No big deal, right? She wasn't your daughter

[Myself]

There are no words foul enough, nor in sufficient quantity to even faintly begin to describe, much less explain, the festering mental and moral sickness of, and the mad-dog inhumanity shown by, those even remotely involved in this ghastly, hideous, nauseating atrocity.

The physical evidence is documented. Haliburton/KBR does nothing. (As if I’m surprised by that!)

And people on the golden thrones of power simply shrug and eat their caviar.

The mothers, sisters and daughters of those cowardly and inhuman scum involved in this vile act, as well as the women in the lives of the Neo-cons that plotted, pushed and perpetrated this unconscionable “elective” war, plunged the nation into monstrous debt, defiled America’s principles and ideals, in perpetuity; and let Haliburton/KBR run fearlessly amok (on so many occasions!) without so much as a whimper of protest, must be so very, very proud of their children.

(And not much can be said for those who know and do nothing!)

Just what does one have to do to be found guilty of war crimes?

Or even ‘simple’ rape?


Senate passes measure prompted by case of woman prevented from suing over alleged rape by Halliburton/KBR colleagues
"When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured and her pectoral muscles torn‚ which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again," the papers say.

Jones was treated by a US army doctor who gave forensic evidence to company officials.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block

The gang rape and the Republicans
“The most repellent part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/16/notes101609.DTL

[marshmallow]

Where do the non-white Iraqi and Afghani women go when they get gangraped?

There, I out liberalized you.

[Fear Itself]

Yes, because denouncing rape has a liberal bias.

[Myself]

What if the article read like this:

"When marshmallow awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, marshmallow found marshmallow's body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to marshmallow's [sex organ] and anus, blood running down marshmallow's leg, ... and marshmallow's pectoral muscles torn‚ which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, marshmallow passed out again," the papers say.

marshmallow was treated by a US army doctor who gave forensic evidence to company officials. marshmallow says the firm placed marshmallow under guard in a shipping container and marshmallow was released only after marshmallow's father asked the US embassy to intervene. When the forensic evidence was handed to investigators two years later, crucial photographs and notes were missing.

Does that make any difference to you?

[Der Trihs]

Yes, because denouncing rape has a liberal bias.It does. Conservatives have never had any concern for the rights or safety of women.

[lissener]

wrong thread

[TWDuke]

To be far, it wasn't exactly a vote for or against brutal gang rapes. It was a vote on whether or not to prohibit the federal government from doing business with companies that enforce binding arbitration clauses in certain cases, including but not limited to discrimination and sexual harassment cases.
Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.It is possible to support binding arbitration in such cases without actually being in favor of gang rapes.

Now that I'm done being fair: Employers should not be able to arbitrarily require people to give up basic civil rights as a condition of employment. The fact that they are allowed to do so shows that too many of our judges and legislators are tools of the people with money and power.

[Measure for Measure]

It does. Conservatives have never had any concern for the rights or safety of women.False. Nine Republicans voted for the amendment.

I honestly thought that something like this wouldn't be controversial, even today. Methinks those 30 are off the deep end.
---

A Jon Stewart vid contains clips of Senator Sessions justifications for his no vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html
---

Not to pick on TWDuke, but one of the 30 could have offered an amendment if they thought Franken's treatment was too broad, though it seemed to me to be reasonably narrowly crafted.

[Der Trihs]

False. Nine Republicans voted for the amendment.

I honestly thought that something like this wouldn't be controversial, even today. Methinks those 30 are off the deep end. 30 is many more than 9. Those 9 represent the fringe ( or face a threat in the next election from the left ); the 30 represent the conservative norm. That's why they outnumber the 9.

[marshmallow]

Does that make any difference to you?

No. I'm just being an asshole and pointing out the only reason this is even brought up is because it's been fairly well publicized because she's "one of us." No one gives a shit about the natives we gang rape. Not that I do, really -- monkey sphere and all that -- but it's something to keep in mind.

[Argent Towers]

I seem to recall a story about a certain series of images supposedly from a video of an Iraqi woman being gang-raped by U.S. troops being circulated by the Boston Globe and CBS News. It later turned out to be complete bullshit, the photos actually taken from a porn movie (which would have been obvious to anyone who knew that our troops in Iraq do not wear obsolete BDU uniforms in the "Woodland" pattern besides.) The brazen fraud was originally posted on the website of an "AZTLAN" group (Mexican supremacists and deluded crackpots) yet that didn't stop people from taking it seriously and making a big fuss over it.

If nobody gives a shit about that, why did I hear about it? Why was it posted on the SDMB? Why did two major news sources run with it?

[Zebra]

Tell us of these cases of gang rapes of Iraqi women by Americans that we all just glossed over. Tell us about the non-white women who were gang raped by employees of the Federal government, imprisoned by her attackers, then had their company protect her attackers.


Tell us about those.

[Myself]

No. I'm just being an asshole and pointing out the only reason this is even brought up is because it's been fairly well publicized because she's "one of us." No one gives a shit about the natives we gang rape. Not that I do, really -- monkey sphere and all that -- but it's something to keep in mind.

If it's well publicized, doesn't that mean someone quite possibly cares?

Are you really saying that since we can't stop all rapes, we shouldn't bother worrying about the ones we can stop? Really?!

Google 'rape counseling' and see how many people don't care about the victims and stopping this particular abuse of human beings.

At the top of the page you will see this: Results 1 - 10 of about 494,000 for rape, counseling.

And how--exactly--do you know who I am or what I've done...or what has happened to someone I happen to love very fucking much?

Your self-description is noted.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Tell us of these cases of gang rapes of Iraqi women by Americans that we all just glossed over.Here's one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings)

Four American soldiers broke into an Iraqi family's house, gang raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl, them murdered her, along with her entire family (including her 6 year old sister) and burned the bodies. This got very little media attention. Sean Hannity sure never talked about it.

I agree with everything the OP said. Halliburton is truly corrupt and evil, as are the political meat puppets who succor them, and it's absolutely indefensible and disgusting that a single person voted pro-gang rape on the Franken bill

[FriarTed]

Here's one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings)

Four American soldiers broke into an Iraqi family's house, gang raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl, them murdered her, along with her entire family (including her 6 year old sister) and burned the bodies. This got very little media attention. Sean Hannity sure never talked about it.


I have no idea what Hannity did or didn't say. I don't watch or listen to his shows (and I bet you don't either) but if you are seriously saying that case got very little media attention, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. That got TONS of media attention!

