The Boss's Last Stand(tm)

Just read Bill Simmons' recent article. Non-Yankee fans have always despised George Steinbrenner, but grudgingly given him some respect, but mostly just plain hated him. For Yankee fans the situation is far more complex. We love him AND we hate him. We respect him AND we think he's a joke. We wait for his eruptions with fear AND expectation. All of this is simulataneous.

Mr. Simmons notes that The Boss is fading and he points to several things as proof. I'd say that effectually, The Boss is already retired and not calling the shots. I look back over the last several years and I see what baseball historians will probably call The Boss's Last Stand(tm). To my thinking, this period began after the 2001 World Series loss to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Some might say it predated that and goes back to the '00-'01 off-season with the signing of Mike Mussina, but I disagree. Signing Mussina was a shrewd deal. One that almost EVERY owner in baseball would have done themselves. No, The Boss's Last Stand(tm) began after that 2001 World Series and ended with the start of the 2005 season.

Let me list some of what I see as The Boss's moves during this period:

1) The Boss signed Jason Giambi. This is a serious error because it lead to two additional moves: it banished Tino Martinez an integral piece of the recent championship run; and it made Nick Johnson expendable. Thus he was traded for Javier Vasquez following the 2003 season. A pity because Johnson is a superior defensive firstbaseman to Giambi. Johnson's offensive numbers this season are much better than Giambi's. And Johnson would not have brought the Balco soap opera into the dugout. Keeping Martinez for the ensuing years and transitioning the first base duties to Johnson would have provided stability and solid defense. Both lacking following the Giambi signing.

2) Trading for Javier Vasquez was another of The Boss's last ditch efforts. And as if the trade for him wasn't bad enough, giving up on him after one season in order to acquire a 41 year old pitcher only compounded the problem.

3) Ignoring Andy Pettitte following his announcing for free agency. Or backing up further....not re-signing him in the first place! The most stable pitcher during the entire championship run and you can't even call to tell him how important he is to you and your team? This was a compound problem as well, because resigning Andy would have meant that when Roger Clemens decided to un-retire, he would have called The Boss. Having Clemens last October would have likely prevented The Collapse(tm) and would have also prevented the overwhelming urge to trade for Randy Johnson.

4) Signing Gary Sheffield. This hasn't been a big boondoggle. At least not yet. Sheff has been productive and hasn't been the clubhouse distraction he's been elsewhere. At least not yet.

5) Not resigning Jon Lieber this past off-season. Proven post-season winner and you pass on him for Carl Bleeping Pavano? Or was it Jaret F'n Wright?

6) Trading for Arod. In my mind this was done simply because he could afford it, and John Henry couldn't it. Which is a lousy way to run a ballclub. Yes, Aaron Boone was lost for the season, but you didn't need the highest paid player in the game to fill the spot. This was a classic Steinbrenner move. His attempted manipulation of the Arod-Jeter relationship with off-season meetings demanding more leadership from Arod, tells me he was trying to re-create the Reggie-Thurmon situation of the mid-70's. While Arod and Jeter still probably have to square things up once and for all, I don't see a redux of Reggie-Thurmon. It should be mentioned that the trade for Arod also cost the Yankees one of their best homegrown players, Alfonso Soriano.

This list is hardly inclusive, but it covers six of the biggest moves made by The Boss since the loss to the D'backs in 2001. You'll also note that some of the moves created compound problems that were only compounded further by additional moves.

Now, when you look at the stumbling start the Yankees have had to this season, look at the responses: promotion of two rookies, the benching of an ineffective veteran centerfielder and the release/trade of two ineffective relief pitchers and the promotion of two-three more rookies. These decisions are clearly not being made by George Steinbrenner.

Sure some would say that his moves the last five to six years to try to keep the team competitive have stripped the cupboards bare. And there is definately a strong dose of truth in that notion. However, the chips the Yankees DO have to trade (Chien Ming-Wang and Robison Cano) are reportedly not on the market. I think some trades will be made. Tony Womack is likely to be moved for another pitcher or a legitimate centerfielder. But I believe that Cashman or whoever is actually running the show now will keep the two big rookies, and I believe that's a wise choice.

