Debates
October 16th, 2008
When people talk about the discourse of the nation, how everyone always thinks things are too negative, people just rush in to suggest reasons as to why this is. Allow me to be one more person throwing in one more reason/complaint. What is with all the damned boxing metaphors. It’s two people sitting at a table talking. Yes, there is conflict, yes the candidates are trying to score “blows” against each other. But do we really want to put things in the context of two people (who probably got into the sport for economic reasons as much as anything) slowly giving each other brain damage with a sequence of blows to the skull? Is that really the best way to think about presidential politics? Isn’t it… a little too accurate for how candidates tend to work through a campaign? They sure aren’t getting enlightened out there and neither are we.



November 3rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Personally, I find any sports metaphor to be horribly agonizing. I’m not sure what’s worse though, sports metaphors describing everyday life, or chess metaphors describing sports.
I’m with Flaubert on this one. Kick the idiom to the curb.