From the victory lap liberal bloggers have been taking Friday and into the weekend, you'd think President Obama smite the House Republican caucus with a mighty staff, parted the Red Sea, and and set his people free or something.
I'm really pleased with how Friday's meeting between the President and the House GOP went, broadcast live on all the major cable news networks - but really not because of some perceived political outcome. I'm pleased because this represents a first of sorts in our political discourse - A televised discussion between opposing political parties, without the rigid conditions of pre-negotiated debate rules that essentially rule out the possibility of candid exchanges. The discussions have always taken place - I've been in the room for my share of them - but the presence of the cameras was a first.
Frankly, the presence of the cameras also had its drawbacks - there were a lot of pre-packaged talking points thrown into those questions and answers.
It's been compared to "Question Time" in the UK (it actually happens in many countries with parliamentary governments) and I've heard people ask "why don't we have that here?" The real reason we don't have Question Time is simple - we separate the legislature from the executive in this country, so there's no pre-scheduled time the head of the government is regularly available.
That said, it seems perfectly appropriate that people would want more of this. I'm fairly confident the White House would love to do it again, especially if Socratic format is maintained. This may sound goofy, but I'd like to see a series of "un-conferences" of legislators, fully televised. I'd only ask one condition of the participants - you're not allowed to use anything from the sessions in a political ad. That might encourage more candor and fewer canned questions and answers.
30 January 2010
29 January 2010
Why Journalism is Dying, part 84,037
Of course, new technology has allowed "citizen journalists" to publish their own work, providing more competition for traditional journalists. And this technology allows people to customize the news they receive more than ever before - so what was once the half-hour newscast everyone was forced to watch is now the dim sum menu from which anyone can choose.
But a big part of it - much more than many journalists want to accept - is just how canned and over-simplified the news is these days. I've spent some time talking with scientists and health care providers lately, people who have fairly complex things to talk about. But so many journalists today don't want complex - they want controversial. And they stick to a formula they think has worked for some time. Science and medical folks think this format means a lot of important, subtle details are necessarily missed and controversies are played up at the expense of facts.
I'm learning that science bloggers like to express their frustration in some fairly creative ways. Here's one example, a priceless clip from BBC4 that I saw on Living the Scientific Life thanks to a tweet from @BoraZ:
Enjoy your weekend, everyone.
But a big part of it - much more than many journalists want to accept - is just how canned and over-simplified the news is these days. I've spent some time talking with scientists and health care providers lately, people who have fairly complex things to talk about. But so many journalists today don't want complex - they want controversial. And they stick to a formula they think has worked for some time. Science and medical folks think this format means a lot of important, subtle details are necessarily missed and controversies are played up at the expense of facts.
I'm learning that science bloggers like to express their frustration in some fairly creative ways. Here's one example, a priceless clip from BBC4 that I saw on Living the Scientific Life thanks to a tweet from @BoraZ:
Enjoy your weekend, everyone.
27 January 2010
Reacting to the State of the Union Address
OK, here's the speech and the speech cloud, thanks to Wordle...
My reaction is really the result of something my wife said. President Obama was talking to the people in the room, not the people beyond it.
The President was a little chippier than I thought he'd be, with a bit more tough-guy, " I won't accept second place" rhetoric, trying to assert the value of the stimulus package and lecturing Congress:
My wife made an interesting point - she didn't think the handful of sarcastic quips helped much. She thought President Obama wasn't just talking to a cynical Congress or the beltway punditry. He was talking to all of us, and he needed to be the adult in the room.
That's when I realized as I went through the remarks, he wasn't really talking to America - he really was talking to Congress.
The President was a little chippier than I thought he'd be, with a bit more tough-guy, " I won't accept second place" rhetoric, trying to assert the value of the stimulus package and lecturing Congress:
So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership.On energy, I noticed he endorsed nuclear power and gave a few references to climate change. I got sort of a chuckle out of this, on the need to pass a comprehensive bill:
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.I thought the speech got to the laundry list of policy proposals quickly. And I also thought the speech was a tactical retreat on health care. It came up far too late in the speech. No real specifics.
