One expression I've never understood, is "the shoe's on the other foot"...
I know what it's supposed to mean, "one side has suffered something, and now the other side will suffer the same"...
But when you think about it, it doesn't make that point...
First of all, most people, (unless they're missing a foot ) have a shoe on each foot...
And if they only had one shoe for their two feet, the foot with the shoe would be better off...
It would be less likely to be harmed or damaged while walking...
But the expression "now the shoe is on the other foot" is supposed to convey the exact opposite meaning...
The foot without the shoe is supposed to be better off because the shoe is now on the other foot...

But that just doesn't make any sense...
This expression is supposed to convey the same meaning as another expression: "the tide has turned"...
But that expression makes sense...("first the tide was coming in in your favor; now it's going out in the opposite direction against you")
I guess before I'll understand the logic that the person who came up with the expression, "the shoe's on the other foot" was using, I'll have to walk a mile in his moccasins...