This will likely mean that the Yankees run at the top of the division will end this season. It may even mean that they miss the playoffs this October for the first time in a decade. But in the long run, going back and building up homegrown talent instead of trading it away for fading veterans will have a much longer lasting impact on the long-term success of the franchise.

To The Boss, I say: it was one hell of a ride. Thanks for the memories AND good riddance.

Why I think Michael Schiavo is full of it.

I watched most of Mr. Schiavo's interview the other night on Nightline. My first impression of the man is that he blinks an awful lot. I don't know, maybe he wears contacts and they were a bit dry or something. However, it seemed as though, despite years of repeating the same lines, they are still lies and he knows it every time he uses them.

That's how he appeared. In my opinion, the bigger problem for him is in what he said. A copy of his transcript can be found on ABC's website. There are a few things I want to focus on.

First is this exchange with my emphasis added:

BURY: Michael, in the heated rhetoric that's swirling around this case and has been for a number of years now — all kinds of charges have been flying back and forth.

First of all, do you stand to benefit financially in any way from your wife's death?

SCHIAVO: There is no money. I will receive not a penny.

BURY: You did receive something of a malpractice settlement north of $1 million at one point, is that correct?

SCHIAVO: Yes.

FELOS: Well, no.

BURY: And what happened to that?

FELOS: Michael didn't receive those funds. Those were received in Terri's guardianship and it was a bank who was her guardian of the property that administered those funds.

BURY: But the question remains: What happened to those funds?

FELOS: Well, those funds have been used for Terri's medical care and guardianship expenses and costs and fees over many, many years.

Those funds are virtually gone, and Mr. Schiavo is not going to inherit or gain one penny by the result of Terri's death.

BURY: And so, Michael, who is now — and let's get the camera over to Michael if we can — Michael, who is now paying for Terri's case?

SCHIAVO: Actually, right now, she's listed on the indigent list for hospice. They were taking care of her. They take very good care of her.

BURY: It's got to be very expensive.

SCHIAVO: She had — I haven't received any bills from it, so I couldn't tell you how much it would cost.

What Chris Bury didn't ask is exactly what the guardianship expenses and costs and fees are. And if he had asked, I'm certain Schiavo and/or his attorney would have squirmed and avoided answering the question becuase it most likely means "attorney fees". So, picture this situation if you will, Michael Schiavo on behalf of his incapicitated wife wins malpractive suits with awards in excess of a million dollars. The awards were to be applied to caring for Terri. Shortly after receiving these awards, Michael began his current crusade. Now, the entirety of the awards is now gone, in large part because Michael Schiavo has been trying to make his wife die.

Notice I didn't say he was trying to let her die, nor did I say he was trying to overtly kill her. He is currently trying to set up conditions that will make her die. There is no arguing this point. It is reality. He can try to dress it however he likes, but that is the cold hard reality of it.

The next exchange is this one:

BURY: Your wife's family and their supporters have been arguing in the most graphic terms that what you are going to allow happen on Friday, in their words, is in effect condemning your wife to a cruel death by starvation.

I'd like you to address that charge from them.

SCHIAVO: That's one of their soapboxes they've been on for a long time.

Terry will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away. This happens across this country every day.

Death through removing somebody's nutrition is very painless. That has been brought to the courts many of times. Doctors have come in and testified. It is a very painless procedure.

So if he's so convinced it is painless, why doesn't he give it a shot. Or how about "removing somebody's nutrition" from one of his children. Strangely, the State of Florida probably wouldn't like that one very much and would step in and remedy that situation.

The next thing is this comment from Schiavo:

SCHIAVO: Terry does not respond to anybody. She makes noises. She moans. She's been doing the same things for the past 15 years.

And they talk about their bona fide doctors. They have a list of doctors that signed affidavits from looking at a picture of Terry. That's where they get their information from, by looking at a picture.

