Author: Mark St.Cyr

Anyone that was old enough to remember where they were when we set foot on the moon (I am one) are probably aware, as well as watched, the show “Happy Days.”

This latter event gave us another of those enduring moments in our pantheon of memes that has lasted almost as long as Apollo’s. i.e., we went from landing men on the moon where “One small step…” has been applied to countless memes – to a television actor “Jumping the shark,” which has taken on its own status for implying that almost assuredly – it’s over.

To add to this, let me quote another that’s been used to describe many a situation from a revered band of that same era known as the Grateful Dead: “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”

Today we have an entire segment of people claiming we never really went to the moon, and another still believing it was really Fonzie jumping, as opposed to a stunt double. After all, it was the Fonz!.

The only thing that’s remained consistent since, in my view, is the Dead’s now proven astute observation then and continuing now. For “strange” doesn’t seem to capture the entirety of it all.

So here we are celebrating the 50 year anniversary of that monumental achievement – and the biggest thing dominating the mainstream news (NYT™ is just one of many) is either how going to the moon was some form of intentional male privileged or race based endeavor that needs to be shunned.

All I have to say is this: Did the entire “triggered” movement just “jump the shark” or “the moon” with this one?

If it did? Then at least, maybe, there’s one good aspect to this entire nonsensical brouhaha…

A safe landing back to sanity. (Cue the Dead’s “Truckin” song here)

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

Below is a chart of the S&P 500™ just after the open at about 10am ET. It is represented via 15 minute candles/bars.

Remember: If someone tells you they “know” what happens next – don’t just walk, but run – and fast! So with that said…

What has caught my eye is there is what is described in technical analysis lingo as an “ending diagonal.” The reason why these types of patterns catch the eye as they say is because they usually have more “predictive power” for lack of a better term after what are also known as “extreme moves.”

And to say the recent run up to new never before seen highs in the history of mankind, as most of the same companies making up said market are making either lower lows never mind new highs isn’t “extreme” enough to warrant at the least an eye brow rise? I don’t know what will.

And yes, that’s not a misstatement. Or said differently, welcome to your central bank fueled fantasy of “market” logic.

So with that said here’s the aforementioned chart. To wit:

Another way to describe what these types of indicators suggest in image form show what one could consider as “A strong conviction to buy – loosely held.”

As always, we shall see.

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

The tragicomedy play “Waiting For Godot” by Samuel Beckett of the 1950’s cemented into the collective consciousness (what we may now refer to as “meme”) that moment where one waits for something or someone to arrive, that was assured with certainty, for whatever the reasoning – yet never does. Hence creating the enduring, applicable “Waiting for Godot” (WFG) moniker.

On an aside: my favorite adaptation of this same theme is “Waiting For Guffman” by Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy of “Spinal Tap” fame, “Best In Show” and others.

The reason why this moniker fits so many situations is because we as humans will give every reason known to man (and then some) as to why we should wait, rather than act. Why?

Because it’s easier to believe in the stories we’ll tell ourselves that facilitate more waiting than doing. It’s procrastination’s dark side. i.e., Where the “proactive” part of doing something – is to do nothing but to sit, wait and hope. Remember that thing about “hope” not being a strategy?

Now to be clear, there are times where one needs to “wait and see” as that other timeless adage reminds us.

But the application of WFG in dealing with things is far more prevalent and applied far too many times in different aspects of both life and business.

Usually it ends in much the same manner: either in disappointment, or worse – disaster.

When looking at the current state of “the markets” many are, once again, applying the WFG strategy rather, than a wait and see type.

The issue here is that “Godot” has made an appearance nearly every-time the so-called “smart crowd” predicted the opposite. Let me illustrate just a few:

Remember in days of yore, you know, circa 2017 when then Chair of the Fed, Ms. Yellen gave us the most detailed assumptions that not only would reducing the balance sheet be like “watching paint dry” and other insights such as, expecting there wouldn’t be no new financial crisis in “our lifetimes?”

A funny thing happened In January of 2018 as the now Chair, Mr. Powell stepped to the platform to receive the hand-off of the bag baton from Ms. Yellen. With an almost immediacy as Mr. Powell implemented her “watching paint dry” schedule for normalization someone named “Godot” made an appearance also.

It’s been one financial (e.g., “market”) crisis after another ever since.

