Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
Make your own free website on
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...


Click here to go there...

« June 2004 »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor


"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"

Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Tuesday, 29 June 2004

Topic: Dissent

More on Moore -

Over at the web log Whiskey Bar - whose motto displayed at the top of the page is "For if we don't find the next Whiskey Bar, I tell you we must die." (Bertolt Brecht) - you will find this comment in a longer item on Michael Moore's new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" -
... if Moore has become the Ann Coulter of the left - but with a sharper wit - then I can see no better target for his considerable talents than the Man from Crawford. If ever a president deserved to be the subject of a vitriolic, one-sided, emotionally manipulative diatribe of a documentary, Bush is it.

It's still not clear to me whether Fahrenheit 9/11 lives up to that description, or justifies the nonstop right-wing whining now saturating the airwaves (Call it Unfair-enheit 24/7). I haven't seen the movie yet. But if it does play a little loose with the facts, omits some key details, implies more than it can prove, and generally takes after Shrub with a cinematic hatchet, I won't be surprised. But I also won't mind.

For years now, Limbaugh, Coulter and their inferior imitations have been passing off their slanted misreadings, unproven allegations and flimsy lies as factual reporting. When caught out on a lie or a smear, they either ignore the evidence, or - like Limbaugh - retreat into the phony defense of arguing that all they're doing is expressing a subjective opinion. "I'm just in the entertainment business," Rush likes to say.

Well, now there's someone on the left who knows how to play their game, and play it brilliantly. Moore may be an egomaniac, and a huckster showman in the best (or worst) tradition of P.T. Barnum and Walter Winchell, but, man, he's effective. He's learned to play the mainstream media like a Stradivarius.

No wonder the right wingers are scared of Moore - he's even better then they are at using the media as an unwilling amplifier. Which is why all the conservative caterwauling and all disapproving tut tuts from the "responsible" press have only helped ensure Fahrenheit 9/11 a wider distribution.

In other words, Moore's managed to break the code. He's figured out how to sell an angry radical (or at least semi-radical) message to a mass audience.

That's a major accomplishment. And if the end result isn't exactly my idea of a civilized political discourse (I'll reserve judgment for now) it clearly is a powerful and successful example of fighting fire with fire.

And right now, a little fire may be what the American left needs most.
And this from my friend Bonnie in Boston -
Well, I saw Fahrenheit 911 yesterday afternoon at four in Boston. The theater was nearly filled with a very diverse audience, age and race-wise. When we were leaving, the lobby was thrumming with a packed incoming crowd.

I thought the film was great. From the little I know about Ann Coulter and Rush Limberger, their stock in trade consists of lots of name-calling and vituperation. Moore indulges in neither. Like any good artist, he presents images and words, skillfully arranged for effect, and lets them speak for themselves. Show not tell. Sure, the impact of his selection and arrangement of images and music manipulate the viewer to infer certain things. But that's what movies do. But his subjects speak for themselves, from the mother of the dead soldier to Bush to a former FBI agent, and it all feels profoundly truthful and authentic, not to mention witty and downright hilarious at moments.

Of course, I'm already on board with most of what he offers up. I remember the Boston Globe's reports of Bin Ladens being flown out of town while my husband was stranded in St. Louis after 911. I have long believed that Cheney et. al. run the show and use GW as a front man who, without someone telling him what to say, is clueless as a deer in the headlights. I believe the war is being fought for oil.

But what surprised me is that I found myself in the bathroom after the show, heaving great sobs behind the closed stall door. The movie pushed the cerebral hatred I have for this administration right down into my guts and made it visceral. I wept hot tears of hate, something I can't ever remember doing before. (A margarita and a plate of pulled pork, plus some good conversation, restored my spirits soon thereafter.)

I am thrilled that so many people are going to see it, talking about it, writing about it. The Globes whole Letters to the Editor section was devoted to the movie this morning. And I especially love the web address at the end of the film. DO SOMETHING. There, one finds information about how to register and get others registered to vote.

For my money, Moore is a patriot. Let the right rant. Let the people vote.

