JW Insider

But still . . . A version by Joe Cocker (from his 1969 debut album) played over the ending credits of the 2004 film Layer Cake.[16] Cocker re-recorded it for his 1996 album Organic.

FWIW, I have a tour of Warwick scheduled for 11:00am on Friday 12/7, and will also be in Mahwah and Wallkill over the weekend, touring Wallkill soon after 10am on Monday. If anyone else from here wants to meet up I'll be wearing black slacks, black shoes, a white shirt, and a mostly black tie. That probably won't help, will it? So I will wear a mostly white shirt that is actually blue striped (an LLBean style) if you look at it closely, and I will wear a black tie with blue geometric designs (small diamonds in gray, lt.blue, dk.blue, black). Also the black shoes are really "sneakers" just made to look like dress shoes, not very shiny. (Also, I'm 61, married, 6'3'', 245lbs, have some gray on the sides of my short brown hair, and I like long walks around the lake.) Anyway, for real, if anyone wants to meet up, I'll answer to "JWI" or something similar, or even my real name. That goes for anyone who works in Warwick or Wallkill, too, who might be following along.

So let me make sure I have this straight. Gates becomes rich when Microsoft goes public in 1986, so he pays off a mortgage and goes out and splurges on a fast car in 1979, and that helps explains the mugshot from 1977. The mugshot is actually for an unknown offense. Gates was still trying to tie it to a "traffic" offense 20 years later, but speeding is, on its own, not an offense that one gets arrested for. If it were another kind of "trafficking" or perhaps, as one rumor had it, the theft of some construction equipment or materials, this might make more sense. It might not have been any kind of "theft" but that would have been a terrible legacy for someone often accused of the improper "borrowing" of ideas from CP/M, Unix variations, earlier versions of Basic, Xerox Alto, etc. My first major "platform" was a Xerox Sigma 7. I was working for Honeywell, and then a company that was Wang's biggest client tied to IBM's mainframe VM. During these years Microsoft was becoming famous for trafficking in "vaporware" which was a sales trick to keep customers from switching over to other software vendors (WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, AmiPro, etc.) while Microsoft had not yet figured out how to copy the features that were gaining market share for those other products.

FWIW, this part of the Temple of Herod where it was found was apparently from a strata of several items that more likely came from the time of the official Jewish Revolution in Judea which is dated to 66 CE. The wine bottle motif, was in fact a motif that was given prominence during the Jewish Revolution and is also found on Jewish Revolutionary coins dated to the 2nd and 3rd year of the Revolution. Pilate's stone inscription at the "Palestinian" port of Caesarea was in Latin not in Greek. Pilate was part of an occupying force which at the time, was already differentiating itself from previously Hellenized regions by using Latin instead of Greek. One of the goals of the Roman occupation was to impress the occupied regions with the splendor of Rome and the opulence, talent, finery, etc. Pilate, and other governors, were known for gold rings and expensive tastes, not cheap alloys. (Not only that but the cheap ring is further devalued because it already had a metallic defect when forged based on the way the lettering tries to avoid it, but then runs out of space to balance P I L - A T O, and ends up with P I - L A T O.) The skill of the craftsman who inscribed this ring was typical of what a local person, soldier, or freed slave might buy to show his family name. It is crude and awful. In my metal shop class back in 1968, half the class could easily have done a better job with crude equipment. To make it Pilate's ring, it is translated in the genitive, as if meaning "belonging to Pilate." But the last letter is not actually visible, and was only chosen to be an O as one method of making this appear to be a "seal ring" or "bulla." As a "bulla" it would have failed in its purpose, as no one would believe a sealed letter stamped with this "bulla" actually had come from Pilate. It would be the most embarrassing cheap bulla any governor ever had. Like a very bad counterfeit. (I was at the Jewish Museum in NYC about a year ago and saw perfectly executed jewelry designs from the first century that would have belonged to a well-to-do Jewish family. A rich Roman governor would have access to at least the same kind of "laser-accurate" lettering. There are additional problems with the artifact based on the political situation in Israel, which are harder to prove. But it has long been known that finding artifacts that are of interest to Christians (Westerners) are often timed to embarrassing news about Israel's atrocities. The US is covered from hearing about most of these, but there are English outlets of Israeli news, such as haaretz.com that do not hold much back. This can sound conspiratorial to many Americans, but finds in the disputed portion of Jerusalem with David's name on it are sometimes forged, but the very real, possible finds are often held back until the timing works better. Same goes for Gaza and West Bank. This particular find was from near Bethlehem and therefore the West Bank. The item has been known for many years, and was supposedly only recently cleaned up for publication. This is in the midst of a decision on Netanyahu's fate in court over a scandal, another scandal where the Israeli Defense Minister was just discovered to have been lying for the last several years about involvement in Syria, and a several other embarrassments from this week. haaretz.com reported on this particular artifact, but also just ran an article that telegraphs some upcoming fighting we can expect out of the West Bank now that Gaza has grown quiet: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-with-gaza-border-quiet-next-challenge-could-come-from-west-bank-1.6701110 I don't know enough about Israeli happenings to evaluate any of these latter ideas. But my doubts are based on the first few ideas already mentioned above.

