_wtaq-blogs-jerrybader The Bader Blog

  • Giving credit where credit is due???????

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    Okay, I undertand the AP writer is, for the most part, is simply trying to find an interesting angle in an otherwise unimportant bowl game featuring Wisconsin and Miami. And yes, Donna Shalala now president of Miami and former Chancellor of Madison IS a relevant storyline. But is it just me, or does it look a little silly here giving her the credit this story seems to for the resurgence of UW sports?

    Look, Pat Richter was a GREAT hire, and he in turn did an EXCELLENT job rebuilding both the football and basketball programs at the UW. And yes, it says Shalala lobbied Richter hard to take the job at his alma mater.  I give Bob Harlan a lot of credit for the resurgence of the Green Bay Packers since he earned the top job in the late 80's. But running the Packers was his job. She HIRED someone to run the athletic programs. Shalala is quoted in the story as saying she has gotten too much credit for the resurgence of UW athletic programs. I never really thought so, until I saw this story in today's Green Bay paper.

  • Merry Christmas from JB

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    MERRY CHRISTMAS!

    The Jerry Bader show will be back 1/4/10. I'm taking a break from blogging through tomorrow, but will be actively blogging the week I'm off. Enjoy your holiday and drive safely!

  • Favre/Childress dispute over audibles

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    ESPN reports that the friction between Brett Favre and Vikings coach Brad Childress is the result of a season long dispute over how much control Favre should have on the field versus how much Childress should have from the sideline. It's also interesting to note that the move to yank Favre Sunday Night against the Panthers, was reportedly over Favre trying to change plays more than Childress was comfortable with, and that it's happened several times already this season.

    I told you months ago that Mike McCarthy has told people privately that Favre was running the Packer organization when Ted Thompson got to Green Bay and that my belief was the reason they did nothing to encourage Favre to "unretire" after the 2007 season because they wanted to regain control of the franchise. I'm sure the diehard Favre apologists will fine some way to spin this. Then again, they also have to navigate what former Packer great Leroy Butler told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

  • The Bucks take tix away from a fan who was supporting the Lakers

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    Okay, this one is more complex than the headline I gave it would suggest. A listener sent this email this afternoon. This is a dandy. We'll take it up on the show Wednesday.

    Jerry,
     
    I was wondering if this would make for an interesting topic.
     
    So I, my wife, and my mother in law joined up with Squad 6. If you're not familiar, that's the fan section Andrew Bogut started up for the Bucks. He was tired of the BC sounding like a funeral parlor during Bucks games, so he bought a whole section of tickets for the season and gave them to fans who's job it is to stand and yell for the whole game, basically be like a college student section. We had to audition to get the spots, we did, and all 3 of us made it.
     
    The rules we were given when we got the seats included, if you can't use your ticket you have to find a replacement for yourself (you get 3 "unexcused" absences), and you had to wear Bucks gear to all games.
     
    So fast forward to last Wednesdays game. Before we became Squad 6 members, my wife had purchased court side tickets for the Lakers game, as (along with being a Bucks fan) she is a Lakers fan. This was no secret to Mr. Bogut, as both her and her mom are friends of his on both Facebook and Twitter, and have chatted with him on several occasions. So at Wednesdays game, we brought along her step brother to fill her Squad 6 seat, and she and her sister used the court side tickets. She was wearing her Kobe Bryant jersey and carrying an "I (hart) Kobe" sign, but none of us figured it would be no big deal, as she was using her own ticket.
     
    Now move to the end of the game, the Bucks lose after the refs blow a call, the Bucks missing some free throws, and Kobe burying a jumper at the buzzer of OT. Heartbreaking loss for the home team.
     
    Friday afternoon she gets a call from one of the Bucks reps, saying she had been seen on Wednesday night (she was sitting right next to the tunnel where the players come in and out) and would have to face "Squad 6 court" on Saturday night, where she'd be interviewed on the Jumbotron and be subjected to a vote from the fans whether or not she got her Squad 6 spot back. I thought it was messed up that it was this much of a deal (I figured maybe she'd get some crap from the other Squad 6 members and that'd be the end of it), but was like "OK sounds like this could be funny" and figured all was well.