Maybe we can get the Bushes out, come fall, after all.
Moore is a patriot? The other day, on the CNN show Crossfire, Robert Novak called Moore un-American. Simply un-American. Of course Novak is the man who gladly published the name of an undercover CIA agent (Valerie Plame) who had been working on our efforts to get nuclear stuff off the black market. He blew her cover to help punish her husband for exposing Bush and crew fibbing about Iraq trying to buy yellow-cake uranium in Niger. He sees no problem with that. Yeah, he knows a lot about a being a good American.

Oh well. Folks are choosing sides.

Kevin Drum, a writer out here in Irvine, California, posted this. He says the film is either worthy of Henry James, or simply a mirror of all the crap we get from the right.
... What to say? The argument over the film mostly seems to revolve around whether it's factually accurate and presents a logical case, a conversation so pointless as to be laughable. I mean, it's a polemical film from Michael Moore, not a Brookings Institution white paper. It's like complaining that editorial cartoons are unfair because they don't portray the nuance of serious policy discussions.

Now, as it happens, I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a bit mediocre even as polemic, but the thing that really struck me about the film was the almost poetic parallelism between its own slanders and cheap shots and the slanders and cheap shots of pro-war supporters themselves over the past couple of years. If Moore had done this deliberately, it would have been worthy of Henry James.

Take the first half hour of the film, in which Moore exposes the close relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud. Sure, it relies mostly on innuendo and imagery, but then again, he never really makes the case anyway. He never flat out says that the Bush family is on the Saudi payroll. Rather, he simply includes "9/11," "Bush," and "Saudi Arabia" in as many sentences as possible, thus leaving the distinct impression that George Bush is a bought and paid for subsidiary of the Saudi royal family.

Which is all remarkably similar to the tactic Bush himself used to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. He never flat out blamed Saddam, but rather made sure to include the words "9/11," "Saddam Hussein," and "al-Qaeda" in as many sentences as possible, thus leaving the distinct impression that Saddam had something to do with it.

Or take Afghanistan. In a lengthy and nearly unreadable screed in Slate, Christopher Hitchens takes Moore to task for arguing in 2002 that the war in Afghanistan was unjust but then arguing in the film that Iraq was a distraction from the real war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Surely I'm not the only one who's reminded by this of the ever-shifting rationales for war from the Bush administration itself? In 2002 it was mostly about WMD. But there was no WMD. So then it became al-Qaeda. But there were no serious al-Qaeda ties. How about liberation? Maybe, except the Iraqis don't seem especially happy with their liberators. Democracy? Stay tuned.

Finally, the last half hour of the film includes a piece of street theater in which Moore accosts congressmen on Capitol Hill and asks if they'll try to get their sons and daughters to enlist in the military. It's a brutally unfair question, but one that echoes a standard debating point of Hitchens and others: "Would you prefer that Saddam Hussein was still in power?" It's a question that's unanswerable in 10 words or less, and about as meaningful as Moore's ambush interviews with congressmen.

So is Fahrenheit 9/11 unfair, full of innuendo and cheap shots, and guilty of specious arguments? Sure. But that just makes it the perfect complement to the arguments of many in the pro-war crowd itself. Perhaps the reason they're so mad is that they see more than a little of themselves in it.
Yep, everyone is in the gutter now.

But some of us are looking at the stars. (Apologies to Oscar Wilde, of course.)

Posted by Alan at 18:35 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Topic: The Law

Fahrenheit 460: The Barbie Dialogs - Copyright Law and Ray Bradbury's Anger

In the January 11 issue of Just above Sunset you will find a detailed discussion of the suit Mattel brought against Tom Forsythe. As the New York Times reported yesterday and the Los Angeles Times reported today, the suit was settled. Mattel lost.

This summary is as good as any:
In a victory for individual expression over the interests of big business, Mattel's lawsuit against artist Tom Forsythe for copyright and trademark infringement has come to an end. Mattel didn't like the way Forsythe photographed his Barbie dolls (posed nude in provocative stances next to household appliances). Forsythe says he was making a point about "Barbie's power as beauty myth" and "crass consumerism." Mattel, on the other hand, hoped to wield its financial might to protect Barbie's honor.

