So Brett Favre gave an interview with Joe Buck today on Buck’s new HBO show. I’ve seen a couple of video clips from the interview, and I’ve read some of Favre’s comments. It’s very clear to me that all Buck did was give Favre a platform to say whatever he wanted. He didn’t ask the questions that sports fans want answered.

Given all that’s happened, any interview with Favre is incomplete unless the following questions are asked and answered:

1) If you still have the ability to play in the NFL, and you’re an unrestricted free agent, then why do 31 teams not care?

2) If you really want to play again for all the right reasons, then why didn’t you have the surgery on your arm earlier in the spring so that you’d be ready to participate in the Vikings organized team activities (OTAs)?

Favre acknowledged that Vikings coach Brad Childress wanted him to attend their OTAs. Favre said, “Knowing that there is no guarantee that my arm will be like it was before, I chose to stay away just because I figured there would be a media frenzy if I was there.”

Seriously? You’re telling us that you want to play football, and the coach says you need to be there, but you decide to not be with the team because there would be a media frenzy?

Oh my God people. If it’s not obvious to you that Favre still just wants to just stick it to the Packers, I don’t know what more you need to know. If Favre truly wants to play football, he should be doing so many things differently.

What was interesting during all the hype last summer was that those of us who were expressing our opinions were either journalists or fans, and passionate fans at that. It’s difficult to have an impartial opinion if you’re a passionate fan. But did you notice what happened as the season unfolded? Everything changed. It was no longer just the fans ranting about Favre. His teammates finally spoke.

Jets safety Kerry Rhodes saw the situation quite clearly and was one of only a couple of Favre’s teammates who had the guts to say how he felt.  The Jets’ 2008 season came to an end in their loss to Miami on Sunday, December 28. Four days later, Rhodes said this about Favre, “If he’s dedicated and he wants to come back and do this, and do it the right way… and be here when we’re here in training camp and the minicamps and working out with us… then I’m fine with it. But don’t come back if it’s going to be half-hearted or he doesn’t want to put the time in with us.”

Rhodes said it all. And his assessment of Favre’s intentions holds true today. If Favre was doing this right, he’d already be wearing a purple uniform.

So what’s the saddest part of this whole situation? The saddest part is that the Vikings are so pitiful and desperate that they’re going after a 40-year-old quarterback whose career is over and only wants to play so he can stick it to his former team. I can’t wait until November 1.

I’ve written about the smoking ban in my blog before. I’ve also responded to a number of posts on Facebook. And as I read everyone’s opinion, I’ve discovered the crux of the issue.

Smoking is legal in the United States. So any statewide ban that prohibits this activity tramples the rights of smokers.

Now listen, we all know of the negative affects of smoking and second-hand smoke. We’ve all heard that second-hand smoke can trigger negative affects in people with asthma. We all know how differently a non-smoking hotel room smells from one where smoking is allowed. We all know how our clothes smell after an evening at a bowling alley. It’s for all these reasons that I simply choose to frequent non-smoking businesses. If smoking were allowed in Walmart, I’d be headed to Target. I’m a non-smoker, and I haven’t been exposed to second-hand smoke in years; my choices are simple.

But it seems that while many people are making their argument based on health issues, my argument is made based on the rights and freedoms of Americans who are doing something that is perfectly legal.

But let me be clear. I absolutely agree with all of the health issue arguments. I just don’t think those arguments should lead to a statewide ban of smoking in public places. Instead, those are valid arguments for outlaw smoking altogether. Now that’s something that I’d be in favor of. We can’t smoke marijuana because it’s not good for you. Well, here’s a news flash, nicotine isn’t good for you either.

Outlawing smoking in the U.S. altogether would be a no-brainer. Even the U.S. surgeon general has been telling us for decades how bad it is. But today, smoking is legal. Therefore, smoking is a choice. Likewise, restaurant and bar owners must also have that same choice.

Alright, I know Nadya Suleman has done some things that warranted national attention, but does that mean that we now have to hear every little detail about her life? And how long does this need to go on?

