all micro contact rss

The San Francisco Chronicle—Classy as ever

> Why is the public getting such detailed information about Rep. [Gabrielle Giffords](http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Gabrielle_Giffords)‘ medical condition and none about [Steve Jobs](http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/Steve_Jobs)? > > Both are public figures of intense national interest.
via [sfgate.com](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/20/BUH41HATCA.DTL&feed=rss.news)
Answer: Rep. Giffords’ family is choosing to make information public, which is perfectly within their right but certainly not a requirement. The other has decided that his health is a private matter, which is also perfectly within his right.

In both cases, the person or his or her family gets to decide what we can and can’t know. End of story.

Who is this cretan, and all the other harpies in the Chronicle today barking about Jobs and disclosure? There are several stories of this ilk running today.

How do you people sleep at night?

Seriously, go pound sand. There’s no debate here, except the one you’re inventing to get some page clicks. If Rep. Giffords’ husband had pleaded with the press for privacy and had chosen not to release any information about her recovery, some assholes like you might cry about it, but most people would understand. Why should it be any different for Jobs?

We’ve been over this a thousand times before. Tim Cook is running the day to day, just like he did a few years ago. Apple didn’t stumble then, and it won’t stumble now. That’s all anyone needs to know.

One day Jobs will leave Apple permanently. That’s basic biology. When it happens, though, it will be a good five years before any other company comes close to catching up, so the stockholders will have plenty of time to make decisions about their long-term investments, believe me.