Art won -- and won big -- as a federal court, after a series of appeals, not only ruled in Forsythe's favor but concluded that Mattel's failure to recognize protected parody resulted in a frivolous lawsuit. The court ordered Mattel to pay Forsythe more than $1.8 million in attorney's fees.

Of course the other way to look at this is now no one's copyright or trademark or invention or creation is safe any longer and this is a dark day for protecting what you have created.

Me, I don't care much either way.

I do see Ray Bradbury - the author of the novel/play/screenplay "Fahrenheit 451" - is going after Michael Moore about the "Fahrenheit 911" title. He's pissed off. Says Moore stole his title. Doesn't like his title being used in political ways. Bradbury does admit his novel "Something Wicked This Way Comes" quotes in its own title a line from Shakespeare (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1) but says that was sort of in public domain - or at least widely used and common speech. Bradbury says he now will sue anyone who uses the word Fahrenheit followed by any numeric for copyright infringement and major damages.

I think I'll register "Gone with the [any noun]" with the feds and make a lot of money. But I think Margaret Mitchell's estate already did that.

From a friend who actually used to handle licensing for Mattel (although I think she worked more with the Hot Wheels line than the Barbie side of the house) - "It's actually a victory for both Forsythe and Mattel. Barbie needs all the publicity she can get and it only cost them $1.8 million to keep her in the news."

Her husband, CEO of a software firm, disagrees - "I actually don't think it's the result Mattel wanted. But in this case they were actually wrong, it was very clearly parody as artistic expression. This was more clear in my view than the Wind Done Gone parody and where I think it was an abuse since they were both creative novels."

Background note - this from the June 29, 2003 issue of Just above Sunset:
You might recall the augments over this supposed sequel to Margaret Mitchell's novel, Gone With the Wind. The black author, Alice Randall, and the Mitchell estate fought in the courts over Randall's right to publish this pretty sardonic take on what happened at Tara after Rhett left the scene for good. The novel, The Wind Done Gone, was finally published in late 2001.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 10, 2001 affirmed a previous court's decision to block an injunction against publication of The Wind Done Gone. The panel said it wasn't clear whether Alice Randall's book parodied Gone With the Wind. But the judges said Margaret Mitchell's estate hadn't demonstrated a likelihood of success for its claims, part of the standard for an injunction. The claims were that Randall used characters and quotes from the Mitchell book without permission and without paying royalties. And these would never be granted because Randall was attempting to make a profit from Mitchell's creation. They were Mitchell's characters and Mitchell's plot and Mitchell's words, not Randall's.

The panel heard less than an hour of arguments on an appeal by Boston-based publisher Houghton Mifflin before issuing its ruling from the bench. In a brief order, the judges said the injunction was an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" that "amounts to an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment."

So The Sun Done Gone went to press - and sank quickly because actually it wasn't very good. A black take on Gone With the Wind should have been better, I guess. The market provided its own injunction.
Ah, but back to Barbie and Ray!

Rick Brown, the News Guy from Atlanta - and editor of City-Directory Atlanta - added this:
But the good news for me is that now, after such a long wait, I can finally display that provocative pose of Barbie with Barney the Dinosaur on my website!

I think the problem with Bradbury's suit - although I would think he would know this better than I would, so I may be somehow off-base on this - is that you can't copyright book or movie titles. If I'm right, Moore could have even used the actual words "Fahrenheit 451" and gotten away with it, although it wouldn't have made much sense. (If I may take exception with a point I might be missing here, this whole issue could involve trademark law, rather than copyright law.)

Oddly enough, this would also mean you or I could even release a film or book named "Gone with the [any noun]" in with the "any-noun" would be "Wind"! It's my understanding that copyright of books and movies and such comes into play in the unauthorized use of originally-created characters and situations and plots, which was the real reason the Mitchell estate people authorized a sequel (the copyrights were running out) and went after "The Wind Done Gone" parody.

Still, the Bradbury-Moore thing should be interesting to watch.

Although it's probably not legally relevant, I'm curious: Any idea of what Ray's politics are?
Well, no. I have no idea.