I heard last week that she got a tatoo. And now this morning, one of her kids has a bruise. Aw geez. I don’t know anything more about those situations than that; I only heard the headlines on CNN. But with the economy like it is, and with the H1N1 virus spreading, and with the wars like they are, can’t these lazy journalists find other more interesting stories to cover?

And while I’m talking about Suleman, if we’re so concerned about her life, then we should show that we truly care. Showing concern doesn’t mean sensationalizing every move she makes on national TV. I don’t know anything about her intentions or why she does what she does, I haven’t spoken to her. But the simple fact that she’s a single mom with 14 kids tells me that she needs our prayers and support.

Raising my three teenage daughters in this world is not easy, and I’m sharing the duties with my wife. I can’t imagine what it would be like to add eleven more kids to my house and then remove one of the parents. Come on people. Give this woman some space. Put down the cameras and use those hands to say a prayer for the well-being of the Suleman family.

So check out what happened when my youngest daughter, Randy (15), and I were out raking in the front yard this afternoon. The kids are still on a mini-Easter break through today, so we had to get the lawn raked.

My truck was parked in the street in front of my house. We live two houses from a cul-de-sac so we don’t get much traffic, but a drivers ed car came down our block and used my truck to practice parallel parking. As soon as the car pulled up next to my truck, I told Randy, “let’s make like we’re in a band.” No, I don’t have a good reason, I just figured we’d give the driver students something more interesting to look at than a dad and daughter raking.

I told Randy that she could make believe her rake is a guitar and I’d make believe my rake is a microphone. Of course I demonstrated this right in the middle of the yard, facing the street, in full view of the car and its occupants, while Randy kept hitting me and telling me to stop. To demonstrate the guitar, I played some Peter Frampton on my rake; and to demonstrate the microphone, I did “Beth” by Kiss. This went on for only a couple minutes, though Randy will tell you that it was longer.

Then the car pulled away, went around the cul-de-sac and as it passed by our house again on its way out, I finished up the rafrain from “Beth” on my rake. Randy wasn’t happy, though we figured my little regression to adolescence was over.

Well, just a little while ago, one of Randy’s friends sent her a message on Facebook that started, “hey Randy, you know that drivers ed car that was in front of your house today…”

OH NO!!!!!!

Nope, it hadn’t dawned on me that Randy’s 15, and since most kids in a drivers ed car are also 15, that maybe they know her. Oh well. I guess I gave her something to look forward to when she goes to school tomorrow. I’m sure the kid won’t tell anyone.

On April 7, 2009, the Allouez (WI) Village Board approved a program that allows landlords to use a “crime free lease addendum.” This addendum states that “if a tenant is suspected of criminal activity within the property, the tenant can be evicted for violating the lease.”

I’ve never heard of a municipality anywhere in the United States that kicks out a citizen if he or she is named a suspect in a crime. This is a bold move on the part of the village, and since it also goes against everything that the American constitution stands for, I must also assume that Allouez will secede from our nation and form their own sovereign territory.

DISCLAIMER: Like many Americans, I get my news from local, national and global web sites and TV stations. If a particular story piques my interest, I look into it further on additional web sites and TV stations in order to form a realistic and, most importantly, accurate depiction. Corporate and municipal web sites are usually quite helpful in this regard.

For the above story, my only source is the Green Bay Press-Gazette. The first place I looked for clarification is the Village of Allouez web site. While they do provide board meeting minutes on their site, the most current such document is dated March 17, and that document makes no mention of this issue. So, if the newspaper article is indeed accurate, then property values in Allouez are about to plummit as residents scatter to new homes in a country where its residents are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

It’s election day again in Wisconsin, one of the more patriotic days of the year. In following with a tradition I started last year, I’m revealing my ballot. Not because I want to convince you to agree with me or to vote like I will, but simply because I can. As elections go, I feel fortunate to work at a college, as we frequently have candidates on campus to speak about their views and answer questions. Of the four contested races on my ballot, I heard candidates speak in two of them, and in the other two, I know my candidate personally. I don’t always have this level of familiarity with the personalities.