All through 2018 it appeared that “Godot” would make an appearance every-time this same so-called “smart crowd” would profess he was no longer even on the “invite list.”

But “Godot” has proved he has his own set of criteria for appearances. “Hoping” he’ll not show seems to have just the same effect as “hoping” he will.

Again, remember that whole “hope” thing and strategy?

Now there are a lot, and I do mean just that, a lot of people looking at the current state of the “market” with its now “never before seen in human history” highs as some form of nullification that those which either have been predicting, or at the least, contemplating the rationale for an imminent market sell-off in extreme measures are the ones still waiting.

To that I say: Au contraire mon ami. Au contraire…

For those with a memory on par with that of a goldfish i.e., the mainstream business/financial media et al. May I remind you that it was only six and a half months ago that everyone, including the entirety of the so-called “smart crowd” which were absolutely shocked (shocked!) to see how such a seemingly innocuous term as “autopilot” could turn their “market” ride into near immediate “crash alert” status.

Maybe someone should’ve checked the passenger manifest for anyone named “Godot.” But that’s just me.

Only after the Fed immediately and vociferously announced that they would not only “pause” everything with near immediacy. But, they would reverse all prior stances – halt the normalization process almost in its tracks (e.g. September) and would signal not just one, but multiple rate cuts for the remaining year and into 2020 did the “markets” reverse.

And it was only June!

So now to stave-off any further surprise appearances of Mr. Godot, the Fed has not only signaled at its June meeting a July rate cut, but just to make the case crystal clear, Mr. Powell at his Humphrey/Hawkins appearances before congress delivered text and speech in no uncertain terms (terms that the “market” keys off of that is) that’ll be the case.

The resulting “market” action proved this point for those that still question it. And for those that may: Here’s said proof in “picture” form as they say in The Valley. To wit:

So now here we are with U.S. “markets” at extreme heights, an employment report that surprised in much the same manner to the upside – and the Fed is going to embark on what?

Can you say: all credibility lost?

Hint, you don’t have to say it. Just look at the above “picture” again. It says the equivalent of the all words in a library, never mind some thousand.

Will “Godot” make another appearance? No one knows for sure, but the odds are clearly in that favor. After-all, what has been solved when it comes to tariffs, trade, ___________(fill in the blank)?

The only thing, so far, that is a known known is that the world is going to get one extremely “dovish” central banker to replace another. e.g. Christine Lagarde to replace Mario Draghi at the ECB. So a return to the “printing presses for all” seems now to be all but secured with the now Fed pivot and more.

All I can say to that is remember “Godot.” For it seems he has a way of showing up just when everyone least expects him. Or said differently: remember 2018 for possible clues.

Then again, he does seem to not want to visit one aspect of these markets known as cryptos. Just ask any recent HODL (hold on for dear life) club member. Because isn’t 10K a lot lower than 14K? But then again…

Hope springs eternal, right? I mean, all I keep hearing is “winter’s over.”

I wonder how “Godot” views it?

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

Predicting anything is usually the first step to proving said prediction will not come to fruition. So with that said, here are my thoughts:

I was watching Mr. Powell’s opening remarks in regards to his appearance before the House Financial Services Committee this morning. Once again the political aspect in regards to the Fed and its Chair was put on full display.

Regardless of what side of the political aisle or viewpoint one holds. The Fed is suppose to be an Apolitical type institution. However, when it comes to recent events, it appears it is anything but the further time marches on.

I found it amusing that some of the very first questions or statements to Mr. Powell from members of the Democratic side of the aisle were about whether or not Mr. Powell would resign if the President asked.

His answer, once again, was just a wee-bit too-cute-by-half in both his delivery and his demeanor from my observation. But there was one that really caught my attention.

About 30 minutes into the proceedings one of the members, once again, emphatically asked if Mr. Powell would resign if asked. It was more of a rhetorical type of question, because what followed was more or less a clarifying statement of some insinuating guarantee that they (Democrat members) would “Have his back” should the circumstances warrant.

His (Mr. Powell’s) response was what caught my eye.

On camera he is seen in what appears to be both smiling and affirming to someone on his right (I’ll guess a staffer) the same type of impression that Sally Fields once gave when receiving an award. i.e., (paraphrasing) “They like me, they truly like me!”

