Today in 1925, RCA took over the 25-station AT&T network plus WEAF radio in New York …
… making today the birthday of the original NBC radio network:
Today in 1965, the Rolling Stones made their U.S. TV debut on ABC’s “Hullabaloo”:
Today in 1966, the Doors agreed to release “Break on Through” as their first single, removing the word “high” to get radio airplay:
The number one single today in 1980:
David Leonhardt begins with conventional wisdom about Tuesday’s votes in the few states that had elections …
The Democratic Party certainly did well in last week’s elections. In one place after another, voters seemed to reject President Trump’s hateful, lawless politics. The results have further energized progressives for 2018, which will be a vastly more important referendum on Trump than 2017.
… and then brings the reader to reality:
But if Democrats are going to succeed next year and beyond, they can’t focus only on last week’s positive signs and start believing their own spin. They also need to think about the warning signs. There were more of those than many people realize.
The reality is, the Democratic victories occurred almost entirely in areas that had voted for Hillary Clinton last year. In Trump country, Democrats continued to struggle.
Outside of highly educated suburbs and racially diverse cities, Democrats still do not have an effective response to Trumpism. And they need one. To build a national coalition — one with the power to pass policies that can help the middle class, protect civil rights and combat climate change — Democrats have to do better in whiter, more rural areas.
Virginia — the focus of attention last week and a blue-leaning state — highlights both the good and the bad. The Democratic margins in suburbs and cities were smashing, thanks to a surge in turnout. Elsewhere, though, the situation was very different.
Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor-elect, didn’t only lose outside of the big metropolitan areas, and badly. He lost by more than the previous Democratic nominee, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, had in 2013. Of Virginia’s 133 counties and cities, Northam fared worse than McAuliffe in 89 of them.
True, Northam did better than Clinton had, but only modestly so, as The Times’s Nate Cohn noted. That’s another way of saying that Trump’s success with the white working class now looks almost like the norm.
Patrick Ruffini, a savvy conservative pollster, made a similar point when analyzing Virginia’s House of Delegates results. On first glance, those results look fantastic for Democrats. They flipped 15 of the 100 delegate districts, including a few inspiring long-shot wins. Yet only a single one of those 15 districts had voted for Trump. Republicans largely held the Trump districts, which let them keep control (pending recounts), 51 delegates to 49.
I know that many progressives are tired of hearing about the white working class. They would rather stop obsessing over small-town America and instead pursue a coalition of minorities and highly educated whites, like the coalition that won Virginia last week.
But giving up on the white working class would be a terrible mistake. Whites without four-year college degrees make up fully half of the adult population, and they tend to be dispersed, rather than packed in small geographic areas, which increases their political power.
Accepting landslide defeats among the white working class effectively forfeits many state legislatures — like those in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, all of which are now Republican. State legislatures don’t just make policy. They are also in charge of gerrymandering.
Without the white working class, Democrats will need everything else to go spectacularly well to retake the House of Representatives next year. Virginia itself has four Republican-held seats that analysts think will be in play. Northam won only two of those four districts, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
Or consider the Democrats’ four special-election House losses earlier this year, including the high-profile Georgia race. All were in Trump-won districts that Democrats couldn’t quite flip.
How can the party can do better? It’s not an easy problem, and I wouldn’t trust anyone who claims otherwise. But the crux of the matter is clear enough: Democrats have to get the white working class to focus on the working-class part of their identity rather than the white part.
Most voters don’t make decisions by doing a cost-benefit analysis of candidates’ proposals. They instead tend to vote for candidates who instinctively seem to get their lives. Voters are attracted to candidates with whom they can identify.
Trumpism focuses people on the white part of identity. The Virginia campaign, for example, revolved around talk of immigrants and old Confederate heroes. When those are the topics, Democrats are going to struggle (however frustrating that may be).
But race isn’t the only part of people’s identities. When voters instead focus on class, Democrats thrive. Think back to Barack Obama’s populist-tinged 2012 re-election campaign. Or look at the senators, like Sherrod Brown and Claire McCaskill, who hold their own outside of metropolitan areas. Or the landslide victories for ballot initiatives on Medicaid and the minimum wage.
The best news for Democrats is that they don’t turn off many suburban and urban voters by focusing on class. Most of them are struggling with slow-growing wages, too.
Leonhardt doesn’t mention, however, the biggest single issue that divides Republican voters and Democratic voters — gun rights — which is really the worst news for Democrats.
The Badger Institute (the former Wisconsin Policy Research Institute):
The House Republican tax reform bill unveiled last week offers a $1.5 trillion (that’s trillion, not billion) tax cut, most of which redounds to the benefit of businesses. The top corporate tax rate would be slashed from 35 percent to a flat 20 percent rate, whereas small businesses would see their pass-through income taxed at a maximum 25 percent, down from 39.6 percent. Also, the tax structure for companies doing business abroad would be completely revamped — for the better.
