The House Agriculture Committee issued a news release today, which stated that, “Today, Congressman Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research, held a hearing to review opportunities and challenges facing the development of next generation biofuels. [...] Officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided testimony about USDA research and financing activities for next generation biofuels. Witnesses representing companies and organizations focused on developing advanced biofuels also testified, updating the Subcommittee about the current and future direction of the industry.” Written testimony provided by the witnesses at yesterday’s hearing can be viewed here.

Reuters’s Charles Abbott reported yesterday that, “U.S. lenders are leery of putting money into cellulosic ethanol and other new-generation biofuels due to the recession and an industry shakeout, Agriculture Department and biofuel leaders said on Thursday. [...] ‘That is one reason near-term production of advanced biofuels is unlikely to meet targets set by a 2007 energy law,’ said William Roe of Coskata Inc, which has a demonstration-size biomass plant in Pennsylvania.” The article added that, “Rajiv Shah, Agriculture undersecretary for research, said he was optimistic of a significant improvement over the next five to seven years in the economics of new-generation biofuels. Feedstocks account for one-half to two-thirds of the cost of biofuels, he said, so it is important to develop biomass crops and improvements in converting crops into fuels.”

Des Moines Register’s Philip Brasher noted yesterday at the Green Fields Blog that, “The chairman of the committee, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said that criticism of corn ethanol and its impact on food supplies and greenhouse gas emissions is discouraging investment in next-generation fuels.” “‘‘It’s no damn wonder that nobody’s investing,’ Peterson said. ‘I wouldn’t put money in with all this that’s going on.’” More details, including an audio clip, regarding Chairman Peterson’s comments were flushed out yesterday at the Corn Commentary Blog. “While praising the agriculture industry for meeting the demand for corn-based ethanol, Dr. Shah stated that ‘very importantly — increased corn acreage supported greater ethanol output.’  “Not so, said Chairman Peterson. ‘We’re virtually using the same corn acreage that we did way back in 1977,’ said Peterson. ‘The big difference is we had a 90.8 bushel average in 1977 and today we’re up to 164 bushels.’”

A news release issued yesterday by Growth Energy stated in part that, “A key Congressional committee heard testimony today that helped cement ethanol’s role as the leading biofuel to reducing our nation’s dependence on carbon-heavy fossil fuels, like imported oil. Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said he was looking forward to continuing the debate on ethanol’s contribution to the nation as a source of cleaner, domestically-produced transportation fuel. “‘We heard it loud and clear from members of Congress today. Ethanol has a major role to play in breaking our nation’s dependence on imported oil. Ethanol can supply the clean, green transportation fuel we need today and tomorrow. But there are two things that must happen. We must raise the blend wall to E15, as we have asked EPA in Growth Energy’s Green Jobs Waiver. And Congress must repeal the ‘international indirect land use change’ scheme that erects new obstacles to biofuels production. Repealing ILUC protects the sovereignty of American farmers to make planting decisions on their own, and not based on what happens in Brazil or another country. We have a mountain of grain in the United States, which record corn yields. There is no reason why this surplus corn can’t be turned into ethanol,’ Buis said.”

I recently interviewed architect Guy Peterson, an adjunct professor in the college of architecture at the University of Florida.

Conceptual model of a residence in Sarasota, Fla. made by Guy Peterson.

Peterson, a graduate of UF in 1978, decided to come back to be a professor to inspire other students to create useful, sustainable design. He has practiced architecture for about 30 years, so he has a lot of experience in the field to share with those just beginning their architecture careers.

Since he is based in Sarasota, Fla., Peterson features modern design that utilizes glass and open spaces. Modern styles and a blending with the environment are important qualities for a house to have. Residents in Sarasota often live in scenic, tropical areas, so it is important to have a building design that allows them to enjoy the natural beauty of the area–like large windows, skylights, breezeways and patios.

I really enjoy Peterson’s style. Growing up on Siesta Key in Fla., I was surrounded by this type of architecture. I like modern structures that have steel, concrete and glass visible. I think that simple structures with clean lines are timeless, and won’t be an eyesore in years to come.

Guy Peterson in his office in Sarasota, Fla.

I also agree with Peterson’s philosophy on blending with the environment: design should be innovative and interesting, but it shouldn’t stand out so much in the environment that it attracts too much attention. If every building in an area was completely over-the-top and attracted the eye, the area would be cluttered with contrasting styles. You want the design to blend in with the natural landscapes around it as well as other structures.