But I did hear an interview with Bradbury regarding all this - by telephone with MSNBC. He says he doesn't want any money from Moore. He wants his title back, whatever that means. He was unclear. He's getting on. He was born August 22, 1920 so he's eighty-four - and he has pretty much settled into the role of "The Grumpy Old Sage of Long Beach." He's a local legend. He doesn't have to make sense. That's his new privileged status.

Anyway, he said he's really, really miffed that Moore didn't call him to ask permission or even discuss the matter when Moore was making the film. And Moore only returned one of his many telephone calls since. (I'm sure when Ray as writing "Something Wicked This Way Comes" he would have put in a call to William Shakespeare and asked for his permission to use those words in the title - if he could. But obviously....)

Ray Bradbury wants his title back. Just how would that work? And yes, I do understand you cannot copyright a title. Very odd.

Bradbury also said his book "Fahrenheit 451" was NOT political at all - he said it was sociological and aesthetic. He didn't speak to his own politics. Says he hasn't seen Moore's film - Moore didn't offer to show it to him. And he's not going to buy his own ticket.

But what can one assume about his politics from his books? I just glanced through "Dandelion Wine" - a book my younger students back in the seventies rather liked. Small town America - summer and adventures in the neighborhood, odd but compelling domestic conflicts. Assume the politics of nostalgia - Harding in the White House and life-changing adventures just outside your front door in the friendly sunshine.

Rick Brown, the News Guy from Atlanta, commented on that hypothetical telephone call from Long Beach to some tomb in Stratford-Upon-Avon - Ray asking Will for permission to use the words of The Bard in a novel about spooky things in small town America. Did Ray make the call? "The old coot probably did, and I imagine is annoyed to this day that the Bard never returned any of his calls!"

Curiously, a friend in on all this used to work out here in "the industry" (the movie business), clarified some matters regarding titles. Of course Joseph now lives in France, but he used to live out here in Beverly Hills and he really does know this stuff - and he likes my idea of registering "Gone with the [any noun]" for my very own -
You are absolutely right, which is why movie titles are reserved through and use arbitrated by the AMPAS. If your production company or distributor has signed that all-important contract with the academy, your are obliged to abide by their title control system. There are disputes all the time; effectively a film must be in public domain before the title is cleared unless it is completely generic. That said, they will let you slide if the previously released film whose title you are using is deemed to have no current market value, or if Major Bucks is behind you. All rather subjective and behind closed doors.
The game is rigged? Here in Hollywood? No. I need to meet this Major Bucks fellow.

As for Barbie dolls being used in obscene parodies getting Mattel all wrapped around it own axle, Joseph wonders whether all that wasn't settled in the "Big Bird" case between PBS and the University of Colorado back in the early '90s. He asks if any of us remember the painting of Bert and Ernie doing the missionary while big bird watches through the window.

Nope. Missed that.

But his main point - titles can be protected. Is 911 too closed to 451 on the Fahrenheit scale? The difference is 460 degrees. Are they really different titles?

A tale from Phillip Raines, who writes of a treehouse and music in Just Above Sunset (links on the left side of the home page) -
Steven Spielberg tried to sue our natural science museum (Fernbank--county funded) for advertising a "Jurassic Extravaganza." It was immediately dismissed.

A quote I recall regarding the issue was "That Spielberg thinks that he has any claim to a name for a geological period of history is the height of arrogant vanity..." or something to that effect (I'm relying on a beleaguered memory). This seems to be the case with Bradbury.

What right does he have to a word that indicates a method of temperature calculation (which was actually some ones last name) followed by any number? Gee, Ray, unbutton a button or something. You're taking yourself way to seriously. Not all of his books were that great anyway. E-gads is this what we have to look forward to as we age, to become more conceited and grouchy as we fossilize? He might as well have released a press statement that said - "I'm no longer productive, I ache and I'm losing my mind, which makes me pissed off."

Maybe he's surrounding himself with people who suck up to him all the time. It scrubs off a few layers of respect for him in my book.
Maybe so.

And it is all very odd.