For individuals, the bill is more of a mixed bag, with winner and losers. It would reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to four, increasing the income range within each bracket. At the same time, several tax breaks that taxpayers in high-tax states such as Wisconsin have come to rely on would be eliminated or reduced.
The real showstopper is that state income taxes would no longer be deductible. That’s fine for people who live in states that exact no or very little income tax. But what about here?
Consider that Wisconsin’s top state income tax bracket is 7.65 percent, among the highest in the country. According to Urban Milwaukee’s analysis of Internal Revenue Service data, in 2015, more than 800,000 Wisconsin taxpayers claimed deductions for state income taxes, totaling $6.22 billion. You don’t have to be a CPA to understand the effect that denying such deductions could have on Wisconsin’s taxpayers.
That’s not all. The reform bill also would cap real property tax deductions at $10,000. Although the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel notes that across the state there are relatively few homeowners with property tax bills in excess of $10,000, a closer county-by-county analysis tells a different story. For example, Milwaukee County ranks 42nd out of 3,143 counties nationwide for property taxes imposed as a percentage of median income.
This means a lot of Milwaukee County residents do pay over $10,000 per year in property taxes. Residents of Dane County and certain other Wisconsin counties also feel the brunt of high property taxes. Up until now, being able to deduct all of one’s property taxes has served as a palliative of sorts for many homeowners in these counties.
But perhaps not so much in the future. The consequence of capping property tax deductions, along with eliminating the state income tax deduction, would effectively punish a large swath of Wisconsin residents just for living where they do.
To be sure, the House bill would almost double the standard deduction. That would reduce the number of people itemizing deductions (including state income and property taxes), since the only reason to do so is if those deductions combined exceed the standard deduction. Nonetheless, there is no question that Wisconsin taxpayers who continue to itemize (and there will be plenty of them) would get dinged.
The first impulse might be to contact House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) or one’s congressman to make a plea for putting things back to the way they have been. Before doing that, however, we should ask ourselves whether the answer lies there or, instead, with our own state tax system.
As already noted, several states have little or no income tax, and most have property taxes far below our own. Why should the federal government continue to subsidize Wisconsin taxpayers via the tax code because we can’t figure out a more equitable way to raise revenue — or cut spending?
Instituting open-road tolling on major highways as a way to fund roads, instead of resorting to income taxes, or consolidating local government as a belt-tightening measure are both worth a closer look than they have been given so far.
Almost everyone agrees that simplifying federal tax laws is necessary, and eliminating state income tax deductions and capping deductions for property taxes are small steps toward that end. As Todd Berry, president of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, told the Journal Sentinel the other day, “I hope people realize there are … good reasons to try to clean up and simplify a pretty hard-to-justify tax system.”
There is a ways to go before the House bill or anything like it becomes law. Still, the smart money says that change is a coming and Wisconsin better be ready.
Whether or not one agrees with all the particulars of the House Republican tax bill, give Congress credit for at least starting to fix a longstanding problem. Wisconsin ought to “clean up and simplify” its own tax system.
If it does, that could help make our state more competitive in the marketplace — and help a lot of its residents who otherwise might take a hit under federal tax reform. The moment is upon us to act.
The number one single today in 1960:
The number one British single today in 1981:
The number one British album today in 1981 was “Queen Greatest Hits”:
Despite what was predicted, and despite the Packers’ recent imitation of their Gory Days, Wisconsin football fans had quite a weekend.
The Badgers, dissed despite their 9–0 record, may have earned some respect with their 38–14 win over Iowa(y), which previous demolished Ohio State. The Badger defense was so stout that the Hawkeyes’ only scores came from UW quarterback Alex Hornibrook’s two pick-sixes.
The Des Moines Register’s Chad Leistikow:
Iowa players and their head coach chalked up Saturday’s 38-14 debacle at Wisconsin to the usual culprits you hear in postgame interviews after Hawkeye losses.
“It’s the same stuff that won the game last week,” offensive lineman Sean Welsh said, noting the stark seven-day contrast in outcomes between drubbing top-five Ohio State and getting embarrassed by top-five Wisconsin. “It’s details and execution. I’m sure you’ve heard that enough.”
Historic euphoria one week.
Historic futility the next.
Iowa’s offense gained 66 yards Saturday. That’s the worst output of the 19-year Kirk Ferentz era, “eclipsing” (if you want to call it that) the 100 yards in the disastrous desert performance in a 44-7 loss to Arizona State in 2004.
The 66 yards is the fewest Wisconsin has ever allowed to a Big Ten Conference opponent and the second-fewest ever.
