Pep Guardiola has announced that he will leave Barcelona at the end of the season. This is not a shock; in fact, I would have been surprised if he had chosen to stay. He seems completely drained, and he needs to recharge his battery. That will not happen at Barcelona.
So, I wish you much success wherever you go and whatever you do next, Pep. You brought Barcelona its greatest period of glory, and you will always be a legend. A toast to you, Pep; you deserve it.
I have often wondered whether football clubs employ only people with no sense or if only people with no sense try to get jobs at football clubs. Time after time, clubs, particularly very wealthy clubs, go after players who had already proved that despite their talent, their tenures would inevitably end badly. Manchester City is probably the most egregious recent example with Robinho, Tevez and Balotelli all coming and exploding in spectacular fashion. City is not the only offender though; off the top of my head I can think of very prominent flops at Barcelona and AC Milan, and there are many more (Brazilian clubs are equally bad). I could have called every single one of those failures (and often did) even with my limited football experience. How come if I can see it, then people who spend their lives around the game cannot?
Liverpool FC is definitely run by the football foolish. Not just for the Suarez/racism debacle, or for overspending for untested players simply because they are British, or for letting the fans make the important decisions, or for keeping Kenny Dalglish as coach even though he hadn’t been a coach in about two decades. Liverpool’s follies could fill an entire book let alone one paragraph of one blog post.
But this story caught my eye. Now that Damien Comolli is no longer the director of football at Liverpool, owner John W. Henry is considering none other than Johan Cruyff. Yes, that one. Now in fairness, this is a story that came out of Soccernet (that most reliable of sources), and even according to the story Cruyff is not the only man under consideration. Among the others under consideration are Louis van Gaal and Txiki Begiristain (both of whom, like Cruyff, have a Barcelona connection). But Cruyff is the standout name. He would be an utter disaster.
Now you may be thinking about Cruyff’s admirable record as coach and wondering if I am crazy. He had some success with Ajax in the mid-80′s and then brought Barcelona to its greatest pre-Guardiola era ever. Under Cruyff Barcelona won its first European Cup. He gave Barcelona Guardiola. More importantly, he instilled his philosophy in Barcelona, a philosophy that two decades later birthed this current team of legends. In some ways, this is a good position for him; as director of football, most of his glaring managerial deficiencies such as hubris and a lack of tactical acumen (ironic given his role in Total Football) would not be an issue.
But Cruyff is still wrong for Liverpool for one simple reason: his ego. Now there are other good reasons he would be awful: his dedication, his temperament, his lack of recent experience (apparently not a problem for Liverpool), the fact that his philosophy doesn’t fit in to the English/British game, his dislike of the English/British game, and the fact that his philosophy requires a long view and patience which do not jibe well with the modern money-based, instant gratification game of the present day. Sure Liverpool need some kind of change, but Cruyff’s vision is too radical.
But it is his ego that will ensure he is a horrible fit for Liverpool. Cruyff is a very cranky old man who demands nothing short of total devotion, and he takes umbrage and vengeance against those who oppose him. Ask the former Ajax board of directors. If Liverpool were willing to cede him total control than maybe, just maybe, it would be a workable fit. But that is never going to happen, and Kenny Dalglish is the reason. At Ajax and Barcelona, Cruyff is a legend, almost a deity, and was before he managed the clubs. What would he be at Liverpool where he never had any connections? And what happens when he inevitably clashes with Dalglish, whose philosophy is almost the complete polar opposite of Cruyff’s? When push comes to shove, the fans will choose King Kenny over Cruyff every time. And the fans control at Liverpool. If Cruyff becomes director of football, it will be a miracle if he lasts a year.
Cruyff at Liverpool is insanity. The foolish delusions of a senseless old man who refuses to accept reality. In other words, the exact kind of person that a football club hires.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
And speaking of foolish old men, Pele has spoken again, and that is never a good thing. Because Pele is a jealous god, he cannot handle the plaudits that Lionel Messi receives week in and week out. This is not a new thing, and I’ve written about it before. Pele’s latest dart is that Messi is not only not the greatest player ever, he’s not even as good a player as Neymar (who plays for Pele’s old club Santos. What are the odds?). Never mind that Neymar himself would say that Messi is better right now–no doubt all the more so since the humbling of Santos at the Club World Cup.