Yes, this is an over the top reference. But the reason why I believe it fits is because bankers, especially people in the position of Mr. Powell, are supposed to appear, at all times, stoic in appearance. i.e., neither happy, sad or amused. Just dead pan. (think Greenspan who was the epitome of such.) Anything other and its far too notable, hence why I use the reference.

Regardless of how one feels about the current president or others of any administration, what I’m pointing out is that maybe Mr. Powell would be better served by reviewing a few of the older recordings of one of his predecessors (e.g., Mr. Bernanke) and see just how much said party will embrace Mr. Powell should he not tow their “advisement” for Fed policy should they desire to give it.

My prediction is this: Should the Fed disappoint the “market” in any way, shape, manner or form that causes a sudden reversal of fortunes? In other words: major unrelenting sell off?

It won’t be the President calling for Mr. Powell’s resignation – it will be Mr. Powell begging for it, or offering it himself. Why?

Because the President already has the “blame game” in his pocket. It’s been signed, sealed and delivered via the Fed and its own actions and words of the last two years. He can (and will) beat that drum into the elections every-time there is any wavering in the “markets.” He can just sit back and point a finger.

But then that would leave the other side to do, what? Here’s a possible hint of what may come should the severity of any fall become chaotic.

The now assumed BFF of the other side of the aisle will be the first to take all that “got your back” type praise – and use it for their own bulls-eye of where to put the forthcoming knives. Because in an election year, when it comes to the economy, one thing’s for certain:

No politician is going to allow any blame of a faltering “market” or economy to reside at their polling doorstep. Any politician, regardless of affiliation. Period.

Mr. Powell will be faced with both sides of the aisle pointing fingers – and the populace calling for heads to roll: Any!

And if you think there isn’t any past examples for what I’m saying (as in how politicians view how the Fed should be run and by whom.) I would remind both Mr. Powell and anyone else to not forget this exchange between then Chair Mr. Bernanke and Sen. Schumer. aka “Get To Work” Mr. Chairman” moment, 7 years ago this month.

As always, we shall see.

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

For those that still think this “market” is something remotely observant, or based on the old idea such as fundamentals or, net profits and other such antiquated, quaint ideas. Here’s just another piece in the long line of evidence that proves, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that that argument, is utterly laughable. To wit:

“Autopilot” indeed.

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

Today it’s hard to talk about business without someone interjecting how a business should be doing this political thing, or that political thing.

Usually this comes from someone new (i.e., last decade) out of the so-called “business schools,” where such recent graduates don’t understand what they’re really advocating is more along the lines of how “businesses” need to parade as businesses, and be more political in this current central banker enabled farce. Or said differently: business, customers, net profits, etc., etc. don’t matter. It’s all about their “share value.” But I digress.

Ross Perot was that individual for me, that made me interested in the goings-on when it came to business and politics. Sure, during my time there was Reagan who represented a complete sea-change in regards to the economy and other things political. But Perot was an entirely different matter.

I was 21 when Reagan took office, I was 30 when Perot was beginning to be a political force to be reckoned with. Both time periods were extraordinary.

If you were a kid of the 70’s like myself (and there were a lot of us) the future didn’t look all that promising. Then came that time period now known as the “Reagan Revolution” was truly amazing.

Computers were just bursting onto the scene and more. Regardless of what side of the political aisle one stands, whether you want to give credit or not (that’s your prerogative) – the time period and change was breathtaking when looked back upon in retrospect.

That is not open for interpretation – that is pure fact. The change was extremely dramatic in so many ways.

However, with that said, it wasn’t until the emergence of Mr. Perot did I become more, let’s say, politically curious, as well as being just as curious in regards to business leadership. And here’s why…

As I stated I was 21 when Reagan became president. That means I was old enough to vividly remember the entirety of sentiment, news and more as the Iranian Hostage standoff unfolded day, after day, after day totaling 444 (e.g., 1 year, 2 months, 2 weeks and 2 days) until it finally ended with the swearing in of Reagan.

There have been books written (conspiracy theories mostly) how there was a secret deal with Reagan and more, blah, blah, blah. However, there was another book written in 1983 (which I read when it came out) called “On The Wings of Eagles” Ken Follett (Harper Collins™)

This was basically the tale of how Mr. Perot and others, using his own personal and company resources, refused to allow the proposition that two of his employees would remain in some Iranian jail and devised a plan, then personally traveled to Iran with his team – and got them out.

