Great job, Brad. Awesome lineup and interviews. You define actual investigative journalism vs the limp crap delivered by the cowardly eunuchs of New York Times and other corporate-fascist news tabloids. May the mainstream media die out already.

Julian Assange is definitely not a very likable character. A real slimeball lousy in bed (not exactly uncommon among males, apparently).The corrupt and cowardly powers-that-be are milking his sorry sexual escapades to divert attention away soon-to-come publication of Bank of America outrages, among other things that actually affect American citizens in a direct and immediate manner.

BTW, do you care about Net Neutrality? There's an important Washington DC debate about it on Tuesday:
http://www.rawstory.com/...ules-sen-franken-argues/

Once the FCC (illegally) gets their slimy fingers on control of the internet the only question remaining is how far will they go? Just another over extension by the government in our lives and we all sit back and watch. Constitution.. what Constitution? To this administration it's just a poorly written document.

Cedar Park here Brad.

Thank you for all the amazing work. I hate to admit it b/c I was not a good caller, but I was your first ever caller the first time you did your radio show. 2005 I think. Anyway...

I hope you got some listens from the diary. I do an informationthread every night at 8pmest over at Kos. Even there the disinfo is loud and pervasive.

If you don't mind I would like to use this link tonight as another thanks for doing what you do.

Cheers.

Adam @ 1 -

Much thanks! And on your Net Neutrality question, of course I care. More on that in a moment in reply to Wingnut Steve, but if you missed it a year or so ago, I had the honor of playing the voice of then-ATT CEO Ed Whitacre (and a few others) in a rather amusing "Save the Internet" animation a few years ago. You can look/listen to it right here.

Wingnut Steve said @ 3:

Once the FCC (illegally) gets their slimy fingers on control of the internet the only question remaining is how far will they go?

Um, okay. I'll bite, WS.

What is "illegal" about the FCC's protecting the Internet --- a system which was built from the ground up with U.S. tax-payer dollars --- from a corporate takeover which would give them the "right" to exclude or slow down some sites (such as sites supporting either the Right or Left) versus all sites being treated equally as exists currently?

I appreciate that AT&T and friends want to change that, so that they and they alone can force you or me to pay more for access to some sites, or force those sites to pay more to be in the "fast lane" with the sites who can afford to pay them off, but you're suggesting it's "illegal" for the FCC to keep that from happening?

For the record, I agree that the FCC's fingers are quite slimy right now, having forgone their legal obligation to assure that broadcast licenses for the public's airwaves are used in the public interest. They have failed that obligation for decades now. Further, I agree that the current chair of the FCC is screwing the American people with his fake proposal (passed today) for "Net Neutrality" when, in fact, the proposal is actually the opposite of real Net Neutrality, as it gives corporations like AT&T the "right" to do exactly what I spelled out above.

But why is it that you believe their fingers are "slimy" and how is it that you believe they are hoping to "control" the Internet??

Cedar Park @ 3:

Very cool! What was the call about? Do you remember? (Cuz I don't think I do! )

I'm honored anytime you wish to use BRAD BLOG material over at dKos, especially given their long record of, as you suggest, featuring "loud and persuasive disinfo" (their loud and persuasive disinfo concerning election integrity, as I've written about many times here, is why I continue my personal boycott, for what it's worth, of not writing or participating over there).

Thanks for the work you're doing on those important Wiki threads as well! Truly important stuff!

can ms. rowley whistleblow this:

FBI director: Agency more sensitive to rights

Published: December 1, 2006 in Local section

NORFOLK - The FBI has changed the way its agents deal with members of the Muslim and Arab American communities in light of criticisms that followed post-9/11 terrorism investigations, the agency's director said Thursday .

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III spoke briefly with reporters at the agency's Norfolk field office after meeting with agents as part of a periodic visit.

Counterterrorism became the ...
--
that was the SAME DAY i asked david bouchard esq. outside chesapeake general district court where did the slightly more than $900,000 go the justice department paid out....
--
U.S. AGREES TO REPAY HOLLANDS $900,000

Published: October 19, 2000 in BUSINESS section

Story excerpt: In what may be the biggest award of its kind, the(KARL ROVE) Justice Department has agreed to pay slightly more than $900,000 to Richard J. Holland Jr. and the estate of his deceased father, Richard J. Holland, for their expenses in a bank-fraud case that was dismissed.

The senior Holland had been chairman of Farmers Bank in Windsor before he died in April, and his son is the bank's president and chief executive officer. The two were tried in federal court in Norfolk 2 1/2 years ago ...

Yes Brad, it is illegal because a federal court has ruled that they don't have the jurisdiction to take that action. And they're slimy because they are gonna take that action regardless of what the court or the congress says. That's something all Americans should be alarmed about.

WingnutSteve @ 8:

it is illegal because a federal court has ruled that they don't have the jurisdiction to take that action.

Well, not entirely. They'd need to change how the Internet is currently classified, as net neutrality advocates have encouraged them to do. But, as it seems they didn't, the fake "net neutrality" language they just passed this week is likely to open to court challenge (thankfully).

they're slimy because they are gonna take that action regardless of what the court or the congress says.

Whether they are right or wrong, the FCC commissioners believe they are acting within the law. But that said, what has Congress said that you feel they have ignored?

Most importantly though, you failed to answer my question about what "control of the Internet" you are accusing them of taking. Unfortunately, they seem to be doing quite the opposite, and handing over that "control" to corporations, rather than we, the people, who created the Internet (with our tax dollars) in the first place.

So what is this "control of the Internet" of which you speak?

handing over "control" to corporations(with our tax dollars)

thanks brad...........

http://www.post-gazette.com/win/day10_2a.asp

Oh. My. God. Brad! You'll *never* guess what Amy Goodman just tole me! C.I.A. has(honest-to-God) created a task force to help gauge and track the damage caused by Wikileaks.

Geniuses that they are, they're calling it "The Wikileaks Taskforce", or "WTF."

...just as I suspected all along. It makes perfect sense, now, to my conspiracy addled, weakened-by-not-enough superfluous-distraction but constantly marinated in high-fructose-corn-syrup and imitation-buttered brain!

The very people screaming re: Wikileaks = C.I.A./ Mossad? ARE in fact C.I.A. / Mossad.
WTF!

Brad Friedman said:

You can look/listen to it right here.

I just wanted to say what a brilliant video! I've shared it around. With recent legislation Net Neutrality has become "Neutered Net." Did you notice that YouTube has been falsifying view counts lately?