[Measure for Measure]

30 is many more than 9. Those 9 represent the fringe ( or face a threat in the next election from the left ); the 30 represent the conservative norm. That's why they outnumber the 9. Here's the roll call:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308#position

The evidence doesn't contradict Der's characterization, with some exceptions. Here are 30 opponents of the Franken amendment:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Here are the decent 10 (I miscounted earlier). The first group are moderate or in competitive races (off the top of my head) or female.
Collins (R-ME)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)

These guys are conservatives who appear to be burdened with a conscience.
Bennett (R-UT)
Hatch (R-UT)

[Argent Towers]

Yes - as soon as he posted that link and description, immediately the name "Mahmoudiyah" popped into my head and the face of Steven Green - and I don't even follow the news that closely. That case was all over the news. When that soldier was convicted, it was a big deal. The whole thing got a lot of coverage. Bad example to use if you're trying to argue that it was "glossed over." Far from it.

[FriarTed]

Here are the decent 10 (I miscounted earlier). The first group are moderate or in competitive races (off the top of my head) or female.
Collins (R-ME)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)

These guys are conservatives who appear to be burdened with a conscience.
Bennett (R-UT)
Hatch (R-UT)

Grassley and Lugar aren't known as conservatives? I'm Hoosier, been voting for Lugar in every election, and have never heard, even in my Birch years, that he should be replaced by a "real conservative".

Thanks for this, btw. I was looking for a list of the Republican yeas and found the link to the Senate site via a liberal blog. Of course, I noticed plenty of liberal-to-lefty blogs quite willing to list the 30 bad Repubs votes but none that actually would list the 10 good ones.

[Measure for Measure]

Grassley and Lugar aren't known as conservatives? I'm Hoosier, been voting for Lugar in every election, and have never heard, even in my Birch years, that he should be replaced by a "real conservative". This stuff is debatable and tricky to characterize. Let me give my thinking.

Yeah, in my view all current Republican Senators are conservative.* But Grassley may be facing a tough re-election fight. And Lugar is serious and sane in foreign policy-- he's not a fire-breather in that regard.

I thought that the votes of Hatch and Bennett were interesting.


* This was not always the case. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. was moderate. Bob Dole was very conservative, but he also believed in cutting deals. There even used to be a creature known as a liberal Republican: Jacob Javits was one example.

[Enderw24]

What if the article read like this:

"When marshmallow awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, marshmallow found marshmallow's body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations...

Does that make any difference to you?

A little bit. I'd heard of out of body experiences before but none that could be used as evidence in a court of law.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes - as soon as he posted that link and description, immediately the name "Mahmoudiyah" popped into my head and the face of Steven Green - and I don't even follow the news that closely. That case was all over the news. When that soldier was convicted, it was a big deal. The whole thing got a lot of coverage. Bad example to use if you're trying to argue that it was "glossed over." Far from it.
From what I saw, it was barely mentioned (especially on Fox News). I sure didn't see any pervasive coverage.

[John Mace]

From what I saw, it was barely mentioned (especially on Fox News). I sure didn't see any pervasive coverage.

Unless you watch Fox News 24/7, how on earth do you know how much coverage it got? This was back in 2006, per the link to this AP story on FoxNews website:

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201709,00.html)

FYI, anyone interested in an actual debate about this topic, here's the GD thread on this subject. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=535109)

[Stan Shmenge]

It does. Conservatives have never had any concern for the rights or safety of women.Wow. What an amazing blanket statement. Paint with a broad brush much?

[Jackmannii]

And people on the golden thrones of power simply shrug and eat their caviar.Bad idea. If you try to eat caviar while shrugging, the little eggs spill down your shirtfront, which leaves a residual fishy odor.

[Captain Carrot]

Grassley and Lugar aren't known as conservatives? I'm Hoosier, been voting for Lugar in every election, and have never heard, even in my Birch years, that he should be replaced by a "real conservative".Grassley has seen his ratings plummet over the last few months, and Lugar is widely known to be conservative in some ways but always willing to work with anyone, which is why he was reelected without opposition in 2006.

Thanks for this, btw. I was looking for a list of the Republican yeas and found the link to the Senate site via a liberal blog. Of course, I noticed plenty of liberal-to-lefty blogs quite willing to list the 30 bad Repubs votes but none that actually would list the 10 good ones.Well, yes, because the former is a lot more interesting. And you must not have been looking very hard, because I saw a few that did so. Besides, voting against not awarding contracts to companies that basically ignore rape (that's essentially what arbitration does; employees win substantially less than half the time, and most of that time they win practically nothing) is a lot more heinous than voting for that is respectable.

[lissener]

From what I saw, it was barely mentioned (especially on Fox News). I sure didn't see any pervasive coverage.

I would just like to repeat your post, without comment, because it makes so, so much so very, very clear.

[SmartAleq]

Sen Al Franken questioning KBR arbitration attorney regarding this case. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto&feature=player_embedded)

So where's all the outrage from the Repubs who were foaming at the mouth merely a month ago to defund and refuse to contract with ACORN because a couple of low level employees failed to react strongly enough to a fake pimp with his fake whore asking questions about how to evade taxes? They were quite sure that holding the entire company to blame for each and every action of its employees was the only way to ensure our American Way Of Life survived intact. Or is it just that actual brutal rape doesn't damage the fiber of our society the way fictional tax evasion does?

[lissener]

Sen Al Franken questioning KBR arbitration attorney regarding this case. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto&feature=player_embedded)

So where's all the outrage from the Repubs who were foaming at the mouth merely a month ago to defund and refuse to contract with ACORN because a couple of low level employees failed to react strongly enough to a fake pimp with his fake whore asking questions about how to evade taxes? They were quite sure that holding the entire company to blame for each and every action of its employees was the only way to ensure our American Way Of Life survived intact. Or is it just that actual brutal rape doesn't damage the fiber of our society the way fictional tax evasion does?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, based on the apparent discrepancy of the reactions of Republican senators--ACORN: we don't like what they do so stop giving them money! vs. KBR: it's none of our business what they do, let's keep giving them money!--that it's political.

Whaddya think? Any other possible explanation?

Seriously, actually, I'd like to hear a Republican-identified Doper reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

There are no words foul enough...

I am reminded of what Curtis White once said of Terry Gross: Well, she says she's on my side, but, God, she's so stupidly on my side that I hardly recognize my side as my side.

[Der Trihs]

It does. Conservatives have never had any concern for the rights or safety of women.Wow. What an amazing blanket statement. Paint with a broad brush much?In other words, we are all supposed to ignore the ( Republican ) elephant in the living room and pretend that the massive misogyny of the Right does not and never did exist. No matter how many right wingers act with hostility towards women ( or gays, or blacks, or poor people, or... ) we are all supposed to pretend that each is just an isolated bad apple.

People call the Nazis genocidal because they committed genocide; even though not all of them killed people. People call the Communists oppressive even though not every Communist oppressed someone. Well, I'm calling conservatives historically ( and still ) misogynistic even though not every single one is; same principle. When a group overwhelmingly acts or believes in a certain way, it's standard practice to refer to how "Group X is Y".

