Idiom with a “t”!

Intelligent discourse would cease to exist if we over relied on idiomatic language.

Take, for example, two buddies hanging out in a bar, ogling a total looker that neither has any chance of wooing into submission.  Still, and speaking through pure testosterone, the more inspired of the two says: “She’s got a pair on her to set your hair on fire.”

I don’t even know what that means, but I still give the guy an A+ for such a pure, poetic gem, however lustful its origin. And yet, just as quickly, the moment is ruined when his buddy replies: “Whatever floats your boat!”

Hey pal, your friend just offered up a provocative and inspired metaphor and you gave nothing back.  Why?  Because you didn’t bother to think; you simply repeated something you’d heard countless times before.

Speaking of conversation killers, what if FDR missed the mark with his most famous quote and, instead, spoke these words:  “Don’t get your panties all up in a twist.” Does that roughly mean the same as: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”? I suppose so, but minus the magic and sense of import.

Here are a few other famous quotes that no idiom could ever replace.

JFK: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Poor substitute: “Shit or get off the pot.”

Friedrich Nietzsche: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”

Poor substitute: “Don’t go digging your own grave!”

Eleanor Roosevelt: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

Poor substitute: “Mind your own beeswax.”

Dr. Seuss: “You know you’re in love when you can’t fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams.”

Poor substitute: “I so have the hots for her.”

See that? Original sayings have a life of their own, capable of surviving the generations with strength and poignancy.  Idiomatic substitutes?  Not so much.

Interview with a Politician

When politicians sit opposite newscasters for televised interviews, they almost always dodge every single question and respond only with well-chosen and rehearsed talking points.  That’s annoying enough.

But what if, instead, they answered strictly in idiomatic language?  You still wouldn’t learn a thing, but it might be more entertaining.

Something like this, perhaps:

Journalist: “Thanks for joining me on set today, Senator.”

Politician: “I’m happy as a pig in shit to be here.” (The network censors took the night off.)

Journalist:  As of today, where do you stand on the president’s latest proposal to relax environmental restrictions even more than his administration already has?

Politician: “Well, to put it in a nutshell, I think we need to stay the course and give the president and his team the wiggle room they need to cross the finish line.”

Journalist: “But sir, the nation already has the lowest unemployment rate in years and the economy continues to grow.  So, shouldn’t we at least place equal emphasis on keeping our air and waterways clean?

Politician: “Mark my words: when all is said and done, our environment will still be the cat’s meow, proverbially speaking.”

Journalist: “Just on more question, senator, if you don’t mind.”

Politician: “Fire when ready.”

Journalist: “What can you tell us about continued assertions that Russia – under direct orders from Vladimir Putin – hacked our 2016 elections, despite the president’s repeated denials ?”

Politician: “At the end of the day, the proof will be in the pudding.”

I don’t know about you but, if that interview really took place, I’d zip up that idiot’s mouth (silence him), kick excessive use of idioms to the curb (minimize their use), and push more original, intelligent discourse to the head of the class (employ it more often).

I trust I’ve made myself crystal clear.