL vs ARZ - Atlanta favored by 7
Prediction: ATL 19 - ARZ 13
Result: ATL 32 - ARZ 10
Let’s face it, the best thing about Atlanta is not Vick and the offense, but defense and special teams; and that just might be good enough to make the playoffs. I though the offense would have been just as mad as the defense about being embarrassed, but I guess there is only so much you can do with 6 plays. Arizona needs to make that QB change at least for a few weeks, may as well give the new blood a bit of time on the field.

MIA vs HOU - Dolphins favored by 4
Prediction: MIA 17 - HOU 14
Result: HOU 17 - MIA 15
OK, let’s officially put an end to all the talk about Miami being a good football team and contending for a playoff spot this year; this team is going nowhere!

STL vs DET - RAMS are favored by 6.5
Prediction: STL 33 - DET 17
Result: STL 41 - DET 34
ST. Louis at home is always a great show and they did not disappoint. But what’s with the Lions scoring 34 points? A lot of people had a great game in this shootout. Too bad Detroit was looking for their first win in ST. Louis, it’s not the place to expect that to happen.

CIN vs NE - Bengals favored by 6
Prediction: CIN 40 - 28
Result: NE 38 - CIN 13
Boy did I goof on this one. Hail to the Patriots, they are back! Looks like they didn’t need Branch and what was that other guy’s name?…Who cares, New England has Brady, Bellichek, Dillon, Gabriel, Watson, Maroney and Bruschi-that’s right, we are starting to remember their names- winning is back in the New England spirit. The rest of the league had better watch out because the old guard is not ready to step down.

JCK vs WAS - Jags favored by 2.5
Prediction: JAGS 23 - WAS 20
Result: WAS 36 - JCK 30
My coin flip turned out wrong. It was a tough game to call and a hard won Redskins victory.

CLE vs OAK - Cleveland favored by 1.5
Prediction: OAK 21 - CLE 17
Result: CLE 24 - OAK 21
Oakland now joins the official list of this years losers that we can say, without reservation, will not make the playoffs. Will they win a game? In keeping with my thought that no team goes unbeaten in the NFL and no team goes winless, they will have a few chances to win just 1 game; next week in San Fran, Oct 22 in ARZ, and at home Dec 3rd against the Texans. The rest of the schedule is pretty tough for them and they may do the impossible- go the entire season winless. Too bad they could not meet the Titans to guarantee that only 1 team will go winless this season; we might have two.

CHI vs SEA - Bears favored by 2.5
Prediction: CHI 26 - SEA 23
Result: CHI 37 - SEA 6
Are Da Bears the best team in football? Hard to argue against it the way they mauled the Seahawks. I have reservations against claiming them the #1 contender because the Hawks were missing Alexander, but how much of a difference could the reigning MVP make?…that’s where my reservations come from. Should be an interesting game next week against that Bills offense.

PHI vs GB - Eagles are favored by 10.5
Prediction: PHI 27 - GB 24
Result: PHI 31 - GB 9
Well, at least they kept it close for 1 half. This one was a little strange. I am used to the Eagles coming out early and scoring a lot of points and then wearing down as the game goes on. For them to be strong late, tells me that this team is back on track. And how about McNabb? When he decides it, he can put this team on his shoulders and walk them to the promise land, if only he could also play special teams and defense, this year’s Superbowl would be all but locked up. That’s not to say that the Eagles are lacking on special teams and defense, but imagine calling the play by play, McNabb with another TD, McNabb runs the kick all the way back for a TD, McNabb blocks another one, McNabb with yet another sack…McNabb is Superman!

And there we have it! The record was dismal this week but as with all things in the NFL as the season rolls on, it just gets harder and harder. The good teams will falter against the bad teams and the bad teams will rise up against the good teams. ‘Any Given Sunday, any team in the NFL can beat any other team in the NFL.’

PBS meet and greet

Tonight I had the opportunity to attend a function where the guests were Paula Kerger and John King. Some if not most of you may not know these two individuals but they are two extremely important people. In some cases, more important than those in government or corporate America. These two people are public broadcasters.

Paula Kerger is the new President and CEO of PBS and John King is the President and CEO of Vermont Public Television. Why these two are important people is something I will explain a little later on.

Paula Kerger and John King were here in Montreal tonight. I arrived as Ms. Kerger was delivering her speech and during the question and answer session I had one question and one comment. Before I tell you what the question and comment were, let me just sing the praises of Ms. Kerger as a striking public orator, and on the face of it, a gifted intellectual. I did not hear Mr. King deliver a speech but I did speak with him after, and found him to be engaging, humorous, and extremely knowledgeable.