That’s the third-fewest by any FBS team ranked in the top 25 over the past 20 seasons.
If you’re upset Iowa didn’t throw the ball more, consider this stat: Quarterback Nate Stanley dropped back to pass 28 times Saturday; the Hawkeyes netted four yards on those plays.He threw for 41, was sacked for 37 and committed three turnovers.
It’s as bad as you can get, a week after rolling up 487 yards and 55 points against the Buckeyes. Two Josh Jackson touchdowns on interception returns saved Iowa from further scoreboard shame.“You can’t explain it,” Ferentz said, “other than just we played clean football last week.”
That may be the truth. But it’s not the real story of Saturday’s game.
That would be the bronze bull that Wisconsin players happily carried off the field. Not the Heartland Trophy itself, of course, but what it symbolizes.
The Badgers are the bullies of the Big Ten West. They were crowned division champions Saturday after improving to 10-0. They’re heading to Indianapolis for the league title game for the fifth time in seven years since the Big Ten went to divisional play.
They’re what Iowa aspires to be.
“Those guys taking it right in front of us,” linebacker Ben Niemann said, “that’s tough.”
Saturday was a reminder that Wisconsin is the bell-cow program that those inside the Iowa Football Performance Center must figure out how to take down.
The Badgers do everything well that Iowa wants to consistently do well.
They run the football with power. They play great defense. They beat you up.
The Badgers racked up 247 yards on the ground Saturday; Iowa had 25, with its longest carry a 9-yard run on a third-and-long.
They may not look like Alabama or Ohio State or USC. But Wisconsin surgically and schematically attacks you, and exposes your weaknesses.
“They have a big O-line and big running backs,” senior safety Miles Taylor said after his fourth go-round against Wisconsin. “They power, power, power, run the play-action (and) get somebody to the flat. Run, run, run, play-action. That’s their DNA. They try to get you to come up for the run and slip somebody out and, boom, it’s a big play.”
Wisconsin has been hammered by injuries all season, at almost every position. It lost its best linebacker before the season even started. Its best safety didn’t play Saturday; neither did its top two receivers. Its injury report barely fits on a piece of paper.
But it didn’t matter Saturday. It hasn’t mattered all season.
The Badgers kept shuttling in fresh bodies and did whatever they wanted, on both sides of the ball, and Iowa was helpless in stopping it.
“These guys were playing at a real high level,” Ferentz said, “and we weren’t able to match that.
“Usually, good teams in the Big Ten play good defense. That’s what these guys have done.”
Yeah, Iowa got the best of the Badgers here in 2015. It took four turnovers, including a fourth-quarter goal-line fumble when the quarterback tripped, but the Hawkeyes got them — by a 10-6 score.
Iowa won the West that year, and deserved it.
But the Badgers own this rivalry right now — the fake punt and 31-30 win in 2010; 28-9 at Kinnick Stadium in 2013 after a two-year series hiatus; 26-24 in 2014; 17-9 last year. Now this.
I do think the Hawkeyes are positioning themselves for a good run the next two seasons. This will probably be Stanley’s worst day as Iowa’s quarterback — 8-for-24 for 41 yards. The sophomore is going to be a good one. This will motivate him.
The Hawkeyes have young players at a lot of key positions, tackle and tight end among them.
Iowa’s 2018 schedule looks pretty friendly, too.But the mountain it has to climb, Wisconsin, isn’t going anywhere.
As if they needed a reminder, take a look at the Hawkeyes’ Big Ten opener in 2018.
Wisconsin, on Sept. 22, at Kinnick Stadium.
Then came Sunday’s 23–16 Packers win over Da Bears, which proves that Da Bears can’t even beat the Packers without Aaron Rodgers.
About that, the Chicago Tribune’s Brad Biggs writes:
So much for the idea that the Bears would have the upper hand on the Packers without Aaron Rodgers.
We can dismiss that thought immediately, and this is probably a good point to push back any imaginary timeline for the Bears pulling even with their archrival.
Coach John Fox talked about being close after the Packers finished off the Bears 23-16 at wet and cold Soldier Field on Sunday afternoon. It was a one-score game, but these franchises remain far apart even after so many factors pointed the Bears’ way.
The Bears were coming off an open date and had an extra week to prepare. The Packers had a short week after being throttled at home by the Lions on Monday night when right tackle Bryan Bulaga and safety Morgan Burnett were lost to injuries. Then there was the midweek fallout from the Packers’ sudden release of tight end Martellus Bennett for a reeling club that had lost three straight. And let’s reiterate Rodgers was out with a broken right collarbone, replaced by former fifth-round pick Brett Hundley, who was making his third NFL start, two fewer than Bears first-round pick Mitch Trubisky.