My wife made an interesting point - she didn't think the handful of sarcastic quips helped much. She thought President Obama wasn't just talking to a cynical Congress or the beltway punditry. He was talking to all of us, and he needed to be the adult in the room.
That's when I realized as I went through the remarks, he wasn't really talking to America - he really was talking to Congress.
25 January 2010
Game Changer: The Supreme Court, Campaign Finance, and Social Media
Last week, depending on how you look at it, the US Supreme Court either struck a blow for free speech or ended democracy as we know it.
In a controversial 5-4 decision that overturned decades of precedent, the Court rejected several specific restrictions on corporate (and union) spending on political campaigns. The decision arguably gives large companies (who dramatically outspend labor and other interests on political activities today) the ability to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on television commercials that mention political candidates by name at any time during a campaign.
I found it very interesting that mainstream media coverage of this decision immediately leaped to the conclusion that this meant we will see millions more political attack ads on television. We will, but that's just the beginning of it. I didn't really see much about how companies can leverage the online channel now - I think that's because mainstream journalists and beltway pundits still have no clue how the Internet works.
As the reaction from the party in, ahem, "power" suggests, the ruling strikes fear in the hearts of any Democrat who wants to take on an industry. Dems are already trying to draft legislation that will curtail the Court's ruling and looking for angles to make it work - companies that get money from the government (The GOP opened that door recently on abortion restrictions in proposed health care legislation), companies that make most of their money overseas, and so on. Regardless, it looks like large companies will have much more influence over the political process for the forseeable future, and Democrats will be looking for something to level the playing field again.
They'll start by looking at sites like Act Blue and the political blogosphere - the virtual ATM that propelled President Obama to victory in 2008. It's no secret that the Obama campaign leveraged social media to break all kinds of fundraising records.
Small problem, though. The political blogosphere is amazingly polarized and cynical. It's not a place for consensus-builders or moderates. The people who raised money for the President online think the President must deliver on the things he promised in the campaign. They feel betrayed on health care, on civil rights, on labor and environment issues, and on our presence in Guantanamo Bay and the Middle East. They largely think the Administration has said one thing and done another when addressing big bank bailouts and regulation, and all things financial.
So if the Democrats want the cash it will take to beat back corporate financing of campaigns, they really have four options:
1) Just do what companies tell them to and try to figure out a way to save face with voters.
2) Double-down with the trial bar, historically the largest source of funding for the Democrats
3) Deliver on the things they promised to the liberal bloggers and open the spigots back up
4) Create a new, massive social network of inspired moderates
Right now the Democrats' answer lies in social media channels. It's the one thing the GOP and its corporate allies really don't do well. The challenge with this option, however, is having the courage to cede part of its agenda to real people.
Stay tuned.
In a controversial 5-4 decision that overturned decades of precedent, the Court rejected several specific restrictions on corporate (and union) spending on political campaigns. The decision arguably gives large companies (who dramatically outspend labor and other interests on political activities today) the ability to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on television commercials that mention political candidates by name at any time during a campaign.
I found it very interesting that mainstream media coverage of this decision immediately leaped to the conclusion that this meant we will see millions more political attack ads on television. We will, but that's just the beginning of it. I didn't really see much about how companies can leverage the online channel now - I think that's because mainstream journalists and beltway pundits still have no clue how the Internet works.
As the reaction from the party in, ahem, "power" suggests, the ruling strikes fear in the hearts of any Democrat who wants to take on an industry. Dems are already trying to draft legislation that will curtail the Court's ruling and looking for angles to make it work - companies that get money from the government (The GOP opened that door recently on abortion restrictions in proposed health care legislation), companies that make most of their money overseas, and so on. Regardless, it looks like large companies will have much more influence over the political process for the forseeable future, and Democrats will be looking for something to level the playing field again.