The question I had for Ms. Kerger was with respect to a statement she made during her speech about branding, advertising and marketing to children as young as two years old. I felt the distinct impression that she felt it was an odious and unethical practice being employed by big business in conjunction sleazy advertising and marketing execs with the full backing and support of more commercially oriented advertisers and media- in other words “the devil.” I agree that the practice is somewhat twisted, if not “evil,” but it is a reality that must be dealt with.

At that moment I thought that the best way to deal with this problem is not to turn your back on branding, marketing, and advertising but to embrace these tools; fight fire with fire. With this in mind I had to ask the question of why not embrace these methods if the aim is to achieve a greater good? In other words use the same techniques, market to the same audience but maintain the highest possible moral high-ground.

I understand perfectly if the thought of marketing to two year olds is morally repugnant but “the devil” is doing it and by turning our backs on “the devil” we merely ignore what is going on; we are not actually stopping “the devil.” PBS is in a position to do what a lot of ordinary people cannot, fight a system aimed at creating mindless consumers whose only concern from the age of two to one hundred and two is consumerism, and use the tools of that system to defeat it or at least counteract its effects.

While the unscrupulous are advertising and marketing toys and games to two year olds, PBS can from the moral high-ground advertise and market knowledge and culture. While the unscrupulous are busy trying to figure out the next product that will be the next hottest thing, PBS can market the things that are really important, knowledge, learning, integrity, culture, values, and character. So I say embrace branding PBS and use your power for the greater good.

That was my first question and the thinking behind it. The answer was generic if not nebulous but it did explain that PBS certainly is striving to make inroads with audiences of all ages. Ms. Kerger also explained that PBS is trying to reach as wide an audience as possible by not only broadcasting their award winning programming but by also actively adding content to the internet. As she mentioned type in ‘Africa’ or ‘evolution’ into a Google browser and the number one spot will be PBS content.

The one comment I had made was after Ms. Kerger had to respond to yet another question concerning PBS’ supposed leftward leanings. This is an unfair question that is the result of a negative marketing campaign aimed at PBS by those who consider a broadcaster who accepts government money to be a tool of the government. As far as I know PBS has never publicly claimed o be left or right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. PBS only claim that I know is one that they aim to maintain free and open airwaves for the benefit of the public good.

The money? Not only do commercial broadcasters and the commercial media accept money from the government, they openly give money to the government in the hopes of currying favors from the government. On top of that, thus far it is only the private broadcast industry and media that has been proven to have accepted money from the government in order to further the government’s agenda. As far as propaganda tools go, it seems the government is far more partial to the commercial broadcaster and private media organizations than to PBS. And by saying “far more” I mean “uses exclusively.”

Think about this, PBS’ attackers over the years have typically, if not exclusively, been conservative Republicans. They try to make the valid point that an organization that accepts government money may become beholden to that government and become its propaganda tool. That is true; any organization that accepts money from the government runs that risk and it is up to the leaders within said organization to remain vigilant against that. It also up to viewers to remain vigilant against an organization that becomes a propaganda arm of the government. PBS, as mentioned seemingly has never caved to pressure to become a government mouthpiece spewing government viewpoints. Can commercial broadcasters and private media companies say the same?

The hypocrisy in the whole affair is that those same people who fear PBS becoming a government disinformation machine strongly supported, argued, and tried to rationalize the governments use of private media as propaganda tools when it was uncovered that the government had paid commentators and journalists to give us a biased point of view reported as though it were ‘actual news.’ Suddenly, government propaganda was not maybe such a bad thing. To this day, I am still waiting for the fallout from those discoveries. To those who attack PBS, I say give me PBS fairly balanced programming, news and opinions any day over the ‘Fair and Balanced’ of any tainted commercial broadcaster or media organization!

This brings me back to why public broadcasters are important, particularly PBS. As far as I know, and as far as Ms. Kerger knows, there is no organization in the world quite like it. Other countries do have public broadcasters funded almost exclusively by their governments, PBS, on the other hand achieves most of its funding through individual viewers. But that is not why they are important. Why they are important is that they have consistently held themselves up to a high standard. They hold themselves up to the ideal that there should be free and publicly accessible airwaves. They hold themselves to the ideal that free airwaves encourage and promote a vigorous exchange of ideas and opinions. Free airwaves allow for increased insights into culture, the advancement of knowledge, and the instilment of curiosity. For this, PBS, VPT, Paula Kerger and John King have my deepest respect and admiration and deserve no less from you.

