Technology Is Evil

For the last few months, I've had an idea streaming in and out of my conscious thought about the Jekyll and Hyde relationship we have with technology. It reminds me of one of the fundamental tenets of physics - energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one form to another. So it is with technology, as much as it adds to our lives, it must also subtract.

These thoughts hit me at random - like pieces of broken glass trying to congeal and create a window with a view of deeper insight into the human condition. A few weeks ago, all of the seemingly disparate concepts crystallized as the result of one, innocuous event.

I've been finishing the demolition of planter boxes in my back yard and have had a large dumpster in my driveway to dispose of the concrete and dirt. Around 7 PM one Saturday evening, a person drove up in a pickup truck, threw a couch from the truck bed, and sped off, all in plain sight of my neighbor. The act of giving me their trash to load into a dumpster rented for private use is appalling enough. When you add the fact that this individual took the time to write "I fucked you" on the couch, simultaneously acknowledging the heinousness of their act and accepting it as normal, I was left pondering one question: "What has happened to civility?" Have we really devolved so much as a society that we take pride in making other peoples lives more difficult, or making others responsible for problems that are really our own?

That's when it hit me - we have technology to blame. Admittedly, this was a difficult epiphany for me to accept. After all, I make my career building, supporting and promoting technological advancement and all it can do to improve efficiency, profitability, and make lives easier. When I started to connect the dots of all the points of reference bouncing through my brain, the evidence was overwhelming and condemning. The more technology we create, the more disconnected we become, the easier it becomes to disassociate from humanity, and the less guilt we feel for our actions.

Follow the path with me....

It all started with the proliferation of television and the telephone.

TELEVISION

We learn social connections from the interactions we have with our family. We model relationships we have in the rest of the world with relationships we have with our family. For centuries, we bonded with family and friends over the dinner table. The evening meal was sacrosanct. An opportunity to share the events of the day, discuss dreams for the future, make big announcements. At some point, we supplanted dinner conversation with sharing a meal in front of the TV. This became so prevalent we even named our meals after the habit: TV Dinners. Instead of discussing our hopes, our dreams, and our lives, we became absorbed in the lives created by others.

Soon, you could find a TV in every home. Those that didn't watch it during dinner, watched it after dinner, together, as a family. You had "family hour" shows. Living rooms were rearranged so that every piece of furniture faced the TV - so everyone could watch it with a clear view - instead of facing each other - so people could converse freely without having to strain to look everyone in the eye.

Then, along came cable television. When we had one channel, one option, we could all sit together and enjoy the same show. With cable, we had so many options, we would fight over which channel to actually watch. Eventually, we tired of even this personal interaction and we bought more than one TV. Instead of learning to negotiate, share, and cooperate, we enhanced our proclivity to be individuals, self-centered, and self-focused. Parents watched their show in their room, children, often relegated to the basement, watched their show. Eventually, everyone had a personal TV, and would take their TV dinner with them to their own room, and interaction occurred only when passing each other in the hallway.

Being social creatures by nature, eventually we desired direct human contact - usually when we could find nothing of interest on TV - and we would gather together at the dinner table again, not to eat, but to play a board game. For years, we competed in Life, Yahtzee, and countless card games...until we created video games, that we could play by ourselves, in front of a TV, alone in a room.

We soon realized that computers are predictable. Once you recognized the pattern, you could defeat any game. So, we created games that required two people and you could compete against an unpredictable human. Once again, we were interacting with a human, albeit indirectly through technology. Eventually, we decided it would be far better to compete with someone in the comfort of their own home, instead of inviting them to your home, and we connected the individual consoles via the Internet.

The telephone

Ah, the telephone. The lifeblood of every human between the ages of 12 and 22. What would we do without the telephone? Actually talk to our neighbors.

The telephone started as the telegraph, which itself really started as mail. As we began to mobilize as a society, we sought ways to stay connected. The further apart we lived, the more we desired contact with distant family and friends. The telegraph was the first to bridge this gap, but it was expensive and not very private. We eventually evolved to the telephone. With everything the telephone provided - instant access to anyone else with a phone, who happened to be at home - it also took away. Instead of walking the 200 feet to our neighbor's house to have a conversation, we called them without leaving our homes.