This was all at great risk to both Mr. Perot, his son which was with the team, and everyone else involved. And nobody ever knew. (i.e., it wasn’t some front page story type deal)

Mr. Perot didn’t brag, didn’t show-boat, didn’t really do anything more except for when ask replied in his characteristic Texan snappiness with something akin to “And what would you expect me to do for my people?” And the thing was: you knew he truly meant it.

If you’ve never read the book, you really should, especially in this day and age where we have corporate C-Suites falling over themselves and their marketing departments to shout just how far of a “virtue signalling” they can do over their peers.

If it means trashing the flag, the country, a politician, founding fathers, Constitution _____________(fill in the blank) so be it. After all, it’s just business, right?

Actually, in my book, it’s not – it’s utterly disgusting. But again, I digress.

Regardless of where one wants to put their political questioning of Mr. Perot, there is one thing that is above reproach: Mr. Perot, the businessman, as well as American, is one of the all time forces of business that acted and presented himself the way we should want any American business person to emulate.

Mr. Perot had a tenacity for competitiveness that was second to none; a firm believer and defender in the American experiment; and a true businessman where his employees were just as important to him as his family, and would go to the same lengths to help them where possible. Even if it might be at his own peril. And proved it.

No “sneakers” required.

Godspeed, Mr. Perot.

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

Here’s another addition to my ruminations from Sunday’s article with a story being reported this morning (Monday) via The Telegraph™ in the U.K. To wit:

“Britons abandon Facebook as usage plummets by more than a third”

The amount Brits are using Facebook has plunged by more than a third over the past 12 months, new research indicates, in sharp contrast to the company’s official statistics.

The number of online interactions made on Facebook’s mobile app in the UK plummeted by 38pc between June 2018 and June 2019, according to the analytics firm Mixpanel.

Interactions, which occur when users click on a web link or advert inside the Facebook app, declined in seven of the last 12 months, with an average monthly fall of 2.6pc. That paints a very different picture from Facebook’s own numbers, which report a slow but steady rise in monthly active users across Europe.

User numbers have traditionally been considered…

“Exclusive: Britons abandon Facebook as usage plummets by more than a third”

Again, just to reiterate, the above story just came out this morning, which is a day after my article. I point this out only so I can’t be accused of front-running it.

Also, please be aware that the rest of the story is “exclusive” meaning it resides behind a subscriber only wall. (Remember my thoughts about a growing “subscriber access only” prevalence in the future, also?)

However, I think the headline alone says all one needs to know.

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

Over the weekend I’ve been struck on just how much news can be found (if one wants to truly look with inquisitive eyes) in regards to social media and it’s once unassailable value-prop. i.e., ads for eyeballs.

Of course, there was always a caveat embedded within that far too many just assumed was a given such as, where past metrics like those of direct mail models and others would apply. i.e., they would/could convert, as in: buy.

All that had to be figured out was at what metric. e.g., 1000 = 1, or 10,000 = 1, etc., etc., etc.

The issue has been that not only has this metric remained elusive. It may be a down-right fantasy. Yes: a pure, unadulterated f-a-n-t-a-s-y.

Let me explain…

As I iterated above, one of the insights into this argument came across my screens as I delved into an article on People® of all places. Where the story was about an ice-cream truck vendor in no uncertain terms castigating so-called “influencers” of social media looking for free stuff for free publicity to their “influenced” followers.

The response was not pretty. i.e., Not only would they not get anything free – they would pay double if asked!

As I said in that article: When your social “influence” can’t even get you a free ice-cream? And the ice-cream man calls you all a fraud to boot? Let’s just say “It’s different this time.”

Yet it didn’t stop there. Another aspect to place into this ever-growing hodgepodge of conflicting arguments of what is and, what isn’t, when it comes to the current status of social medias value-prop came via a very unlikely venue and figure. e.g., a CNBC™ referenced talk that featured Gary Vaynerchuk.

Here’s just one pull quote to demonstrate what I’m insinuating. To wit:

Vaynerchuk claims the roots of the problem are the illusion of success and insecurity.

“People want to be viewed as successful,” he said.