Perhaps an animated version of "Gone With The Wind" - a pixilated puppet thing with unauthorized Barbie dolls in all the female parts and unauthorized Ken dolls in the male roles (Rhett Butler and the others) - would be cool. (Barbie though has dumped Ken and her new beau is Blair, an Australian surfer-dude, to be introduced next month.) And we'll call it "Fahrenheit 460 - Jurassic Tara Burns to the Ground." Everyone can sue everyone else.

Well, frankly my dear, I don't give damn. There. I said it. So sue me.

Posted by Alan at 17:44 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 18:05 PDT home

Monday, 28 June 2004

Topic: The Law

SCOTUS - In league with the terrorists?

My conservative friends will bemoan all this, and say today's decisions from the Supreme Court just show that the nation is disintegrating as we are now told by activists judges not to trust the president. Maybe so.

But the Supreme Court today ruled that those foreign folks we've held at Guant?namo Bay in Cuba for almost two and a half years now - without charges, with no access to anyone - can challenge their detention. It seems the idea presented by the attorneys for the administration, that neither our laws nor any international laws or treaties applied here, was not a winner. Perhaps the photographs from the Baghdad prison played a part in all this - but perhaps not.

The issue came down to the administration saying that in time of war, even if there is no formal declaration of such, the president, as commander-in-chief, can, because it is his job to protect us all, claim some folks to be "enemy combatants" that fall completely outside the law. And we can do anything we want to them. We have to. They may know things. They could be dangerous. Due process is a luxury. They are terrorists and not aligned to any particular government, so they cannot be prisoners of war. Are they criminals? No. Perhaps not yet, But they could be folks who would do really bad things if we let them.

And if those detained happened to be US citizens - apprehended here or on some foreign battlefield? The administration claimed that made no difference. You had to allow the president this option - holding them forever with no charges, no questions asked - or we all could die. This was just common sense.

The Supreme Court wasn't buying it.

The Associated Press story reviewing all this is here - and Reuters covers it here.
Four of the nine justices concluded that constitutional due process rights demand that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant must be given "a meaningful opportunity" to contest case for his detention before a neutral party. Two more justices agreed that the detention of American citizen Yaser Hamdi was unauthorized and that the terror suspect should have a real chance to offer evidence he is not an enemy combatant.
Oh? Why? Don't they trust the president?

No. Reuters quotes from Justice O'Connor's opinion:
... the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
No blank check, huh?

I imagine Dick Cheney has a few choice words for Sandy now, not just for the senior senator from Vermont.

As for non-citizens, this was covered in Rasul v. Bush opinion today - and that's here (in PDF format).

There you'll find -
United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.

(a) The District Court has jurisdiction to hear petitioners' habeas challenges under 28 U. S. C. ?2241, which authorizes district courts, "within their respective jurisdictions," to entertain habeas applications by persons claiming to be held "in custody in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States," ??2241(a), (3). Such jurisdiction extends to aliens held in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not "ultimate sovereignty."
Geez, keeping these guys in Cuba and saying our laws didn't apply there - as it wasn't really part of the United States? No dice.

What to make of all this? It seems the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) has something to say. Like this:
For over two years, the Bush Administration have tried to have it their way, not the Constitutional way. These decisions are a stern rebuke. The Executive Branch may not be the sole arbiter of who is detained and for how long. Detainees must have access to counsel and the courts.
Yeah, yeah.

The court also decided two Miranda cases today. Bottom line? - "The Court holds that physical fruits of a Miranda violation don't get suppressed but that purposeful Miranda violations vitiate a subsequent confession."


Justices Warn Police on Coercion Tactic
June 28, 12:47 PM (ET) - Gina Holland for the Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday warned police away from using a strategy intended to extract confessions from criminal suspects before telling them of their right to remain silent.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said that intentionally questioning a suspect twice - the first time without reading the Miranda warning - is usually improper.

But the court left open the possibility that some confessions obtained after double interviews would be acceptable, providing police could prove the interrogation wasn't intended to undermine the Miranda warning.
Once more. Huh?

Well, I do have a friend who has argued, and does still argue, in front of the Supreme Court. Perhaps she can clear this up.