NFL week 4 predictions

Ok Folks, here we go, week 4 in the 2006-2007 NFL season.  This is
Garfield and here are my predictions for the upcoming week.

(the bolded teams are playing at home)

IND vs NYJ  -  Colts are favored by 8

The Colts are a tricky team, one week the defense allows a bunch of points, the
next week the offense cannot score enough to cover the points but I believe that
this week, it all clicks.  The defense will go on lock down and the offense
will be unstoppable.  Peyton will throw for three.

I say Colts over the Jets all the way.

score:  IND 30 - NYJ 19

SD vs BAL  -  Chargers are favored by 2.5

I expect this one to be a very tight affair.  Baltimore has always been a
defensive minded team and after that close shave last week will be looking to
shut down the Chargers.  The only problem though is that high charged,
electric bolt charger offense.  I am going to go with the Ravens for a few
reasons; the defense, Baltimore is home, the Chargers will be rusty for one
quarter after the week off, and I Baltimore is closer to home anyways.

score:  BAL 20 - SD 17

BUF vs MINN  -  Buffalo is favored by 1

I have been pulling for every other team than the Vikings every week for the
last three weeks, will that change this week?  I think not!

Da Bills...sorry Bears fans...Tha Bills!  All the way.

score:  BUF 23 - MINN 15

DAL vs TENN  -  Dallas is favored by 7.5

This one is a little tricky since Dallas is not the greatest road team.  I
suspect that the Titans have a bit of pride and will make a game out of this. 
I will still pick Dallas to win but not by that margin.

W/O spread Dallas

W/Spread Titans

score:  DAL 27 - TENN 20

KC vs SF  -  Chiefs  favored by 7

I am not a big fan of the Chiefs so I am going to call for the upset in this
one...SF all the way...oh wait, I forgot that I am not supposed to make
emotional decisions when picking the winners of these games...OK, KC to win but
not by a TD.

score:  KC 22 - SF 19

CAR vs NO  - Carolina favored by 7.5

The Saints are just not getting any respect and they haven't from me for the
last three weeks, but I will give it to them this week.  That Saints team
is for real, plus they are a lot of fun to watch play.  I say New Orleans
all the way!

Prediction:  NO 27 - CAR 24

ATL vs ARZ  - Atlanta favored by 7

Pride is a great motivator and after that embarrassment at the hands of the
Saints Monday night look for the Falcons to try to storm back.  The problem
though, is that with only 6 plays in their play book they will have to come up
with something special to beat that tough Arizona defense by 7.  The only
reason I would think they should win is that Warner may try a little too hard to
keep the starting job and throw a few INTs.

W/O Spread Atlanta

W/Spread Arizona

score:  ATL 19 - ARZ 13

MIA vs HOU  -  Dolphins favored by 4

Miami was supposed to contend for a playoff spot this year so the logical choice
would be to pick them...so I am.  Miami all the way.

score:  MIA 17 - HOU 14

STL vs DET  -  RAMS are favored by 6.5

Facing St. Louis at home is the worst possible place for the Lions to be looking
for their first win.  The Lions have looked inept this entire season and
there is no reason to believe that the noise that they will have to contend with
will not make bursting out of mediocrity an easy task.  Look for the Lions
not to roar but rather whimper as they sulk their way out of that stadium
whipped.

score:  STL 33 - DET 17

CIN vs NE  -  Bengals favored by 6

Brady or no Brady the PATS are in trouble.  The defense can only play so
many minutes and the offense can only do so much without a wide receiver and a
front line.  I look for the big cats to exploit every weakness and run up
the score in this one.

score:  CIN 40 - 28

JCK vs WAS  -  Jags favored by 2.5

This is going to be the toughest battle of the week  Washington looked good
in their last game but Jacksonville looked even better despite losing. 
With this pick you may as well flip a coin...ok here goes, heads the JAGS, tails
the Redskins...ok, heads, the JAGS.

score:  JAGS 23 - WAS 20

CLE vs OAK  -  Cleveland favored by 1.5

Somebody has got to win a game finally, but then again, it could end in a tie. 
NAH!  This game is almost as bad as the last one so I am going to pick the
RAIDERS.  Why?  Because I always pick the RAIDERS when I cannot make
up my mind.  GO Raiders!  And if you lose, Go away!

score:  OAK 21 - CLE 17

CHI vs SEA  -  Bears favored by 2.5

Wow, the Bears are favored, that's a bit stunning.  SA being out probably
has a lot to do with that but the Seahawks still have that core of receivers. 
I have to pick the Bears also though.  They have scored more points than
Seattle, they have allowed less points than Seattle, they are at home, and they
are healthier than Seattle.

score:  CHI 26 - SEA 23

PHI vs GB  -  Eagles are favored by 10.5

These odds are way off.  It's Monday night, nobody shines brighter, nobody
performs better on a Monday night than Favre.  He lives for the Monday
night spotlight.  The Eagles will win, but this one will come down to
whether or not Favre can pull of one more Monday night 4th quarter come from
behind victory.

score:  PHI 27 - GB 24

And so that's it folks.  The stats so far for this season are 34 wins vs
11 losses (7 of those losses in week 1).  Enjoy the games.