They'll start by looking at sites like Act Blue and the political blogosphere - the virtual ATM that propelled President Obama to victory in 2008. It's no secret that the Obama campaign leveraged social media to break all kinds of fundraising records.
Small problem, though. The political blogosphere is amazingly polarized and cynical. It's not a place for consensus-builders or moderates. The people who raised money for the President online think the President must deliver on the things he promised in the campaign. They feel betrayed on health care, on civil rights, on labor and environment issues, and on our presence in Guantanamo Bay and the Middle East. They largely think the Administration has said one thing and done another when addressing big bank bailouts and regulation, and all things financial.
So if the Democrats want the cash it will take to beat back corporate financing of campaigns, they really have four options:
1) Just do what companies tell them to and try to figure out a way to save face with voters.
2) Double-down with the trial bar, historically the largest source of funding for the Democrats
3) Deliver on the things they promised to the liberal bloggers and open the spigots back up
4) Create a new, massive social network of inspired moderates
Right now the Democrats' answer lies in social media channels. It's the one thing the GOP and its corporate allies really don't do well. The challenge with this option, however, is having the courage to cede part of its agenda to real people.
Stay tuned.
21 January 2010
Crowdsourcing Diplomacy
Secretary Clinton gave a very important speech today about the role of new technologies in achieving diplomatic and humanitarian goals. Of course, this topic is nothing new to groups like Global Voices Online or Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group. But here's something that IS new:
Of course, we're already seeing innovation from the ground up to meet a multitude of challenges, like mapping technology from Ushaidi's work in response to the earthquake in Haiti to the work of innovators like Lalitesh Katragadda. But it's amazing and inspiring to see this kind of open call from the most influential diplomat in the world.
I'm looking forward to learning the details of this contest. I'm wondering if they will make all the submissions public - it could become one of the largest (if not the largest) repositories of technology-based innovative solutions to the worlds problems ever built.
I don't think I'm exaggerating at all to suggest that this project could become Secretary Clinton's legacy. The potential here is absolutely enormous.
...today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation.Now THAT'S an open platform.
Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.
If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.
In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.
Of course, we're already seeing innovation from the ground up to meet a multitude of challenges, like mapping technology from Ushaidi's work in response to the earthquake in Haiti to the work of innovators like Lalitesh Katragadda. But it's amazing and inspiring to see this kind of open call from the most influential diplomat in the world.
I'm looking forward to learning the details of this contest. I'm wondering if they will make all the submissions public - it could become one of the largest (if not the largest) repositories of technology-based innovative solutions to the worlds problems ever built.
I don't think I'm exaggerating at all to suggest that this project could become Secretary Clinton's legacy. The potential here is absolutely enormous.
20 January 2010
An Outsider's Take on #scio10
The ScienceOnline 2010 Conference was held over this weekend, and I'm proud that my company was one of the sponsors - and the only public affairs firm to sponsor. I hope it demonstrates our willingness to think beyond the trite, formulaic, "how you can drive sales with Twitter" world and directly support online communities that are doing much more than blogging about blogging.
There have been dozens of posts written by the conference participants - I thought I'd add my non-scientist perspective and reactions, as well as my warmest thanks to Anton Zuiker and Bora Zivkovic for their leadership in organizing the conference.
The first thing I noticed was rather typical of the blogging conferences and meetings I've attended - people are very excited to see each other. There was no question this was a community of like-minded souls who were thrilled to be among friends and colleagues. Some even talked about feeling somewhat isolated where they lived, and felt "at home" here. As a non-scientist with few friends in attendance, I could tell people were looking at me and wondering why I was there. (It happens.)
The second thing I noticed was how many members of the "mainstream" media were there not to cover the event, but to listen and learn. The Charlotte Observer, Reuters, The American Scientist, US News & World Report, and dozens of freelance stringers were there. The Federal government had people here as well - NASA, Energy, EPA, and NIH were represented. So there's obviously a core group of people who see this community as essential to their communication and professional efforts in 2010 and beyond.