This leads young Americans to struggle with their personal finance goals, constantly spending more than what they can afford. This borderline reckless spending habit puts them in the vulnerable position of not saving enough.

What struck me about the above was this: social-media is the, and by that I mean just that – the #1 place to pose. As in: Show you are either better than everyone else, or, that you have nicer things than everyone else.

Without it – fuggetaboutit – it’s over.

After all, what is the point of any so-called “influencer” if you’re not influencing that you’ve got it – and they don’t?

Again, think this thing through with me: Who do you think is doing the majority of posting? People posting about how “fabulous” their life is even if it’s a total sham? Or: People posting about their real life, how bad it is, and how tough it is?

Want a better example? Think about it this way…

How many “followers” do you think any member of the Kardashian family would keep if they came out tomorrow posting something like “Don’t try and be like me, it’s just too hard to “keep up.”

Think about it.

I don’t think even Mr. Vaynerchuk understood the real implications of what he was professing. And that is his business, literally.

Yet, it didn’t stop there. The more I perused, the more indications that things are not all that they seem was becoming even more apparent. Again, if you want to look and actually see.

This next one comes from AdWeek™ that I read a few weeks ago, but suddenly jumped back front-of-mind. It’s about why the so-called and thought of “hot market” known as “millennials” might not have been such a “hot idea” after all. Why? Hint: they’re broke.

Here’s an excerpt from said article:

But ask Abramson how brands feel about millennial consumers these days, and the answer might surprise you.

“There was a great deal of interest [in millennials],” she said, “but there wasn’t as much due diligence around that group. We’ve generalized them as a certain type of person, [but] the reality is the rubber is meeting the road. Companies are starting to understand, ‘Wow, we’re not getting the ROI we thought we might.’”

“Why Targeting Millennial Consumers Might Not Be Such a Hot Idea After All”

Again, I ask the question: What is it worth to spend real money on social if all those so-called “potential customers” either don’t buy, won’t buy, or worse – can’t buy?

Remember: ads on social are seen as intrusive, a necessary evil to ignore as the price-to-be-paid so one can either post their “fabulous” life, or read about someone else’s “fabulous” life – for free.

Advertisers are now becoming acutely aware of this as the more “clicks” they generate just seem to generate larger and larger bills with little, if any return. Can you say: click-fraud?

Again, here’s the dirty little secret that seems to allude anyone involved in both social and the ad industry itself. i.e., What happens when companies don’t have (or drastically cut) an ad budget any longer?

Click-fraud is the scourge of the internet. The issue is there will come a point where instead of companies trying to figure out how to evade it – they’ll just no longer have the resources to even try. And that will, in turn, reduce social to has-been status. i.e., it’ll all come crashing down.

When I discuss with people anything concerning click-fraud most argue that it’s this, that, or something else when trying to measure it. I always give this example for them to “noodle” and it is here when the so-called “OMG! I didn’t think of it that way. We’ve/I’ve wasted so much time, money and effort on the wrong f’n thing!! Crap!!!” Here’s the example:

You spend on an ad campaign to sell X. Your ad is to reach 1MM potential customers eye balls. The camaign results in 500K worth of viewing clicks, which causes 100K clicks to your website or store let’s say. That results in 10K of those visitors actually going in and either subscribing to your company or email list, or created shopping carts with assorted degrees of products. Some large, some with maybe only one.

But (and here is a very big but) 99.99% of those carts were abandoned, as in never concluded into a sale. Out of all the inquiries and more you had only one, repeat, one actual sale that completed the entire process and was shipped.

So: How many customers did you really create?

Most give answers such as “Well, let’s see, 500 abandoned carts…” Or something akin to “Well, we have 5000+ new subscribers for further ads and…” Or, “let’s see, we reached 100K, plus 4500 orders but not fulfilled so if I ad, let’s see carry the one…” You get the idea. Here’s the unadulterated truth…

One. Period. (And that “one” doesn’t even cover 1% of what you spent.)

Why? Because every single other metric or result can be achieved (and is) via a bot. i.e., it was all fake.

Only a real customer can complete the transaction to fulfillment. A bot can do all the rest – but can’t (or better said won’t) check out.

Think about that very carefully.

Many a company are trying frantically to convert things like “abandoned carts” and more. And yet – don’t even take into account (let alone understand) that bots can fill carts, subscribe to your lists, fill out forms, you name it. But what they won’t do – is actually, literally: buy.