Great quote of a quote out of Eugene Peterson’s “Working the Angles.”

One of the indignities to which pastors are routinely subjected is to be approached, as a group of people are gathering for a meeting or a meal, with the request, “Reverend, get things started for us with a little prayer, will ya?” It would be wonderful if we could counter by bellowing William McNamara’s fantasized response: “I will not! There are no little prayers! Prayer enters the lion’s den, brings us before the holy where it is uncertain whether we will come back alive or sane, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God.’”

William McNamara, O.C.D., The Human Adventure (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Image Books, 1976), p. 89.

That just says it all. 37 carries. 189 yards. 1 TD

No Chicago Bears fan needs to be reminded of the debacle that the Cincinnati Bengals handed them last Sunday, but I will. Can I just say for the record that I did suggest in my last Bears post that they needed to 1) GET the run game going and 2) pressure Carson Palmer. Both did not happen….AT ALL.

The result. Well a 10 to 45 slaughtering at the hands of the Bengals. Forte crawled for a measly 24 yards on 6 carries. While Carson Palmer dropped 5 TD bombs for 233 yards in 20 completions out of 24. I said that fans don’t need to worry, but forget that…now the Bears fans can start panicking about their offensive line. IT JUST PLAIN SUCKS. Bottom line, no one can argue that fact especially if you have seen all 6 Bears games thus far. Do not justify it, accept it. Yes Chris Williams is new at right tackle, but for the rest of the line there is no excuse that a Chicago Bears team can not run. This O-line is mistake-prone for being a fairly veteran line. Frank Omiyale got owned for a second week in a row. It is just embarrassing play.

This just can not be a regular sight for a "franchise QB"

The worst part of it all? Pass protection has been compromised now too. Cutler has been pressured all season – and the stats are there to show for it – but Cutler has made enough plays to bail them out. Well the Bengals showed that if you put the Bears in a deep hole, Cutler can not do it all to bring the team back. The Chargers said it a few years ago when Cutler was with Denver – if you fluster Cutler he will kill you with mistakes. Cinny forced Cutler’s gunslinger mentality and the result was another 3 interceptions to the season. I don’t want to label Cutler “a more accurate and mobile Rex Grossman,” especially with the way the O-line has been playing, but Cutler botched two snaps and threw INTs that were very reminiscent of Rex. Bottom line, if the Bears want to see Cutler flourish management needs to reevaluate the offensive line. We need to protect our future investment.

Chad 8-5. A True Entertainer. A True Sportsman. Consoling an injured Alex Brown.

The defense? What can I say? There are no words for their epic collapse. FOX ran a stat that said the Bears haven’t been rung up on this badly since nearly 10 years ago. Couldn’t stop the run. Couldn’t stop the pass. As the first half wore on I started to LOVE Chad Ochocinco even more. If you watch him and his actions (not just this game), Ochocinco is a true professional when need be. He the talked the talk before the game, but was all business on the field. To back it up…that’s freakin’ awesome. Chad 8-5 just makes the NFL exciting.

IF there is any positive from this game it is that Devin Hester had 101 yards receiving – but he still fumbled on a pretty crucial drive. I was wrong about suggesting it might be a shootout. I was wrong that Benson would run only around 100 yards. I was wrong about the score and the outcome.

…and because the Bears blow I have officially jumped on the Vikings bandwagon. Yes, it was that bad yesterday. The reasons for why the Vikings? For one, I’ve been an Adrian Peterson fan since his Oklahoma days. I told my roommate that Peterson was a much better runner than Reggie Bush was when both were in college. No one believed me then. I was wrong on one part – Peterson is a much better player than Bush. Secondly, I respect the hell out of Brett Farve. Thirdly, I hate the Packers and would rather see the Vikings take the division any day. And lastly, because the Vikings play the game the way the Bears are supposed to – great running game and hard hitting defense.

Because of that, here is a clip of A.P. going All-Day on Steelers’ William Gay (rhymed that, ha!):

Is basically what Paul is saying…I never got that until today…

That became readily apparent as I came upon the chapter “Paul and the Service of the Gospel” in David Peterson’s book “Engaging with God, a Biblical Theology of Worship.”

The author translates Rom 12:1-2 as:

Therefore, I urge you brothers, in view of God’s mercies, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, which is your understanding worship

“Understanding” worship?  Where the heck did he get that?

