0068 | April 22, 2019
Michael Jackson: Gods Require Sacrifices
People are willing to sacrifice a lot to be near greatness. From Plato’s Symposium to starfuckers, the desire to be near the powerful has been with us a long time. But to be near that kind of power requires a sacrifice.
| C.T. WEBB: 00:19 | Good afternoon, good morning, or good evening. And welcome to the American Age podcast. My name is C. Travis Webb, editor of The American Age, and I am speaking to you from southern California. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 00:28 | Hi. I’m Steven G. Fullwood. And I’m the co-founder of the Nomadic Archivists Project. And I’m coming to you from a very sunny and lovely Harlem that started very early this morning in the 50s. |
| S. RODNEY: 00:40 | Yeah, that sound good. My name is Seph Rodney, no middle name. At least not one that I’m going to admit to on air. I am an editor at Hyperallergic, the art blog, and on the part-time faculty at Parsons in The New School in New York. And it’s really sunny today for me as well. It’s just that it’s kind of cold. It’s like the winter’s still kind of lingering, it’s not ready to exit stage right yet. |
| C.T. WEBB: 01:11 | So I haven’t been outside today. So we’re continuing our conversation about Michael Jackson and all of the various tendrils that his life touched on. This is to remind our listeners that we practice a form of what we like to call intellectual intimacy, which is giving each other the space and time to figure out things out loud and together. So we are continuing our conversation this week with Michael Jackson and the various tendrils that his life reached into and affected. And one of the topics that we thought we might take a crack at very carefully, because many sacred cows lay there– and I should say that I mean no snark by that. Right? I mean, there are probably– not probably. All my academic language jumps out. Right? All my caveats, all the time. So there are very good reasons to have those sacred cows in this area. But we thought we might tentatively explore, what do the people who have been victimized by Michael Jackson, who have been subject to his whims and his appetites – whether they be criminal or not, so we can kind of bracket that. Right? I mean this would really apply to any mega star. Someone with that much social power. What do they get out of that proximity? What do they get out of that encounter? What’s the pot of gold at the end of that trek through hell? So we thought we might poke at that a little bit. Steven and Seph, either of you want to venture there? |
| S. RODNEY: 02:56 | Well, I think the first thing that occurs to me is not to talk about Michael Jackson per se. I think I want to talk about other people who have essentially come into an aura of celebrity because they’ve spent time with, been associated with, other celebrities. And I think now, people like Amber Rose, and I think of people like Kim Kardashian. And maybe this conversation changes a bit because they are both women. And they’re both really attractive women. And part of their cache is generated by their physical attributes. It may be slightly different, that’s all I’m saying, from the Michael Jackson mega-stardom kind of scenario. But what I’m thinking of now is, if I remember the story correctly – and I don’t know that I do – but Amber Rose I think rose to fame– that was unintentional. Rose to fame through her association with, I think, to start off with, some big ballers. I think it was Omari Stottlemeyer, the basketball player. He used to be on the Nix. He was on a lot of teams before that. A few teams before that. But whatever. |
| S. RODNEY: 04:11 | So she got to know him. And I think they were involved sexually. And then she was involved with– and I’m not going to get the order correct because I do not pay enough attention. Well, I hardly pay any attention to these kinds of stories. But I pick up some things through osmosis. I think she was involved with Wiz Khalifa. I know she was involved – because they’ve talked about it incessantly – she was involved with Kanye West. And what has happened to her life subsequent to her involvement with these celebrities is that she’s now, I think– again my knowledge is spotty here. But I think she had a perfume out or a clothing line or something like that. A lingerie line. She was able to start, essentially start a business. She was able to become sort of her own marketing business entity because she leveraged her association with these other celebrities into a kind of stardom for herself. So she’s been in YouTube videos. She’s been on panels discussing women’s agency. She has essentially created a career. And I think there’s a similar story that’s gone on with Kim Kardashian after the sex tape with Ray J was released. Is that Ray J? is that right? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 05:39 | Yeah, that’s Ray J. |
| C.T. WEBB: 05:40 | That sounds right, yeah. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 05:41 | Yeah, that’s Brandy’s brother. |
