Somehow Clint Eastwood evolved the west from literal-romanticism (Ford) stark-symbolism (Leone) and cold-literalness (Siegel) and into metaphysical-supernatural. The Vietnam-era HPD painted a town red and offered no edge point to revenge, maybe this is Eastwood's masterpiece and a prequel to the reversed Unforgiven where morality is made metaphysical (again). See with a loved one.

Braudel's The Mediterranean was made over twenty years, and Braudel's excess is statistical, but he also innovates narratives, his maps are loaded with motion data, sometimes forcing the audience to shift orientation to realize scope and origin. Below, the reader rotates to see.

Misspelled from the beginning, slyer versioning than beetle into Beatle, the Macintosh was the brainchild of Jef Raskin, the initiator of Apple's manuals, who began his computer revolution as a small work-group that quickly attracted Steve Jobs to its ideals. Here is a Stanford U clearinghouse of important documents from that evolution. The fusion of NeXT with Mac is the mutation that altered Apple's history, and is not examined in the link.

The west wants its data dressed up, ironed out, reduced to simplistic and fantastically other worlds where impossibilities are illustrated in snappy, easy-to-read aphorisms, second generation Oliver Sacks seeking out yonder kindles. In Sunday's NY Times pop-psych article called "Does your language shape how you think?" Guy Deutscher tries to convince the audience through blind leads as loaded as "SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that any language forbids its speakers to think anything" that language is as unrestricted as a fish that can swim every drop of the ocean. He offers innovative thinker Benjamin Lee Whorf as a sacrifice, then singles out an aboriginal language that obsessively locates directions (their cardinal-ness, whether they ever operate effectively, is clearly up for debate, since its effectiveness is illustrated merely by a mythistory only verifiable through its repetition). Deutscher's article is so positivist about language, we can be sure he's simplifying into incredulity. While he offers up Whorf for beheading, he neglects Sapir, Casirrer, Boas and many other descendants of lingual studies who explore and comprehend the evolutionary aspects of individual languages, who would have a field day with Deutscher's lazy claims. The article and its messy appropriations re-ignores vast data that contours and counters his bizarre 19th century approach. Languages clearly don't forbid thoughts, but they control measurements and values (gender is simply one of MANY layers of identity); the abilities of nouns to code themselves, travel, transform, become verbs (or vice versa) is at the core of how the brain really operates and clearly, we have many value systems in play across the spectrum of language (even the definition of language is not what we began with in 1900), and the war of domination among humans is as about language as it is about race, gender, class, border. More proof news can neither examine the past nor the present until it examines how it constructs its world while it falsely perceives it is reconstructing.

Above, the 4-H pledge