archy

Uno
When my Mom and my clever wife get together, at some point after the drinking, the planing of meals, the drinking, the making of meals, the drinking, the eatingof meals, and, of course, the drinking, they play cards. Sometimes I play too, but usually I sneak off and blog or read. Lately, their favorite game has been Uno, a sort of Crazy Eights on steroids.

The normal play of Uno is that you play until someone plays out. At that point the other players count up the point value of their remaining cards. The official rules allow two versions of how to procede beyond this point. In version one, the winner of a hand takes the points of all of the other players. The grand winner of the game is the first to score 500 after enough hands have been played. In version two, the other players keep the points in their hands and you keep playing until the grand loser scores 500.

Lately, I have been reading my Lakoff on the different intreperative metaphors for American politics. Which play do you think better fits the lefitist, nurturing parent, metaphor and which fits the rightist, strict father, metaphor? Is it more appropriate to choose a grand winner to be praised by all or a grand loser to be condemned by all? Why do you think that, and what the hell is wrong with you?