There were also a lot of bloggers who had very specific and strategic professional goals and pursued them in earnest. Lots of bloggers/writers wanting to score book deals, get paid writing gigs, things like that. I hadn't seen that before.
And while this wasn't present in all the sessions, the "bloggers vs. journalists" meme was clearly an underlying struggle in many panel discussions. In the PR world we have similarly distracting discussions that focus on nomenclature. To my new friends in the science world let me offer this piece of advice: let it go. It doesn't matter. And to those who insist it does, I say go write a 30-volume treatise on the topic, and get back to me when you're finished so I can throw it away.
Finally, there were a few things that really gave me hope that the science community can extend beyond its current discussions and engage others on important issues. Science journalism is more niche now, and there are fewer mainstream pubs that make a point of sharing science with lay audiences. Scientists must bypass mainstream media more often and speak to people directly through social media channels.
To that end I was excited to learn about Scienceforcitizens.net and to know that so many science bloggers want to have an impact on the issues that affect everyone. Building conversations across communities is a very difficult thing to do, but there are people who are passionately committed to doing this, and I hope I have the chance to work with them.
There have been dozens of posts written by the conference participants - I thought I'd add my non-scientist perspective and reactions, as well as my warmest thanks to Anton Zuiker and Bora Zivkovic for their leadership in organizing the conference.
The first thing I noticed was rather typical of the blogging conferences and meetings I've attended - people are very excited to see each other. There was no question this was a community of like-minded souls who were thrilled to be among friends and colleagues. Some even talked about feeling somewhat isolated where they lived, and felt "at home" here. As a non-scientist with few friends in attendance, I could tell people were looking at me and wondering why I was there. (It happens.)
The second thing I noticed was how many members of the "mainstream" media were there not to cover the event, but to listen and learn. The Charlotte Observer, Reuters, The American Scientist, US News & World Report, and dozens of freelance stringers were there. The Federal government had people here as well - NASA, Energy, EPA, and NIH were represented. So there's obviously a core group of people who see this community as essential to their communication and professional efforts in 2010 and beyond.
There were also a lot of bloggers who had very specific and strategic professional goals and pursued them in earnest. Lots of bloggers/writers wanting to score book deals, get paid writing gigs, things like that. I hadn't seen that before.
And while this wasn't present in all the sessions, the "bloggers vs. journalists" meme was clearly an underlying struggle in many panel discussions. In the PR world we have similarly distracting discussions that focus on nomenclature. To my new friends in the science world let me offer this piece of advice: let it go. It doesn't matter. And to those who insist it does, I say go write a 30-volume treatise on the topic, and get back to me when you're finished so I can throw it away.
Finally, there were a few things that really gave me hope that the science community can extend beyond its current discussions and engage others on important issues. Science journalism is more niche now, and there are fewer mainstream pubs that make a point of sharing science with lay audiences. Scientists must bypass mainstream media more often and speak to people directly through social media channels.
To that end I was excited to learn about Scienceforcitizens.net and to know that so many science bloggers want to have an impact on the issues that affect everyone. Building conversations across communities is a very difficult thing to do, but there are people who are passionately committed to doing this, and I hope I have the chance to work with them.
19 January 2010
The Myth of the "Green Media Bubble"
The Wall Street Journal's popular and influential Environmental Capital blog shut its doors last week, without much notice. This led to some speculation that the WSJ is part of some climate change denialist conspiracy, and others claimed there's some sort of "green media bubble."
Ummm... No. On both counts.
This is more a reflection of the reality of the media industry and how some companies are approaching it. I've spoken with some colleagues about this. We wouldn't be at all surprised to see some reincarnation of Environmental Capital behind a paywall. After all, that's where the Murdoch media-empire is headed - their approach to intellectual property frowns on giving people free access to popular content, and they're clearly not sold on the advertising-based online business model.