There are two statewide races, the first of which is state superintendant of schools. To me, this race boils down to how you view the current condition of education in Wisconsin, and what it should look like in the future. The TV ads on both sides are kind of stupid. The facts mostly agreed upon by all include the fact that Tony Evers has experience in education, while Rose Fernandez does not. Evers has the support of the leaders of the teachers union. Fernandez has the support of the major newspapers in the state. I don’t know that there is any single hot button issue, though the drop-out rate in Milwaukee is a staggering 30%. That’s just nuts. We’re failing our children when a third don’t graduate high school. Shame on us. The sheriff of Milwaukee County is rightly concerned, because he says that those drop-outs are turning up in his jails and he doesn’t have room. He supports Fernandez because he feels she’s got a better plan to get Milwaukee schools back on track. I’m with Rose Fernandez.

The second statewide race is for supreme court justice. Again, I don’t really like the TV ads that either candidate put out. They’re just dumb, and I think it’s sad if voters make their decisions based on any of the ads. I’m voting for Shirley Abrahamson over Randy Koschnick because she seems less partisan, and decides her cases more on a strict interpretation of the law, rather than her personal views.

For city of De Pere district 3 alderperson, Mike Donovan is my guy. I got to know him a few years back, and he and I seem to agree on many city decisions. Mike is a school teacher and has been on the council for 12 years. Quite frankly, I know nothing about his opponent Donna Gilson.  So for this one, I’m just sticking with Mike because he’s doing right by the city of De Pere.

Lastly, for West De Pere school board member, it’s Tom Van De Hei against Rick Turriff. For me, this race is similar to alderperson, in that Rick is my guy. I’ve known him personally for years. Our kids went to school together. I do business with Rick. I like the way he thinks, and I know he’ll do good things for our children on the school board. But in this race, I asked around about Tom Van De Hei, and I heard nothing but good things about him. So, for me, this one is good guy vs. good guy. Sounds like a win-win situation for our kids. I’m sticking with Rick.

So that’s my thinking on April 7, 2009. I hope to see you at the polls.

Governor Doyle signed legislation in 2006 to provide incentives that will attract the film industry to Wisconsin. Most state citizens understand the benefits of such a deal. If a film company can make a movie in Wisconsin cheaper than in another state, then perhaps we can get that business here in our backyard. Fine. Sounds simple.

Now Governor Doyle has removed this incentive from his 2009-11 budget proposal, in favor of replacing it with a $500,000 grant program for related activities that create permanent jobs in Wisconsin.

I usually don’t agree with Governor Doyle, but when he takes both sides of an issue, we’re bound to agree on something. And this time, I agree with his current plan. I agree that we need to focus on establishing more permanent jobs.

But more importantly, if we’re going to have any incentives that attract specific industries to Wisconsin, we need to choose those industries carefully. And I can think of many industries that are more important to Wisconsin than the film industry.

For example, what about focusing on keeping certain industries here, and preventing shutdowns and layoffs, instead of bringing in new industries? Talk to the folks in Marinette about maintaining the shipbuilding industry. Talk to some rural farmers about their passion for growing corn and raising cattle. Talk to the papermakers, the lifeblood of Kimberly.

You and I both know why the film industry seems more important. Because it’s sexier. It makes for a sexy news broadcast to talk about Johnny Depp filming in Oshkosh. It’s cool to have Green Bay native Tony Shaloub filming in Door County. And if you were to take a poll, most Wisconsinites would agree that building ships, milking cows and making paper just aren’t very sexy. But it’s who we are folks. These industries are the economy of our state.

I’m not against attracting new business to Wisconsin. But let’s focus on who we are first. Let’s see if we can’t get some news coverage of a neighbor making paper in Kimberly again or of a farm that made it because we didn’t waste our money trying to bring movie stars to Wisconsin.