And I'm quite sure that if I started talking about how "most did this" and "often they do that" instead of lambasting me for "using a broad brush" you'd lambast me for using weasel words instead.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Unless you watch Fox News 24/7, how on earth do you know how much coverage it got?[/url]

In fairness, it takes about five minutes of watching Fox News* on any given day to figure out what they're talking about during the entire day.


* Or CNN, or one of those other ones whose names escape me.

[Zebra]

Here's one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings)

Four American soldiers broke into an Iraqi family's house, gang raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl, them murdered her, along with her entire family (including her 6 year old sister) and burned the bodies. This got very little media attention. Sean Hannity sure never talked about it.

I agree with everything the OP said. Halliburton is truly corrupt and evil, as are the political meat puppets who succor them, and it's absolutely indefensible and disgusting that a single person voted pro-gang rape on the Franken bill



From the link you provided.


Green was arrested as a civilian, and convicted by a civilian court, the U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky.[27] The other four, all active-duty soldiers, were convicted through courts-martial.





What has happened to the accused? Have they been tried in US Court? What legal recourse is available to the victim?


This story is not front page news today. It had it's 15 minutes and now it is largely forgotten.


Minnesotans should be proud of their junior Senator and I'm wondering why my senators didn't do this earlier.

[smiling bandit]

So, in other words, a poorly-thought out amendment taken up as a battlecry without considering its impacts in a wide array of circumstances, which could substantially affect the ability of the government to get its way in the future, should be passed anyway, on account of the sponsor had in mind the fact that somebody abused their power in one of many actions which would be affected by the amendment?

Or maybe, just maybe, the Republicans who voted against it saw that the proposed law was badly thought-out.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, they just want to protect their sugar daddies.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I liked watching Franken kick that fuckwad's ass, but it still isn't all that satisfying. The shitbags who raped that woman and stuffed her in a box will never suffer any consequences, and the Republicans are apparently completely ok with that.

The whole concept of binding arbitration is disgusting. It's preposterous that a person should be required to surrender her civil rights a a condition of employment, and I'll never understand why the political wing which which claims to mistrust democratic government so much is so happy and willing to cede absolute power to corporations.

[Mr. Moto]

I'd like the OP to provide a cite showing that the arbitration agreement prevented a lawsuit against Halliburton from proceeding, thus making legislative action necessary.

You know, since I found this:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that claims for (1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees involved in a sexual assault; and (4) false imprisonment are not related to the plaintiff’s employment contract and refused to compel arbitration. (http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/?p=5279)

I won't defend Halliburton here, but I will note that when you need to carry water for the trial lawyers' lobby, and when one of their major goals is limiting arbitration as much as possible, it is wise in the PR game to go after the scariest case you can find - even when that arbitration agreement wasn't found valid in these circumstances.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It took her four years to get that decision, and yes, the sleazeball arbitration agreement did indeed prevent her from being able to sue for four years.

Getting the ability to sue is not the point of the Franken amendment anyway. The amendment just cuts off funding to companies who try to prevent employees from being able to sue them for gang rape.

Remember how the Republicans wanted to cut off funding to ACORN because a couple of low level workers played along with a Michael Moore stunt? This is like that, only instead of getting punked by a fake pimp, Halliburton gang rapes female employees and stuffs them in boxes.

Do you think it's fair to cut off funding to such a group? Yes or no. That's the question.

[Bricker]

Suppose a senator opposed gang rape, and even opposed forcing civil redress for gang rape be part of binding arbitration, but still believed that other claims, like general sexual harassment, should be settled by arbitration if the company and employee agreed to that term.

Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims, including simple claims of sexual harassment, what should that senator do?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That Senator is still philosphically wrong. Companies should not be able to require employees to surrender their right to sue for sexual harassment as a condition of employment, or at least, I don't want my tax dollars to go to those companies. If that Senator votes against the Franken amendment, then he is voting to subsidize both gang rape and sexual harassment with taxpayer money.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

That Senator is still philosphically wrong. Companies should not be able to require employees to surrender their right to sue for sexual harassment as a condition of employment, or at least, I don't want my tax dollars to go to those companies. If that Senator votes against the Franken amendment, then he is voting to subsidize both gang rape and sexual harassment with taxpayer money.

Given the protections that both the Federal Arbitration Act and the AAA rules afford against biased panels, why not allow arbitration panels to adjust employee grievances? After all, you'll typically find that submitting disputes to arbitration is a frequent clause in union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreements, and nobody suggests that unions don't know what they're doing.

Do you have any reason, beyond a general sense of unease, for disfavoring arbitration? And if so, why does that not apply to all systems of private dispute resolution. Should we eliminate moderators from this message board? Should paying members of the SDMB be able to take message board conflicts into state court?

ETA: I'm sorry, I overlooked this: "If that Senator votes against the Franken amendment, then he is voting to subsidize both gang rape and sexual harassment with taxpayer money." I now realize you're an idiot.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

We're not talking about what companies should be legally allowed to do, we're talking about whether they should be able to receive money from the government.

I don't understand the SDMB analogy. Posters are not employed by the SDMB, and disputes here do not involve anything either criminal or tortiable.

[buttonjockey308]

In other words, we are all supposed to ignore the ( Republican ) elephant in the living room and pretend that the massive misogyny of the Right does not and never did exist. No matter how many right wingers act with hostility towards women ( or gays, or blacks, or poor people, or... ) we are all supposed to pretend that each is just an isolated bad apple.

People call the Nazis genocidal because they committed genocide; even though not all of them killed people. People call the Communists oppressive even though not every Communist oppressed someone. Well, I'm calling conservatives historically ( and still ) misogynistic even though not every single one is; same principle. When a group overwhelmingly acts or believes in a certain way, it's standard practice to refer to how "Group X is Y".

And I'm quite sure that if I started talking about how "most did this" and "often they do that" instead of lambasting me for "using a broad brush" you'd lambast me for using weasel words instead.

The Nazis committed genocide. Communism is oppressive. Many of historys' conservatives did GOOD things while many of historys' liberals did BAD things. Not all dogs are poodles.

Large companies and large governments are comfortable bedfellows, one will always protect the other, no matter who pays the price and no matter how it has to happen. Haliburton is evil? No more so than our own government. Are there evil people that are employed by Haliburton? No more than are employed by our own government.

This case was a fucking disaster, a horrible travesty and likely one of many that we will never hear about committed by people that WE pay. The best we can do is continue to address the truth of the problem, root out evil where we find it, and stop building these liberal/conservative/democrat/republican fences around one another. There are two kinds of people in the world, good ones and bad ones. Period. There is no blurring of the lines in this case, these were bad guys, but does that mean that Betsy from accounting should lose her job and not be able to feed her kids because these assholes did this?

The answer is no. Just like the ACORN thing was unfair, so is the assessment of Haliburton.

[Skald the Rhymer]

30 is many more than 9. Those 9 represent the fringe ( or face a threat in the next election from the left ); the 30 represent the conservative norm. That's why they outnumber the 9.