Because Pele had an opinion, it was inevitable that Maradona would get involved to (1) defend Messi and (2) attack Pele. Maradona called Pele “stupid” because El Diego has such a way with words. Messi v. Neymar is really just another way to have Pele v. Maradona Round MIV. It’s the song that never ends.
I’m famous! Well, sort of. Actually, not really. But this blog is now officially a source for Wikipedia. Apparently, some kind soul used my humble post about Rita Wilson’s episode of Who Do You Think You Are as a source for Wilson’s Wikipedia entry. In case it gets taken down, I have proof that it was once there.
As Rita Wilson goes, so goes Helen Hunt.
So whoever you are anonymous Wikipedia editor, I thank you. And may it take several days before the Wiki Powers-That-Be realize that I am probably not a good authoritative source.
It’s been some time since I wrote about Marta, who has moved back to Sweden, although she is now with Tyresö. I was under no delusions that she was going to stay given that when she left the WPS was hanging by a thread. I have regrets that she left but no anger. Marta paid her dues; it was the league (and the public at large) that couldn’t keep up its end of the bargain.
Back in Sweden, Marta is doing what Marta does best. Watch the video. It’s the second goal (although you don’t need me to tell you that). The question is not whether any female player has ever been able to play like Marta; no one has. The real question is how long it will take before another player can do something like this in the post-Marta world. (After all, how long did it take after Maradona for Messi to appear?)
“These people actually existed. It makes it much more real, and it’s hard not to feel emotional about it.”
~Edie Falco
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Because I watched this episode at my parents’ house, and because they, unlike me, have a digital video recorder, I had the advantage of watching this week’s episode of Who Do You Think You Are without having to pay any attention to the commercials. Apparently, to compensate for my ability to skip over advertisements, both Ancestry.com and Apple upped the ante with in-show product placements. There was the Ancestry plug (7 minutes in), the other screenshots of Ancestry, and an iPad that Edie Falco carried around with her. Had I bothered with commercials I wonder if I would have seen an ad informing the public that the 1940 census was at Ancestry, while the government site crashed.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again; this show would work far better on a network like the BBC or PBS. I think it would be more fun if it were on non-commercial television too. PBS does have its own genealogy show, Finding Your Roots. Finding Your Roots is a better show for introducing genealogical research, but it’s like broccoli; good for you, but no fun. At its heart though, Finding Your Roots is yet another Skip Gates vanity project. Who Do You Think You Are may be the candy of the genealogical world, it may be nonsensical, it may be frustrating to the point where I scream at my television, but at least I want to watch it again (usually). A non-commercial network would make what it generally an enjoyable show a great one. (And Finding Your Roots is also big on the product placement, particularly with 23andMe, a DNA testing company that I am extremely suspicious of.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Edie Falco is a wonderful actress. Ever since I saw her Carmela Soprano, I have loved her. Nevertheless, the episode itself was not the most thrilling of the season. It’s hard to say that because if anyone on this show understands the lure of genealogy it is Falco. Her statement that I quoted above and her question regarding whether family tree research is merely about bloodlines or about something more (her children are adopted), it shows that she cares and that she gets it. Nevertheless, there was something about this episode that felt slightly off. Like there was a major story that got bypassed somehow.
In the beginning of the episode, Falco, the child of divorced parents, noted that she did not know her mother’s family well and had very little contact with her extended relatives while growing up. Her mother however, had a beautiful handmade family tree that detailed her own mother’s (Ruth Megrath) family tree. Ruth Megrath was the daughter of George and Florence Megrath, and on the tree was an interesting tidbit: Megrath was the maiden name of George’s mother. His father’s name was Brown, and George’s mother left Mr. Brown and, with George, emigrated to the United States (from Wales). Falco wanted to know why George’s mother left his father.
The first place that Falco went to was the New York Public Library where she looked at the 1920 US census. (One wonders why she needed to go to New York just to look at the census, since all she did was use Ancestry’s collection.) There she discovered that George was born not in Wales, but in Wisconsin. Additionally, his mother was born in the United States and his father in England. Falco was surprised that her family tree was wrong and set off to Milwaukee, Wisconsin to discover the rest of the story.