Interesting, but not completely unexpected. Even so, someone could have defended or explained the somewhat more explicit violence of "Mack the Knife" in the same terms. Mack the Knife is also described by its color beginning in the very first, opening lines: "Oh, the shark, babe, has such teeth, dear And it shows them pearly white Just a jackknife has old MacHeath, babe " And these serrated edges, the "pearly white" teeth of his jack knife, soon produce billows of red. So the "silver" description is not a surprise. Of course, "Mack the Knife" is really a rendition of the theme of a German opera and song which we might know through the "Threepenny Opera:" (the following is taken from a web link) Our first installment of Between the Lines is standard “Mack the Knife”. We’ll do a little history about the song before we go line by line. The song originally entitled, “Die Moritat von Mackie Messer”, is a song composed by Kurt Weill with lyrics by Bertolt Brecht for their music drama Die Dreigroschenoper. Yes, it was a German opera first. In fact, the translation is literally The Threepenny Opera. It premiered in Berlin in 1928 and quickly “Die Moritat von Mackie Messer” became the standout hit of the opera. That translates to “The Ballad of Mack the Knife.” The opera is based on John Gay’s 1728 opera The Beggar’s Opera which, in turn, is based on the thief, burglar and escape artist Jack Sheppard (1702-1724). Macheath is a character in The Beggar’s Opera and in turn becomes the focal point of Die Dreigroschenoper. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough, but I have never yet seen anyone tie Mack to Maxwell.

Because it was a job given to Jewish people to collect taxes from fellow Jews to hand over to the Romans so that they had enough money to be even more oppressive and so that the Romans could display their riches and opulence as a direct humiliation of the people they were oppressing and occupying. For nearly Jesus' entire life on earth up to the 70 C.E. and even as late as 130 C.E., there was a continuous state of revolution against Rome by the Jews from Judea to Galilee, especially Galilee. Imagine the same situation in Gaza or West Bank today where the Israelis continually abuse and terrorize the Palestinians, hoping to provoke enough backlash so that they can excuse the tactics of bulldozing and exploding their homes to steal their land and squeeze them further into economic ruin. Now imagine a Palestinian who takes a job of collecting taxes from fellow Palestinians to give to the Israelis.

It was Jesus, but Paul's words were very consistent with this. It is more powerful coming from Jesus, anyway, because Jesus was known (notorious) for associating with tax collectors.