| S. RODNEY: 05:43 | Right, that’s it. Made her infamous and then famous. And then she was friends with someone else. I don’t remember who. Maybe it was the– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 05:51 | Heiress. |
| S. RODNEY: 05:51 | Paris Hilton? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 05:53 | Paris Hilton. |
| S. RODNEY: 05:54 | Right. Right. Right. But she’s leveraged that. Right? I don’t want to say that she’s leveraged that into a relationship with Kanye West. Because I think having a marriage with someone is just a thing that takes work. To quote Kanye though, “I’m not going to say she’s a gold digger, but you know she ain’t with no broke nigger.” She has worked whatever levers and pulleys of power vis-a-vis stardom that she’s been able to get a hold of. She has pulled and worked in such a way as to give herself essentially a social and financial– another rung on the ladder. She’s ascended that socioeconomic ladder vis-a-vis– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 06:42 | Yeah. I was just going to say one of the major– just to add to what you’re saying quickly. One of the major news outlets had a headline, “Is She One of the Most Savvy CEO’s in the United States?” Or something like that. I mean, she knows what she’s about. And she’s very good at it. |
| S. RODNEY: 06:59 | Yes, yes, absolutely. And making herself the product to be marketed to thousands of people. And in fact, speaking of that– thank you for saying that, Travis, because you made me remember a conversation I had with someone. We were at, actually, Phil’s house. Phil. Remind me Steven. Phil the librarian. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 07:18 | Phil, Phil Bond. B-O-N-D. |
| S. RODNEY: 07:20 | Thank you. At Phil Bond’s house. This was years ago. Must of been like three or four or five years ago. Just hanging out, having some snacks, I think it was maybe somebody’s birthday or a celebration of some sort. And Phil had a friend along who was a woman who worked in marketing I think. And the way she talked about her business, she was very savvy about the ways people get manipulated through various celebrity associated marketing schemes. And she said– she was talking about some show. I guess the Kardashians at some point had a show where it’s like real time, real life with the Kardashians. Like they’re following them around and they’re watching them all day long. Something like that. Some reality show. Does that ring a bell? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 08:03 | That’s still on the air. It’s called Keeping Up With The Kardashians. Is that what you’re referring to? |
| S. RODNEY: 08:06 | Oh. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I am totally fine with looking like I have no idea what I’m talking about where reality TV is concerned. Because I really don’t. But so Keeping Up With The Kardashians. She said at one point, Kim Kardashian was on the sofa working on the computer, ostensibly. And she had on this fur stole. Right? And she’s drinking something. And people were kind of– she was concerned. Other people were concerned that she was going to spill something on it. Or maybe she spilled something on it. Whatever. She said– and I’m going to quote her, so please don’t take this to be my words. She said, “This bitch had on a mink stole and was drinking Kahlua and cream–” Or whatever it was. “And she did it because she knew that people at home would want to do the same thing.” They would want to be on their couch at whatever time of the afternoon, nothing else to do but just kind of play online, wearing a mink stole. There’s no earthly reason for you to have on a mink stole at home while your ostensibly working on the computer or surfing online and having a smoothie or whatever it is. It’s just, it’s only done to make people envy your lifestyle. Right? And there’s a way in which that is consistently leveraged by people who come into touch with stardom, at least now. And so to answer your question– and this is a very long way around a barn. You’ll forgive me. People do it in order to actually gain social and cultural capital that they can then essentially transform, morph into actual economic capital. Two, they do it in order to– it’s a mutually enforcing kind of dynamic. They use that association to rise in social status. Right? |
| C.T. WEBB: 10:12 | Feedback, is that– ? |
| S. RODNEY: 10:14 | Yeah, well, I think it’s more like synergy. There we go. Right? It’s synergistic. And three, they then turn around and, having become these stars in their own right, use the same kinds of leverage to make people want the lifestyle that they now have. Does that sound about right? |