At this point, I want to advise all amateur genealogists. If you go on to Ancestry, there is a good possibility that you will find some unsourced tree that goes back multiple generations, possibly centuries. You will think, “Hallelujah, the work has all been done! Look at how many ancestors I can trace.” Caveat emptor. Ancestry trees are notoriously unreliable. Unless you do the work yourself or can validate the source material of another’s tree, take nothing as truth. It is entirely possible that someone somewhere made a mistake (or twenty), like the one that belonged to Edie Falco’s mother.
In Wisconsin, Falco went to the All Saints Episcopal Church where she found the baptismal record of her great-grandfather George Megrath, who was originally George Brown. George’s mother was Mary Megrath Brown and his father was Charles Childs Brown. Charles Brown was present at the baptism.
Falco found in old city directories that Charles was an apprentice at a local paper. But Brown was not in Wisconsin for long. In 1885, seven years after George’s birth, he was in Little Falls, Minnesota (listed as C.C. Brown). A little further research revealed to Falco that Brown started the first paper in the nearby town of Royalton, Minnesota. He did not stay in the area for long; Brown moved out to Duluth where he died. An article was presented to Falco from Duluth from 1892 which said that George Megrath (now living in Albany) had died in a streetcar accident. Like with her relative’s family tree, Falco knew that this news article was incorrect.
Looking into the Albany connection, Falco found an article about a Sister Kathryn (Catherine) Brown (Episcopal not Catholic) who died intestate in 1902 in nearby Troy, New York. (My ears perked up. I have great affinity for Troy.) This was Charles’s mother, and because Charles had already died, George Megrath showed up to claim her estate. From this information, Falco learned that George was actually the eldest of Charles Brown’s children. Charles and Mary divorced in 1878 when George was two, and Charles remarried (and divorced) two more times and had three more children. The researcher who informed Falco about Charles’s later life said that as a newspaper man, Charles was probably an alcoholic and also probably very difficult to live with. (Thankfully, there was no attempts to whitewash him. Falco accepted that he was human and flawed.)
Falco turned her attention to Sister Kathryn Brown (her 3rd great-grandmother), and from the 1900 Census, she learned that Kathryn was born at sea to English parents. That Kathryn was born at sea interested Falco. Rather than go to Troy, Falco went to London where Charles was born. In London, Falco found a record of Charles’s birth; he was born to Kathryn Kindley (and William Brown, who was not mentioned in the episode, but I saw the birth certificate). Looking for Kathryn in the 1841 UK census, Falco found that Kathryn (Kate) was living with an older woman named Childs who was probably her grandmother. Kate’s parents were not listed. She also learned that Kate was born in Cornwall, specifically Penzance. And yes, Edie Falco made the appropriate Gilbert & Sullivan reference. (This is probably where the Wales story came from; both Wales and Cornwall are peninsulas in the West of England, both have a Celtic connection, and both the Welsh and the Cornish have very thick and distinct accents.)
In Penzance, Falco discovered that Kate Kindley was the daughter of Ralph and Dorothy Childs Kindly. Ralph was a master mariner (a sea captain), which was a good job, but it kept him at sea for long stretches at a time. From an 1833 newspaper article, Falco learned that Dorothy Kindley died; her daughter was two.
The next researcher that Falco met took her on a ship to explain to her all about the life of a master mariner, and he suggested that Dorothy was probably used to being on a ship. The researcher showed Falco the documents he found, one a copy of Lloyd’s List from which he was able to determine that Kate was probably born on the Lord Cochrane which was en route to New Orleans. He also showed Falco letters of administration from the New York Surrogate’s Court from October 1840, which showed that on July 20 of that year, en route from the Coast of Africa to New York, Ralph Kindley died from a fever. He was probably buried at sea.
And thus the episode ends with Edie Falco aboard a ship sailing on the middle of the ocean.
Next time is Rob Lowe although that won’t be for a few weeks.
[Edit: If you are interested in the Child/Kindley family history that was researched in this episode, this site is an incredibly thorough and detailed.]
When I first started following football, the English Premier League was on top the world. Most of the best players played in the EPL, and English clubs dominated the Champions League. Three of the four would regularly appears in the Champions League semifinals. This culminated in the 2008 Moscow final when Manchester United beat Chelsea.