When no one would answer the phone, we grew frustrated. If we couldn't talk to them directly, we wanted to at least leave a message - what if it was important? Of course, what started as a noble idea - leaving someone an urgent message - devolved very quickly into a way to speak your mind in a one-sided conversation using a medium that did not permit the other person to respond. Answering machines quickly filled with vitriol laced messages of infidelity, hatred, and tell-offs as much as they held actual important messages. What once was considered a complete loss of composure was now accepted as a releasing, almost cathartic way to end a relationship.

Remember when interrupting someone was considered rude? That disappeared with the introduction of call waiting. Nothing conveys importance, respect, admiration and love to the person on the other line as saying "can you hold, I have another call coming in". This, loosely translated, is really saying "someone else is calling and I think I will probably have a more enjoyable time speaking with them than I am with you".

If answering machines and call waiting weren't enough, we then decided that we needed to reach you wherever you happened to be. Again, the initial cause was noble: doctor's need a pager so they know if they are needed in surgery. Then drug dealers got them so we could get our fix. Then just telling someone you wanted to call them wasn't enough, we wanted to speak with them immediately. Waiting for them to respond, or call us back, was not sufficient. We want immediate answers. Isn't patience a virtue??

To solve the problem, we created cell phones. Now, we could talk to someone anytime, anywhere - like in a movie theater, or at a play, or in a quiet elevator. We even answer our cell phones while on dates. I liken this to the cashier who answers the phone and helps the customer on the phone while I am standing in front of them. I took the time to actually come down to the store, am standing at your counter about to actually BUY something, and you consider it more important to talk to someone who is CONSIDERING a purchase? That's usually when I just walk away and buy it somewhere else.

Cell phones, like television before it, obviated the need to actually share. Why would we now that we can have our very own phone number to go along with our personal phone? We can personalize everything. Which leads me to the mother of all personalization....

THE INTERNET

The Internet allowed us to work from home using email and instant messaging, open a bank account online, pay our bills online, order food and clothing shipped to our home, and interact with anonymous people anywhere in the world, and never have to leave our chairs, or even our beds once we created laptops and wireless connections. The end result? We are fatter, sicker, more self-absorbed, and less connected to the human race than ever before.

We personalize everything, and then hide behind avatars and fake identities so we can post comments on blogs, and message boards that we would never say if our real names were attached to them. The Internet has connected us like no other technology ever has, and how do we use it? To encourage suicide.

The more tools we create to connect the human race, the less connected we are. We send extremely personal emails to people 3,000 miles away and don't even know the names of our neighbors. We post anonymously to blogs, interact in chat rooms, but not once attend a public meeting to better our communities - or even vote! We fire off emails to the colleague who sits in the office next to us, or, in the extreme cases I have seen, use instant messaging to communicate to the person SITTING NEXT TO US!

What can we do? Not accept it. Join me in the following five initiatives:

1) Enforce a "no technology" rule during dinner - no TV, no cell phones, no home phones
2) If you are on a date with someone who answers/uses their cell phone, excuse yourself to the restroom, and just leave.
3) Turn off your cell phone on the weekends, unless you are making a call
4) Pick one work day a week and don't send any emails. Have every conversation over the phone or in person
5) Learn the names and occupation of every person who shares a wall or a property line with you

We need to reconnect with humans, and not through a technical interface. The relationships we have, the lives we touch - that is the resume of our lives. What does yours say?

Why America Screwed Up

I know why you voted for Barack Obama. I'm as tired with the Republicans as anyone. I think George W. Bush has been a complete embarrassment...and we voted him in twice! I also understand that Obama's message is compelling. When all you want is something different, and you have a person on TV delivering a message of change, and he speaks eloquently, you'll vote for him. Here is where we went wrong.

Making rich people poorer does not make poor people richer. Robert Samuelson, of Newsweek, does an excellent job explaining this concept in this article. Obama has repeatedly used the line "we need to spread the wealth". Neither he nor his supporters are comfortable calling this what it really is - Wealth Redistribution. I'll set aside the philosophical conundrums of wealth redistribution - like, punishing the diligent and rewarding the lazy. The real issue is that wealth redistribution has its foundation in a false premise: that to be rich means that you are taking money from someone else.