LOL! I managed to avoid even hearing more than about 3 or 4 Beatles songs growing up in Missouri from the mid-60's and part of the 70's. Even on long pioneering days driving in the countryside, when the music would go on, it was usually Kingdom Songs on harmonica, or an 8-track tape of John Denver, Glen Campbell, etc. I still have not heard half the Beatles songbook, and it still surprises people. I knew a lot of them only through instrumentals and covers my father would listen to. My wife, on the other hand, attended Woodstock when she was 15 and her step-father took her to see the Beatles at Shea Stadium when she was like 10. Anyway, that's a real Grammy, and his more recent one looks the same, just shinier, but I didn't get to the studio yesterday to take a picture. I attended two of the main Awards shows at Staples Center, LA, then last year when it was held just 20 blocks away from us, we didn't go. My "relative expert" has had to go to LA at different times during the year to listen to 100's of songs in several genres just to evaluate the "production quality" of each. As an expert yourself, what do you think of my theory that "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was a direct satirical/parody response to the popularity of "Mack the Knife"?

Hey, that's the same picture on which I based my first original "meme" But then again . . . too few to munch on . . .

I have some doubts.

Expelling is Biblical. That's true. But what is the method and are Christians under some kind of rule of law that needs to be applied uniformly in all situations? What if it was a principle that is good, but the way it was executed even in Bible times turns out not to have been a Christian method. For example, the Bible allows for a husband to disfellowship his wife. (The Bible never allows for a wife to disfellowship (divorce) a husband, by the way.) But are we under Mosaic rules for divorce just because it is Biblical? In fact, Jesus said that even though it was Biblical, it wasn't what Jehovah really wanted. (Matthew 19:7, 8 ) 7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. Jesus doesn't say Moses wasn't inspired when he made the Biblical concession for divorce as one of the laws in the "perfect" Law covenant. But Jesus rejects this particular "jot and tittle" of the Law as a mere concession for human hard-heartedness, especially because it was being misused in practice. "Hard-heartedness" is a form of having "no natural affection." (See my earlier post on this topic.) There is an even more obvious case where the Governing Body now rejects something that is definitely Biblical. In the Bible, it's OK to "beat" your children, physically. When asked about this, GB member Geoffrey Jackson, in front of the Australian Royal Commission, said that the GB now believe that the "rod" of correction is not a physical rod, but that it is the "virtual" rod of righteous corrective discipline. Of course, what do we then do with the Mosaic Law that says that if you beat your slave to death that there is no punishment as long as it takes the slave a day or two to die? (There is a punishment if the slave dies within in a shorter time period.) (Exodus 21:20, 21) . . .“If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money. The way in which the point was made in front of the ARC was for the GB member to avoid this Scripture: (Proverbs 23:13, 14) 13 Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. 14 With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheʹol itself. Instead, he used another verse, from the previous chapter, which was more ambiguous: (Proverbs 22:15) 15 Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him. Of course, all of these verses use the same Hebrew word for "rod/stick" and the same Hebrew word for "beat/smite/strike." Same word for "rod" or "stick" is used here too: (Proverbs 26:3) 3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the back of stupid people. I'm not in favor of the physical beating of children. There are times when the principle is correct, but the methods used were "hard-hearted." The Governing Body says we have updated our understanding to that of the world here, and I think everyone knows that Brother Jackson is not so stupid as to think that the Bible was not really referring to physical beatings with these Hebrew expressions. It's time we progressed in our understanding of what it means to disfellowship, too. You've argued that other religions see familial DFing, for example, as Biblical. But so what? In other religions they might still beat their children, beat their wives and servants, promote racism, divorce on any ground, and promote a lack natural affection, too.