True. But you made an absolute statement. The fact there are nine counter-examples demonstrates that your absolute statement was false.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

We're not talking about what companies should be legally allowed to do, we're talking about whether they should be able to receive money from the government.

I don't understand the SDMB analogy. Posters are not employed by the SDMB, and disputes here do not involve anything either criminal or tortiable.

But some people here a paid-up members. Thus, consideration has passed and mutual promises have been made (member pays, CL gives them a year's subscription to the board). Disputes wouldn't sound in criminal law or tort law, as you note, but rather contract law. So why should these claims be arbitrable but not employment claims?

It is no answer to say one's contract and the other's tort: liability for tort can be varied by agreement (as when you sign a waiver when you enter a judo tournament or the like).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If someone really thinks they have a breech of contract case, then of course they should be able to take it to court. Why shouldn't they?

Moderators here do not resolve membership contract disputes, though.

ETA you're also changing the subject. The subject is about what taxpayers should have to fund, not whether binding arbitration contracts should be illegal.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

ETA you're also changing the subject. The subject is about what taxpayers should have to fund, not whether binding arbitration contracts should be illegal.

Well, then, you're back-pedaling from that assertion that this vote was a referendum on "gang-rape"* to the much more moderated position that it is a question about what sorts of employment dispute resolution forums we should use federal spending to favor. Which, frankly, is a pretty wise course of action on your part.


* There is a thread to be created on why so many on the SDMB seem so obsessed with gang-rape and pedophilia. Everywhere you look, in threads where you would never expect it, someone inevitably bring up these crimes. (One poster came up with a particularly morbid example involving rape to explain the correlation-causation distinction.) Anyway, such cathexis on these types of things can't be healthy.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, then, you're back-pedaling from that assertion that this vote was a referendum on "gang-rape"
I made no such assertion. I said that it was a referendum on the subsidization of gang rape.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

I made no such assertion. I said that it was a referendum on the subsidization of gang rape.

Do explain how one can support a gang-rape subsidy while not approving of gang-rape. And so, if you contend that Senator X wants to subsidize gang-rape (and here I thought KBR was a construction company! But how do they turn a profit I wonder???), then you must hold that Senator X approves of gang-rape.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Do explain how one can support a gang-rape subsidy while not approving of gang-rape.

Conceivably, one could think there are more important things that preventing gang-rape, and thus support subsidizing an activity that falls under that category even though that activity will lead to gang rapes.

That's not my position, of course. I'm just explaining.

[Bricker]

That Senator is still philosphically wrong. Companies should not be able to require employees to surrender their right to sue for sexual harassment as a condition of employment, or at least, I don't want my tax dollars to go to those companies. If that Senator votes against the Franken amendment, then he is voting to subsidize both gang rape and sexual harassment with taxpayer money.

Well, no one can argue that this is a very defensible position. But it's hardly a matter of gospel truth.

In other words, reasonable people may disagree on whether garden-variety sexual harassment should be excluded from the list of claims that can be forced into arbitration. Supporting the view that ordinary sexual harassment cases can be settled by an arbiter instead of the courts is something you personally disagree with, but it's not an evil, depraved point of view.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Do explain how one can support a gang-rape subsidy while not approving of gang-rape. And so, if you contend that Senator X wants to subsidize gang-rape (and here I thought KBR was a construction company! But how do they turn a profit I wonder???), then you must hold that Senator X approves of gang-rape.
Yes, the Senator approves of gang rape -- or is at least sociopathically indifferent to it -- but that doesn't change the fact that the Franken Amendment was about federal funding, not a "referendum on gang rape", and I did not (as you falsely alleged) ever say otherwise. I don't know what hair you're trying to split here.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Yes, the Senator approves of gang rape -- or is at least sociopathically indifferent to it -- but that doesn't change the fact that the Franken Amendment was about federal funding, not a "referendum on gang rape", and I did not (as you falsely alleged) ever say otherwise. I don't know what hair you're trying to split here.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry everyone. I misspoke when I said the Dio considers the Franken Amendment a "referendum on gang-rape." As Dio has taken pains to show (pains that are completely unnecessary, I will add, because the distinction could not be more obvious), it was a referendum on subsidizing gang-rape. Now, while favoring a subsidy for gang-rape does mean you approve of (or at least are indifferent to) the occurrence of gang-rape, it most certainly is not the same thing as voting for gang-rape. Dio is quite right that it is I who am splitting hairs here, and I regret the error.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's a real distinction. You certainly wouldn't sy that voting to defund ACORN was the same as being opposed to voter registration.

[Myself]

I'd like the OP to provide a cite showing that the arbitration agreement prevented a lawsuit against Halliburton from proceeding, thus making legislative action necessary.

From the Guardian, UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block)

"Halliburton/KBR used a clause in her contract requiring disputes to be settled by arbitration to block legal action – a policy which, her lawyer says, has encouraged assaults by creating a climate of impunity.
Franken described it as a denial of justice. "Contractors are using fine print to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court," he said in a Senate debate."

[Mr. Moto]

From the Guardian, UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block)

"Halliburton/KBR used a clause in her contract requiring disputes to be settled by arbitration to block legal action – a policy which, her lawyer says, has encouraged assaults by creating a climate of impunity.
Franken described it as a denial of justice. "Contractors are using fine print to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court," he said in a Senate debate."

That is a misrepresentation of the events in question. The original court found that the arbitration agreement did not protect Halliburton from these types of claims. Litigation on these points was stayed until Halliburton appealed this decision - the appeal was unsuccessful. That decision came down in September of this year.

Now, again, I don't like what Halliburton did here. But I'm a bit offended by a United States Senator calling the right to appeal "fine print." It is a protection just as vital to Jamie Leigh Jones as to Halliburton, and we can't abrogate it for one without weakening it for the other.

[Myself]

I don't doubt you, Mr. Moto, "I only know what I read in the in the newspapers."

Please tell me where I can find more and better info on this.

Thank you.

[Mr. Moto]

I don't doubt you, Mr. Moto, "I only know what I read in the in the newspapers."

Please tell me where I can find more and better info on this.

Thank you.

I took my chronology from the cite I posted previously. I hope that helps.

[Peanut Gallery]

I'm a bit offended by a United States Senator calling the right to appeal "fine print." It is a protection just as vital to Jamie Leigh Jones as to Halliburton, and we can't abrogate it for one without weakening it for the other.

I think you know that Senator Franken was not talking about the right of appeal. His "fine print" was re: the practice of mandatory binding arbitration for cases involving sexual assault, including the particular situation she was in: gang rape, foreign war zone, etc. And "to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court" is the point of the arbitration. The settlements tend to involve the sworn secrecy of victims, in order to help deny future employees their rights too. For profit.