Starting with this premise presupposes two concepts, both of which are false. The first is that there is a finite pool of income that we, as a nation, can attain - one giant income pie. Therefore, if person A gets $100, that means that person B must forfeit $100. The reality is that rich people don't take a larger portion of the pie - they make their own pie. Bill Gates isn't rich because he found a way to get a larger piece. Bill Gates is rich because he invented a tool to increase global productivity. Steve Jobs is rich because he invented new ways to entertain and new avenues of media. They aren't taking money from anyone, they are creating their own economies. As Samuelson so eloquently puts it, rich people are rich because of what they do. If they stop doing it, the money doesn't reallocate, it evaporates.

The second fallacy is that a wage gap is a bad thing. The people at the top of the income tree are there because they create jobs for others. If someone found a way for you to have a job that paid $30,000, would you be willing for them to earn $3,000 for finding you that job? The $3,000 doesn't come out of your pocket, and you wouldn't be making $30,000 if it weren't for this person, so the rational answer is yes, you would be willing. Multiply this by 40,000 people making $30,000 a year and you'll understand a CEO that can do this is really worth $120,000,000, so a $40 million salary is undervaluing the job that they do.

Electing a person on their rhetoric instead of their record will end in disaster. Everyone fell in love with Obama's ideas. I admit, I appreciate, and even support, several of them. My problem, he hasn't demonstrated an ability to accomplish any of them. Can you name one significant piece of legislation he has authored or even sponsored? Even he can't. We're electing a person on potential, and not on substance. Do you want a brain surgeon who appears to have everything necessary to be successful, or one who has actually performed a few successful surgeries? Well, we've just elected a rookie, so cross your fingers.

You can judge the quality of a man by the company he keeps. Nothing highlighted this truism like G W Bush. From Karl Rove, to Dick Cheney, to the Saudi royal family, George W Bush's associations with self-serving, mediocre, war mongers resulted in an horrific final four years. Obama spent 20 years in the church of a man who spewed hatred against white America. He worked closely with a convicted terrorist during his "neighborhood activism" days in Chicago. His own wife said she used to not be proud of America. We should have learned from the Bush administration - a man always remembers who got him where he is.

I know intelligent people voted for Obama. I'm still disappointed by this, but I understand why they did it, and it doesn't make them stupid, it makes them frustrated. However, I truly believe the more common Barack Obama supporter shares the same mindset as the woman getting all the soundbites on talk radio. The one saying "now I don't have to worry about paying for gas, my mortgage, or health insurance. I took care of Obama and he'll take care of me." So much for the American spirit of self-sufficiency.

I really hope Obama does well. Difficult times require great leadership. I am also pessimistic that Obama has what it takes. I believe in the very near future we will all be referring to a Robert Frost poem when we speak of Obama's administration, specifically "...I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep".

Truth about the Credit Crises

The economy is, by far, the most important issue of this election. The credit market is tight, housing market has lost nearly half its value, and the stock market is down 30%. Before you cast your vote, I urge you to understand what is fact, and what is myth.

Credit Crises

Banks - and other financial institutions - are the world's most profitable middle-man. They are a marketplace where people who have money can lend it to people who don't have money. When you deposit your money with a bank, they lend it to another customer and charge them a higher interest rate than they pay you.

Banking regulations require banks to keep 10% of their risk-adjusted asset values available in cash - this is known as the Capital Requirement. The capital requirement ensures banks have enough cash on hand so depositors can withdraw their own money. If a bank distributed 100% of its deposits to lenders, you could never withdraw from your account. Each night, banks who exceed their capital requirement lend their surplus of funds to banks who are below their capital requirement.

Loans are listed on a bank's books as an asset. When a loan defaults, banks remove the loan from their list of assets and replace it with the value of the house. When the housing market began to slump, and asset values plummeted, another bank regulation - Mark to Market Accounting - forced the banks to adjust downward the value of the asset on their books. This left most banks in a capital requirement deficit - and there were not enough banks left with a capital requirement surplus to lend money to the deficient banks. Concisely, the "credit crises" we are facing is illiquidity - meaning, banks don't have money to lend.

How did this happen?

Banks began deviating from their fundamental lending practices - assessing the risk of the borrower and conservatively valuing the asset. Banks knowingly lent money to individuals who did not have the capacity to pay it back. Banks also began creating very exotic lending packages - like, no payments, no interest for one year with a large balloon payment in year two. Deregulation enabled this.

Why would a bank take such a risk?

Two reasons:

1) The interest rates on these packages made them very profitable as long as borrowers made payments.