Remember: If I can get you to think about your conversion rate for “carts” you’ll forget all about all that money you’re spending to fill them. But more importantly: keep spending. Then – more than likely – spend even more to help “solve” the conversion dilemma.

Nice gig if you can get it, no?

But then again, if advertisers are beginning to take into account that even if they do reach actual “millennial” eye balls that they can’t buy either?

What good is “social” at all?

If you think that’s an over the top statement, I’ll just point to one of the most obvious that, again, no one seems aware of the timing of the obvious. Such as…

If Zuckerberg is focused on pivoting (i.e., cryptos) the giant of all social media rather, than fixing it?

Hint: AOL™

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

Addendum: Here’s another addition to my ruminations from Sunday’s article with a story being reported this morning (Monday) via The Telegraph™ in the U.K. To wit:

“Britons abandon Facebook as usage plummets by more than a third”

The amount Brits are using Facebook has plunged by more than a third over the past 12 months, new research indicates, in sharp contrast to the company’s official statistics.

The number of online interactions made on Facebook’s mobile app in the UK plummeted by 38pc between June 2018 and June 2019, according to the analytics firm Mixpanel.

Interactions, which occur when users click on a web link or advert inside the Facebook app, declined in seven of the last 12 months, with an average monthly fall of 2.6pc. That paints a very different picture from Facebook’s own numbers, which report a slow but steady rise in monthly active users across Europe.

User numbers have traditionally been considered…

“Exclusive: Britons abandon Facebook as usage plummets by more than a third”

Again, just to reiterate, the above story just came out this morning, which is a day after my article. I point this out only so I can’t be accused of front-running it.

Also, please be aware that the rest of the story is “exclusive” meaning it resides behind a subscriber only wall. (Remember my thoughts about a growing “subscriber access only” prevalence in the future, also?)

However, I think the headline alone says all one needs to know.

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

I have been on the record, to numerous to count, where I have made the case that social media is a withering has-been much like AOL™ became way back when.

This, of course, put me in that divine category of “What does he know!” The problem has been that as the years have rolled on – it seems my argument is being proved more correct as every subsequent day has passed.

“Where’s the proof?!” many are now asking themselves. Good question, and to answer it, for those still clinging on to the hope that it’s not and there’s still plenty of time to crush it. Here is what I’ll now add to the files as Exhibit: 2478.6A. To wit:

Via People®…

“Ice Cream Truck Owner Vows to Charge Social Influencers Double the Price”

Here’s a few pull quotes…

“I’m truly embarrassed for these people,” the soft serve purveyor tells PEOPLE. “I’m not really 100 percent sure what they actually do, and their followers, likes, and comments can all be purchased, so I have trouble looking at them as being reputable.”

“If it’s public knowledge that anyone can purchase followers and likes, then why does an ‘influencer’ hold weight?” the caption said. “Let’s make hard work ‘huge right now.’ Let’s make not asking people to work for free ‘huge right now.’ We are not impressed or influenced by your ‘following’…you probably bought them.”

Can you say “Ouch!”

Here’s the dirty little secret behind all this: When the ice-cream man, in Los Angeles of all places, where social-media should – at the least – rein supreme and its influencers held up as the new “kings and queens” of how to get noticed are told by said ice-cream proprietor to basically – go pound sand. And is hip to the entire charade?

You know it’s over. Period.

All I’ll say to that is:

Remember those “crying towels” I argued years back that were coming where the so-called “Silicon Valley aficionado” set thought was the dumbest thing possible?

Now “social” can’t even buy an ice-cream cone in their own back-yard.

“Towel” anyone?

© 2019 Mark St.Cyr

Lest we never forget the cost to attain it, nor the diligence to sustain it.

Addendum: It is hard to fathom in this day and age of any-thing-goes television, with media outlets giving way to the lowest subterfuge to attract viewers regardless of how small an audience. That here, in the U.S., on the day of this nation’s celebration of independence not one, repeat, not one cable channel or otherwise is carrying the parade in the nation’s capital. Not even the government channels!

Think of the endless veterans and families alone that made, and continue to make, the ability for us to even have such a day that would, at the least, enjoyed viewing it.

What a disgrace, regardless of one’s political viewpoint.

Mark