That final, it turned out, was the beginning of the end for EPL dominance. In hindsight the change came a couple of months later when a Xavi-led (and Raul-less) Spain won the 2008 Euro in spectacular fashion. Around the same time, Barcelona’s coach Frank Rijkaard was sacked. This ushered in the Pep Guardiola era, and the rest is history.
As Barcelona won trophies at an unprecedented rate, its eternal enemy Real Madrid got very jealous and scared and did what it always does when faced with a problem: throw money at it. Madrid acquired arguably the best player in Italy (Kaka) and the best player in England (Cristiano Ronaldo) and when buying expensive players wasn’t enough, Madrid got the man who the media claim is the best coach in the world (Jose Mourinho). Barcelona for their part doubled down on their Cruyffian philosophy and put more energy into the youth academy system with the occasional purchase, both good (e.g., Sanchez, Fabregas, Villa) and bad (e.g., Ibrahimovic, Chygrynskiy, Hleb).
As the arms race between Barcelona and Madrid escalates to an almost nuclear level, it is unquestionable that the best two teams in the world are in Spain (save for the occasional “Tuesday night in Stoke” comment, the other remark that Andy Gray will never live down). In denial fans of the EPL tried a new tactic to prove how superior their league is. It goes something like this, “Well maybe there are two great teams in Spain, but the rest are lousy, so it’s really just the Scottish league on steroids, and therefore boring.” Even people who should have known better (I’m looking at you, Sid Lowe), repeated this fiction as though it were gospel.
As it turns out, this year’s two European competitions have completely undercut this argument. Yes, Barcelona and Madrid are still the best of the best, but it turns out that the rest of Spain isn’t all that bad either. Advancing to the semifinals of the Europa League today were Atletico Madrid, Valencia, and Athletic Bilbao. The latter club beat up on Manchester United in the last round in thrilling, Barcelona-esque fashion. Who knew that Athletic could do that? Certainly not the English.
So to recap, in this year’s two European competition, five of the eight remaining clubs are Spanish, the top four players in the world play in Spain, eight of the top 20 players in the world play for Barcelona, the defending Champions League and World Club Cup champion is from Spain, the Euro and World Cup champion is Spain, Spain is the top ranked nation in the FIFA rankings, and very shortly it will be the top ranked national league according to the UEFA coefficient.
Maybe Barcelona and Madrid rule the roost, but right now the also-rans in Spain are superior to the best of everywhere else.
When Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the since-retitled Prop 8 case, went to trial, it was videotaped. Cameras in the courtroom is a vaguely controversial topic in legal and judicial circles, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals established a pilot program for courtrooms in its jurisdiction that allowed for the video recording of cases, presumably those that were interesting (a rare occurrence as trials in general are duller than dull), which would be available to the public.
This kind of program is not without precedent; oral arguments from the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals are available on C-SPAN (and geek that I am, I have watched some), but generally cameras in the courtroom are taboo. The Supreme Court is the course the biggest culprit in keeping the courtroom free of video recordings, and the Justices steadfastly (and apparently unanimously) refuse to allow video cameras in even when Congress demands that they do. David Souter famously told the Judiciary Committee they could have video cameras in the Supreme Court when they rolled them in over his dead body. Personally, I am surprised that the Supreme Court even allows its oral arguments to be audio recorded, but I suppose it’s been there long enough (since Earl Warren’s day) that it’s now safe. You can access the recordings if you are so inclined, and again, geek that I am, I have.
Therefore, it came as no surprise when the Supreme Court, possibly afraid that people might want to see how justice gets done in this country, granted the request from the Prop 8 proponents to keep the tapes hidden. Now, it is true that there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that trials and arguments must be recorded. Nevertheless, it violates the spirit of the constitutional mandate for open proceedings to deny video cameras in the courtroom. In the Internet Age, the only way to watch a trial is still to physically go to the courtroom. Unless you are a criminal law attorney or a judge, you probably cannot do that very often. And if the case draws massive media attention, you have almost no shot of getting in.