And then they sign an affidavit swearing that she's not in a vegetative stage.

I'll tell you. That's a doctor you really want; they can look at a picture and make a diagnosis.

Again, Chris Bury drops the ball here. Had he done any research into this matter he'd have known that the reason why the Schindler's doctors have to rely on pictures and videos of Terry is because Schiavo won't let them examine her in person.

To me, this next exchange is where Michael Schiavo lost whatever credibility he had left:

BURY: The parents also argue that you have moved on with your life, that you now have children that you're with, another woman, and that you could, essentially, divorce Terri and relinquish guardianship to them. Why don't you do that?

SCHIAVO: If I moved on with my life — and I moved on with a portion of it — but I still have a big commitment to Terri. I made her a promise.

And another reason why I won't give Terri back is that Mr. Schindler testified in court, at the 2000 trial, that he would — to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive.

So why would I give her to a man that would do that to you?

He has "moved on with a portion" of his life? That's ridiculous. He's moved on entirely. Then this notion of making Terri a commitment and/or promise. Apparently we are to believe that Terri was so adamant in her desire not to be kept alive that she felt the commitment she wanted from Michael was more important than their wedding vows. Hey Michael....what happened to " in sickness and in health, till death do us part"? Or do you selectively chose which commitments you make to your wife and feel are worthy of honoring?

I'm sorry. This is a pile of mularkey. Michael Schiavo expresses later in the interview that it isn't about money. Well hooray for him. It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of commonsense that it isn't about money, it is about self-preservation, and for whatever reason we can only guess.

Though Schiavo provided no context for the quote of Mr. Schindler's testimony, I believe it would be safe to assume from the comment itself that it is hyperbole designed to demonstate the lengths to which a father will go to to keep his child alive. But that actually diverts us from the absurdity of the comment itself, and that is how he rationalizes that he, the man who will make Terri die, thinks it is irresponsible to "give Terri back" to a man who wants to do anything to keep her alive. Hello?!

I mean look at the stupidity of his position:

BURY: I understand that that's your feeling about what your wife wanted, but knowing that you believe she is in a vegetative state and knowing that her mother and father have said they're willing to pick up the burden and carry on the cost, what is the harm to you if you agree to their wishes and relinquish guardianship to them?

SCHIAVO: Basically what I just said. Her father stated in court he would cut her arms and legs off. I'm not going to turn over Terri to a person that would do that to you.

"No, I'm just going to make her die." Sheeeeeesh. The fact that Bury throughout this interview didn't press the issue with him makes me wonder what the real agenda was for Nightline to air the interview in the first place. (When you factor in the "polling" they reported on this issue, you really begin to wonder.)

There's more proof of Schiavo's heartlessness in this next exchange:

BURY: I understand fully the legal question here, Michael.

But let ask you in simply human terms. Can you understand the parents' contention, the bond that they have with their daughter, and their reluctance to let her go? Do you understand that?

SCHIAVO: You know, I have children and, you know, I couldn't even fathom what it would be like to lose a child. But you know, it's been 15 years.

They know the condition Terri is in. They were there in the beginning. They heard the doctors. They know that Terri's in a persistent vegetative state. They testified to that at the original trial.

Fifteen years — you've got to come to grips with it sometime.

So for him, a parent's love for their child should terminate after some period of time after which that child can not actively demonstrate love for the parent(s). Apparently he hasn't fully grasped what it means to be a parent yet. Maybe he's been too distracted by trying to make his wife die, to actually contemplate parenting the children he has with a woman who is not his wife. Again, I come back to his "commitment" to Terri, somehow he's managed to get a Judge to believe that some promise that no one else heard, is more important than the one made before God and the assembled witnesses on their wedding day.

I'm sorry, even if Michael Schiavo had nothing whatsoever to do with Terri's collapse, he is still a despicable man who deserves to have his nutrition withdrawn.

