Fake Steve is back. Since June 21st, about the time when the media leaked the story concerning El Jobso's liver transplant, Daniel Lyons, a.k.a. Fake Steve Jobs, re-emerged in his blog with some outstanding pieces, mainly inspired by the leak. Although not as aggressive as he used to be, Lyons remains largely entertaining and I hope, for the sake of the rest of us, past loyal readers of all of his postings and buyers of his Options book, that he continues to blog regularly again. One of the reasons is that he's always been well informed about events around the life of His Jobness (as he likes to call him) and he always knows to put the right hillarious spin on every story. Like the comments he made yesterday on the recent suggestion by the NYT that the whole liver tranplant story was possible because of potential violations of the law and rules of medical ethics... Listen what he sez...
"Whenever someone rich and famous receives a transplant, suspicions inevitably arise about whether that person managed to jump to the head of the waiting list and take an organ that might have saved the life of somebody just as desperate but less glamorous," they say -- only to assert, a paragraph later, that every doctor they talked to says there is no reason to cheat because these days anyone can pretty much sign up for a liver and get one.
There's no evidence suggesting I cheated. Nobody is quoted in the story saying I cheated. There's not a shred of anything in the actual story about that. I mean, yeah, as they point out, if you're rich and you own a jet you can sign up at different places and zoom in on short notice. And you can buy a big friggin mansion and just camp out waiting for some motorcyclist to go splat and leave a nice juicy set of fresh organs behind. So what? This is news? As I've said before, what is the friggin point of being obscenely rich if it doesn't gain you some advantages in life? Why would anyone want to be rich if you didn't get anything out of it? Duh, New York Times. Think about it. Anyway, they've got no proof that I did anything wrong -- in fact they've got no actual information about me at all, but nevertheless they can run a photo of me and a headline that says, "A Transplant That Is Raising Many Questions." Oh really? It's raising many questions? Where? From whom? I haven't heard any, except from the newsroom of the lame ass New York Times."
I may sound unethical in this paragraph, but, like Lyons sez, Apple is not just like any other company and certainly Steve Jobs is by far not your next door regular guy. He has changed our lives for ever with his products. He transformed an entire industry (or better said a number of them) to the better. He built entire eco-systems. If he gets treated medically 'better' than others, then the benefit is on the rest of us. If Jobs died today then the whole world would miss someone very special for ever. And, the world would miss major opportunities of 'breaking the mould' technology advancements that nobody else is capable of turning into real products for real people. So, it is understandable if Jobs received any preferential treatment at all. Which he didn't. Because the US is such a country where anyone celeb is treated less preferentially than any normal guy next door. They've got flocks of useless lawyers and good for nothing reporters who like to spread innuendos and break stories (like they are used to break wind) out of nowhere with only one objective: find their Warhol "15 minutes of fame". Any potential "abuse" by a celeb would then end up in a long series of reports and lawsuits and God knows what else. Tabloid papers (is the NYT one of them too? Apparently...) are starving about the possibility to point a finger to a celeb for having apparently behaved improperly. Lemme tell you what. If the Queen needed a transplant tomorrow, the UK secret service would go out and shoot someone to 'volunteer' him/her as a donor. And the entire nation would hail the 'volunteer' as a national hero that saved a 100 year old senile! C'm on folks, get a life!