2) Community organizations, with major support from the Democratic party, would publicly accuse financial institutions of racism or other malfeasance if they did not lend money to low-income individuals who did not have the capacity to repay the loan.

Solutions

Every problem has several potential solutions each with varying degrees of efficacy, impact, and longevity. This situation is no different.

Capitalism-Based Solution: Government does nothing or minimally intervenes by providing low-interest loans to banks who need to cover their capital requirements. Banks that became too highly leveraged with risky loans fail. Banks with a smarter business model survive. This is painful but effective and insures only companies with solid business practices continue doing business.

Socialism-Based Solution: Government enacts a series of reforms and regulations that reduce or eliminate a financial institution's ability to assume risk. This minimizes the likelihood of a repeat of the crises, but also limits an institution's ability to differentiate from its competitors. Lack of differentiation means slow or no growth in the sector as banking services become a commodity.

Communism-Based Solution: Government assumes ownership and control of banking institutions. While likely to prevent any future collapse, it also eliminates choice in the marketplace and creates a government monopoly.


What scares me most about this crises, isn't the protracted recession I'm sure we're headed for. It isn't the 30% drop in my investment portfolio. It's not even that people I know could lose their jobs. All of those are temporary. What scares me most, is BOTH Republicans and Democrats have offered nothing but Socialist and Communist solutions to this crises.

If I were calling the shots, here is what I would do:

1) Make funds available to lending institutions so they can maintain their Capital Requirement.
2) Provide independent valuations of struggling banks and tax breaks on merger/acquisition related expenses. This would encourage strong banks to buy struggling banks.
3) Increase the FDIC insurance amount to $500,000. This encourages existing depositors to keep their money in their bank so we don't further stress the Capital Requirements.
4) Cut government spending so the US government is not in the business of borrowing money. We need all available funds in the private sector.
5) Initiate a nationwide savings campaign. Abolish the personal income tax on interest earned. Abolishing the tax on interest earned effectively adds 1-2% points to the effective rate and encourages people to save, reducing the impact Capital Requirement burden on banks.

Unfortunately, the train left the station on this one. We're already down the path of socialism at best, communism at worst. If this doesn't prove that the Republican party no longer believes in small government then you are blind to the truth.

I will always be a conservative (small government, personal choice/accountability, low taxes), but I no longer consider myself a Republican. The RNC is no longer conservative.

A poem for a geek

I’m sure that I will always be, a lonely number like root three
The three is all that’s good and right, why must my three keep out of sight

Beneath the vicious square root sign, I wish instead I were a nine
For nine could thwart this evil trick, with just some quick arithmetic

I know I’ll never see the sun, as 1.7321
Such is my reality, a sad irrationality

When hark! What is this I see, another square root of three
As quietly co-waltzing by, together now we multiply

To form a number we prefer, rejoicing as an integer
We break free from our mortal bonds, with the wave of magic wands

Our square root signs become unglued. Your love for me has been renewed

-David Feinberg

I have "Electile Dysfunction"

None of the candidates excite me.

I've been using this phrase since the start of the primaries. I could probably use it for every voting opportunity I've had in my lifetime.

In 2004, I voted against Bush. I saw him - and still do - as a jackass without an original thought in his minuscule mind. A profane example of cronyism and prodigal son gone awry. I wasn't a big fan of Kerry - I mean, he is a tax and spend Democrat, after all - but I didn't think I could take another 4 years of a man who viewed global warming and evolution as myths and wanted to teach Creationism - a religious doctrine; a philosophy - in science classes.

In 2000, I voted against Al Gore. Even then, I viewed GW as a mental midget - someone who would lose a game of chess to my dogs - and I had a very hard time casting a vote for an imbecile because I value intelligence so highly. My problem with Al Gore was that I saw him as the petulant child who felt he deserved the job because he was a veep and his father was a senator. I felt he would honestly believe he was the only person who could solve a problem and would not consult with anyone. My theory - which proved correct, initially - was that Bush knows he is a moron and would surround himself with smart people who would make decisions for him. When he appointed Meg Whitman, Tommy Thompson and Colin Powell, I sat back and gloated...until they began to quit. I couldn't blame them. I should have seen it coming. I can't work for a moron, either.