Las Vegas oddsmakers made the Bears favorites for the first time all season, and they were favored over the Packers for the first time since 2008. That’s because there was a belief the Bears were strong on defense, strong enough to carry a fledgling offense lacking wide receivers, strong enough to bottle up Hundley, who looked dreadful in two previous starts.
This is a devastating loss for Fox, who is 1-5 against the Packers since his hiring in 2015. A victory would have put the Bears within a game of .500 and added to a feel-good vibe that has been at Halas Hall with people talking about improved culture and a deeper roster. Now they’re 3-6 and potentially headed for a fourth consecutive last-place finish in the NFC North. Consider that since the NFL/AFL merger, the Bears are the only NFC Central/North team to finish last in the division four straight years, something they did previously from 1997 to 2000. Not even the Buccaneers, who were a train wreck upon their inception, managed four straight seasons in the cellar. These Bears are two games behind the Packers and Lions, who are tied for second place, with seven remaining.
The Packers converted 7 of 16 third downs and also a fourth-and-1 late in the third quarter. A Bears defense that looked good against Drew Brees and great against Cam Newton failed to come up with a big play. The Bears knocked out the Packers’ top two running backs as Aaron Jones (knee) and Ty Montgomery (ribs) didn’t make it to the third quarter. Third-string back Jamaal Williams filled in and rushed for 67 yards rushing as Green Bay piled up 160 on the ground, the most the Bears have surrendered all season. Yes, they were missing linebacker Danny Trevathan, sidelined with a calf injury, but don’t confuse him for a vintage model of Brian Urlacher or Lance Briggs.
Cornerback Prince Amukamara filled the wrong lane on Montgomery’s 37-yard touchdown run in the second quarter, but it was Hundley who did the Bears in late. He tucked it and ran for 17 yards on third-and-2 from the Bears’ 37-yard line midway through the fourth quarter with the Packers clinging to a 16-13 lead. Outside linebacker Pernell McPhee crashed hard inside and Hundley, who was oblivious to pressure at times earlier in the game, deftly escaped around the edge to gain 17.
There wasn’t a more frustrating play for McPhee, who was trying to make something happen for a defense that saw its streak of getting at least two takeaways in three consecutive games end. McPhee didn’t communicate his plan to defensive end Mitch Unrein in time, so there was no stunt, and the result was an escape hatch for Hundley, who finished 18 of 25 for 212 yards. …
Two plays later, Hundley scrambled out of the pocket to his right and zipped a back-shoulder pass right by cornerback Kyle Fuller’s helmet for a 19-yard touchdown pass to Davante Adams with 5:29 to play, the decisive score in the game. It’s the kind of play you’re accustomed to seeing Rodgers make.
The Bears were battling to get the ball back before the two-minute warning. They had one timeout remaining and the Packers faced third-and-10 when Hundley dropped a dime over Fuller, who was holding Adams, for a 42-yard gain. Good defenses don’t let Brett Hundley do that to them with the game on the line.
Culture and depth are difficult things to sell when wins don’t come along with them. This was supposed to be the start of an easier second half of the season for the Bears, but when they get beaten at home by Hundley, that should be reassessed.
The win included this bizarre moment chronicled by the Tribune’s Rich Campbell (not the former Packers quarterback):
As coaching decisions go, John Fox’s replay challenge Sunday against the Packers will be talked about long after his tenure is finished, whenever that might be.
Bears fans will never forget that 23-16 defeat on a rainy Sunday at Soldier Field when Fox won a challenge that lost the ball for his team. The details of the backfire are vexing on multiple levels and, ultimately, helped victory escape the Bears on a day they had to have it to sustain meaning in their season.
“Obviously, that’s a play you’d like to have back,” Fox said. “But that’s not how this game works.”
Watch the replay of Benny Cunningham’s 23-yard catch-and-run in the second quarter, and two things become clear.
One, the Bears running back did not score a touchdown.
Two, he screwed up trying to do so.
Let’s review: As Cunningham juked his way to the front right corner of the end zone, he dove and extended the ball while Packers safety Marwin Evans shoved him out of bounds. Cunningham crashed into the pylon as the ball slipped free. Officials ruled Cunningham out at the 2-yard line.“We’re taught not to do it; unless it’s fourth down, you don’t reach the ball out,” Cunningham said. “But, honestly, at the time, I wasn’t thinking about that. I was trying to score a touchdown for the team.”
Fox, under advice from his assistants who help with video reviews, challenged the ruling that Cunningham stepped out of bounds.
“Every indication we had was he scored,” Fox said. “And, if anything, he would be at the 1 or inside in the 1.”
So rather than have his offense line up with three tries from the 2-yard line, Fox threw the challenge flag with hopes of being awarded a touchdown or, at worst, having the ball advanced a few feet.