Even the mighty ESV has “spiritual worship.”  (KJV says “reasonable service…” a clue here…)

First, it’s important to realize that Paul is saying “therefore” – in other words, ‘because of the last 11 chapters I just explained to you about the amazing sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus…think this way about worship’

On the one had you had the traditional Jews who still were advocating the traditional animal sacrifice for worship. On the other hand you have the Greeks saying “Animal sacrifice? Yikes. How gross. Let’s be ‘reasonable’ about this.”

Reasonable.  Logical. The words in question here in the Greek are “logike latreia.”   Looking it up on BlueLetterBible.com  – - ‘logiko’ agreeable to reason and ‘latreia’ – the service and ministry of God.

So, what is Paul saying we should be rational about?

In light of the fact that God sent His Son Jesus to die for my sin, in light of the cross, the amazing mediation, in light of the Gospel of Jesus – your worship should be the giving of your whole bodies – an ‘extreme realism’ as it is referred to in the book.

I’ll close with a direct quote from Peterson -

It may be best to read ‘understanding worship’ and to recognize from the context that this means ‘the worship which is consonant with the truth of the gospel, or the service rendered by those who truly understand the gospel and it’s implications‘

In other words – look what God has done for YOU.  The least you can do is offer your whole lives – every bit of them, every inch and dark corner of your heart, to him in service as worship.  I mean…let’s be rational here.

-M

2photos
Aa

Bb

Test photo

I received my official GRE scores this week and along with several other bibliobloggers, I was a little disappointed in my Verbal. My scores are still competitive (certainly not poor enough to justify a re-test, especially since I felt very good as I was taking it) but not as high as on my practice tests, which is frustrating.¹ Trying not to be bitter, then, I wanted to offer a few reflections on my test preparation for the sake of those yet to take it. If nothing else, hopefully I can save some other benighted souls the from making the same mistakes I did.

Overall Approach

I actually used three different test prep books–Peterson’s Master the GRE 2010 (by Mark Stewert), Kaplan’s GRE Premier Live Online 2010 Edition (various), and Princeton Review’s Cracking the GRE 2010 Edition (by Doug Pierce)–but I only read the last of these all the way through. I was drawn to Pierce’s book over the others by his cynically defiant tone and straightforward explanations, and found the book both informative and easy to read, though as we’ll see, I don’t agree with all his advice.

As Pierce sees it, the GRE tests little more than your ability to take the GRE. Yes, you need a good vocabulary and some basic math skills, but the multiple choice sections of the test especially rely so much upon misdirection that, according to Pierce, success on the GRE has as much to do with learning how to game the system as it does with your innate verbal or mathematical ability.

After taking it I’m more convinced than ever that he’s right about that, but I’m not sure it is all that helpful to dwell on it. In the end, I tried to take a more optimistic approach. Really, the GRE feels more like a battle than a game, and as a matter of fact come test day I found myself praying for courage more than anything else. Psalm 138 seemed particularly appropriate, and I went in praying that God truly would “make me bold and stout-hearted” (138:3). It was a great help in calming my nerves.

Verbal Section

Like I said, however, while preparing I largely bought into Pierce’s cynical approach, so I spent quite a bit of my time learning his strategies for tackling questions from the side rather than answering them directly. I’m not sure that time was all well spent, however, as much of it is only helpful if, for instance, you do not know the vocabulary being tested. Especially on the Verbal section I did not end up using very much of his advice (then again, perhaps I would have done better if I had. Who can say?), and some of it was downright counter-productive.

For instance, on Reading Comprehension questions he suggests that you only read the first paragraph in full, and just scan the rest to get a rough idea of the contents–then treat the questions like a “treasure hunt,” only reading the specific sections of the text when they are asked about. On the one hand, he is right to urge you not to try and memorize all the details of the passage–it will stay on the screen the whole time you are answering the questions–but the whole “treasure hunt” approach really did not work for me, and I finally abandoned it after several failed sets of practice questions.

Kaplan’s advice at this point was much better. It also suggests that you read the first paragraph most closely and not worry about all the technical details that follow, but it emphasizes reading the whole passage quickly and summarizing its contents for yourself before tackling the questions. This not only makes the broad-level questions a snap (with Pierce’s approach they almost felt like a guessing game), it also makes it much easier to find the details asked about in the specific questions. Using this method I got 7 of 8 Reading Comprehension questions correct without spending an inordinate amount of time on them.

On the other hand, Pierce’s vocabulary “Hit Parade” was very helpful (and inspiring!), and if I were to do the GRE again, I would have studied such vocab lists even more closely than I did. Even if your vocabulary is very good, there are bound to be words you only “sort of know”  on these lists (and on the test) and those are the ones most likely to trip you up. Do not assume that just because you read a lot in regular life that the Verbal section will be easy; that is not generally the case.