In 1996, I voted against Bob Dole. Bob Dole wasn't happy about that. Bob Dole thought he was a better man than Bill Clinton. Bob Dole was a respectable man with a respectable past. Bob Dole was dull, cranky, and referred to himself in the third person! Clinton wasn't a bad president. I just couldn't understand how a man with such power and charisma end up with such UGLY women! Come on! Jack Kennedy gets Marilyn Monroe and Clinton gets Monica Lewinsky? If his affair had been with Sharon Stone, or even Molly Ringwald, I would have CAMPAIGNED for the man. You can't trust a man with such horrible judgement to run a country...he was still better than Bob Dole.

2008? Well, let's see. On one hand, we have a Marxist, Fascist and gifted orator who has no record of accomplishing anything as a politician (almost sounds like Hitler). On the other hand, we have a cranky old troll who's ready to invade the first country who calls him a name behind his back...or remembers his own words better than he does. One side wants to take money from people who actually drive the economic engine of America and give it to people who procreate future criminals. The other side wants to let the wealthy keep their money so they can help fund wars against countries with natural assets that increase the profitability of their companies. We have a man who's ideas on wealth distribution are so egregious that he creates a disincentive to work, running against a man who selects a running mate better suited to hosting a Miss BassMasters competition than being Vice President of America.

When do I actually get to vote FOR someone? I'm having to choose between a person who I firmly and sincerely believe is the Manchurian candidate, and a person who's judgement is worse than a Los Angeles jury.

Is this really the best America has to offer? I'm praying this is like the NFL during a strike year. It isn't the highest quality, but at least it isn't painful to watch. Good luck to everyone, regardless of the outcome.

Week 6 Football

Maybe I'm getting lazy. Maybe I'm not doing well at picking individuals. Maybe I started believing that you can't look backwards. In any event, I'm not rehashing my individual picks for last week. You know how I did - won some, lost some.

Here is how I did on games: 4-5-5. I've never had that many ties before!

What I learned:

1) Seattle's defense is much worse than I ever thought.
2) San Diego needs Merriman much more than I ever thought.
3) The Colts are a bad team
4) Cardinals finally appear to be making it work
5) The Lions will never be winners as long as they are owned by the Fords.

So, here are my picks this week:

QB Likes - Frerotte, Brees, Favre, Cutler, Warner, McNabb, Rodgers, Eli Manning
QB Dislikes - Peyton Manning, Delhomme, Garcia, O'Sullivan, Rivers

RB Likes - Peterson (MN), Forte, Bush, Portis, Hightower, Gore, Grant, Jacobs
RB Dislikes - Turner, Addai, Jackson, Jones-Drew, Barber, Gore

WR Likes - Colston (if he plays), Fitzgerald, Reggie Brown, Jennings, Burress - Breaston is a sleeper alert
WR Dislikes - Roddie White, Marvin Harrison, Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, Randy Moss

Teams:

Carolina -1
Redskins -13.5
Bengals + 8.5
Saints -7
Houston -3
Bears -3
Lions +13
Ravens +4
Broncos -3.5
Eagles -4.5
Cardinals +5
Packers +1.5
Patriots +5
Giants -9

A new perspective

For years I gave my hard earned wages
To those so-called "financial sages"
Hoping that in my years of twilight
I would not toil through the night

But now I watch with great despair
My retirement vanishing in thin air
All those dollars tucked away
No longer there for rainy days

Social Security? Insecure.
My pension? It is gone for sure!
Instead of living on my 401k
"Welcome to WalMart" is what I say

Instead of growing old with friends
I now worry about meeting ends
And how my doctor will be paid
Without the help of MediCaid

Who's to blame for my predicament?
Where was all my money spent?
On things we wanted but did not need
On possessions that reveal our greed

We did not spend it on education
Or no longer being a debtor nation
We spent it on the things we wanted
And all the things our neighbors flaunted

At what point did we begin to prize,
Jealousy in others eyes?
We buy things we cannot afford
For what? So we can feel adored?

Flat screen TVs in every room
Anything we can consume
So we can stay inside and play
Growing fatter and duller each passing day

Have we forgotten that what matters most,
The things of which we can truly boast,
Are the relationships we have and share,
With all the people we know who care?

