Outstanding offensive line play helps Packers to easy win over Bears

 

Unlike in a few of their previous games, the Packers played with a bit more “passion” against historical rival the Bears this week, although it must be said that the Bears have not exactly been playing well for the past month or so, having started out 5-1 before losing four straight entering this game. The Bears principle weakness for the past few years has been their quarterback play. The Bears traded up for Mitchell Trubisky, and that hasn’t exactly panned out; he has turned out to be an Andy Dalton type--serviceable, but in no way the kind of quarterback you feel confidence in when the game is on the line. Aaron Rodgers, on the other hand, took advantage of the running game that performed as Matt LaFleur’s “system” expected it to, and tossed four touchdown passes without having to expend too much energy.

Except for a couple of garbage scores in the fourth quarter, the 41-25 Packer victory was as much a much-needed shot in the arm as it was more evidence that the competition in the division was greatly exaggerated. The Bears looked just plain horrible for three quarters. Trubisky threw two interceptions and lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown--although Za’Darius Smith should have been called for a facemask penalty that probably caused the fumble (two Packer defenders actually grabbed Trubisky’s facemask on the play). On the other hand, the Bears played so badly both offensively and defensively for the majority of the game, such bad luck was deserved.

The Packers offensive line played outstanding football, allowing no sacks or hits on Rodgers, and opening up enough holes for the best outing by the running game in awhile. Both Aaron Jones and Jamaal Williams were efficient, as the Packers wracked-up 14 first downs off of 39 running plays. The Bears defensive front seem to allow every running play to get past the line of scrimmage without much effort, and although we can’t expect that kind of awful play from every team, at least it is a “confidence” builder in future games, hopefully.

Next week it is another “home” game against an Eagles team that has simply not played like the same team that beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. The next three games are more than winnable, before playing “at” the Titans, who happened to beat the team the Packers lost to last week.

The rural vote: a “dire warning” for Democrats--or a dire warning for America?

 

The Associated Press had a story recently that claimed that the vote in rural parts of the Midwest that “historically” swung blue shifted red for Donald Trump because Democrats have allegedly moved too far to the “left” for many rural voters. Tom Bakk, a former Democrat turned “independent,” said “We’ve got to see if we can get the Democratic Party to moderate and accept the fact that rural Minnesota is not getting more conservative. It’s that you guys are leaving them behind.” The AP reported that despite losing Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump won 14 more counties in those states than in 2016--albeit in counties with low populations, which Joe Biden was able to overcome with gains in urban and suburban areas.

But the truth is that there is a serious disconnect in this country if people think that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s progressive ideas--which are more idealistic aspirations than a “socialist” threat to the “system”--are more out of line than that of QAnon fanatic Marjorie Taylor Greene, a newly elected representative from Georgia. Greene has warned of an “Islamic invasion” of the government, accused liberal philanthropist George Soros of “collaborating” with the Nazis even though he was only 15 when WWII ended, and wants to help Trump on his “secret mission” to battle the alleged child sex trafficking ring run by “deep-state” satanists, pedophiles and cannibals. Is that crazy enough for you? Rural voters were actually so enamored with that kind of insanity to believe she was more “suitable” than the Republican incumbent? A photo of her on the Southern Poverty Law Center website shows her standing next to a black female supporter wearing a "FUND THE WALL" T-shirt, which suggests that some voters don't really care so long as their own personal prejudices are "satisfied."

It seems that rural folks (which includes small towns) have been most fascinated by Trump sharing their conspiracy theories about urban areas and political “elites” getting all the attention and the ignoring of their own particular wants and desires. They think that just because Trump made campaign stops in small towns in rural areas that nobody heard of outside the counties they reside in that he actually “works” for them. He actually just works on their self-obsessed prejudices against the “others”; if you ask them what exactly Trump has done for them, as John Klepper has done in his exploration of Trumpworld, it has nothing to do what he has done for them personally in a substantive manner, but what they believe he has done to harm the people who are the subject of their own various outlandish conspiracies and demonizing. It shouldn’t be surprising that most of these people have lived their entire lives without even having associated with an “other” on any level save what they see on television screens, especially on Fox News.