But replays showed Cunningham lost possession before he hit the pylon, which, in the context of the video review, had unintended consequences.
And that’s where it got murky.
Replay officials in New York decided Cunningham lost possession before he was out of bounds and before he hit the pylon.
Overturned call. Touchback. Packers ball.
Wow.
“When I watched the review, I felt like they made the right call,” Cunningham said. “Just a bad play on my part, but the refs got it right.”
To Fox, the fumble wasn’t as obvious.
“I think maybe on 50 times, like some people get to look at it, I think maybe you could see that,” he said. “But on our look during the game, that wasn’t really even discussed.”
Here’s the thing, though: Cunningham’s left foot dragged onto the sideline as he dove for the pylon.
Slow down the replay frame-by-frame and it’s still nearly impossible to determine if Cunningham lost possession before his foot touched the sideline. What’s more, as Dean Blandino, the NFL’s former head of officiating, explained on Fox Sports, the determining factor should have been whether Cunningham was in contact with the ball while he was out of bounds and before he hit the pylon.
“Even if he doesn’t have control, and he’s just touching that loose ball with a foot out of bonds, that would make the play dead prior to it hitting the pylon, and it would not be a touchback.”
In that case, the Bears should have retained possession where Cunningham fumbled, the 2.
Referee Tony Corrente explained the ruling to a pool reporter who did not get clarification about Cunningham making contact with the ball after he was out of bounds.
Said Corrente: “Looking at the review, he did not step out of bounds and started lunging toward the goal line (with both hands on the ball). As he was lunging toward the goal line, he lost the ball in his right hand first, probably, I’m going to guess, two feet maybe short of the pylon.
“As he got even closer, the left hand came off. We had to put together two different angles in order to see both hands losing the football. After he lost it the second time, it went right into the pylon. Which creates a touchback.”
In Blandino’s view, there wasn’t sufficient evidence to overturn the call on the field. And that’s what makes the decision so difficult for the Bears to swallow.
For the second time in as many games they were hurt by the result of a call that was overturned by video review.
Fox didn’t openly feel snakebit by the league’s video review process, saying the Bears create their own luck.
The head coach at least tempted fate by asking for the review. And, because officials ruled Cunningham fumbled in bounds, Fox technically won the challenge.
The Bears were not charged a time out.
Time may well be up for Bears coach John Fox, at least according to the Tribune’s David Waugh:
As defenses go, the one Bears coach John Fox offered Sunday at Soldier Field after the Bears’ 23-16 loss was as flimsy as the one he saw flailing all day against the Packers.
“In nine games, two of them we didn’t give ourselves a chance, but in seven games we’ve had the opportunity to win every single one of them,” Fox said. “The reality is, we are 3-6.”
The reality is, coaching makes the difference in close games, and the Bears’ sixth loss threatens to become the one history remembers as the point of no return for faith in Fox. In four futile, frustrating quarters against a beatable opponent at home, the Bears undid eight games’ worth of progress.
It was premature to speculate about Fox’s future around their open date because a respectable start put the Bears in position to realistically approach a .500 season. But those of us who considered the possibility of Fox saving his job with a strong second half now can concede the Bears looking so sloppy and unprepared after a weekend off make that unlikely. Dropping to 1-5 against the Packers will get the McCaskeys’ attention quicker than any other of Fox’s shortcomings. In other words, feel free to start jonesing for Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels or Googling Eagles offensive coordinator Frank Reich. Dave Toub anyone?
Save any cockeyed optimism about the Bears coming close or rookie quarterback Mitch Trubisky making progress for another day, one perhaps when they weren’t outcoached and outplayed by a Packers team playing on short rest with backups at quarterback, running back, tight end and offensive tackle. This is what happens when a 3-5 team gets full of itself, fattened by what-ifs and maybes in a football city starved for success.
Opportunity knocked to see if the Bears wanted to save their season, and Fox left it standing on the front porch of possibility, ignored. So say hello again to Bears hostility, everybody. Any feel-good vibes that surrounded Halas Hall for the last month or so vanished, sometime between Fox’s ill-advised challenge and his defense’s poorly timed surrender. We could build a case for the bright side by examining the relative ease of the rest of the Bears schedule, but that would create the false impression that it matters. It doesn’t, not for a Bears team that committed 11 penalties in the first half (four were declined) and gained zero yards in the third quarter.
Sunday’s most memorable mistake came courtesy of Fox, who challenged a ruling that running back Benny Cunningham was out of bounds at the 2 as he dived for the pylon on a second-quarter run. Had Fox accepted the ruling without challenging, the Bears would have faced first-and-goal at the 2 and, in all likelihood, tied the game at 10. Instead, Fox threw the red flag. Replay officials in New York determined that Cunningham fumbled the ball into the end zone — resulting in a touchback that gave possession to the Packers. Officials should have placed the ball at the 20 wrapped in a bow.