    So Friday night she looks around the internet, and we find a few threats on what has kind of become the official Squad 6 forum page. (http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=954378&start=1365 , Start with page 92)
     
    Saturday afternoon she gets a call from the same Bucks rep that "Andrew is uncomfortable with the situation, as he doesn't want it to go bad, so we're scrapping the whole "court" idea and just pulling your tickets. Sorry. If it hadn't been Kobe, and the game hadn't ended the way it did, it probably wouldn't have been a big deal."
     
    Obviously neither her mother or I went Saturday night (our tickets are sill in good standing) as we were disappointed in the whole situation, and I'm probably going to resign my spot in the next few days, as I'm disappointed that there was no warning and no chance for her to appeal her case or make any kind of apology.
     
    My points in her defense are as follows: we followed the rules for the section, we hadn't missed a game thus far, she was sitting in her own seat that she paid for, and her squad 6 spot was filled. So why should she lose her spot in the section because a ref blew a call, the team missed some free throws, and the deadliest shooter in the NBA did was he does? Why does she get to be the scapegoat for the team not closing out the game, and why do I get to be like Steve Bartmann's wife?
     
    Everyone I've told the story to keeps telling me how we were wronged (1 or 2 have said I should look into suing. We're not going down that road, because A. there was the "the team may pull your tickets at anytime" deal in the contract we signed when we were accepted and B. I'm not that kind of guy. If Brandon Jennings is the best thing to happen to the Bucks in years, Squad 6 is the second best. There's actually life at the Bradley Center during games now, and the team is showing the effects on the court. So I'm not doing anything to mess with that, I just think it's a raw deal), and It doesn't really matter as I don't think there's a way we could go back at this point, but I just want to know who's right here? Am I right that she's getting hosed, or is my bias skewing my perception here?

     

  • Church of England Priest says it's okay to steal if you're desperate

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    Apparently, if you steal from a big grocery store chain out of desperation, it's not a sin. But it is if you steal from a mom and pop operation? What exactly is the definition of "desperate?" And it's interesting how this priest feels it's okay to steal from large chains, but it would be a sin to steal from a small store? What if I can't afford clothes? Is that okay too? I actually have a stunning revelation on this, which I will share on the show on Wednesday.

  • Gamblers try to make the most of "Bat-gate"

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    The Green Bay Gamblers Hockey team came under fire last week after players killed a bat that made it onto the ice last week. The team announced a promotion today trying to make amends, after PETA and others pitched a fit. If a bat got in my house, I'd kill it if I had to. What would you do?

  • Maverick My...

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has made a career out of pretending to be a "maverick." You know the story; only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, teamed with a Republican. Now, ultra-lefties are upset that Feingold doesn't try to kill Health Care Reform because it doesn't include a public option. The PO is EVERYTHING to the far left, because they know it's the road to a single-payer system. Feingold has said as much himself, and said that the PO is a step to getting to single-payer.

    So if Mr. Maverick firmly believes in single-payer, why doesn't he obstruct on this? This would be a true opportunity to show he is indeed a maverick and not just in words. He says he hasn't decided yet whether to vote for the bill. If the White House thought it had a Feingold problem, Wisconsin would be showered with gifts right now. We're not, which tells me Team Obama considers Feingold money in the bank. While the last thing in the WORLD I would want is a government-run, single-payer system, the far lefties are right; why doesn't Feingold fight for that in which he so strongly believes? Is he a maverick, or is he going to go along with a bill that falls far short of his previously stated position. Here's going out on a limb; after some Senate floor bloviating to placate the far lefties, he'll be a good foot soldier and go along to get along.

  • Woodman's drops mental health benefits

    Posted by Jerry Bader

    Woodman's Food Market is dropping mental health benefits. The grocery retailer blames a federal mandate that it provide mental health benefits at the same level as other health care benefits. But the federal law doesn't require employers provide mental health benefits, so rather than bear the expense of raising it's mental health care coverage to other health care coverage, it's discontinuing the coverage.

    This is another classic example of the good intentions of liberals ultimately hurting the people they're trying to help the most. Despite treating businesses as nothing more than cash cows for their agenda, liberals fail to understand that it IS possible to milk the cow dry. Criticizing Woodman's for this move makes no more sense than criticizing the cow that can no longer produce milk.