Alright folks, that’s enough. President Obama’s whole economic stimulus/bail out plan is imploding, and we need to stop it now. The plan is not going to work. It’s not going to stimulate anything.

Let’s take a step back though; I want to start by getting my biggest gripe off my chest. President Obama did not “inherit” anything. He keeps using that word “inherit” when he talks about the economy, as if to wash his hands clean and make clear that “this isn’t my mess, I didn’t create it, and if I can’t fix it during my 4 years in office, it’s not my fault.” Let’s just look at one specific speech, his Address to a Joint Session of Congress on February 24, 2009. Here are a few quotes from that speech:

“the massive debt we’ve inherited”

“my budget…reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited – a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession”

“with the deficit we’ve inherited”

In supporting Obama’s economic plan, Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Appleton) said just today, “We have to clean up the economic mess left over by the previous administration…”

What’s with these democrats? If you think that all of our country’s problems today were caused by the “previous administration”, you’re quite ignorant. Likewise, if you think that all that’s good in our country today (and there is indeed a lot of good) was caused by the “previous administration”, you’re even more ignorant. That’s not how our country works people. The United States is a republic. We elect our representatives, and they go to work for us. Yes, there’s a presidential administration, but there’s also this other institution called Congress that has a role to play. Come on, don’t tell me you haven’t heard of “government of the people, by the…” Do I have to spell it out?

Think back to the presidential campaign. Then Senator Obama slammed Washington so much that it became offensive. That’s my Washington that you’re slamming. Those are my representatives…our representatives. We elected them. We put them there. When you slam Washington, you slam Americans.

But I digress. Listen folks. Not only did President Obama not inherit the economy, he created it. That’s right. He’s an American, just like me. This is our economy and we created it! We all created it, we all need to accept responsibility and we all need to fix it.

Now, to the plan. I’ve said in this blog before that we need to let failing companies fail. I stand by that philosophy, now more than ever. Here’s the problem with Obama’s plan. He thinks that by giving a financial handout to a company, our government in turn has the right to tell that company how to spend its money. After all, if you’re getting stimulus money, you surely can’t give your executives a bonus. Well, that’s just a load of crap.

The big story today is that AIG received almost $180 billion in “bail out” money, and is giving $165 million in executive bonuses. President Obama and many other elected officials are upset at this, so much so that if AIG doesn’t give that money back to the government, congress is considering enacting an emergency taxation rule that taxes those bonuses at 100%, thereby getting all the money back anyway. What a mess!

Why would any of us want our government to have the right to pry into private business operations and tell a company how to run their company? I know, I know, it’s ridiculous. We need to stay out of such dealings.

If you’re not familiar with recent northeast Wisconsin news, let me tell you about one such local story. Two situations happened at Associated Bank, situations that seemed to collide. The first was a planned trip to Puerto Rico for its top sales people, an incentive quite common in corporate America. The second was an offer of financial help from the U.S. Treasury Dept as part of its Troubled Asset Relief Program to help keep America’s banks afloat. In a nutshell, people complained that if a bank receives financial help from the federal government, it should not send its employees to Puerto Rico.

There are a couple of problems with such a complaint. First, the money is not a hand-out. Associated sold $525 million in preferred stock to the U.S. Treasury. Associated will pay a 5 percent dividend for 5 years, then 9 percent after that. The second problem is that Associated is not in trouble. It turned a profit last year and CEO Paul Beideman said that they didn’t need the money. Yes folks, there are indeed profitable, well-run banks in America, and Associated is one of them. But they were offered the help, and they took it as an act of “caution in what is a challenging environment.” Sounds to me like a CEO who knows what he’s doing. It’s no wonder the bank is profitable.

But then something happened. Beideman caved and the trip was cancelled after all. Incentives like this are part of employee compensation. They are planned and budgeted for well in advance. There was no need to cancel it. What do you naysayers think happened? Beideman got off the phone after closing the deal with the Treasury Dept, and hollered “woo hoo, pack your bags, we’re all going to Puerto Rico!?” Geez. I must assume that a guy as smart as him is still going to take good care of his top sales people.

