It's a reflective little ditty about Jack, Diane, Timothy D. Cook and this toxic society we run in. An absurd and irrational one fueled by Internet beer muscles and social media cowboys who, out of what's likely bitterness, cut down those who ought to inspire them.
I have had as many questions as the next worthless hack about Cook's ability to innovate over the long-term, but I know when to let common sense prevail.
So, with that in mind, a few key thoughts pursuant to questions I have been asked via email and Twitter after the above-linked post-earnings article.
Must Read: Apple Proves That Our Society Stinks
At the end of 2013, I argued that AAPL would soar to $1,000 in 2014.
Do I think that's still possible? Yes. Can I, in good conscience, stick to the prediction? No way.
Common sense tends to urge me to err on the side of caution. While AAPL looks like a bargain closer to $500, there's nothing rational about the way investors treat this company, particularly when you compare it to the relative dogs I'll bring up later in this article.
While you can see this as a buying opportunity, you have to check the emotion that might lead you to go against the grain.
Simply put, you can hate a company and love a stock. And you can love a company and hate -- or wax lukewarm on -- its stock. In this market, you have no choice. Cramer illustrated this notion quite well late last year in The Case for Amazon.
Common sense isn't prevailing in a way that would make things right. In the AAPL to $1,000 article I referenced iPad Air as a game changer. As a reason why skeptics should have more confidence in Tim Cook than they had, say, a year ago. But, again, throw logic out the window here.
You just can't convince the people who hate and/or misunderstand Apple that, as has always been the case, this company will disrupt and destroy when it's ready.
But even if Apple has relatively little on the horizon, go listen to the conference call and tell me that a) it's not in better shape -- no matter how you measure it -- than any of its competitors and b) doesn't have as lucrative opportunity, if not considerably more so, than any of its competitors.
On either point, it's just absurd -- objectively absurd -- to put anybody ahead of Apple.