Those who are “warning” Democrats about not further “alienating” rural Americans should actually be asking themselves just to what extent do Democrats have to “compromise” their ideals to satisfy those voters whose own prejudices and bigotries have been emboldened by Trump? This fraud that Democrats have strayed too far to the “left” is just another conspiracy theory. The Clinton administration was infamous for its going along with the right-wing agenda of the Republican-controlled Congress, and real progressives only saw disappointment with the Obama administration. The Trump administration agenda was so far to the right, so demonizing and dehumanizing, so corrupt, immoral and unethical, that almost every comment coming from the left of it seemed “radical” to those who found Trump’s gutter-level rhetoric appealing--to 74 million in this past election.

Where Trump has taken the country should not be treated as a “dire warning” for Democrats, but for the country as a whole. Trump’s behaving like a Third World dictator contesting the election should be a dire warning to people that “leaders” like Trump are a danger to the very principles that this country was founded on. If rural America cannot understand this, and choose to actively support the corruption of this country’s principles as embodied by Trump, and allow their own prejudices and hatreds be their “guide,” then that is the true danger the country faces. No one should be expected to compromise their belief in something better to satisfy self-serving bigots.   

The conservative justices got it wrong: religious organizations are "businesses" selling a "product" and need to follow the same health and safety rules as their secular counterparts

 

Five Supreme Court justices decided this past Wednesday in favor of a Roman Catholic diocese and a conservative Jewish organization, both of which claimed that the state of New York’s COVID-19 restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The clause states that

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

The claim was that the COVID-19 restrictions were somehow designed to effect houses of religion more “harshly” than secular facilities. The majority on the court claimed that New York’s restrictions that effected houses of religion were "far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.”  

By “secular” facilities, the court was referring to retail and grocery stores, restaurants, bars and the like. But that is an accurate comparison, because those establishments either have face mask and distancing requirements, enforce limited capacity or have either outside or drive-through service. A better comparison would be movie theaters and sports arenas, which nationwide are mostly either shuttered or empty, or both.

Thus the hypocrisy of the claim by the court majority that "Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services.” Of course there would be no “evidence” of spread in  churches and synagogues if they are sparsely or not attended. But there is plenty of evidence from Donald Trump’s “spiritual”--and maskless--campaign events in the Rose Garden also tended to be “super-spreader” events.

Furthermore, the while the majority admitted that "Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” it still insisted in twisted fashion that “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten." Again, the hypocrisy is simply beyond belief. What the court effectively said is that churches and synagogues are not only governed by separate rules, but those rules can ignore public health.

Note that people accused of offenses against certain religious “commandments” like murder, stealing and bearing false witness are subject to secular punishment, and only “spiritual” punishment from religious law--which is as it should be, since we see in Muslim countries that practice sharia law the death penalty can be applied for crimes like adultery or apostasy, which in this country according to “secular” law are not crimes at all.   

The minority in the court--which would have been the majority had it not been for the untimely death Ruth Bader Ginsburg--pointed out that "The Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States”--not to religious institutions.

Let’s not forget one very important fact that the majority of the court--in its fanatical “devotion” to the separation of church and state, and as an allegedly “moral” as well as allegedly “constitutional” issue--neglects to mention: that religious institutions are in the “business” of selling a “product,” just like any other of the “secular” variety. Televangelists sell a “product” to achieve ratings and more money from television contracts, and from the sale of books and videos. It doesn’t matter what is the nature of what they are “selling”--they are still selling a product. Thus in practical and real terms they are behaving in no different a fashion than, say, a musical or stage performer. Some of them make millions of dollars; Kenneth Copeland is certainly a “performer” with his often absurd antics, and he claims to be worth a $1 billion.

The real complainants here, of course, are those religious institutions--especially the Catholic Church--which rely on donations from parishioners. One assumes that regular churchgoers are responding to urgent requests that they continue their regular donations, but one suspects that outside the churches and synagogues, there is less “guilt” in not making regular donations, and less money is coming in. That is what this is all about--money. Because churches and synagogues are places of worship first, but businesses second. Or is it the other way around? Religious institutions and organizations must run as “secular” businesses which offer “services” that practitioners pay for.

Thus religious “businesses” are demanding to ignore health and safety rules that other business must abide by. People don’t “congregate” in grocery stores--they just get in and get out. Movie theaters and the stands in football stadiums are mostly empty. But churches and synagogues want to allow hundreds to congregate in close proximity for an hour or two at a time, and maybe they will abide by face mask rules, or not. Remember that Copeland didn’t require those those who were still attending services to wear masks because he “blew” the virus into oblivion back in April, and he expected his listeners to take him at his word. That is why we shouldn’t entrust the “safety and health of the people” to unaccountable religious organizations.