In fact, according to ETS’s own numbers, even humanities majors tend to do better on the Quantitative section than the Verbal. The cynic in me thinks that only proves the ineffectiveness of this testing method as a measure of ability, but that attitude won’t help you. Instead take that as motivation not to slouch on the Verbal preparation, no matter how well your practice tests go. Think of the test like a wily enemy that knows you’d beat it in a fair fight, so it deliberately avoids giving you one. Don’t give in.

Quantitative Section

Still, if you’re like me you probably feel more stressed by the Math section, and for that I would definitely recommend Pierce’s treatment. I will not attempt to summarize it for you (I’d probably screw it up), but I will say this: I hadn’t done any serious math since high school (my score on the AP Calculus test fulfilled my college requirement, so I never took math again), and I couldn’t even remember how to do long division, let alone algebra. Pierce got me back up to speed quickly and easily. I don’t recall anything appearing on the test that he did not cover.

Further, his strategies for attacking questions from the side proved much more helpful here than in the Verbal section. Especially useful was the tip to plug in your own numbers for the variables in difficult algebra questions (which, if done correctly, turns them into much simpler arithmetic problems). Sometimes you can also plug in the answer choices for the same effect on non-algebra problems. I only used these methods a few times, but where I did it solved problems that I probably would not have been able to answer quickly enough otherwise.

Writing Section

Pierce’s most helpful advice, however, was on the Writing section. In one sense, this is probably the easiest section for humanities majors (especially those of us with blogs), since we write all the time and the test more or less gives free rein on this section. But you don’t want to take it for granted either–why settle for a 5 if you might be able to get a 6?–and if it’s been a while since you’ve written a five paragraph essay (on a timer) it can take a bit of practice to get back in the habit.

The first thing I would say is that you want to familiarize yourself with the kind of questions they ask (be sure to read through at least a healthy portion of prompts–they are all posted on the ETS website), but don’t waste your time trying to prepare answers to all or even most of them (unless that’s your cup of tea); you’ve got better things to do and you can write an excellent essay without all that. Instead, focus on the structure and general contents that you will need to employ no matter what questions you’re given.

Perhaps the most important thing you can do is prepare a template in advance.  You don’t want to have to waste a bunch of time deciding how to structure your essay (or worse, lapse into writer’s block!) while the clock is running, so if you can memorize a useful but adaptable structural template before you go in, it will make it much easier to jump right into writing, and will also help if you get stuck. This is a lot more important on the Issues essay than the argument essay (where your structure matters less than your effectiveness in dismantling the prompt).

Pierce gives a number of stock templates, but unfortunately (as even he admits) they are exceedingly dull, so you don’t want to follow them mechanically. Just take one or two or (better yet) create your own, and practice using them so that you’ll have something to fall back on if the essay doesn’t come naturally as well as you’d like. For instance, here’s the template I created for the Issues Essay (which you are welcome to borrow, though I’d encourage you to adapt it to your own style). I did not follow it exactly on test day, but it definitely helped me organize my thoughts and helped me do well on the Writing section (5.5 out of 6):

• Introduction: If possible, begin with an illustrative example or relevant quotation (it’s important that the first sentence be as engaging as possible, do not simply restate the prompt); summarize the appeal of the opposing view; state the thesis to be defended.
• Body 1: Acknowledge the strongest argument(s) for the opposition and rebut them using one or more detailed counter-examples drawn from history, literature or current events.
• Body 2: Highlight issues overlooked by the opposing view and explain how they support the thesis, again using specific examples and reasons.
• Body 3: Explain the most important argument or most evocative example in favor of your position, again trying to be as specific as possible.
• Conclusion: Restate the argument and draw one or two further inferences from it, be sure to make the final sentence as engaging as possible (even if by inversion).

Whatever your template, just be sure to practice with it as much as you can. Use it to write several timed essays until it becomes natural enough that you can follow it without being a slave to it. In fact, that’s the advice I would give for the test as a whole: practice, practice, practice. I wish I had done more of that myself, especially on the Verbal section.

Of course, however you structure your essays, you want to fill them with detailed and evocative examples. Be sure to vary your sentence length and vocabulary (don’t keep using the same terms from the prompt again and again), and try to make your language as specific and visual as possible.  I know that seems elementary, but trust me, it’s easy to forget when you are scrambling to write on test day. Just remember that the people marking these things fly though a ton of essays in a very short amount of time so you don’t need to be Shakespeare, but anything you can do to catch their attention will make you stand out.