From what I can gather here about you, I think that most of the 130 do not believe you are evil, and probably do not wish to treat you badly, but as you say, they THINK they are following the rules. Also, they will not merely treat you this way just because they feel you were concerned about the "child abuse" issue. If you have told the whole story then it is pretty clear that you are treated as someone who has formally disassociated, and we are told to treat that person the exact same way as someone who was disfellowshipped. (I think that is an abuse of power by the way on the part of the WTS policy.) It's probable that someone has added a few other "details" for the ears of the congregation, real or imagined. The more likely concern is that you have somehow become a spiritual danger because you are actively seeking out false information from apostates to spread it among the congregation in order to sow divisions and contentions. Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy, even if you are personally still "salvagable." They are told that to treat you like this is a way to save you. I personally would not follow the rules in this regard when it is a person I have known and if I feel that my continued association is more likely to be scriptural than unscriptural. There have been two persons where my opinion of them and my association with them didn't change a bit after they were disfellowshipped. One stayed out and one came back. I don't advertise this to the rest of the congregation, for fear of stumbling others, and for my own fear of the same kind of unscriptural disciplinary treatment that others have been subjected to. But there is also a certain kind of friendship we build up with others that goes beyond rules and regulations. We show a certain type of loyalty (loyal love) to the other person, and they to us. In the Bible, if David had become a murderer and an adulterer, Jonathan would have still loyally stuck by him. "There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24) I have seen several friendships like this, and would hope that no human rules would ever get in the way. I had a roommate at Bethel who joked that his friend who had recently been invited to Bethel, was like this. He claimed that even if he murdered someone, that this friend would never change. I thought about that and decided that he should move out and room with this arriving friend. If we truly have love, even for our enemies, we should have no problem dealing with tax collectors and sinners. How much more should we show love to someone who is in dire straits for a reason we already understand and one we can help them understand. This does not mean that I would go out of my way to seek out such a person, unless I was sure I could help them feel better with some encouragement. Often they truly put themselves in a situation where the best thing they to do is to find their way back into the organization and I will often encourage that. But I would never encourage family members to disfellowship themselves from that disfellowshipped person. It has been rare, but as I said, I have had a couple of occasions to "break the rule" in this regard. I like a lot of what the GB and the JW org are doing, and I love many of my fellow associates in the congregation. But, YES, I really mean it. Speaking out is what I am doing right now. I often speak out against unscriptural policies, or discuss them here to help make sure whether my own reasoning is wrong. I don't have to speak out in front of my local congregation, nor do I cause divisions. I speak out on this forum, and I will sometimes speak frankly and honestly with people who approach me in person. I also send a couple letters a year to the GB and JW org. For the past few years, these have been anonymous. I have used this site to try to formulate the scriptural reasoning behind these letters. I have already spoken out against abuse and bad policy in this regard for about seven years now -- not just on forums but in person. This is why I cannot completely understand the treatment you are getting. At several opportunities over the last 30 years, I have spoken out against a policy of tolerating spousal physical abuse against wives, because my own sister had an experience like this with the usual requested cover-up from authorities and hospital personnel. I have even turned in a young 20 year old brother who showed serious problems in this regard at gatherings. He is not quite a person of full mental capacity, but this won't matter to an abused sister who would feel traumatized if he takes these types of actions any further. And it's quite possible he already poses a criminal danger when not in public. There should be heightened awareness of these problems to protect all potential victims, and where necessary, secular authorities and law enforcement need to be involved.

Turns out you are more right than I thought. Sorry to have doubted you. A further discussion with the same aforementioned relative expert gave me the following reference from one of his books. Oh whoops! What's that I accidentally left in the background of the picture? A real Grammy Award?