Which brings us to 8. Because the Perry tapes have been sealed away, possibly forever, Dustin Lance Black, the screenwriter of Milk fame, wrote a play about the Perry trial with dialogue largely taken from the trial transcripts. The first reading was in New York and a second reading was recently staged in Los Angeles and was streamed live over the Internet. Ergo, more people have “watched” the trial than would have done so had the actual recordings been made publicly available. You can still watch it at a variety of sites, and I did so at Slate. 8 is a work of political theater, and this reading (which was rewritten a bit after the first) was performed by, among others, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, the recently out Matt Bomer, three cast members from Glee, Martin Sheen, George Takei, John C. Reilly, Christine Lahti, Kevin Bacon, and Jamie Lee Curtis. Rob Reiner directed it, and no doubt the spirits of Carroll O’Connor, Gregory Peck, and Elizabeth Taylor blessed the show.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
First a word about my post title “On 8.” I originally thought to call this post “No On 8,” which was also the slogan of the LGBT rights movement during the Prop 8 referendum. It also would have hinted at some of the reservations I had watching the reading. On the other hand, as a title, it is glib, which I did not want to be regardless of my feelings about 8.
I hate being the gay contrarian, but more than that I hate pretending. I hate pretending that something is good just because I agree with the fundamental message. I hate the idea that I have to go along with the group think and love Glee or Will & Grace (or pretend to) when both are terrible. I especially hate the idea that I should be thankful to those shows because of this flawed idea that since that they have aired, straight people accept us more. (The cause and effect in that thinking is backwards. Those shows exist because homosexuality is more accepted in society not the other way around.) I cling to the stubborn idea that good gay-themed entertainment is infinitely better than mediocre fare regardless of message or popularity.
I did not love 8. The acting was generally very good, although criticizing acting in a hastily organized, staged reading misses the point. This was not a performance, and there really was no rehearsal time (this reading was really just a dressed up fundraiser for Americans for Equal Rights). Only Martin Sheen was a problem; he has gotten even hammier since his West Wing days. For me at least, it was difficult to suspend disbelief because I have heard the real Ted Olsen argue cases, and he is quite a different personality. Olsen is also very level and calm while Sheen over-emoted to the point of turning red. Ted Olsen is many things, but Jed Bartlett he is not. While Sheen tried to turn Olsen’s closing argument into a monologue worthy of King Lear, in my mind I heard Olsen speaking them, and that was more affecting. Dignity trumps fireworks every time. (On the other hand, John C. Reilly’s turn as the loathsome boob David Blankenhorn was incredibly funny, and although he too overdid it, in the context of the actual complete humiliation that David Bois handed to Blankenhorn at trial, it worked.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I admit that I am a very bad gay in that I don’t worship theater, so take my opinions of the show with that grain of salt. There is something so artificial about theater that doesn’t exist in movies, and I really have a tough time with the artifice of plays. It’s my problem not 8‘s, but it did affect my enjoyment.
I wish a lawyer, or someone at least familiar with a courtroom, had written this play. This is not meant to disparage Dustin Lance Black. I respect his work; I loved Milk and cried at the end. But a trial has its own rhythms, its own patterns, its own language, and I don’t think Black understood that. (No doubt there are a zillion lawyers out there who disagree with me.) There was something about the temporal inconsistency of the script that was just off, no doubt reflecting how hard it is to turn a multi-day, multi-stage trial into an hour and a half theatrical work. I wonder if a non-lawyer who has neither watched trials and oral arguments nor read courtroom transcripts would feel that disruption. Once again, perhaps this is my problem and not Black’s.
What bothered me the most though was the script’s focus on the Perry plaintiffs. In particular, the focus on Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and the adorable moppets who are their sons felt incredibly fake. Or worse than fake, it felt like propaganda. It’s hard to write this because I am writing about real people who are doing something incredibly brave (and risky), and whom in real life I admire very much. But even though they are the plaintiffs, Perry is not about Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Jeff Zarrillo, and Paul Katami. They are merely the vehicles. Just as in Lawrence v. Texas, Perry is about every gay and lesbian person in the United States regardless of whether they plan on marrying someone of the same sex. The theatrical device of an everyman (in this case the four plaintiffs) just doesn’t work here. The trial spoke for itself.