In technically winning the challenge, Fox lost the benefit of the doubt in Chicago, probably for good. Fox took responsibility for the faux pas, the most egregious part being that nobody with the Bears had the presence of mind to consider a potential touchback.
“That wasn’t part of what we thought we would be the result,” Fox said. “Maybe you can see it after looking at it 50 times like some people are able to do.”
The Bears will be replaying this loss in their heads for a long time, especially defensive players who failed to back up so much big talk.
The Brett taking snaps for the Packers was Hundley, not Favre. Yet the quarterback making his third NFL start executed and improvised like a seasoned pro, completing 18 of 25 passes for 212 yards and a touchdown with a passer rating of 110.8. But the play that affected the outcome most — the one that may have signaled the beginning of the end for Fox — came on a 17-yard scramble on third-and-2 with 7:12 left and the Packers protecting a 16-13 lead. Rather than punt the ball back to the Bears, the Packers scored two plays later.
Hundley outplayed Trubisky, who showed improvement again by completing 21 of 35 for 297 yards but contributed to five sacks by holding the ball too long. A pretty 46-yard touchdown pass to Josh Bellamy showed nice touch, but other plays revealed a rookie uncomfortable in the pocket. Fox called it Trubisky’s best of his five starts, but it sounded like faint praise given how little confidence the coaching staff showed in the quarterback at two critical moments.
The first came on Cunningham’s fumble: Fox challenged instead of accepting first-and-goal from the 2, indicative of a coach fearing something bad could happen. The second example happened when the Bears called a quick screen for Kendall Wright for 4 yards on third-and-10 at the Packers’ 35 with 4:06 left, setting up Connor Barth‘s 49-yard field goal. Why not trust Trubisky to make a play downfield that might lead to a touchdown?
Will Fox regret this game most if the Bears change head coaches at the end of this season, an inevitability that apparently won’t affect him?
“I’ve been doing this too long,” Fox said. “I’ve never worried about my job security and I won’t start moving forward.”
After a disappointing Sunday, most fans would agree with Fox: He definitely has been doing this too long.
The Tribune’s Steve Rosenbloom agrees:
The Bears’ final regular-season game will be played Dec. 31, which means John Fox’s “Black Monday’’ should be Jan. 1. So, yeah, an early happy new year, Bears fans.
If the Bears really wanted to do this right, they’d send out “Save the Date’’ date cards.
The Bears should’ve fired Fox before he left the field after Sunday’s awful 23-16 loss to the evil, dreaded Packers, but they won’t fire their coach before the end of the season because they don’t do that. Eventually, however, they always fire their failed coach because that’s the best thing the Bears do. When the Bears whack Fox, we’ll point to this loss to the Packers the way we pointed to a Packers loss that forced the ultimate firing of Marc Trestman, addled in both NFL coaching chops and sound, same as Fox.
Fox’s Bears were favored over the Packers for the first time since 2008. They were supposed to have the best quarterback on the field in this rivalry for the first time in more than a generation. In the first two games with Brett Hundley replacing the injured Aaron Rodgers, the Packers never scored more than 17 points in losses to the Lions and Saintswhile allowing 56 points total. Fox’s Bears, nonetheless, allowed more points and failed to beat up the Packers’ weak defense the way actual teams did.
The Packers were coming off a short week following a division loss. It was all set up for the Bears, who had two weeks off in which to show they were smarter and healthier.
And splat. Face-plant. Piddled down their pant legs.
When Fox’s defense needed a stop, it failed to prevent a fourth-quarter, 75-yard drive, failed to stop obvious runs and then failed to stop Hundley from throwing a soul-killing TD pass, the Packers’ first passing TD since Rodgers went down almost a month ago.
Defense is what Fox’s Bears are supposed to do. Offense is the issue, and it still is. A week off didn’t make Fox’s offense much better. It gained zero — count ’em, zero — yards in the third quarter.
Rookie quarterback Mitch Trubisky lofted a beautiful rainbow that produced a 46-yard TD, but he continued to show an inability to recognize a blitz and the subsequent open area. He also failed to realize when he had to throw away a ball to avoid a sack because the offensive line continue to show an inability to read a blitz. And he failed to recognize an open receiver on play-action.
But this was to be expected with a young quarterback. That’s why the decision to start Mike Glennon in September continues to make the Bears coaching look worse. Trubisky’s learning curve should’ve been further along.
Fox, though, can’t use the excuse of a young quarterback without pocket presence because the Packers had the same issue. The Packers found a way to win. Fox found a way to screw up. I mean, he screwed up so badly that he made Trestman look like Bill Belichick.