So what are we getting ourselves into here? I’ll tell you what. If you receive any benefit as part of President Obama’s economic recovery plan, you’d better watch your back. Yep, yep, if you know me, you know where I’m going with this.

As a direct result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, my wife and I will receive about $800 in benefits by reduced income taxes on our paychecks. It’s certainly no $180 billion like AIG got, but $800 is a lot of money in this household. The reduced income tax withholdings will start as early as next month. So, what are we going to do with the money? Something to stimulate the economy maybe? College for our daughters (2 in college next fall)? Home repairs? Save for retirement? Absolutely not. We’re buying Green Bay Packers season tickets.

Yep. I just got the invoice in the mail today. $1,012 for two tickets for the 2009 season, and we’re buying them. So, there it is. Let the public outcry begin. The Crevier household in De Pere, Wisconsin is receiving $800 in economic stimulus money, and we’re blowing it all on Packers tickets!

I hope Congress doesn’t enact any special laws to tax my $800 credit at 100% so that I’ll have to give it all back. We really need that money for Packers tickets.

All sarcasm aside, I’m not expecting any official communication from the government about how I’m spending my money. And that’s my point. If we’re going to have any kind of government help in this crazy economy, let’s just put the money in the pockets of ordinary Americans where it belongs.

I will give President Obama credit for one thing here. I like the fact that any money going directly to American taxpayers gets to us via our paychecks. That’s a payment mechanism that’s already in place. We don’t need to spend even more money by making a separate payment like President Bush did a couple of times.

Remember the automakers’ private jet/capitol hill fiasco back on November 16, 2008? After all the complaints from the public, Ford CEO Alan Mulally pulled his company out of consideration for the auto industry bail out. Suddenly he seems like a genius. He gets to pull his company through these tough times on his own terms.

(DISCLAIMER: I’ve been driving a Ford truck for 14 years, and three out of our four family vehicles are Fords.)

Chase Bank has now declined charges on my Visa card twice due to what they define as suspicious activity. Here’s the deal.

I have this Visa account for my business, smcNet LLC. I’ve had the account since 2002. I never use the credit card in person. It’s an account I use to pay for my monthly web hosting fees to pair Networks. And I also use it for an occasional online purchase.

Well, pair Networks tried to put through their monthly charge yesterday and it was declined. Meanwhile, I had a voice message on my business line from Chase asking me to call their fraud department regarding suspicious charges.

So I called them tonight. They verified my identity, and asked me about two suspicious charges. The first was for pair Networks as I mentioned. The second was my annual subscription for MobileMe (which they did not decline). That’s it. I told them that they were both legitimate. The lady said “ok”, and I could contact pair Networks and have them put the charge through now.

She was getting ready to hang up and I stopped her and asked why they declined the charge. What made them think that it was suspicious? She said, “several factors go into the decision to approve or decline…specific details cannot be discussed.” Really. That’s what she said.

I explained that I’ve been doing business with pair Networks since 1996. They’ve been charging me monthly fees for 13 years. And I’ve had my Chase account for 7 years. How could they possibly think that a regular monthly charge from a known vendor would be suspicious? She could not give me an answer.

Listen, I certainly appreciate a credit card company watching out for fraudulent activity. But I can’t have them declining a regular charge from a reputable vendor, and then telling me that “specific details cannot be discussed.” All they had to do was look at my account. It’s all there.

This is the second time Chase has done this to me in the past 3 months. I’m not happy about it at all. I’m now in the market for a new credit card company. If you know of a good one, with the ability to make payments online, leave a comment here.

It seems that whenever I spend time with my buddies in the Our Lady of Lourdes Mens Group, it’s always a good day. Back on Dec 31, one of the guys e-mailed the group, offering up the idea of doing the Polar Plunge to help raise money for Special Olympics Wisconsin. Fast forward to yesterday, a bright sunny winter day in Green Bay, temperature 14°F, when seven of us actually took the plunge at the Watering Hole in Green Bay.