NFL week 3 prediction results

Hello folks, Garfield here. Week 3 turned out to be not as hard as predicted. The overall results was:

Without the spread 12 wins 2 loss
With the spread 10 wins 2 loss 2 ties

The season results so far are 34 wins 11 losses

Here are the results of each game:

• Prediction:
  W/O spread BUF
  W/Spread NYJ
  Score BUF 17 - NYJ 12
  Result: NYJ 28 - BUF 20
  Seems that the New York Jets found their offensive game just in time to out duel an amazing Bills team. With a 300 yard passer and a 150 yard rusher it is hard to believe that the Bills lost this one. Oh well, so the rubber ball bounces when trying to figure out football winners. The good news though, is that this is the only bad news.
• Prediction: CIN 24 - PIT 21
  Result: CIN 28 - PIT 20
  Big Ben still looks a little wobbly but gaining confidence with each throw. Although the Bengals won this game, Pittsburgh looked good losing it
• Prediction:
  W/O spread Indy
  W/spread JAGS
  score IND 27 - JAGS 19
  Result: IND 21 - JAGS 14
  Can anyone now doubt that Jacksonville will be a legitimate playoff team this year? I think not. Like Pittsburgh, Jacksonville is looking strong. Woe be on their future opponents as every game with Jacksonville is going to a bruising, knock down drag out battle of body and mind.
• Predictions:
  W/O Spread MIA
  W/spread TENN
  score MIA 17 - TENN 13
  Result: MIA 13 - TENN 10
  What can we say, both these teams are in a world of hurt and-- I will make the call right now-- have NO CHANCE of making the playoffs! I know, it is only week 3 and stranger things have happened, but the return of Elvis would be more likely.
• Prediction: WAS 26 - HOU 12
  Result: WAS 31 - HOU
  Houston, Houston, Houston...come in Houston. Will this team ever escape the cellar or are they simply trapped on the moon. Come in Houston. Earth calling, get a quarterback, get a running back, get an offensive line, get a defense...oh heck, just fire everybody!
• Prediction: CHI 33 - MINN 22
  Result: CHI 19 - MINN 16
  What is up with the Vikings?!! They are playing awfully good football and could go all the...NAhhh! But they are playing well and will spoil a few good Sundays for a lot of people who cheer against them. As for Chicago, well what can I say about Chicago...go Bears.
• Prediction: CAR 15 - TB 10
  Result: CAR 26 - TB 24
  The Panthers are a better team than 1 and 2. I had expected less of an offensive output so the 26 points on the board portend good things to come. If the defence can hold it together for a full 4 quarters, Carolina should contend. As for Tampa Bay, I never did like Tampa Bay...the sports team that is; the city or geographical area as they like to remind the rest of us, is quite nice.
• Prediction GB 23 - DET 17
  Result: GB 31 - DET 24
  Mr. 400! Congratulations Monsieur Favre. Nuff said!
• Prediction: BAL 27 - CLE 10
  Result: BAL 15 - CLE 14
  A little luck can go a long way for a good football team. How did Cleveland not win this game? How did Baltimore manage to pull it off with 20 seconds left on a 52 yard field goal? Some teams are just destined to succeed, others are just destined to find ways to lose.
• Prediction: STL 23 - ARI 20
  Result: STL 16 - ARI 14
  I am happy that Arizona lost because I had picked them to lose. I am happy with the way they lost though with a good, tight defensive effort because they happened to be my defense in the barstool association football pool. Welcome back to the world of the winning St. Louis but are you going to run into an inept offence every single week? I think not.
• Prediction: SEA 26 - NYG 15
  Result: SEA 42 - NYG 30
  Seattle is looking like a team that may not be on a mission, but is so good, that nothing can stop them. What do you do when you have a great coach, a strong quarterback, the leagues best running back, and 3 of the leagues best wide receivers - make a strong opponent look stupid, that is what you do. Seattle made it look they were playing a New York practice squad instead of a contending pro football team.
• Prediction: PHI 37 - SF 21
  Result: PHI 38 - SF 24
  Philadelphia cam e out strong, soaring like Eagles...ok, excuse my limited imagination. They came back strong after not to mention angry and mean after last week and did everything right.
• Prediction: DEN 17 - NE 14
  Result: DEN 17 - NE 7
  Poor Tom Brady, what's a guy to do when they take away two of the game's best receivers and also insert two rookie linemen? I can feel his frustration all the way from here. I had him as my QB but dropped him in favor of Vick only because there is no support. Last year Brady was able to launch the ball comfortable that his receivers would make plays; this year, no freaking way. But let the truth be told about this game, it was a yawnfest, a boring sleepfest which left me knocked out on the couch before half time.
  