All in all, today's "enemy combatant" decisions are a blow to those who say don't sweat the details and just trust Bush and his crew, or is that just trust Cheney and his crew - which happens to sometimes include Bush? Whatever. They will say the court is now endangering our lives - and making us play nice with those who just want to kill us all. And something should be done. The line will be, as it has been for some time, that liberals always want to play fair and that's too dangerous these days.

So I won't listen to talk radio for the next few days.

Much of the background above was found through links and comments at this site. Check it out. Real lawyers might find it silly. The rest of us often need a little more explanation.

Posted by Alan at 20:23 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 27 June 2004

Topic: Photos

New stuff...

Volume 2, Number 25 (Sunday, June 27, 2004) of Just Above Sunset is now on line.

In you will find a new photo essay covering a recent village festival in the south of France - sheep, goats, cute kids, a band, folks in proven?al costumes. Peter Mayle... eat your heart out! (And a page of local Hollywood photos too).

Everything said everywhere about Michael Moore's new film, along with discussion of the various lawsuits, with comments from friends of Just Above Sunset from around the world - and an exclusive review from Bob Patterson! (Four items.) The Patterson review has NOT appeared in this web log.

New today - also not on the web log - much from The News Guy and details of what modern journalism is all about. (Two items.)

Current events? Not only new comments on Dick Cheney saying a dirty word, but new today and also not on the web log, Reagan's son comes out of the closet (sort of) - and much more.

The "World's Laziest Journalist" (Bob) explains what it is with cops and doughnuts - and he has an idea for the next thing in reality shows.

And there's more, including quotes to make your head spin!

Here are the direct links....

Current Events

Trends: Something is up. Or maybe not. Or maybe so. (Cheney misbehaves?)

Basics: They hate us? That proves we're right of course.

Semantic Theory: Deconstructionist Semantics Used to Explain When a Lie is Not a Lie

Follow-Up: On the other hand... The insightful, levelheaded News Guy clarifies matters.

Couldn't be so: ... and the madness continues.

Sidebar: The Children of Conservatives

The Michael Moore film...

Reviews 1: Less in no longer Moore, and never was

Reviews 2: Is there such a thing as a legitimate abuse of power?

An Alternative: If Michael Moore had any self-control... The film he didn't make.

Review: Bob Patterson Reviews Michael Moore's New Film...

The Press

Press Notes: The news media wakes up and starts doing its job?

Journalism 101: What journalism is and what it is not. A dialog.


WLJ Weekly: The World's Laziest Journalist - Return of the guillotine?

Odds and Ends: The French. Cats. Madness.

Psychology: On Having a Positive Attitude - The argument that happy people are quite

Quotes: Useful Pithy Observations... from Maugham and Freud


Photography: As seen by others... Vive La Vraie France!

Local Photography: Southern California for those elsewhere at the moment -

"Southern California, especially, has come to symbolize good weather and bad habits, and Los Angeles seems to be a city without a civilization, one whose principle industry is an unimaginative nervousness."
- Anatole Broyard in the New York Times, April 29, 1981

Posted by Alan at 19:34 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 27 June 2004 19:36 PDT home

Saturday, 26 June 2004

Topic: Photos

No entries today...

I am off to San Diego for the day - actually to Carlsbad, just a bit to the north - as Tiffany, my nephew's daughter, turns seven. And her mother turns... well, we won't say. There's a double birthday party. Actually all three nephews, their wives, the four associated kids and my sister will be there. And a dog or two, and my sister's two cats.

So no politics today.

Late tomorrow, Pacific Time, the new issue of Just Above Sunset, the parent publication of this web log, will go online. Probably around six or seven in the evening.

A preview?

Imagine yourself in a village in France, say one south of Avignon and a bit north of Les Baux. It's late May and there seems to be a festival. This is rural France, not a big city like Paris or Lyon or Marseille. You expect sheep of course. Here they are.

This is a religious festival - something to do with the Pentecost. So while contemplating this photo do recall Handel's oratorio "The Messiah" - and hum a few bars of "Are We Like Sheep?" Or don't.

Copyright 2004 - SD Chicago
Photo used with permission
Reproduction or redistribution forbidden without the written consent of the copyright holder

Posted by Alan at 07:41 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older