The Polar Plunge is the biggest fund-raiser of the year for Special Olympics, this year raising $100,000 for the athletes. As a team, we raised $2,430 of that. Not bad.

I had never done this before, so I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect. When I hit the water, I felt an immediate and stunning shock! Since we each dove in sideways, it contributed to me not really getting my bearings right away. Thank God for the divers who were in the water helping us get out. One such guy helped me figure out which was was up, and pointed me toward the steps leading out of the water.

Once I got out, I was fine. Although we were then standing in 14° air, soaking wet. As cold as that was, it didn’t seem as bad as hitting the water. But we all got out just fine, found our way back indoors for some photos, and that was it.

If you look closely at one of the photos taken just before we jumped in, you’ll see me opening a mini bottle of Schnaaps. This was of course to keep some warmth running through my veins. It worked.

It was also cool to see some other friends there. As luck would have it, Todd Sanders (web dude from UWGB and fellow tweep) just happened to plunge right before us. And Dean Raasch, another friend and racquetball foe, took the plunge with other folks from WEL Companies.

All in all, it was a great day, and good to be part of a great cause.

As a founding member of the GQ4 Barbershop Quartet, I spent the last eight Valentine’s Days (and nights) away from home, as we toured northeast Wisconsin delivering Singing Valentines. The four of us had a ton of fun doing it, but it always meant that we were away from our wives and families on this special day each year.

Our quartet ended it’s run last summer after eight great years. As such, I looked forward to being home on Valentine’s Day for the first time in a long time. Well, as luck would have it, it’s Saturday and I have to work. It’s unusual for me to have to work on a weekend, so I’m certainly not complaining about that (actually it’s great to have a job at all now-a-days).

But I’m still a bit bummed that I’m away from my four Valentines again today. In the Crevier house, this is always my one day to do something little, something special for my wife and three daughters, all of whom provide light to my world.

Ladies, I love you! Hopefully I’ll be home for a while this evening.

Jennifer Hudson sang the Star Spangled Banner before the Super Bowl. And again, I didn’t like it.

First of all, why the lip sync? I attend sporting events all the time, and having the anthem sung live works just fine. They did it live at the St. Norbert College hockey game last night. They do it live at at all the games at Lambeau Field this year. I know you’ve heard it live at sporting events yourself. So now we’ve got the greatest sporting event in the country, and all of a sudden live isn’t good enough? I don’t understand.

Second, the arrangement was new. Never done before and therefore unknown to the players and 72,000 fans in attendance. Jennifer Hudson sang her own little version of the Star Spangled Banner, in a way that no one could sing along. Shame on her.

I don’t understand why we do this. The definition of anthem is “a song of loyalty or devotion.” Why are these singers so arrogant as to think that they’re the only ones who want to show their loyalty or devotion?

I’ve sung the national anthem with my barbershop quartet at 54 different sporting events. The teams we sang for (including MLB, NBA and of course many local teams in northeast Wisconsin) gave us plenty of feedback. More importantly, many fans in attendance have shared their comments with us first hand. People like the fact that they can sing along with us, that we’re not just performing the anthem so much as we’re leading the crowd in song.

Listen folks. This is not some top 40 song that they’re singing on tour. This isn’t a cutesie version of some old pop hit on American Idol. This isn’t just one more thing that we do before sporting events, like warming up the players and announcing the starters. This is the Star Spangled Banner. Written by Francis Scott Key after seeing British ships bombard Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. Adopted by the United States as our national anthem by a congressional resolution in 1931. This is a special song. It has special meaning. Men and women have shed blood to defend our “land of the free and home of the brave.”

Let’s take the glitz out of the performance, and put back the honor, loyalty and devotion to the greatest country in the world. If we can’t do that, the it should not be part of the Super Bowl.