What’s interesting in the news today?
Open Thread, with a few from me.
1. The House has overridden the Obama admin’s decision that refused to call the Ft. Hood shooting a terrorist attack, and to deny benefits to victims and their families. Thank you Republicans. This was deserved, and the right thing to do.
From KCNTV “Victims and families of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting could soon receive Purple Hearts, benefits and closure thanks to language entered in the House’s National Defense Authorization Act late Wednesday night. During the House Armed Services Committee’s markup of the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congressman Michael Conaway offered the amendment on behalf of Congressman John Carter and Congressman Roger Williams. The Committee adopted the amendment unanimously by voice vote showing strong bipartisan support.“Last night was a tremendous victory for the victims and families of the 2009 Fort Hood terror attack,” said Congressman John Carter, Representative of Fort Hood. “By adopting this amendment we will provide the benefits, the recognition, and hopefully some closure to the victims and their families, all of whom have experienced unimaginable pain and hardship. This language will finally allow these soldiers to begin to move on with their lives, and I thank Congressman Mike Conaway, Congressman Mac Thornberry and the members of the House Armed Services Committee for their overwhelming support of this effort.”
The amendment Congressman Conaway offered would adjust the Purple Heart criteria so that our service members and civilians, who experience an attack inspired by international terrorism, receive the appropriate award and recognition. The amendment awards the Purple Heart to service members who are victims of an attack that was inspired or motivated by a U.S. State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization. The provision would be retroactively effective as of September 11, 2001.”
““Nearly five years have passed since the horrible tragedy at Fort Hood took the lives of 13 innocent Americans,” said Congressman Williams. “It is beyond comprehension why the current Administration has labeled this gruesome terrorist attack “workplace violence,” leaving the victims and their families without the benefits, treatment and honor they earned and deserve. This provision in the NDAA would restore the full range of deserved benefits for the victims. Though justice cannot bring back those we lost, justice can be served for the killed and injured troops whose brave actions prevented further bloodshed. I want to thank Congressman Carter for his dedication to the Fort Hood community, and Congressman Mike Conaway and Congressman Mac Thornberry for leading this effort in the Armed Services Committee. We will not stop fighting for those who fight for us every day.”
______________________________________________
2. They never think it thru. There’s always unintended consequences.
From KTBS3 “Some military veterans are being forced to leave their nursing home. It’s an unintended consequence of President Obama’s executive order in February to raise the minimum wage for new federal contract workers from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour.
Sandy Franks, public affairs officer at Shreveport’s Overton Brooks V. A. Medical Center, explains that nursing homes that have contracts for subsidized care from the Veterans Administration become federal contractors. If they refuse to raise their wages, their contracts will not be renewed.”
“In a statement, Gamble COO Matt Machen said, in part, “The additional labor expenses are simply unaffordable. As such, many long term care providers have indicated that they will no longer seek or renew V.A. contracts.”
Franks at the V.A. agrees that this has the potential to be a national problem as more V.A. contracts with nursing homes expire.”
______________________________________________
3. Don’t worry, I’m sure the liberals in charge at Google would never do anything biased or underhanded with this kind of power…. 🙄
From TheWashingtonPost “Google long ago went from being a mere directory of the Internet to a shaper of online reality, helping determine what we see and how. But what power does Google have over the “real” world – and especially the volatile one of closely contested elections?
Psychologist Robert Epstein has been researching this question and says he is alarmed at what he has discovered. His most recent experiment, whose findings were released Monday, found that search engines have the potential to profoundly influence voters without them noticing the impact. Epstein has coined a term for this power: Search Engine Manipulation Effect, with the acronym SEME.
Epstein, former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today and a vocal critic of Google, has not produced evidence that this or any other search engine has intentionally deployed this power. But the new experiment builds on his earlier work by measuring SEME in the concrete setting of India’s national election, whose voting concludes Monday.
With a group of more than 1,800 study participants – all undecided voters in India — the research team was able to shift votes by an average of 12.5 percent to favored candidates by deliberating altering their rankings in search results, Epstein said. There were also increases in the likelihood of voting and in measurements of trust for the preferred candidates, and there were decreases in the willingness to support rivals. Fewer than 1 of every 100 participants, meanwhile, detected the manipulation in the results.”
Nope, nothin’ to worry about….. 🙄
______________________________________________
Wandering Views 
You won’t see none of that on national news. FoxNews, maybe.
Fortunately, fewer people are using the traditional news sources. I’m not sure what is replacing it.
LikeLike
I see in the Times-News that the “Energy-efficiency bill” has failed in the Senate because of the pipeline.
Good. For whatever reason it failed, that is good.
I have no idea what was in the bill. But I can’t imagine any scenario where the Senate, or any other government body, including EPA or Dept. of Energy could make a rule to enforce efficiency that would be helpful for you and me.
But I am curious about what could be in an Energy-efficiency bill. The article doesn’t say; it just says that “election year politics loomed on all sides.”
LikeLike
Chas, unfortunately I think news sources are all going slanted in many cases.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a diversity in coverage and opinion is healthy. And Fox was founded in response to a perceived (in many cases accurately) leaning-left media. Stories now are covered that weren’t covered or were given short shrift in the past.
But I also think that with the explosion of new sources and the runaway popularity of Fox — and everyone trying to stay in business with more competition — you’ll see fewer outlets that genuinely at least strive for right-down-the-middle coverage. And I think that’s a loss for all of us.
I’m worried that we all end up watching and reading only those news sources with which we “agree.” I think it has led, in part, to the deep divides and partisanship we see in our society now.
CNN recently announced it was going less for traditional news, more for … well, it’s own take on things I guess.
The news industry is in turmoil, pretty much, trying to figure out how to stay alive and keep audiences.
LikeLike
Donna, I don’t think there is such a thing as “down the middle in coverage”.
Everyone has an opinion, and I don’t trust anyone without an opinion.
I don’t mind as long as I know where they stand. Chris Matthews, MSNBC, for instance. I know what his position is before he speaks. Same for Hannity.
I watch Fox because I know that lots of things will not be covered on other networks.
If you don’t watch FoxNews, there are lots of things you won’t know.
LikeLike
While it may be ultimately difficult to achieve (due to subtle biases that exist in all of us), I was trained in an era when objectivity was something journalists were always to be very careful about striving for.
Now, I think that emphasis has even gone away and I think our society will be the worse for it.
LikeLike
#1: Harry Reid will probably never let this come to a vote in the Senate.
LikeLike
I agree, Donna. Call me idealist, but I have always considered journalists to have a professional duty to endeavour to present the facts as they are; just as a medical professional has a duty to treat all patients with equal care and concern. That means a journalist, like a doctor or nurse, has to be aware of his or her own preconceptions and prejudices. They must know their bias in order to be able to step back and say, is this the truth or am I suppressing or exaggerating something to prove my point? Such a idealist view of journalism has probably been inspired by popular media from several decades ago, like Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where the hero’s father is referenced as having been assassinated for running an unbiased newspaper and the hero, in turn, is smeared by the corrupt journalists working for the villain.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I have heard/read my liberal friends reject out-of-hand anything from Fox News. So if Fox News is the only source reporting on a matter, those friends will not take it seriously.
And of course, they view themselves as being very open-minded.
LikeLike
That’s the way I was trained, roscuro, long ago.
Another challenge to journalists: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5i4tuuy1jsw
LikeLike
Interesting commentary on welfare;
LikeLike
Agreed with roscuro and donna. I don’t reject anything out of hand but one must consider the source.
LikeLike
michelle, yep.
LikeLike