| C.T. WEBB: 10:39 | I’m going to let Steven jump in. I think I probably disagree. But I’m going to let Steven jump in, so. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 10:45 | Well let me jump in. So just a couple footnotes to what you’re saying, Seph, about Kim Kardashian. Just a couple of notes. So years ago I read this piece called The Real Reason Why Everyone Hates the Kardashians. And this is from Cracked.com. I’ll send the link to you both later. But one of the things I thought was really interesting about it is that they say, “Hey.” It starts off– it’s a jokey thing. “The Kardashians are the worst, huh? Am I right? No, I’m not right. In fact, if you did agree with that, I have some bad news. You’re the worst. If you wonder why I say that, you can hear all about it in this one podcast. But it’s excerpted here.” And number five out of the five reasons is, we scapegoat them for things we’re guilty of. And so they talk about this moment where social media exploded and all of that. But the most probing one of the five comments, which I really, really like, is that we get Kim Kardashian and the Kardashians kind of wrong. But they end up being the scapegoats for all this other stuff. So, essentially, she may have made her money or gained notoriety from the Ray J sex tape, but she was actually running businesses before that. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 12:03 | Now depending on– so it says something. Kim Kardashian started and ran various businesses. Ebay stores, closet organizing, all this nonsense. Here I am, saying the very thing that– funded mostly by money she got from her father. Here’s the thing though. He didn’t just give her the money. He actually gave her the money– he loaned her the money with interest. And that he was able to give her a leg up in the world– she has something before this Ray J thing, before this Paris Hilton thing. Now, going to Travis’ question about what do people gain from it– of course people have been gaining from other people’s social capital forever. Right? What I wanted to get back to – and I know Travis will probably circle back to it – is this idea, what constitutes abuse? And what constitutes this dream of being able to get to the thing without the abuse? Right? So I will talk about Michael Jackson. I will say I wonder about what those kids are doing today. Like Macaulay Culkin didn’t really benefit from an association from Michael Jackson. He had his own fame. Or Emmanuel Lewis. Or some of these other kids. But I’d wager to say– because there’s a website where they actually talk about all of Michael Jackson’s alleged victims. And a lot of them are just regular people. So I don’t know if they were able to leverage it in a way that other people– I don’t even know if anyone was able leverage– |
| C.T. WEBB: 13:28 | People that weren’t in this documentary, sort of. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 13:31 | Right. Exactly, so it’s an interesting thing to think about. When you first said it, I was like, “Well.” I think people constantly do that. It’s just that it’s almost like the lottery. It’s just one out of a million people that are able to– Kim Kardashian, who seems like she did also had roots a little bit deeper than that, so. |
| C.T. WEBB: 13:50 | Okay. So the thing that I though of– it’s not that I– I probably shouldn’t say I disagree with what you said, Seph. Because I think all of that stuff is right. I think that it runs deeper than that though. The example that I would give is Plato’s Symposium. When everyone is sitting around and talking about what the good is and love, et cetera. There’s a play in the Greek on one of the characters in the Symposium, Agathon. So, Agathos. Right? Which is the good. And Agathon the character is presented as this stunningly beautiful youth that all of the old philosophers want him to sit next to them on the couch, basically. But of course Agathon only has eyes for Socrates. And the end result of the symposium is that love is the attempt to possess the highest form of the good. And the good being Agathos. And being the beautiful youth, Agathon. So basically the highest good is to posses the beautiful young man. And that sort of physicality of it. And of course Agathon is ready and willing to indulge in this proximity because of Socrates’ wisdom and his genius. |
| S. RODNEY: 15:27 | But this sounds very [inaudible] by the way. |
| C.T. WEBB: 15:29 | Yeah. Yes, I think there are a couple of very base things at the bottom of these desires. One is that are we sure, as difficult and as damaging as these associations are, and as repulsed as I am by Michael Jackson’s affinity for young, it seems, boys– I don’t know if there are any allegations of abuse around little girls. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 16:01 | I haven’t seen any. |