Conclusion

Probably the most important advice, though, is not to stress yourself out over this. Be sure to get good sleep in the days leading up to it (they say the night before the night before is the most important), and I’d stay away from caffeine on test day; you’ll have enough adrenaline to keep you going without it, and it’ll only make you jittery and need to pee. Make sure you give yourself extra time to get there, you don’t want the added stress of getting caught in traffic and worrying about being late.

Take the GRE seriously and study hard for it, but don’t beat yourself up about it, whether before or after you take it. It is only one aspect of your application and even if you do not do as well as you’d like, it doesn’t prove you’re an idiot–plenty of people have gotten into great programs and excelled in them with less than stellar GRE scores. But it’s not just a hoop to jump through either (or, at least, you shouldn’t treat it as one); it’s a battle you can win.

___________________________________________________________

¹I actually think my Verbal score is a mistake, though I know how that sounds. According to ETS’s Diagnostic Service, I left the last question on the Verbal Section unanswered, but in fact I finished the section with more than a minute to spare.

What happened was this:  They only give you one minute between sections and I was dying to pee, so when I finished the Verbal section early I chose my last answer and clicked “Next,” but purposely did not click “Confirm”  (as ending the section early doesn’t buy you a longer break; it simply begins it early). I confirmed with the  staff at the testing facility that this was OK to do, and they assured me that the program automatically records your answer for whatever question you are on when time expires, even if you do not click “Next” or “Confirm.” The GRE prep books I have say the same thing, and in fact suggest that if you are running out of time you should click an answer to the final question before trying to solve it, just in case time expires–apparently leaving a question unanswered hurts your score more than a wrong answer does.

After the test was over I was suspicious of my score and so asked another staff member about this issue, and he also assured me that “even if the entire computer crashes before you click Next, it will still give you credit for your answer.” I took his word for it and just figured I’d overestimated how well I’d done, but the diagnostic clearly shows that my final answer was not recorded (it just shows that I spent extra time on the last question), so it appears both the staff and the prep books were wrong on that–and I would urge you not to try the same thing, no matter how badly you need to pee. I emailed ETS about the issue, but I seriously doubt they’re going to help me–I’ll update if they do.

The worst of it, though, is that the next section on the test–the one I was trying so hard not to be late for–turned out to be the unscored “Research” section. And there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

A formal salute for a loyal friend.  Dozens of officers and families said goodbye Thursday afternoon to one of Clear Lake’s most beloved police officers.

“She was more than a dog to us,” noted Chief Greg Peterson.

Abby was born to serve.  She trained in several different cities before joining Clear Lake’s police force two years ago.  Officer Ryan Eskildsen gladly accepted his new role as Abby’s handler.

Lt. Rex McChesney recalled, “they worked great together.  It was kind of fun.  Wherever officer Eskildsen was, Abby was there.”

Thursday’s ceremony is hardest on Eskildsen.  After all, he’s not just losing a pet, he’s losing a partner.

Chief Peterson said, “she worked as hard, or harder, than any other officer on the force.”

Chief Peterson remembered Abby as more than a typical K-9 officer.  Most dogs are trained to do one thing – attack.  But Abby also knew how to provide comfort and companionship.

“When she was given a command to attack, she was a formidable adversary.  She could turn it on just like that.  But only on command.  Other than that, the kids would come over to the department, they’d put their arms around her neck, they’d hug her, they’d pet her.  She loved it,” he said.

Memories of Abby were heavy on many minds along Clear Lake’s shore, as a grateful community bid a final goodbye.  Eskildsen and his fellow officers said, they will never forget their four-legged partner.

Chief Peterson told KIMT News 3 the department wants to continue its K-9 program.  He’s planning to start fundraising later this year.  He said a new dog will cost about $7,500.  But he believes an officer like Abby is worth the money.

By Colleen O’Shaughnessy

LINK

//

Nearly twenty four hours after the news broke, the story of how retrovirus

“XMRV”has been found in 67% of M.E. patients (compared to just 4% in the general population)

according to research by the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Nevada is, in principle, a very

welcome piece of news for us who have long been campaigning for the reduction nay cessation

of the stranglehold that psychiatric research has had on, to use their favourite term,

“Chronic Fatigue Syndrome”.

However within those twenty four hours, I can already see some unwelcome reactions to this news.