The question we should be asking is who will step up to be the leading provider of content in this space. Environmental Capital was a green business content powerhouse. The most popular "brands" in online green media - places like Treehugger, Worldchanging, Grist, etc. - are not business pubs.
Obviously there's the New York Times' Green Inc., but the rumors are flying that their days are numbered (again, a reflection of larger business issues in the media industry and nothing more). Another mainstream alternative is Reuters' Green Business, which has a more global feel. The GreenBiz Network, my pals at Live Oak Media's Earth and Industry , Triplepundit, and Energy Boom are next-gen social alternatives to the mainstream guys, but they're also more likely to have a pro-green bias. Alt Energy Stocks is where I go to look at thoughtful commentary and analysis on green finance. Marc Gunther also writes regularly at the same level of quality as the team at Environmental Capital. There are dozens more, and now that the all-powerful WSJ brand has retreated from the field, I'm expecting at least some of these sites will see their readership rise. If you create a netvibes tab or google reader category with these sites, you have instant access to all of it.
And this is why I'm really questioning WSJ's move. Their content was great. But it's not like there's an absence of similarly great content in this space. In this business, you can obviously assert your intellectual property rights and say people should pay for your content. But this is 2010, and the amount of excellent, insightful, and free content is increasing daily.
Ummm... No. On both counts.
This is more a reflection of the reality of the media industry and how some companies are approaching it. I've spoken with some colleagues about this. We wouldn't be at all surprised to see some reincarnation of Environmental Capital behind a paywall. After all, that's where the Murdoch media-empire is headed - their approach to intellectual property frowns on giving people free access to popular content, and they're clearly not sold on the advertising-based online business model.
The question we should be asking is who will step up to be the leading provider of content in this space. Environmental Capital was a green business content powerhouse. The most popular "brands" in online green media - places like Treehugger, Worldchanging, Grist, etc. - are not business pubs.
Obviously there's the New York Times' Green Inc., but the rumors are flying that their days are numbered (again, a reflection of larger business issues in the media industry and nothing more). Another mainstream alternative is Reuters' Green Business, which has a more global feel. The GreenBiz Network, my pals at Live Oak Media's Earth and Industry , Triplepundit, and Energy Boom are next-gen social alternatives to the mainstream guys, but they're also more likely to have a pro-green bias. Alt Energy Stocks is where I go to look at thoughtful commentary and analysis on green finance. Marc Gunther also writes regularly at the same level of quality as the team at Environmental Capital. There are dozens more, and now that the all-powerful WSJ brand has retreated from the field, I'm expecting at least some of these sites will see their readership rise. If you create a netvibes tab or google reader category with these sites, you have instant access to all of it.
And this is why I'm really questioning WSJ's move. Their content was great. But it's not like there's an absence of similarly great content in this space. In this business, you can obviously assert your intellectual property rights and say people should pay for your content. But this is 2010, and the amount of excellent, insightful, and free content is increasing daily.
14 January 2010
Gonna get all nerdy and stuff
This weekend is ScienceOnline 2010 and I'm looking forward to meeting some of the more prolific and influential science writers in the world. I'm giving a brief, "Ignite" presentation in which I'll try to talk about how I think science and medical bloggers can have an impact on other online communities.
In the time I've worked in social media I've noticed that the sci/med online communities doesn't talk a lot with other online communities - particularly the community of people that makes almost all the household decisions, moms. I'm also noticing that sci/med bloggers care quite a bit about how journalists cover their research, but don't seem to talk much about how they can talk directly to the people they're trying to influence from their work.
I think we need more bridge figures - more specifically, we need more mom scientists and mom doctors who are comfortable talking in both communities.
More updates as I can post them.
In the time I've worked in social media I've noticed that the sci/med online communities doesn't talk a lot with other online communities - particularly the community of people that makes almost all the household decisions, moms. I'm also noticing that sci/med bloggers care quite a bit about how journalists cover their research, but don't seem to talk much about how they can talk directly to the people they're trying to influence from their work.
