over 100 Free Gifts to chose from - Blog Special Offer...

It's the hush hush in the mainstream AP media that makes people less than trusting of ulterior motives in a monopolized AP environment. Most of the people arguing against addressing the conflicts of interest that I heard said that such a pipeline was unfeasible. Why was 2 billion dollars committed 2002 then right after the invasion? It's just that the AP acts like people are retards not to notice these things and ask questions as to what their tax dollars are really being used for.

At the same time we're talking about an axis of evil, another pipeline is proposed by these same people to go from Iran through Pakistan. Did anyone ask Iran about this? No, we just spend 400 million more tax payer dollars to stir up insurgency and destabilize the religious leadership. Remember when Russia said the US was instigating insurgency and we denied it for years? Remember Gates and Brzezinski confirmed years later that Russia was correct and we were lying and did create insurgency before Russia invaded in order to lure them there?

It may have been noble or not back then. The point is that so far, when there's an accusation of lying and abuse and covert intervention, more often than not we have been the liars, and it's a stifled, monopolized press that makes us seem dumb. Now they want to restrict it even more? How much control do they want?

Big media has all kinds of conflicts of interest, which is why many things aren't mentioned.

Even last three presidents had conflicts of interest with Wall Street, the health care industry and the oil industry, but apparently it's only the regular person and independent journalists that need to be investigated.

Maybe the AP monopoly and the executives that had the hush hush meeting on how to keep their monopoly should mention why they avoid major discussion on the Afghanistan oil pipeline troops are dying to defend and why money keeps getting funneled back to Goldman Sachs that donated so much money to Obama before they start coming down heavy on the average citizen who has something to say and posts ads to pay for expenses.

This practice is already illegal in broadcast television, but the wording of the rule is unclear. The proposed rule, which former Chairman Martin never actually put to a vote, would have explicitly proscribed product placement in children's programming.

But this would only be limited to broadcast television because the FCC's authority only extends to broadcasters, and its only real weapon is non-renewal of a license, which almost never happens.

I read a story this afternoon about the potential for Federal Trade Commission regulation of blogs; a story to which I was linked by James Joyner's Blog. The original article posits that blogs have become a popular way for folks......