I am proud of Senator Franken for preventing my govt from doing business with companies that require their employees to submit to such treatment (and then appeal it when it is indicated that it is not OK under some circumstances. stay classy KBR.), while leaving those companies free to continue that practice while looking elsewhere for customers. Perhaps, instead they will choose to treat people a little better, but that's for the accountants to decide.

I do recall reading about this when the story first broke. I think part of my reaction was, "... and why are we still doing business with this company?" I'm happy there's a Senator who reacts to these things the same way, but can actually do something about it.

I think the 30 Nays were "Fuck Franken/Democrats" votes as much as anything. Maybe I give them too much credit. On the one hand it seems like an easy chance for some "Bi-partisan" cred, but then again for most of those Senators, "Bi-partisan" is not what their base wants to hear. Their voters care more about stopping the liberal tyranny!!!1! than they do about rape or four syllable words.

[Mr. Moto]

I think you know that Senator Franken was not talking about the right of appeal. His "fine print" was re: the practice of mandatory binding arbitration for cases involving sexual assault, including the particular situation she was in: gang rape, foreign war zone, etc.

What practice? This was not only barred by a district court but was barred by an appellate court, as I have so helpfully explained several times now. And with this as an appellate decision now it should be impossible for a company to assert a right to arbitration on these matters, even as it likely applies to other grievances an employee might have.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It took the victim four years to get to this point. She was denied her day in court for 4 years. The Franken Amendment is not about the right to appeal anyway, so it's just a red herring to keep throwing out there.

Why do you want to give my money to a company that would behave this way? That's the question.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

It took the victim four years to get to this point. She was denied her day in court for 4 years. The Franken Amendment is not about the right to appeal anyway, so it's just a red herring to keep throwing out there.

Why do you want to give my money to a company that would behave this way? That's the question.

Behave in what way? Insisting on impanelling arbitrators?

Honestly, what do you think goes on at an arbitration panel? Three mostly former judges or current attorneys donning on their satanic best and reenacting the end of Rosemary's Baby?

HAIL SATAN!! HAIL SATAN!!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well obviously one thing that goes on is the attempt to deny rape victims a day in court and prevent them from talking about it.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

All snark aside: Do you know what arbitration is?

[dropzone]

Gang rape is a felony. Halliburton/KBR used its employment agreement to cover up a felony. This is obscene. Do you REALLY want corporate contracts to cover up felonies? How about if Halliburton/KBR put out a contract on your life? Will you still hide behind your artificial construct and claim it falls under the contract?

US law has long held that it still counts for US citizens when they are offshore. That's why we can't bribe foreign officials. And it should be why we cannot commit offenses against US laws, even when in a virtually-lawless land.

An arbitration board is NOT a court of law. Its rulings are limited and only affect the accused regarding his contract. To compare that with a US court of law is preposterous.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

All snark aside: Do you know what arbitration is?
Of course. Do you think that gang rape is something that should fall under a binding arbitration agreement?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Also, how about murder? What's the line?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Of course. Do you think that gang rape is something that should fall under a binding arbitration agreement?

She's suing KBR for gang-rape? :dubious:

Of course she isn't. She's suing them for (I presume) false imprisonment, IIED, negligent hiring and sexual harassment. The latter can, and often is, handled by arbitration panelists. The first three are torts outside of the employment contract, and no court hereto has compelled their submission to arbitration. KBR appealed the trial court's decision to that effect and the Fifth Circuit affirmed (I suppose it is hear where you will shriek "Justice delayed is justice denied" and prefer to speak out of both sides of you mouth--avenging Jones' right to the courthouse door while simultaneously barring it to those horrid bugbears, corporations).

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Gang rape is a felony. Halliburton/KBR used its employment agreement to cover up a felony. This is obscene. Do you REALLY want corporate contracts to cover up felonies? How about if Halliburton/KBR put out a contract on your life? Will you still hide behind your artificial construct and claim it falls under the contract?

US law has long held that it still counts for US citizens when they are offshore. That's why we can't bribe foreign officials. And it should be why we cannot commit offenses against US laws, even when in a virtually-lawless land.

An arbitration board is NOT a court of law. Its rulings are limited and only affect the accused regarding his contract. To compare that with a US court of law is preposterous.

No. I think there's a lot not to love about arbitration. But I think piecemeal, desultory alterations to our structural jurisprudence regarding the administration of justice--and it is not only that, but also accompanied by hysterical fever-dreams about how voting against these changes is a vote for gang-rape--is even unlovelier.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

She's suing KBR for gang-rape? :dubious:

Of course she isn't. She's suing them for (I presume) false imprisonment, IIED, negligent hiring and sexual harassment. The latter can, and often is, handled by arbitration panelists. The first three are torts outside of the employment contract, and no court hereto has compelled their submission to arbitration. KBR appealed the trial court's decision to that effect and the Fifth Circuit affirmed (I suppose it is hear where you will shriek "Justice delayed is justice denied" and prefer to speak out of both sides of you mouth--avenging Jones' right to the courthouse door while simultaneously barring it to those horrid bugbears, corporations).

So the answer is yes, you think gang rape should be covered by secret arbitration.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

An arbitration board is NOT a court of law. Its rulings are limited and only affect the accused regarding his contract. To compare that with a US court of law is preposterous.

All snark aside: Do you know what the precedential value of trial court opinions are?

They are limited and only affect the, ahem, parties (we don't call them "the accused" in civil court) regarding their contract.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

still better than secret arbitration.

Why do you want to give my money to these pigs?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

So the answer is yes, you think gang rape should be covered by secret arbitration.

Nope, Dio. Nobody thinks that. But Roger Ailes sure is impressed with you.

ETA: Speaking of Fox News, it's by now pretty apparent that you're not really knowledgeable about this area of the law, nor are you interested in learning about it, especially if it challenges your partisan preconceptions. So, like our Prez and Fox News, I'm kicking you out of the conversation. I won't be engaging any more of your posts on this topic.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's a might impressive pile of lawyer shit there, but at the bottom, it's about a company hding gang rape and denying a victim her day in court. Who do you think you're bullshitting here?

[Robot Arm]

She's suing them for (I presume) false imprisonment, IIED, negligent hiring and sexual harassment. The latter can, and often is, handled by arbitration panelists. The first three are torts outside of the employment contract, and no court hereto has compelled their submission to arbitration.If the arbitration clause is going to be overruled by a court anyway, why does a company bother to put it in a contract? Why did they appeal the original ruling against them? You seem to be arguing that existing law is cut-and-dried as to what can be arbitrated and what can't. So, why should the government award contracts to a company that would waste four years of the court's time fighting a well-established law they aren't going to win?

And that's in addition to the moral arguments and the actual crimes committed.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I do recall reading about this when the story first broke. I think part of my reaction was, "... and why are we still doing business with this company?" I'm happy there's a Senator who reacts to these things the same way, but can actually do something about it. The gummint still does business with this company because of connections. I mean, it's not like they were the lowest bidder or anything...