| C.T. WEBB: 16:02 | Yeah. Is that proximity to genius and brilliance and the desire to be near it is really, really old. And we have thought and felt that it was worth it for a really long time. I mean, what would you be willing to do to sit at the foot of Socrates? What would you be willing to do to hear a sermon from Jesus straight from his mouth? What would you be willing to do to live near the Buddha? And for us, right, we are a material– our spirituality has become materialized in the United States. Right? I mean, there’s criticism to be had around that. But the way that we experience transcendence is through material culture. And all of the trappings of material culture. And so what I think these people are after is, and what I think they experience, and what I think Kim Kardashian taps into, is transcendence. Which is not to be a dying, rotting monkey. And to be something other than what we are. And I think that that is what the economic critique always fails to grapple with. Even though I think it’s true– and of course there’s all these great trappings that come along with economics. Right? Or being a man or woman of means. But really what grabs us is that. Is that we want to be something other that what we are. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 17:50 | I would love to push back on that. But I am thinking about The Picture of Dorian Gray. And I’m thinking about this poem. I just found the quote. So there’s this older guy talking to Dorian Gray about– Dorian’s like, “Yeah, I just want people to love me for me.” Or whatever. It’s early on in the book. And he goes, “Beauty is a form of genius. It is higher indeed than genius, as it needs no explanation. It is one of the great facts of the world, like sunlight or springtime or the reflection in the dark waters of that silver shell we call the moon. It cannot be questioned. It has divine right of sovereignty. It makes princes of those who have it.” And that proximity to power really is something else. You don’t question it. You just want to be a part of it. But that base desire thing I think is really necessary. And I do think that– I think you’re completely correct, Travis, about when people– “Oh she’s just–?” Was it [inaudible]? Not [inaudible]. “She’s just surface and she just wants things.” It’s what those things do. It’s what they represent in the imagination. And, yeah. Transcendence in this country, more often than not, is connected to material goods and the acquisition thereof, so. |
| S. RODNEY: 19:08 | So this makes a lot of sense to me. Particularly in light of my frustration even– I’m not sure what the word is. I’m thinking of the state of being appalled kind of constantly by the people who sucked up to Donald Trump upon his election. I remember particularly being disgusted with Steve Harvey running over the the Trump Hotel to kiss the ring, so to speak. And people were writing things, like, “Well, he wants the Miss America pageant.” Whatever. Whatever. That makes sense to me though. That people would want to be in that proximity. Right? Would want to be within that hallowed circle so that they can gain those things that will set them apart from all the rest of teeming, seething humanity. No. They’re at the door. Which I really think that this connects to – or makes sense of a lot of – our sort of cultural machinations. And in fact I’m reminded of a conversation that I had when I was actually arguing on the sort of opposite side or what I said– yeah. The opposite side of where I started out today. |
| S. RODNEY: 20:36 | I was having a conversation with a woman who’s a collector at a Chelsea gallery. I happen to have a couple of friends who are artists. And one in particular is someone shows on both coasts. And I think she has a gallery in Europe as well. Anyway, I won’t say the name of the gallery because it might just get kind of messy. But I was at an opening. And she introduced me to one of her collectors. Of course, a middle aged white woman, comes from a family of money. I have no idea how they made their money. But whatever. And I remember saying something– I’d just read something about Kim Kardashian. And I remember saying to her something like, “Yeah. I actually kind of have respect for her now.” And I’m not sure how we got on this topic, But I said, “I do actually have some respect for her. Because she’s leveraged whatever tools she had at her disposal to get to someplace in her life where she did feel like she had some cache. Where she had some more agency than she would have otherwise.” And this woman just dismissed it. She said something like, “Yeah, well, the Kardashians.” Not quite [inaudible] kind of thing. And I remember not having an answer for her and regretting that. And being kind of resentful that she was so– in a sort of privileged white way, could just dismiss the concerns of– dismiss concerns that are likely held by every other person on the planet who does not have the kind of resources she has. So that makes a lot of sense to me. |
| C.T. WEBB: 22:21 | Yeah. I try and be careful with the, “Oh–” I think it’s there’s a– what’s the name of it? Catastrophe theory or something like that. Which is basically the idea that all of the things that human being do are about an effort to deny their own mortality. I don’t think that’s true. Right? I mean, I think we have things like innate curiosity, and desires around tastes and pleasures and physical pleasures and stuff like that. So I don’t think it can all be boiled down to that. But when you have that kind of potency and that– when you can be sort of the center of gravity to that degree, I think the only move to make at that point is an existential one. What motivates and provokes and animates us in deep ways? Now not necessarily every single person. Right? Did you guys see that article with the woman that doesn’t experience anxiety or pain or something like that? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 23:36 | Oh yeah, I glanced at it. I glanced at it.[crosstalk] |