8 is too ambitious for its own good. The original purpose of the production was twofold: (1) to find a way to transmit the visuals of the Perry trial since the video tapes have been sealed; and (2) to raise money for Americans for Equal Rights (Black is a founding board member of AFER). Now it appears that there is a third purpose: to be made into a television movie for HBO that will win acclaim and Emmys by the truckload. That self-conscious ambition hurts 8 on an artistic level.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Maybe the problem is that 8 is not a compelling piece of theater because dramatically it is lacking. I am not talking about the use of trial transcripts because the most effective parts of the show were from the trial and the least effective parts were when the play stayed from the transcript. The problem is that in a battle between rights and wrong, which is what 8 is ultimately about, there is no compelling villain. From a political perspective this makes sense, why humanize your enemy? Because 8 is ultimately political, if cannot afford to make a villain someone the audience would secretly like. From a dramatic point of view though, this is deadly. What is Othello without Iago, Angels in America without Roy Cohn, or Paradise Lost without Satan?
Frankly, who would the gay rights movement want to build up? Those who are opposed to the LGBT rights movement–James Dobson, Randall Terry, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson, the evangelicals, the Catholic and Mormon Church hierarchies, the national Republican party, etc.–what do they offer? What good does humanizing them do? Nothing really. From a dramatic point of view the only effective villain is Maggie Gallagher. Ever since I read the Salon profile of her, I have been both fascinated and horrified. Maggie, unlike the rest of he ilk, is intelligent, and surprisingly enough given how horrible she is, appears to have no actual animosity toward gay people. Yet Maggie has completely forsaken empathy and humanity in favor of blind devotion to a cause.
It was not until I saw Jane Lynch portray Maggie in 8 with fire-breathing panache that I realized that Maggie is a 21st century Louise Day Hicks. Hicks was a Boston politician, and the chairwoman of the all-powerful Boston School Committee in the 1960′s. Under her leadership, the Committee resisted integrating the deeply and unfairly segregated Boston inner-city schools, a resistance that only intensified after the Garrity decision.
When the Garrity decision was announced, Hicks founded ROAR (“Restore Our Alienated Rights”), the primal scream of rage against integration from the Boston Irish. Unsurprisingly–and with good reason–Hicks and ROAR became the face of Boston racism. The irony though is that it is unclear if Hicks herself was racist. J. Anthony Lukas, in his masterful book Common Ground, the classic book about school integration and race relations in Boston, suggests that Hicks was not racist (as opposed to George Wallace or Hicks’s allies at ROAR) so much as a consummate politician who knew her constituency and channeled their rage for her own political gain.
And that to me is more about who Maggie Gallagher is. She is not a second Anita Bryant so much as a second Louise Day Hicks, someone who sold her soul for politics.
~*~*~*~*~*~*
There is one final problem with 8, and that is the self-congratulatory nature of the people behind it. I watched Rob Reiner and Dustin Lance Black say that this is the final leg of the race that is the civil rights movement, and my jaw dropped in shock. This speaks to an incredible myopia, which is I am pretty sure is not how AFER sees the struggle. I wonder if AFER will still exist when the marriage fight is won. That isn’t the last hurdle even if it is made out to be. Civil rights is an ongoing struggle that will change and mutate with each generation.
Perry is not the end, but rather the end of the beginning. For years now the groundwork has been laid; everything up until now has been prologue for the fights that are to come. It was important and necessary, but it was merely the start. This year, marriage laws passed by Washington and Maryland will be up for referendum; activists in Maine have gotten marriage onto the ballot in that state; New Jersey’s governor has vetoed a same-sex marriage bill there, and his veto needs to be overturned; preparations must be made in California in case the Supreme Court overturns Perry; the victory in New Hampshire was not close, but it is still no reason to relax; there is movement to try to get the same-sex marriage ban in Ohio removed; and bans on same-sex marriage are up for public referendum in Minnesota and North Carolina. This is with the backdrop of the DOMA cases working their way through the courts, a bill to repeal DOMA in the Senate (which won’t pass a filibuster and won’t get approval from the House), the fights for ENDA, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, housing equality, immigration reform that treats same-sex couples fairly, transgender rights, benefits for the same-sex spouses of federal employees, and overturning same-sex marriage bans in the majority of states.
No, we are not in the last leg. The fight has just intensified. The Great Work begins.
