I check the CNN link only if there is a breaking story that might have video worth looking at.
There are reasons why it has gone from my number one news site on cable a decade ago the an unused news link on the internet (I have not TV any more).

Sadly instead of competeing with the Republican news channel that seem pathetically desparate to join it.

when ariel sharon goes belly-up will cnn have the same reaction if/when a cnn employee expresses 'respect' and 'sadness'?

cnn blows

Programmed out so I can't even accidentally cross its path, and a letter has been sent.
Getting down to mighty slim pickings on the cable news front.

New technologies are mainly introduced to meet corporate needs, and those of recent years have permitted media firms to shrink staff even as they achieve greater outputs, and they have made possible global distribution systems that reduce the number of media entities. The audience “interaction” facilitated by advancing interactive capabilities mainly help audience members to shop, but they also allow media firms to collect detailed information on their audiences, and thus to fine-tune program features and ads to individual characteristics as well as to sell by a click during programs. Along with reducing privacy, this should intensify commercialization.

In short, the changes in politics and communication over the past dozen years have tended on balance to enhance the applicability of the propaganda model. The increase in corporate power and global reach, the mergers and further centralization of the media, and the decline of public broadcasting, have made bottom-line considerations more influential both in the United States and abroad. The competition for advertising has become more intense and the boundaries between editorial and advertising departments have weakened further. Newsrooms have been more thoroughly incorporated into transnational corporate empires, with budget cuts and a further diminution of management enthusiasm for investigative journalism that would challenge the structures of power.

--Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

Sorry, but she's got some serious Stockholm-esque issues. Do these fundy Muslims have to molest kids before "bleeding hearts except when they're Jewish" question their values?

A discussion we've been having on the DMN about a letter quoting FDR about a Nation is judged by how we treat the weakest. Conservatives have glommed on to it, as you might expect, about the states having all power not listed as Congresses, in Article I, Section 8.

Here's my responses:

People who argue that the Federal government has no concern over the hardship of the people, often due to government policy working against their favor, they totally ignore in this case the fact that both the IX and X amendments refer to the rights of the people, who can vote for certain economic packages if they so choose, and they have the franchise.

They ignore the enumerated powers that in effect made certain powers EXCLUSIVE to the Feds that the States once excercised under the old Articles of Confederation such as taxation, minting, raising their own armies etc. The States under the the old articles could even ignore federal laws, so federal troops would have to sometimes be called in to have to force the states to pay the revenue they agreed to for a war, sometimes splitting troops between battlefields and acting like collection officers.

They also ignores the Tax and Spend clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 that in general give Congress the power of taxation and the power to decide how to spend that tax.

And they then have the Article VI and the XIV Amendment giving them Federal Supremacy power over the States.

Then when they structure the new system they do so according to the State, so that two programs, federal and state are mingled together, or if the state has no such program, becomes the day-to-day administrator of the federal program, that in either case sends financing for State agencies to disperse according to their own rules.

That's why we end up with systems like the Texas Unemployment Insurance dispensing lower amounts than say New York or California, who also set their own standards.

I found the case I was looking for, in Edwards v California, 314 U.S. 16 (1941), the Supreme Court overturned a California indigency law, which could actually forbid someone from one State to move to another State to hunt for a job, if they didn't already have a job waiting for them.

So it was actually States, in this case California, interfering with Interstate Commerce and interstate traffic, a power reserved to Congress under Article I, Sec 8, cl 3. The distinguishing factor was this was a case of a jobless person trying to enter California to get a job, not their welfare.

According to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...

"In Justice Court a complaint was filed against appellant under Section 2615 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of California, St.1937, which provides: 'Every person, firm or corporation, or officer or agent thereof that brings or assists in bringing into the State any indigent person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be an indigent person, is guilty of a misdemeanor.' On demurrer to the complaint, appellant urged that the Section violated several provisions of the Federal Constitution.... "
______________________________________________________________

However, if no job was found soon, they would continue to be considered indigent. Once this case became the law of the land, it would be unfair for the Federal Government to tell the State, tough, you still have to support the guy until he finds a job, so the Federal government, on both the will of the People through the ballot and the States, got involved in picking up the slack, so it wouldn't become in effect an Unfunded Mandate.
__________________________________________________________________

I should also point out in case it wasn't clear that welfare programs are paid for from tax revenue, and unemployment insurance is like an insurance policy which is paid for in large extent from employees deductibles from their pay cheques, like any other insurance policy, with some funds coming from businesses, for which they work, for what they pay into the insurance program, with some funds from the government.

This also discourages employers from arbitrarily discharging the employee, because that raises their part of the insurance, like a car owner who has his rates increased, with the more accidents he has, and files on his insurance.

This also discourages employers from arbitrarily discharging the employee, because that raises their part of the insurance, like a car owner who has his rates increased, with the more accidents he has, and files on his insurance.
________________________________________________________________

I'm holding off on the XIV Amendment argument that we're citizens of the US, not our individual states, until I need it.

My tongue may be a little twisted since I'm already a little buzzed.

..as a journalist, Israel and the U.S. military.

Therefore, anything positive about Hezbollah (which literally kicked Israel's ass in 2008) or anything positive about America's "enemies" (Iran, Venezuela, Taliban, etc..) or something negative about either subject will cause a journalist to seek employment outside the mainstream media.

Helen Thomas was the shot across the bow of the mainstream media, she was burned at the stake as a warning.

I have to say that i did not read any comments but you Isrealy firsters can suck it.

Edit: and CNN sucks!