| C.T. WEBB: 23:40 | This Scottish woman. And it looks like maybe there’s some kind of genetic relationship between physical pain and anxiety, actual worry, that they’re trying to unpuzzle or whatever. So shapes and sized. There are a myriad of them. But when you want to be that– to bring it back to Michael Jackson. When you see the video of the kind of hysteria that has taken a hold of people in his proximity, and the desire of the people to be near that– in some ways it’s not that I don’t think– I mean, we talked about the parents. And it’s not that I don’t think the parents were derelict in their duties. I do believe that. But I think that our history has oftentimes been driven by our enthusiasm for things that break familial bonds. And for whatever reason Michael Jackson embodied that. And what these people got out of that proximity was a kind of transcendence. Right? That’s what they were participating in. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 25:03 | And when you think about it– so I just pulled up Michael Jackson’s touring since Bad. Right? Because he really didn’t tour for Thriller. He toured with the Jacksons for their victory tour in ’84. So the Bad tour was from ’87 to ’89. And there are a number of concert videos where people are– they’re just showing people pass out and being carried out. What is that? And earlier on, my question for both of you was wondering whether or not a Michael Jackson fan of that caliber, of that emotional– filled with that emotion, what are they responding to? Like at Schomburg, for example, when I worked at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. There were a number of people running through. Right? One day Oprah came through and she walked past me. One, she was shorter than I thought she was. And I just remember going, “Oprah just walked past me.” And something in me perked up. Now I have all kinds of critique of Oprah and her show. But seeing her, seeing the back of her head – because she didn’t stop – was something else. I was just like, “Oh. That’s really interesting”. It was something in me that kind of went, “Oh. Okay”. But I was curious about what animates people to make them want to pass out. There are the crowds. There’s the music. There’s Michael Jackson. There’s your proximity to Michael Jackson. There’s what Michael Jackson– babies are still coming out today going, “I love Michael Jackson.” I don’t understand it. And I want to know what it is. And I think that’s one of the next things I’ll start to go down a rabbit hole with is how people would describe Michael. There are people who want to sue– what is it? They want to sue HBO and about the documentary. But my brain is going, “But what is that base need?” I have never been to a Prince concert. But I was excited by Prince. But I’ve never passed out. |
| S. RODNEY: 26:49 | I think you raise a very fascinating question, which is– given the way you just raised it, Steven, you said that there was something in you that responded to Oprah passing by. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 27:04 | Yeah, I was trying to find something appropriate. Yeah. |
| S. RODNEY: 27:06 | Right. But I’m not convinced that it is in you. I think that there’s something in the air. There’s like an electricity that is around– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 27:12 | Ah, it’s like attenuator, maybe. Okay. Okay. I’m sorry. |
| S. RODNEY: 27:15 | Well, it’s a bad metaphor. So I’d appreciate the help with it. Or maybe unwieldy is the word I’m looking for. Unwieldy metaphor. Maybe it’s electricity that is generated by them. Or generated by their sort of position in the world. So that you as a receptor may not be that sensitive to the power– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 27:41 | My brain might not be attenuated to that kind of excitement. |
| S. RODNEY: 27:44 | Might not be attuned to that kind of excitement. exactly. And then other people might be far more. Right? Other people might be– because I’ve felt that in myself. When I worked in the Beverly Center, when I worked in Beverly Hills, my position as an editor at Hyperallergic, I’ve been around enough of those people. And I’ve noticed in myself how my sensitivity to their—let’s just call it power. I don’t really have a better word. My sensitivity to their power has waned over the years. But I remember the first time being around people– even one of the Wayans brothers was shopping there. And I remember being just sort of like tongue-tied. I don’t know how to process this. I don’t know what to [crosstalk]– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 28:32 | Right. What do you say to somebody that you’ve seen on television or in movies or on stage? What do you do? And they’re just people once you start to talk. You get a real person. |