Witness, I don't remember ever giving you an upvote before on any topic, but I can tell from the way you took this issue seriously, and from how well you wrote the entire last response, that you are sincerely concerned about handling the word of God aright, and thinking deeply about the issue here. Naturally, I don't agree with everything you say --especially the degree to which you take exception to WT practices-- but I was surprised at how closely your response matched the way I was about to respond to Tom on this same topic. Your first point was to make clear that the way in which DFing is handled among JWs has caused serious problems among us, and serious harm to former associates, spiritual damage to both the expelled and those perpetrating the type of DFing that we practice. The way we treat families has become evidence to others that we are not a group of people known for love among ourselves, and that we often show "no natural affection." Of course we dismiss the way we treat the dismissed and point to how much love we have among those of us who remain faithful to the organization. But this always reminds me of these verses: (Matthew 5:46-47) 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? You are aware of the recent push to encourage us to have even less natural affection among family members by encouraging total emotional blackmail through the DFing process. This has started up again in the last couple years from videos shown at meetings and assemblies, and similar counsel. We should immediately think of how Paul told Timothy about the kinds of things Timothy should expect in congregations of the first century because it had been predicted that in those last days Timothy would see persons "having no natural affection." But there is an interesting point Paul made in this context that is usually overlooked: (2 Timothy 2:23-3:5) 23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. 24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will. 3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, . . , 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, . . . puffed up with pride, . . . 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. What is missed is that Paul told Timothy to reject foolish and ignorant debates, but also to turn away from these people who showed "no natural affection" in those last days. This is the way that the principle of DFing actually works among Christians. It's about turning away from the people, even brothers, who show no natural affection. It's not about a congregation always being in total agreement about the exact rule by which someone is greeted and another person is not greeted, or someone can eat with us and another person cannot. In fact, this doesn't ever mean that we reject the chance to speak about spiritual things with such persons, it's just that we don't share in their conduct. We avoid their influence on us, and we avoid associating in such a way that we could give others the impression that we have joined in their conduct or support their conduct. We don't become influenced by their wrong, and show restraint in engaging with them when we are the ones personally wronged. In other words (I think it's rare, but) if we do witness a misuse of the DFing process that promotes "having no natural affection" then it is up to us to disengage and disassociate from that kind of behavior even when it is being promoted by elders in our congregation or in the worldwide congregation. We can't completely disfellowship our elders from their responsibility, but we can avoid giving the impression that we agree with these practices. Just as we avoid joining in association with a person who calls himself a brother who is a known drunkard, reviler, fornicator, etc. We should be willing to speak out against the kind of videos we have seen recently which praise a person for avoiding familial contact with their own brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers. Of course, when it comes to those who no longer call themselves a brother (or sister) in the congregation we can treat them just as we would any other sinner or tax collector; we are in no danger of giving the impression that we support their conduct, because they are not even claiming to be related to us in the faith. In fact, in the other place in the NWT where the expression "no natural affection" is used, we have an additional idea in the context: (Romans 1:28-2:2) . . .God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, . . . . disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in harmony with truth, against those who practice such things.

Point taken.

I heard a little about the Canada fiasco only on this forum, and it seemed so ridiculous that I assumed it was a couple of mentally imbalanced JWs, and that most of the story was inexplicable because it was from their perspective. Have to admit that I never read the newspaper accounts. Seemed like a waste. I was surprised that someone put so much "professional" effort into this video -- over something that was probably (similarly) ignored by most.

OMG. What was that all about?

The Ctrl+Alt+Delete key that Bill Gates "invented" did not access the task manager. It was the way to reboot a "DOS" "OS/2" or "Windows" computer up until Windows 95, when the function of Ctrl+Alt+Delete was changed to Task Manager, and then an "interrupt" that invoked a menu of functions (including the Task Manager). Also, it is possible to complete the "3 finger salute" with one hand now that most PC keyboards include an Alt and Ctrl on the right side of the keyboard's Spacebar, closer to the Delete key.

I hope you at least have a Thanksgiving celebration and a July 4th fireworks celebration!?!?!? 😉

Spot on! Bingo! Good point. I've always felt the same way about treating one day as all others vs treating one day as more important than others. (Romans 14:5) . . .One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others;. . . But not so much worse than the way Black Friday has already intruded on Thanksgiving dinners by starting it at 5:00pm on Thursday and going until 1AM, so that our local "Best Buy" didn't open up again until 8AM on Friday. (Which also reminds me that "Best Buy" was playing Christmas music for persons on hold as early as October 30th this year.)