There is still one game to go, the Monday nighter, but we will have to update that one with my next submission. Here is the prediction:

ATL vs NO Falcons favored by 3 OK, Bush or no Bush unless Vick gets hurt between now and the 3rd quarter, I am looking at the Falcons to take this one. The offence with the run can keep possessions while tiring out the defence. The ATL defence is swarming opponents. Atlanta all the way score ATL 17 - NO 9

NFL week 3 picks

OK, here we go, week 3 and it looks to be a tough week.

BUF vs NYJ
Bills favored by 6.
These two teams are equally matched so either one can win by 1 TD. I give the edge to win the game to BUF because their defence seems a litte tougher to crack and they have home field.
W/O spread BUF
W/Spread NYJ
Score BUF 17 - NYJ 12

PIT vs CIN
Steelers favored by 3
I say Bengals all the way. PIT did not look good against the JAGS and I am looking for Palmer to breakdown that steel curtain defence.
CIN 24 - PIT 21

IND vs JAC
Indianapolis favored by 9
It's hard to bet agains Indy but that Jaguar defence looks smoking hot. They may not be able to stone Manning but they will keep their team in the game.
W/O spread Indy
W/spread JAGS
score IND 27 - JAGS 19

MIA vs TENN
Dolphins favored by 10.5
On the face of it this one seems outrageous, where is the Miami offence supposed to come from...but then again, do the Titans have a defence. One team will will prove the critics wrong; heck, maybe they both will.
W/O Spread MIA
W/spread TENN
score MIA 17 - TENN 13

WAS vs HOU
Redskins favored by 4
This one seems to be a no brainer, Washington all the way!
score WAS 26 - TENN 12

CHI vs MINN
Bears favored by 3
The bears D and the Bears offence finally alive means an end to the 2-0 Vikings
Bears all the way
score CHI 33 - MINN 22

CAR vs TB
Panthers favored by 2
The battle of the 0-2's, but 1 of these 0-2 teams has scored more than 3 points.
Carolina all the way
CAR 15 - TB 10

DET vs GB
Lions favored by 6
Pathetic vs pathetic...I choose...pathetic
OK, my first thought is Favre 4 int's but he has found his game. I say...
GB all the way
score GB 23 - DET 17

BAL vs CLE
Ravens favored by 6.5
Baltimore, Baltimore, Baltimore- Dallas's nemesis in this years superbowl :)
score BAL 27 - CLE 10

ARI vs STL
Cardinals favored by 4.5
I look for the Rams to rebound after last weeks humiliation. Arizona needs more than Warner and a good defence to contend.
score STL 23 - ARI 20

SEA vs NYG
Seahawks favored by 3.5
The Giants were fortunate last week after being horribly outplayed for most of the game, but lightning will not strike twice- however SA will. Seahawks all the way
score SEA 26 - NYG 15

PHI vs SF
Eagles favored by 6
Look for the Eagles to come out hot and bothered! They must be kicking themselves for last weeks stupidity of not keeping their foot on their opponents collective throats. Look for this score to be run up into the stratosphere.
score PHI 37 - SF 21

NE vs DEN
Patriots favored by 6.5
I think the only reason the PATS are favored is homefield, but homefield will not give them a TD win. If the Denver running game is working, they will win. If it's not, the game will be close.
I'm vacillating on this pick. I say those NE receivers drop a few key passes.
OK, Denver all the way
score DEN 17 - NE 14

ATL vs NO
Falcons favored by 3
OK, Bush or no Bush unless Vick gets hurt between now and the 3rd quarter, I am looking at the Falcons to take this one. The offence with the run can keep possessions while tiring out the defence. The ATL defence is swarming opponents.
Atlanta all the way
score ATL 17 - NO 9

That's all I got, but remember my dismal record against the spread last week...oh yeah, and my brilliant record in just picking the winners :)