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

If the arbitration clause is going to be overruled by a court anyway, why does a company bother to put it in a contract? Why did they appeal the original ruling against them? You seem to be arguing that existing law is cut-and-dried as to what can be arbitrated and what can't. So, why should the government award contracts to a company that would waste four years of the court's time fighting a well-established law they aren't going to win?

And that's in addition to the moral arguments and the actual crimes committed.

The employment discrimination/sexual harassment related claims will proceed to arbitration. For claims arising out of a contract with a valid arbitration clause, federal policy (since 1925) is pretty cut-and-dried: arbitration is favored.

The intentional torts, however, were not included in the subject matter of the employment contract and, thus, there is no arbitration of them to be had.

As far as why did it take so long? I don't have the trial transcript. You have to imagine though, the facts are sui generis, I can't imagine that there was much prior case law on all fours with the case at bar.

[Robot Arm]

So it should be no big deal for companies to meet the provisions of this amendment and still qualify for government contracts. It's one more reason for them to do what the law will force them to do eventually, anyway.

I have no problem with the government awarding contracts to companies that willingly obey the law, and withholding them from companies that have to be dragged tooth-and-nail into living up to their legal obligations.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Suppose a senator opposed gang rape, and even opposed forcing civil redress for gang rape be part of binding arbitration, but still believed that other claims, like general sexual harassment, should be settled by arbitration if the company and employee agreed to that term.

Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims, including simple claims of sexual harassment, what should that senator do?
That senator should argue that the legislation is overly broad in scope and note that his opposition is based on said overly broad scope. He should not announce that he's voting against the amendment because it's "a political attack directed at Halliburton", as Jeff Sessions (R-Hell) did.

If you (or anyone else) can show me where any of the thirty nay voters raised your argument, rather than lamely suggesting that the amendment represents a witch hunt against Halliburton, I will personally withhold my scorn for said Senator(s) and maybe work up a little extra for the others.

Incidentally, I know this is the Pit and all, but let's look at the actual text (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111uAPzpq:e0:) of the amendment, shall we?
SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
So the amendment prohibits federal contractors from requiring their employees or independent contractors to submit to arbitration only in Title VII claims or torts relating to sexual assault or harassment. Curiously, these are, as far as I can tell, the exact grounds on which Jamie Leigh Jones' suit was based. In other words, the amendment could hardly have been any more narrow in scope if it said, "oh, and only for Jamie Leigh Jones. Everyone else is fucked."

Side question: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not mention independent contractors, only employees. Has it been interpreted to cover independent contractors as well?
The gummint still does business with this company because of connections. I mean, it's not like they were the lowest bidder or anything...
Well, since they were the only bidder, I guess technically they were the lowest bidder.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I seem to recall a story about a certain series of images supposedly from a video of an Iraqi woman being gang-raped by U.S. troops being circulated by the Boston Globe and CBS News. It later turned out to be complete bullshit, the photos actually taken from a porn movie (which would have been obvious to anyone who knew that our troops in Iraq do not wear obsolete BDU uniforms in the "Woodland" pattern besides.) The brazen fraud was originally posted on the website of an "AZTLAN" group (Mexican supremacists and deluded crackpots) yet that didn't stop people from taking it seriously and making a big fuss over it.

If nobody gives a shit about that, why did I hear about it? Why was it posted on the SDMB? Why did two major news sources run with it?
Might want to start taking gingko or something, because your memory is faulty. Somebody posted a link to the story/pictures in the middle of a thread about actual pictures of US soldiers raping captives (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519180&highlight=aztlan&page=2), and nobody took them seriously.

[Measure for Measure]

Suppose a senator opposed gang rape, and even opposed forcing civil redress for gang rape be part of binding arbitration, but still believed that other claims, like general sexual harassment, should be settled by arbitration if the company and employee agreed to that term.

Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims, including simple claims of sexual harassment, what should that senator do? Not to pick on TWDuke, but one of the 30 could have offered an amendment if they thought Franken's treatment was too broad, though it seemed to me to be reasonably narrowly crafted. Furthermore: 1) You can offer an amendment to an amendment, right? This is a genuine question.

2) FTR, the prohibited activities were in TWDuke's helpful post: "...subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." This doesn't seem especially broad to me.

[SenorBeef]

Would this be practically difficult to implement? I mean, if we have to cancel existing agreements with companies that have such clauses in their contracts, then wouldn't the companies have to immediately draw up all their contracts and get all their employees to resign them? If not, wouldn't the deals they have with the government be immediately voided? Sounds like it could be disruptive practically.

It also lumps in sexual assault with sexual harassment. Obviously the former case is inappropriate for arbitration, but how common is it for sexual harassment cases to go to arbitration? If it is common, then this law isn't as clear cut as it seems.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Would this be practically difficult to implement? I mean, if we have to cancel existing agreements with companies that have such clauses in their contracts, then wouldn't the companies have to immediately draw up all their contracts and get all their employees to resign them? If not, wouldn't the deals they have with the government be immediately voided? Sounds like it could be disruptive practically.

Arbitration clauses are treated as severable. They'll just be read out of the existing contracts.

[Bricker]

Furthermore: 1) You can offer an amendment to an amendment, right? This is a genuine question.

2) FTR, the prohibited activities were in TWDuke's helpful post: "...subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." This doesn't seem especially broad to me.

Negligent supervision doesn't seem too broad to you?

This is the generic claim brought against a company for pretty much any tortious conduct on the part of one of their employees towards another. If I punch you in the face over a card game while we're both out there working for Haliburton repairing Iraqi oil pumps, you sue me for the assault. Haliburton didn't assault you, but you sue them for negligent supervision and hiring for failing to screen employees for dangerous face-punching tendencies.

And if I cheat you by bottom-dealing the card game while we're both out there working for Haliburton repairing Iraqi oil pumps, and take your whole paycheck, you sue me for the theft by deception. Haliburton didn't steal from you, but you sue them for negligent supervision and hiring for failing to screen employees for dangerous card-cheating tendencies.

Perhaps you could explain how this category could realistically be made broader? Negligent hiring, supervision. and training are the catch-all terms for imputing liability to the employer for the bad acts of the employee.

[Bricker]

This issue is an excellent example of "death panels."

In a reasonably successful effort to derail public health care, some Republicans began to claim that Obama's plan would involve death panels, groups that would have to approve treatment for people and would more or less automatically consign the elderly and chronically ill to the wasteland of no approved treatment. They lied, in other words, or at the very least so greatly misstated the actual planned implementation that it was effectively a lie.

And of course, the outrage here on the SDMB was great. As well it should have been. One may reasonably oppose public health care, but lying about the issue, instead of making your real case, was widely condemned here on the boards.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now a bill is proposed which will, under the guise of fixing the egregious problem of no civil remedy for gang rapes, effectively remove binding arbitration for a whole host of civil issues.