I think that if we really understand the following point in the "Knowledge" book, true Christians need to treat EVERY DAY AS BLACK FRIDAY!!! *** kl chap. 13 pp. 126-127 par. 17 Why Living a Godly Life Brings Happiness *** Of course, godly parents do not await a special day to show their children love. A 13-year-old Christian girl remarked: “My family and I have lots of fun. . . . I’m very close to my parents, and when other kids ask why I don’t celebrate holidays, I tell them that I celebrate every day.” Said a Christian youth aged 17: “In our house, gift-giving is all year long.” Greater happiness results when gifts are given spontaneously.

I see that now. I actually never liked Dylan's singing, and always wondered what was the draw. In fact, when you answered the question "Who is the best male artist?" with Dylan saying, "It's not me, babe," I was pretty sure you were just letting Dylan self-deprecate. I still think it's true that Dylan mumbles and can't hold a note very long. But I like his lyrics and sentiments, and have learned that people like his singing, too. Of course, I probably misinterpret most of his lyrics, as I thought that Mr. Jones was Dylan. BTW, in case anyone thought I was trying to imply that I am in the same house as a major famous pop artist, my relative is actually a music producer who works with other musicians. He tried his own songs when he was a teenager, but they didn't chart for very long and certainly didn't make him much money. For 15 years, now, he has had his own label and a studio that pays the bills by taking money from Grammy-winning artists. BTW, I have no respect for the "journalist" Maureen Dowd that he supposedly riled. Knowing her politics, she was probably just looking for an angle on China and thought she could catch a few more eyeballs by rolling some iconoclastic stones in Dylan's direction.

@TrueTomHarley , Although I won't name the person I'm here with right now, I can give you a quick sense of what we did all day yesterday when he had a day off. Here's a picture some of the books on my piano. It's every "Kingdom Songbook" we've used since 1927.

You might not believe this, but I just read your post above and your blog article to a Grammy winner who has previously spoken to Bob Dylan. After name-dropping a two-time national "Teacher of the Year" nominee, earlier today, I honestly hate to do this again. So I won't. But here's the thing. I'm literally sitting in my living room right now with the person I mentioned above: a two-time Grammy winner (and six-time nominee) who's spending the evening here with his wife and child. And, yes, they're close relatives of mine. My wife and I (and my sister and brother-in-law) attended the Grammys with them in 2014 and 2015. And might have to go back in 2019, because he is nominated again. Now I've never met Bob Dylan, but was in the audience when he was honored by MusicCares and gave a half-hour speech, which is rare for him. (For Dylan, even to show up at all to an award being given to him is rare.) Just an aside, but you might not know that going to the Grammys is actually a week-long affair attending a bunch of fairly boring and mundane meetings and minor awards shows that never make it to the famous prime-time TV broadcast. And before you judge too harshly, I could name at least 7 other Witnesses who were there in 2014 and 2015. At least I don't attend the weeknight parties, mostly because I'm not invited to any except the post-Awards parties, which have free food and tame entertainment. We looked for Dylan's 2015 speech, and found it online. It's here: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-grammys-2015-transcript-of-bob-dylans-musicares-person-of-year-speech-20150207-story.html That's the whole speech written out which is quicker to read, but you'd have to watch it to understand the sense of humor. I'm not here to defend Dylan, of course, but you had it much closer when you kept it simply as: If you have never seen or read the 2015 speech, you might be even more intrigued. I will say he derives some mileage out of a possible persecution complex, and knows that he receives this type of sell-out criticism all the time. The Political Art of Bob Dylan by David Boucher, Gary Browning gives a similar POV, that it was all business, but even that book shows that if we look more closely at all the words Dylan said about his long love of folk music, that it was more than a business choice. He knew the artists Peter, Paul and Mary, each individually, before they were a group by that name. Sure, he might be rewriting his own autobiography, but folk music wasn't a choice for money, he says: Just saying that people make Dylan the playlist of their entire philosophy because he has said a lot of things that people can take out of his context and put into their own. Same goes for things he's said in interviews about wanting a house with a white picket fence. Just sayin.'