I’m not talking about reactions from the usual suspects necessarily – I’m talking about about those in

the M.E. world itself.

Maybe I’m old and grizzled but the discovery of the clinical discrepancy does throw up some potential

and not insignificant problems in my mind, or what I have left of one.

Firstly, the almost overwhelmingly positive response in the M.E. world could lead to complacency.

Secondly, this finding is not guaranteed to convince the medical profession that this should be

predominantly treated in a biological, not psychiatric or psychological, manner. Complacency

from patients added to a possible adherence to psychiatric and/or psychological reasoning from

doctors could, potentially, cause more problems in the short term for patients. To put it more

succinctly, campaigners, carers and patients themselves should redouble their efforts on the

back of this news.

The third problem relates to the 33% in the research who did not show signs of XMRV.

What about them? Could that be “us”?

If so, what treatment or research will be available to people who have been diagnosed with

M.E. (or that even more ghastly nonsense of C.F.S.) given the high possibility (O.K., probability)

that M.E./C.F.S. has become a dustbin diagnosis?

Overall, dare I suggest that it’s been a good day for those of us who want to say goodbye

to the obsessive psychologisation of this diagnosis but it does highlight potential problems

and pitfalls.

Ravens to beat the Bengals

Baltimore is playing well but so are the Bengals but I just think the Ravens will have too much for them.  Look for the Ravens defence to play much better after last week.

Panthers to beat the Redskins

Is anyone interested in this game?  Really two bad teams and I fancy the Panthers to win because they are at home.

Bills to beat the Browns

The Browns can’t score on offence and to make things worse they have traded Edwards to the Jets.  Guess they have already written off the season.  The Bills aren’t much better but are at home at least.

Steelers to beat the Lions

Detroit has won one game this season but they aren’t going to get win number 2 this weekend.

Cowboys to beat the Chiefs

Chiefs need to get a win soon but I can’t see it happening this weekend versus the Cowboys.  Look for the Dallas defence to play well and for Romo to have a slightly better game than he has been having.  Though it is nice to see Romo getting found out for what he really is a decent QB rather than this superstar people were making him out to be.

Vikings to beat the Rams

Peterson to get over 200 yards? Wouldn’t put it past him or for Favre to have a big game.  The Rams are probably the worse team in the NFL at the moment.

Giants to beat the Raiders

Oakland just isn’t that good and won’t be when they have a thug has head coach or a nut job as an owner. Manning and the Giants look good and should make it 5 – 0.

Eagles to beat the Buccaneers

McNabb is back and they defence is playing well whereas noone is playing all that well for the Bucs.

49ers to beat the Falcons

San Fran is playing well and I thing they will have enough to beat the Falcons on Sunday.

Cardinals to beat the Texans

I can see both teams putting up a lot of points this weekend and also look for Fitzgerald and Johnson to have big games.  Fancy the Cardinals since they are home.

Broncos to beat the Patriots

Broncos are playing well which isn’t good news for all the McDaniels haters but something I’m personally not shocked about.  Orton is playing well enough to win games and the defence is finally showing how good it can be.

Jaguars to beat the Seahawks

Just not sure about this game since both teams aren’t that great but the Jags are slightly better.

Colts to beat the Titans

When you are winless the last team you want to play is the Colts on fire and Manning playing as well as he has for a few years.  Peyton is already MVP favourite and quite rightly since without this team would be average at best.

Jets to beat the Dolphins

Two young inexperience QBs in this game but the difference is Sanchez has a great defence to get him the ball back a lot.

MVP favourite

Favre, getting it done

Brett Favre didn’t go as far as to call it revenge, but one thing was sure: The man can still play. Favre made his first career appearance against Green Bay last night as a member of the archrival Vikings, dicing his former team to the tune of 271 yards and three touchdowns in a 30-23 win. His protege Aaron Rodgers? Well, not a bad performance of his own: A career-high 384 yards and two touchdowns, though he was eaten alive by Minnesota’s defensive line, which sacked him eight times.

The thing that struck me about Favre’s performance is he didn’t go too far out of his way to get it done. I expected Brad Childress to stick to what worked in the Vikings’ first two wins of the season — give the ball to Adrian Peterson and let Favre throw underneath. With Peterson held to just 55 yards on 25 carries last night, Favre completed 24 passes to eight different receivers, including touchdowns to Visanthe Shiancoe, Sidney Rice and Brian Berrian.

The win bumped Minnesota to 4-0. In those four games, Favre has passed for 837 yards, eight touchdowns and just one interception.