Lost email addresses

Hi, those who still read this. My laptop died, and it was the sold depository that I had for many of your email addresses. Please email me at my usual address at either yahoo.com or gmail.com so that I can reach you be email.

Thanks!

New city. New job?

Hi everyone (Dave, Coye, Andy, and anybody else who still reads this thing),

How is everybody? I'm breaking radio silence, because I now have a job offer in the Chicago area. And I would like prayer as to whether or not I should take it. For those of you not aware of the situation. My job in DC ends this upcoming Friday, and I'm moving to Chicago whether I have a job to start or not. I have not been as active in job searching as I wish I would have been, yet I have a job offer from a firm that does fixed-income investment software. The job sounds fairly interesting, but I'm not sure what my next step career-wise would be if I ever left it, and the commute would be over an hour long if I want to live close to Kari (my girlfriend), which is the biggest tangible reason that I'm moving out there. Prayers for wisdom, guidance, and a sense of God's will is appreciated. I'm thinking that I should maybe hold out for something more econ related with a shorter commute, but I'm unsure.

Peace.

Question about George Lakoff's Metaphors

Has anyone else read part or the whole of Lakoff's Metaphors we Live By? I remember the portions I read at Wheaton struck a chord with me, the overtones of which have never quite ceased ringing in my ears. So I've decided to go back and look at the thing again and then to try to see where it sits vis the contemporary linguistic/psychological/sociological field today. If anyone's interested in talking about it or reading it with me, that'd be awesome. Otherwise, perhaps some of you could at least tell me if they've heard anything about how Lakoff is read these days. Is he, as one Michael J Edelman (a reviewer on Amazon) claims, "the aging bad boy of structural linguistics," who has unsuccessfully tried to "recast himself in the role of a social theorist" trying to force his linguistic methodology into a new field? [1] Or is the book to be "considered to be one of the most intellectually honest of any book in print, for it unashamedly deals with commonsense notions of how the human mind deals with the world" [Carlson]? Do these somewhat pedestrian analysis equally miss the mark?

Anyway, I'm interested in understanding a bit more about the way we as humans understand the world around us via metaphor (or even if metaphor is the best way to talk about the way we understand and operate socially).

Hemingway: "The Gambler, the Nun, and the Radio"

"Religion is the opium of the people. He believed that, that dyspeptic little joint-keeper. Yes, and music is the opium of the people. Old mount-to-the-head hadn't thought of that. And now economics is the opium of the people; along with patriotism the opium of the people in Italy and Germany. What about sexual intercourse; was that an opium of the people? Of some of the people. Of some of the best of the people. But drink was a sovereign opium of the people, oh, an excellent opium. Although some prefer the radio, another opium of the people, a cheap one he had just been using. Along with these went gambling, an opium of the people if there ever was one, one of the oldest. Ambition was another, an opium of the people, along with a belief in any new form of government. What you wanted was the minimum of government, always less government. Liberty, what we believed in, now the name of a MacFadden publication. We believed in that although they had not found a new name for it yet. But what was the real one? What was the real, the actual, opium of the people? He knew it very well. It was gone just a little way around the corner in that well-lighted part of his mind that was there after two or more drinks in the evening; that he knew was there (it was not really there of course). What was it? He knew very well. What was it? Of course; bread was the opium of the people. Would he remember that and would it make sense in the daylight? Bread is the opium of the people."

Inflammatory Idea of the Week

Hopefully not too inflammatory.

I decided I'd like to know who, if anyone, you guys find interesting out of the field of presidential candidates and, if anyone looks worth voting for in a way more substatial than "at least they're not...", why you find them interesting. This is, of course, just preliminary thoughts about people we won't be voting for or against for months, but I thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys think. That's how democracy is supposed to work, right? Citizens discussing their leaders in the common marketplace of ideas and all that. And since we already fight about religion, why not add politics to the mix. (It would also be a special treat for me and Andy who otherwise only see Republicans on TV or occasionally in business class when we get on airplanes.) We live in the most powerful country ever; we should be doing this kind of thing.

If you don't have any favorites at the moment, what are the factors that will determine who you vote for (or against). What do you care most about in an administration? (This really kind of sounds like an online dating survey, doesn't it?)