Benny Cunningham had just taken a screen pass 24 yards to the Packers 2. He was ruled out of bounds as he reached to hit the pylon with the ball. Fox challenged, and was embarrassed even for a guy known for bad game-day decisions in his 12-29 Bears career.
Replay officials ruled Cunningham in-bounds as he reached for the pylon and said he subsequently fumbled the ball out of bounds before he hit the pylon. Touchback, not a touchdown.
If the Bears don’t challenge, they have the ball at the Packers 2 with four chances to tie the score. But Fox apparently didn’t think his offense could get in, and so he pushed it. Oops. Suddenly, the Packers were starting at their own 20 with a seven-point lead in a game that the Bears would lose by seven.
The Bears offense false-started several times and had the center forget the snap count. They looked lost in the last two minutes of the first half. The Bears defense gave up 121 yards to the Packers’ second- and third-string running backs. They allowed Hundley to average a solid 8.48 yards per attempt and failed to intercept him. All of this came after the Bears had time off to practice things. Like football.
Or, worse, if they did practice and this was the result, then Fox shouldn’t be allowed to come back next week.
But he will. Because that’s what the Bears do.
And then he won’t come back in January. Because that’s also what the Bears do. The only thing the Bears do.
Rand Paul may be the latest Republican to be physically attacked, but he is far from the only one.
In June, a deranged liberal from Illinois who had volunteered on Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, drove all the way to Virginia to shoot as many Republicans as he could find, targeting their congressional baseball practice and severely injuring House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, a congressional staffer, and two Capitol Police officers.
Just a month earlier, a liberal activist accosted North Dakota Republican representative Kevin Cramer and shoved fake dollar bills into his suit jacket. Four days before that, a woman was arrested for trying to run Tennessee Congressman David Kustoff off the road. After she pulled over, she “began to scream and strike the windows on Kustoff’s car and even reached inside the vehicle.”
In Florida, the office of Republican Congressman Ted Yoho was vandalized by protesters, and a woman left a voicemail saying, “Next time I see you, I’m going to beat your f**king ass.” Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz received a similar voicemail:
Hey Jason Chaffetz—I suggest you prepare for the battle, motherfucker, and the apocalypse. Because we are going to hunt your ass down, wrap a rope around your neck, and hang you from a lamppost!
That same month, authorities deemed credible a series of threats to Virginia Representative Tom Garrett, including one that read “this is how we’re going to kill your wife.” Other messages threatened to kill Garrett’s children and even his dog. In Tucson, Arizona, the FBI arrested a man for making repeated death threats to Republican Congresswoman Martha McSally.
In February, a violent mob descended on the office of California Congressman Dana Rohrbacher and attacked a 71 year-old staffer, knocking her unconscious. This was the same month that UC-Berkeley students threw rocks through storefront windows and set their own campus on fire because alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak there. Two months later, a speech by conservative writer Ann Coulter had to be cancelled because of similar violence and threats.
At Middlebury College in Vermont, angry liberals attacked political scientist Charles Murray as well as one of the school’s professors, Allison Stranger. She suffered a concussion, while Murray was violently shoved before the mob started attacking the car they jumped in for safety.
In Oregon, the annual Rose Parade had to be cancelled because of threats of physical violence against anyone who dared to march with the Republican Party.
Last October, a Republican field office in North Carolina was firebombed and spray painted with the message “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else.” And the night Donald Trump won the presidency, the president of Cornell University’s College Republicans was violently assaulted.
And that’s just the violence and threats of violence against elected Republicans, their staffers, Republican organizations, or prominent conservative figures. The list of attacks against everyday conservative-leaning citizens is even longer. Just since Donald Trump was elected President a year ago:
An angry liberal high school student in California punched a female classmate in the face after she wrote on social media that she supported Trump. Another California high schooler screamed “You support Trump, you hate Mexicans” as she viciously beat a girl. A high school student in Florida punched a classmate for carrying a Trump sign. A group of high school students in Maryland punched a student demonstrating in support of Trump, then repeatedly kicked him as he lay defenseless on the ground.
And it wasn’t just high school students: A group of elementary students in Texas attacked a classmate who voted for Trump in a mock election.
A group of African-American men in Chicago viciously beat a white man while screaming at him that he voted for Trump. In a separate incident in Chicago, a group of people beat a man following a minor car accident. As they attacked him, they screamed “You voted Trump!”
A self-described anti-bullying ambassador shoved a 74 year-old man to the ground while protesting Trump’s win outside of Trump Tower. In Connecticut, two men attacked a man who was holding a Trump sign and an American flag.