I think we need more bridge figures - more specifically, we need more mom scientists and mom doctors who are comfortable talking in both communities.
More updates as I can post them.
12 January 2010
Social Media in 2010: Nothing Important Will Change
So all the shiny social media gurus are out there inventing new terminology to restate the obvious for their "2010 predictions" posts.
But here's the truth: nothing of any consequence will fundamentally reshape the best practices of social media in 2010. NOTHING. Here's why.
Relationships will still be the single most important thing for social media. Opinion leaders in online communities will still be the ones driving most of the discussions. Content will still be king.
"Authenticity" and "transparency" will still be buzzwords, and some people will still try to come up with ways to get around both. A lot of PR flacks will still treat blogs like they're just online newspapers and send bloggers generic press releases.
Democrats will continue to use the Internet as an ATM, Republicans will continue to use the Internet as a way to write about what they heard on talk radio.
There will be a lot of useless blather about social media tools. Someone will come up with a new shiny toy and a select group of people will need to have it right away. Then in three months the price will drop. We'll see another iPhone-killer, Google-killer, Facebook-killer, and Twitter-killer. None of them will kill anything. This is the year that blogs will be dead. Again.
Someone will get burned for publishing something inappropriate on a social network.
Someone nobody knows today will do something creative and it will become very popular on the Internet for a short amount of time, and companies across the globe will say "we need to do something like THAT."
Social media flacks will publish astoundingly mundane things about their personal information gathering and processing habits. A few of them may actually think someone cares. Seriously.
Somebody somewhere will use a social network to do something that will do a lot of good for a lot of people, but very few people will notice it.
And the best in the social media PR business will continue to slowly, quietly, build relationships with online opinion leaders in interesting and important communities. They will continue to connect clients and bloggers and they won't rely on just conference calls to do it.
You know, just like 2009.
But here's the truth: nothing of any consequence will fundamentally reshape the best practices of social media in 2010. NOTHING. Here's why.
Relationships will still be the single most important thing for social media. Opinion leaders in online communities will still be the ones driving most of the discussions. Content will still be king.
"Authenticity" and "transparency" will still be buzzwords, and some people will still try to come up with ways to get around both. A lot of PR flacks will still treat blogs like they're just online newspapers and send bloggers generic press releases.
Democrats will continue to use the Internet as an ATM, Republicans will continue to use the Internet as a way to write about what they heard on talk radio.
There will be a lot of useless blather about social media tools. Someone will come up with a new shiny toy and a select group of people will need to have it right away. Then in three months the price will drop. We'll see another iPhone-killer, Google-killer, Facebook-killer, and Twitter-killer. None of them will kill anything. This is the year that blogs will be dead. Again.
Someone will get burned for publishing something inappropriate on a social network.
Someone nobody knows today will do something creative and it will become very popular on the Internet for a short amount of time, and companies across the globe will say "we need to do something like THAT."
Social media flacks will publish astoundingly mundane things about their personal information gathering and processing habits. A few of them may actually think someone cares. Seriously.
Somebody somewhere will use a social network to do something that will do a lot of good for a lot of people, but very few people will notice it.
And the best in the social media PR business will continue to slowly, quietly, build relationships with online opinion leaders in interesting and important communities. They will continue to connect clients and bloggers and they won't rely on just conference calls to do it.
You know, just like 2009.
06 January 2010
A Social Media Guru Challenge
Welcome to 2010 - and while I'm busy with work stuff already, I've thought of the perfect new year's resolution for social media PR types like myself.
I'm going to try to go without ridiculous metaphors for 6 months.
It will be like a Red Sox fan avoiding the words, "Yankees suck."
(That's a simile, not a metaphor, people. Look it up.)
I'm going to try to go without ridiculous metaphors for 6 months.
It will be like a Red Sox fan avoiding the words, "Yankees suck."
(That's a simile, not a metaphor, people. Look it up.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)