And I say the same thing: One may reasonably oppose binding arbitration, but lying about the issue, instead of making your real case, should be widely condemned here on the boards. This bill doesn't merely affect rapes, and opposition to it is not agreement with raping. It's way too broad.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Furthermore: 1) You can offer an amendment to an amendment, right? This is a genuine question.
Not until it's actually passed, at which point you're offering an amendment to the bill the original amendment modified (which just so happens to amend the amended portion). If an amendment needs amending they just vote it down and start over.
Negligent supervision doesn't seem too broad to you?

This is the generic claim brought against a company for pretty much any tortious conduct on the part of one of their employees towards another. If I punch you in the face over a card game while we're both out there working for Haliburton repairing Iraqi oil pumps, you sue me for the assault. Haliburton didn't assault you, but you sue them for negligent supervision and hiring for failing to screen employees for dangerous face-punching tendencies.
Negligent supervision in the context of sexual assault or harassment doesn't seem too broad. The text of the amendment is right there, and it specifies only such claims arising out of or related to sexual harassment and/or sexual assault claims. If you punched me in the face over a card game I'd have to show some sort of sexual basis for my claim before I could sue you in open court, yes?
This issue is an excellent example of "death panels."

In a reasonably successful effort to derail public health care, some Republicans began to claim that Obama's plan would involve death panels, groups that would have to approve treatment for people and would more or less automatically consign the elderly and chronically ill to the wasteland of no approved treatment. They lied, in other words, or at the very least so greatly misstated the actual planned implementation that it was effectively a lie.
If you are correct and the basic language of the amendment does not say what I think it says (and I note you have not yet responded to my previous post)... then yes, this is a clear example of the Democrats successfully utilizing the Republican tactic of dumbing down debate of a complex issue to one very simple (and very misleading phrase).

However, I will again point to Jeff Sessions, who played right into their hands by defending his no vote on political arguments rather than legal ones.

ETA: If this is a matter of the Democrats "death panelling" a debate, then I say to the Republicans: sucks, don't it?

[Peanut Gallery]

Negligent supervision doesn't seem too broad to you?

[snip]

Perhaps you could explain how this category could realistically be made broader? Negligent hiring, supervision. and training are the catch-all terms for imputing liability to the employer for the bad acts of the employee.

Is that limited at all by "any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including... " ?

As for your examples, I hope it is broad enough to cover regular assault too. And giving away your paycheck at a card table should get you laughed out of court or arbitration (IMO), but IMO workers at large are better off if even that loser has his day in court. But would either case apply without some discrimination or sexual harassment involved? Maybe if you cheat at strip poker?


Now a bill is proposed which will, under the guise of fixing the egregious problem of no civil remedy for gang rapes, effectively remove binding arbitration for a whole host of civil issues. ... strictly for companies who want to win federal contracts.

Because we the people want to hold those companies to a higher standard than "the most profitable thing we could get away with and human rights be damned (even though we knew we couldn't really get away with it when it went to court, but we could silence many victims who didn't know better until we got caught, and buy many years stalling a rape victim should they ever challenge us, hopefully long enough to drive them raving mad so we can continue getting away with it)". So many people keep ignoring the bold part, including Senators. This isn't so much about regulating business as it is about being snobs with our tax dollars, and demanding that companies who would earn them move their ethics a little more to the side of human rights, and away from 'profit at all costs'. So as arguments go, "Too broad!" is only making me happier with it. When Senator Franken starts his campaign to end arbitration in America, I'll hear your "Too broad!"

I do not like the idea of companies mandating arbitration generally. It's an advantage they don't need or deserve. Specifically when it involves heinous felonies, and even more specifically when I am paying them. Senator Franken's amendment only addresses my last concern.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Arbitration clauses are treated as severable. They'll just be read out of the existing contracts.
Severable in the case of a ruling on their constitutionality, or something, yes? I doubt simply continuing to accept federal funds constitutes an automatic waiver of the clause.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Now a bill is proposed which will, under the guise of fixing the egregious problem of no civil remedy for gang rapes, effectively remove binding arbitration for a whole host of civil issues.
Jesus, Rick, pay attention, would you. This would not remove binding arbitration for anything. All it does is set conditions on what is require to receive federal money. If a company doesn't want a federal contract, it can bind all the gang rapes and harassment it wants.

This is basically exactly what the Republicans wanted to do to ACORN with a lot less reason and a lot broader bill.

[Mr. Moto]

Jesus, Rick, pay attention, would you. This would not remove binding arbitration for anything. All it does is set conditions on what is require to receive federal money. If a company doesn't want a federal contract, it can bind all the gang rapes and harassment it wants.

This is basically exactly what the Republicans wanted to do to ACORN with a lot less reason and a lot broader bill.

Look, Dio, making federal funding conditional is sometimes necessary, and I have argued just that point in the past. But as the government's purchasing decisions and entitlement programs touch just about every single company and individual in America, making these conditions overly broad or onerous unduly interferes with individual and corporate rights.

This legislation not only was too broad, it seemed to address a problem that the courts were already handling just fine with existing law. It was unnecessary and should have been voted against for that reason alone.

[Bricker]

Jesus, Rick, pay attention, would you. This would not remove binding arbitration for anything. All it does is set conditions on what is require to receive federal money. If a company doesn't want a federal contract, it can bind all the gang rapes and harassment it wants.

This is basically exactly what the Republicans wanted to do to ACORN with a lot less reason and a lot broader bill.

This is why I said "effectively" remove binding arbitration. A company whose main business is providing services to the federal government is essentially obligated to comply.

And I agree it's not obvious this is a bad thing. Perhaps, as a matter of public policy, we wish to create a rule that recipients of federal contracts don't require binding arbitration on any claim. I don't agree with that idea, but it's not an open-and-shut case either way.

But my point vis-a-vis the death panels remains. The debate here wasn't about the wisdom of binding arbitration for negligent hiring and supervision claims, was it? It was how awful the senators were for favoring gang rape.

All I can say is gang rape is marginally better than organized death panels for our beloved senior citizens.
:p

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Look, Dio, making federal funding conditional is sometimes necessary, and I have argued just that point in the past. But as the government's purchasing decisions and entitlement programs touch just about every single company and individual in America, making these conditions overly broad or onerous unduly interferes with individual and corporate rights.

This legislation not only was too broad, it seemed to address a problem that the courts were already handling just fine with existing law. It was unnecessary and should have been voted against for that reason alone.
The courts were NOT handling it fine. It took this victim 4 years just to GET to a court, and even then, the rapists themselves are off scott free.

The Amendment is also not overly broad. Thats just an excuse. The whole concept of binding arbitration is sickening anyway.

[Bricker]

Negligent supervision in the context of sexual assault or harassment doesn't seem too broad. The text of the amendment is right there, and it specifies only such claims arising out of or related to sexual harassment and/or sexual assault claims. If you punched me in the face over a card game I'd have to show some sort of sexual basis for my claim before I could sue you in open court, yes?