It wasn't Wall Street that caused this mess
It was our own, gluttonous excess
I'm glad we're in financial strife
It will force us to examine our life

This catastrophe is what we need
To help reset our priorities
To focus not on possessions and wealth
But instead on our families and health

Fantasy Football Week 5

First, a look back at how I did last week:

Players I was correct to like: Johnathan Stewart (TD), Lendale White (TD), Eddie Royal (102 rec yards)

Players I should not have liked: AZ Defense (6TD by Favre), Roddy White, Selvin Young, Chris Perry, Jamal Lewis, Matt Ryan, JT O'Sullivan, Torry Holt

Players I was correct to dislike: Adrian Peterson, Michael Turner

Players I should have liked: McNabb, Griese, Chad Johnson, TO, Jennings, Tampa Bay (DEF Score)

My game picks: 7-6

So, I guess the lesson is to pay attention to my Running Back picks, but not the others.

In any event, here are my week 5 picks:

QB I Like: Delhomme, Matt Ryan, Pennington, Rivers, Eli Manning, Cutler

QB I don't like: Kurt Warner will have several turn overs today

RB I like: Chris Brown, Larry Johnson, Johnathan Stewart, Ryan Grant. Look for Steve Slaton to have a huge game.

RB I don't like: Brandon Jacobs, Clinton Portis, Frank Gore

WR I like: Roy Williams will wakeup this week. Lance Moore against a week MIN pass DEF. Roddy White will take advantage of an injured GB secondary.

WR I don't like: Chad Ocho Cinco and TJ Houshmanzedah will struggle against Dallas. Don't look for Engram or Branch to have solid outings their first week back.

DEF I like: TEN, CAR, BUF, SF

DEF I don't like: BAL, PIT and TB

My game picks with odds at this writing:

Buffalo +1
Carolina -9.5
Chicago +3.5
Cincinatti -16.5
Denver +3
Green Bay NL
Indianapolis -3
Jacksonville -4
San Francisco +3
NY Giants -7
Washington +6
San Diego -6.5
Tennessee -3
New Orleans -3

NFL Football - Week 4

Since I'm starting this mid-season, allow me to catch everyone up on the last three weeks:

I'm in one Fantasy league that counts. After three weeks, I'm 2-1. My roster is as follows:

QB - Cutler
WR - Colston, Andre Johnson, Roy Williams, Eddie Royal, Brandon Lloyd, Ike Hilliard
RB - Westbrook, Selvin Young, Lendale White, Chris Perry, Pierre Thomas
TE - Fasano, Scaife
K - Casay
DEF - Tampa Bay

Once a month, I place a series of parlay bets. Three-way bets I always win. 11 or 12 way bets I tend to lose one game. Best I've done was 10-0-2. Worst I've done was 10-2-0.

Thoughts for this week:

I don't like to focus on the must starts - LT, Marion Barber, Reggie Bush, Adrian Peterson, Cutler, Brees, Owens, etc - unless I think you shouldn't start them. Below are the RB's I think are surprises:

RB I like this week:
Johnathan Stewart - Atlanta is in for a long day
Chris Perry - Cincy will put up some points against CLE and Perry will be the major beneficiary
Jamal Lewis - I think this will be a high scoring game
Selvin Young - Pittman usually gets the goal-line carries, but I think Selvin gets them this week
Lendale White - I think TEN defense will setup easy scores

RB I don't like:
Adrian Peterson - TEN defense is too tough
Michael Turner - something tells me they'll be throwing a lot as they play from behind

QB I like this week:
Matt Ryan - ATL will be playing from behind, which means a lot of passing
JT O'Sullivan - NO can't stop anyone

QB I don't like:
McNabb - Chicago will give him fits
Griese - he will return to his normal inadequacies

WR I like this week:
Roddy White - Ryan's only target
Eddie Royal - There will be enough DEN scoring that everyone will get a slice
Holt - Green will find him more often than Bulger did

WR I don't like:
Chad Johnson - his career is over
Terrell Owens - I have a feeling WAS will own him this week
Greg Jennings - I think this is the player TB takes out of the game

DEF I like this week:
Arizona - I think Favre is looking at 3 INT this game, and one TINT (TD-INT)

DEF I don't like:
Tampa Bay scares me this week. Green Bay gives them fits.

Winning Teams with Odds at time of writing:

Buffalo -8
at Carolina -7
Cleveland +3
Washington +11
Denver -9.5
at Jacksonville -7
at New Orleans +5
Arizona - 1.5
Philadelphia -3
San Diego -7.5
Green Bay -1
Tennessee -3
Pittsburgh -5.5