Why anyone would put money into this Ponzi scheme is beyond me.

"In case you think my suggested sources are politically biased, I disagree."

Here's an example of the problem that I have with one of your "unbiased" sources:

From https://www.counterpunch.org/2... :

"... there was a recent high-profile alleged rape case in Germany which was not a fake story and revealed much about the way some news is presented in the western media in bias against the admirable Ms Merkel."

See the word "admirable" there? That's absolutely unnecessary and unacceptable for a news story. Just tell me the facts, and let me decide whether Angela Merkel is "admirable" or not, and your "unbiased" source is not doing that. That single word tells me that the author of the piece is not politically unbiased, but has an agenda, and I need to be aware of that if I'm going to use his writing as a basis for my forming an opinion.

If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.

Or maybe it's because Apple Records (records? what the fug is a record?) haven't had a new release in, what, 30 years? When was the last Badfinger album?

Personally, I thought that the Beatles' claim to the original trademark infringement was pretty tenuous. Apple Computer should have fought that one tooth and nail. At this point, it's a lot more relevant, but, again, their basis seems pretty diluted.

At any rate, although Apple Computer (not "Apple") runs the iTunes Music Store, I don't think that they're promoting it as the "Apple Music Store". They should tell Paul, Ringo, Yoko and whoever's running the show for George to cheese off -- it's time to get this monkey off the back, even if it means a long court stint.