And there is that suspicion that he did in fact have something to do with her initial collapse. Near the end of his interview he comes out with this line:

And to sit here and be called a murderer and an adulterer by people that don't know me

Sure Michael, there is no evidence currently available to show you are a murderer. And besides, at best right now you'd only be an "attempted murderer". Now adulterer that's a different story. You are still married to Terri. You do have a live-in lover. You do have children with this lover. That pretty much makes you an adulterer. To me the strangest part of this entire situation is the fact that Judge Greer removed the only Trustee ever appointed to guard over Terri, and Terri's interests alone after the Trustee began to question the very fact of Michael's adultery. A Trustee/Guardian could well have pushed for a divorce on the grounds of adultery.

The reason why a divorce has never taken place either involuntary by a Trustee, or voluntary by Michael simply surrendering is precisely why people continue to question whether or not Michael is an attempted murderer. The question is: Why not a divorce, Michael? What is it about giving up Terri and her medical records that scares you? Is there something incriminating in the medical records? Are you concerned that if she had continued the treatment/rehab program she was in at the time of the last malpractive settlement, she might regain the ability to communicate? Why would that be a problem for you, Michael? What could Terri say that you might not want her to say?

Oh that's right, I forgot, you made a commitment to her, that if you are ever in the position to do so, you will make her die.

Thoughts on commercial software and the Linux market.

I haven't mentioned it before in this forum, but I am a Linux user, at home at least. I'm probably a half-step above a "newbie", so I'm not quite to intermediate user status. I don't particularly like the command line, but I am comfortable using it.

Fortunately, Linux has reached the point where I almost never have to even use the command line anymore. The distros I use (Mepis and Linspire) both use KDE. As such, KDE provides "point-n-click" administration tools for almost every conceivable task.

I mention all this becuase something I read this morning got me thinking. As noted in that article, the standard Linux/OSS version of a software tool now has a commercial challenger. While on the surface this good news, the deeper issues here are more interesting. Many people have bemoaned the lack of availability of commercial software from third parties, or Independant Software Vendors ("ISV's"). Many have felt that support from ISV's is necessary for Linux to be accepted en masse on the desktop.

I'm not opposed to this belief. However, ISV's, especially in certain areas, are teetering on the brink with regard to their Linux strategy. Many simply don't have a Linux strategy. Others have a "wait till it hits X% and then we'll port our application(s)" strategy. A few have been "early adopters" and have already ported their applications(s) entirely or at least partially. That last group is probably in the best position. They've already established a name for themselves in Linux circles and in some instances their applications are included in base installs of various distros.

The first two groups though are the ones I'm referring to being on the brink. Let me elaborate. The above linked article illustrates that in the absence of available applications from ISV's, the OSS community has undertaken the task of creating their own version of needed applications. K3B is only one of several such projects. The ISV's are teetering on the brink because as that article makes plain, the OSS variants are growing more and more mature and offering more and more features. As the OSS variants gain in credibility their use in Linux circles becomes more and more common. Thus when, as is the case with NeroLinux, an ISV decides to port their application, they are facing an already established product that is.....free of charge, and as in the case of K3B, installed by default in almost every quality distro.

So some ISV's are stuck in a boat, not at all unlike the one Netscape and Real Player found themselves when competing against MS's Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. (Note: the boat is similar, but far from the same.) The similarity is that ISV's have to convince users to buy their product over the free variant already installed on their system. That's an uphill battle no matter how polished the Win32 or Mac variation of their application may be.

ISV's ought to be examining ways to get on the Linux bandwagon now. As Linux use grows, the demand for certain applications (tax preparation software comes to mind) is only going to increase. If an ISV doesn't port their application to Linux, then the OSS community will begin working on alternatives. In my opinion, Nero is too late to this dance already. I've used K3B and see no reason to switch, and this doesn't even factor in the strange method required to have access to the NeroLinux download.

Hopefully, several ISV's will examine this review, and see the handwriting on the wall. Many ISV's have unique products that OSS has no viable alternative for, (again, tax preparation software comes to mind.) Thus, for some of these ISV's it is not too late to join the party. For others like NeroLinux, sorry you waited too long, and now you've missed the train.