| S. RODNEY: 28:43 | That is exactly right. I don’t know, I mean, but there may not be some– so what I’m getting at I suppose is there is a combination of something in you and something in them. Or something that trails after them. Something that surrounds them, which has something to do with a kind of– I don’t know if I want to call it transcendence. But a kind of– the occupy another echelon of human capability. Right? They are somewhere else. They are not quite here. I don’t look at them horizontally. I have to look up at them. Right? |
| C.T. WEBB: 29:19 | Yeah. That’s a good analogy. To take it back to my original question off of that– so gods require sacrifices. This is what’s required to be in the presence of the god. And so maybe we don’t call them gods in our parlance anymore. But I don’t know what else to call someone to connect us to our past that causes thousands of people to pass out, like Steven said. Like, “Huh?” Honestly I think on Sunday I’m going to do a little digging and find out what research has been done around this. Because it is a– I work hard to find empathy for most people in most situations. And I don’t have any finger holds on that one. I have never been that excited by anything to even come near wanting to pass out. But that effect I would say is basically, again, to connect it to our history, divine. Right? It’s kind of the contemporary version of divine proximity. Of the essence of inspiration, and all the rest of that. And that requires a sacrifice. That requires that you give something up to be near it. And these mothers gave up their children to be near it. And as distasteful as that may be to many of us, most of us are probably willing to make that sacrifice and– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 31:14 | I’m not fucking with you. I’m not fucking with you, Travis, I’m not fucking with you. That is some serious shit to think about. Oh. Shit. Sorry to cut you off. |
| C.T. WEBB: 31:25 | No that’s fine. That was it. |
| S. RODNEY: 31:26 | You’re right to say that, Steven. I’m not. I mean, I think that around the table, around this small virtual round table we have, none of you guys are. And I think that when I was younger I was more sort of star struck. But I never felt like I wanted to give up– I don’t think I ever did. I never felt like I wanted to give up my agency or give up myself to prostrate myself in front of someone else like that. There was never enough give back for me. What would I get? I always felt like, “Okay. So I’m nervous.” When I was younger, I always felt, “Okay. So I’m nervous in talking with this–” I don’t know. Huge Hollywood actor. Sam Neill came through and I spoke to him. And I was like, “Oh. I’m nervous about this. That’s fucked up. I hate being nervous.” And the more I do it, the more I lost– the more I dealt with people like that, the more I got over it. And now I’m like– I don’t know. Who did I see the other day? Oh. Yeah. I saw Chelsea Clinton at that reception [crosstalk] for Martin [inaudible]. And I saw her. And we made eye contact. And I was like, “Oh. Yeah. I’m good.” I don’t need to follow up. I don’t need to get any closer to her. I’m good over here. I think it would be a useful question for us to all look into to maybe pick up the next time and talk about what it is. What is that capacity in the human to want to just sort of prostrate itself before the divine? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 33:07 | Yeah. Wow. I have another question. I want to pursue that question. Then another question was for the both of you and our listeners. Because what you’ve done, Travis, is to sort of reveal some really ugly but really important things to think about. And then I went, “Of course. Of course there are sacrifices. Of course people willing to do that prostration. Of course. Of course.” Because this is what we’re doing. But so are we aware of it? Are we okay with it? Obviously consciously or unconsciously. What’s in that space? Because I want to go to a concert. I want to hear music. I want to dance. What have you. Oh then Patti LaBelle walks past me. That’s cute. Oh. That’s great. Do I pass out? No. But, yeah. So I’m just curious about whether or not people really know what it takes to be around people who they love or admire in some way, and have that sort of whatever they represent in their head. Because people go to the balls for Beyonce. They go to the mat for people. And I go– |
| S. RODNEY: 34:15 | Look what happened around R. Kelly. And R. Kelly’s like a demi-god in comparison to Beyonce. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 34:19 | And what’s still happening with R. Kelly. |
| S. RODNEY: 34:21 | Exactly. He’s like a lesser god. And people still sacrifice their children to him. Right? Essentially. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 34:29 | Oh, still. Absolutely, still. |
| C.T. WEBB: 34:34 | All right, my friends. So we will call that a wrap. And we’ll pick up with the conversation next week. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 34:40 | Okay. Thanks very much. |
| C.T. WEBB: 34:42 | Thanks. |
| S. RODNEY: 34:43 | Take care. |
References
First referenced at 13:50