During the airport protests following the announcement of President Trump’s so-called travel ban, a mob knocked a pro-Trump demonstrator unconscious. That same month, a Trump supporter was attacked while trying to put out a fire started by an anti-Trump mob.
A former professor at Diablo Valley College in California inflicted “significant injuries” on three Trump supporters when he beat them with a U-shaped bicycle lock. And in Indiana, state police said a driver fired several shots at a truck with a “Make America Great Again” flag and an American flag on it.
The grand total is nearly 30 politically-motivated violent incidents on conservatives in just over a year—an average of more than two per month—all committed by angry liberals.
So much for liberalism being the ideology of peace and tolerance, huh?
O’Donnell didn’t mention all the harassment (including Gov. Scott Walker’s parents) and threats that took place in the wake of the Act 10 debate, which no liberal in this state criticized even once.
Apparently more conservatives need to start carrying guns.
Jonah Goldberg writes about the most divisive issue in politics today:
Among the many problems with the Great Gun Debate these days is that the pro-gun crowd wants to make it a culture-war battle and the anti-gun crowd wants to pretend that it isn’t.
On public policy grounds, the pro-gun people have the better arguments. Firearm homicides have declined since the 1990s despite the loosening of gun laws.
Indeed, it’s common in the aftermath of shootings to hear pundits and politicians call for the passage of laws that already exist. I’ve lost count of the number of times people have insisted that “machine guns” be banned — they essentially already are. Others talk about banning “assault weapons” as if such a designation describes a specific kind of weapon. It doesn’t. Nor would banning assault weapons, however defined, put much of a dent in the problem. Rifles of all kinds account for just 3 percent of the murder rate.
Indeed, the main reason for inaction isn’t the “stranglehold” of the National Rifle Association — a relative piker when it comes to political spending — but the fact that millions of gun owners are likely to vote on the gun issue, while millions of gun-control supporters are not. Also, a supermajority of Americans (76 percent to 23 percent, according to Gallup) do not want a ban on private gun ownership.
These facts probably help explain why the NRA has taken a dark turn of late, releasing ads that have virtually nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with fueling cultural resentment. It’s hard for a public-policy lobbying outfit to keep membership dues flowing when they’ve already won.
Meanwhile, anti-gun campaigners cling to the belief that they are a cadre of dedicated pragmatists who merely seek sensible gun-control laws. No doubt there are some who fit this description. But given how the most vocal advocates of gun control tend to get basic facts wrong and have a history of praising countries such as Australia, which all but banned guns outright for normal citizens, it’s easy to see why gun-rights supporters are suspicious about what their real goal is.
In 2015, the New York Times ran its first front-page editorial in 95 years to call for, in part, the confiscation of millions of guns. Last month, columnist Bret Stephens called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment.
The simple fact is that many elites in places such as New York and Los Angeles, regardless of ideology (Stephens is a conservative), just don’t like guns or the culture of people who do. One can see this in the suddenly pervasive fad — common in the pages of the New York Times and on Twitter — of mocking people who offer “thoughts and prayers” for the victims of mass shootings if they don’t also subscribe to sweeping new gun-control measures.
It’s a useful thought experiment to ask what America would look like if the gun controllers started to rack up policy victories, confiscating guns from law-abiding gun owners. Aside from the massive financial windfall for the NRA, millions of Americans would have their darkest suspicions confirmed, and the deep resentment already felt in much of “red state” America would intensify beyond anything we’ve experienced lately.
Perhaps there would be fewer mass murders and other gun deaths — though I’m skeptical. I’m sure our politics would be far uglier than they already are.
The number one album today in 1965 received no radio airplay:
The number one British single today in 1968 was based on, but didn’t directly come from, a movie:
Today in 1968, Britain’s W.T. Smiths refused to carry the Jimi Hendrix Experience’s “Electric Ladyland” …
… with its original album cover …
… although a different cover was OK:
The number one single today in 1983:
Besides the end of the War to End All Wars (which didn’t end all wars but led directly to the next war) and the day Americans remember and honor those whose service and sacrifice allow me to freely write this and you to freely read this, what else happened Nov. 11?
Today in 1954, Bill Haley got his first top 10 single, “Shake Rattle and Roll,” originally a Joe Turner song. Haley had changed the name of his band, the cowboy-motif Saddlemen, to His Comets.
Imagine what the Transportation Security Administration would have done with this: Today in 1969, the FBI arrested Jim Morrison for drunk and disorderly conduct on an airplane. Morrison and actor Tom Baker had been drinking and harassing stewardesses on a flight to Phoenix. Morrison and Baker spent a night in jail and were released on $2,500 bail.
Today in 1972, an era when pretty much everything would go in rock music, listeners got to hear the first example of what might be called “yodel rock”:
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 