Yes and no.

The legislation covers:

...any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

So that's not simply sexual harassment or sexual assault. Title VII includes any claim arising from race, color, national origin, religion, gender, pregnancy, hostile work environments, stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals on the basis of their protected status. Title VII claims have included policies for hiring employees with preschool aged children; failing to promote an employee on the assumption that childcare duties would interfere with reliable management performance; and providing service credits to employees on disability leave, but not to those on pregnancy-related leave.

But yes -- the card game example was a bit far afield. Probably I was distracted over concern for my blind mother's first appearance in front of a death panel.


If you are correct and the basic language of the amendment does not say what I think it says (and I note you have not yet responded to my previous post)... then yes, this is a clear example of the Democrats successfully utilizing the Republican tactic of dumbing down debate of a complex issue to one very simple (and very misleading phrase).
.
.
.
ETA: If this is a matter of the Democrats "death panelling" a debate, then I say to the Republicans: sucks, don't it?

Yes.

Of course, when the Republicans did it, I condemned it, as did the vast majority of voices here. Now that the Democrats are successful at it... hey, well, it sucks, eh?

[Bricker]

The Amendment is also not overly broad. Thats just an excuse. The whole concept of binding arbitration is sickening anyway.

That's fine. Argue all you like that the concept of binding arbitration is sickening.

Don't pretend that this is about gang rape. It's about binding arbitration. If your arguments against binding arbitration are so weak that you need to disguise them as being about gang rape, maybe they're not as strong as you think.

Or maybe it's this: maybe you think to yourself, "Hey, I know what's best. Binding arbitration is evil. Any tactic I use to get it killed is just fine. If the rubes can get fooled into supporting a move to outlaw gang rapes, so much the better for my cause. The greater good is gettng rid of binding arbitration, no matter what method we use to make it happen."

Is that anywhere close?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This is why I said "effectively" remove binding arbitration. A company whose main business is providing services to the federal government is essentially obligated to comply.
So what?
And I agree it's not obvious this is a bad thing. Perhaps, as a matter of public policy, we wish to create a rule that recipients of federal contracts don't require binding arbitration on any claim. I don't agree with that idea, but it's not an open-and-shut case either way.
If they're working for the government, then they should be supervised by the government. I work for a private company that's contracted by the state, and the state sure supervises us. I see nothing wrong with that. I see contracted companies as essentially being de facto public employees. Let's treat them as such. I don't like these companies trying to have it both ways -- they want public money, but no public supervision. I'm tired of them acting like the public is their bitch. Who's paying who here?
But my point vis-a-vis the death panels remains. The debate here wasn't about the wisdom of binding arbitration for negligent hiring and supervision claims, was it? It was how awful the senators were for favoring gang rape.

All I can say is gang rape is marginally better than organized death panels for our beloved senior citizens.
:p
Those Senators were, at the least, indifferent to gang rape, and unlike the death panels, the gang rape really happened. The death panels never had so much as a theoretical basis, much less a historical one. They were a pure fabrication.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's fine. Argue all you like that the concept of binding arbitration is sickening.

Don't pretend that this is about gang rape. It's about binding arbitration.
As I keep saying, it's not about either of those things. It's about public money.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Severable in the case of a ruling on their constitutionality, or something, yes? I doubt simply continuing to accept federal funds constitutes an automatic waiver of the clause.

If the clauses are rendered unenforceable by federal law (and none of this implicates the proscription on impairment of contracts, in my opinion), the contracts will not have to be renegotiated. A severability clause is the device used to state that if a condition is not enforceable but the rest of the contract's benefit can be substantially rendered to each party, then the unenforceable condition will be treated as if it never appeared in the contract.

If sexual harassment arbitration clauses for federal defense contractors are outlawed, then rather than renegotiating employment contracts for all of their employees, those clauses will be ignored, and the dispute resolution forum will be the default choice--a court.

[Euphonious Polemic]

The courts were NOT handling it fine. It took this victim 4 years just to GET to a court, and even then, the rapists themselves are off scott free.



And this is really the whole reason why Halliburton has these unenforceable clauses in the contracts. They know they're unenforceable. They don't care - they have a ton of shitheel lawyers who will argue and argue and argue, and delay, delay, delay. (not pointing any fingers here, of course!)

What Halliburton hopes to do is create an atmosphere where employees will not bother to go through a living hell of 4 years of the courts (and asshole lawyers) in order to get justice.

Many lawyers are more interested in arguing a fine point of law, and not in making sure that justice is done.

Many politicians are more interested in getting re-elected, and "sticking it" to the opposition, rather than serving the people.

Qu'elle Surprise.

[Bricker]

So what?

If they're working for the government, then they should be supervised by the government. I work for a private company that's contracted by the state, and the state sure supervises us. I see nothing wrong with that. I see contracted companies as essentially being de facto public employees. Let's treat them as such. I don't like these companies trying to have it both ways -- they want public money, but no public supervision. I'm tired of them acting like the public is their bitch. Who's paying who here?

Since my main point is that conflating the issue you raise with the spectre of gag rape was dishonest, I'm going to decline the invitation to debate the fine points of whether or not it's good public policy to require eschewing binding arbitration. I acknowledge your point is a reasonable one; I have a differing view, and I think it's a reasonable one, too. Perhaps a GD thread on the subject would be of interest.


Those Senators were, at the least, indifferent to gang rape, and unlike the death panels, the gang rape really happened. The death panels never had so much as a theoretical basis, much less a historical one. They were a pure fabrication.

Well, no, not pure. The "death panel" business arose from the grim reality that all medical care must be rationed in some fashion at some point. It's simply a lie to say that every available resource will be used in herculean efforts to keep every single person alive. That's true now, it will be truie if there's a public option, and it will be true if there's a single payer system. The lie was that the proposal would create a system that differs dramatially from the status quo. In effect, we have "death panels," now -- just not as forbodingly specific as the rhetoric envisoned under the new proposals.

I will grant that the distance between the truth and the lie in this instance is less than the distance between the truth and the lie in the death panels case. But make no mistake: each is a lie, offered up to move popular opinion in a way that the truth wouldn't, in order to accomplish a goal.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

And this is really the whole reason why Halliburton has these unenforceable clauses in the contracts. They know they're unenforceable. They don't care - they have a ton of shitheel lawyers who will argue and argue and argue, and delay, delay, delay. (not pointing any fingers here, of course!)

They're not unenforceable. The gravamen of Jones's complaint, intentional tortious conduct, fell outside of the subject matter of the employment contract, and accordingly, the forum for resolving those outside-the-contract disputes is not determined by the arbitration clause.

[Bricker]

As I keep saying, it's not about either of those things. It's about public money.

Fine.

But the title of this thread, and the majority of posts in it prior to my entrance, don't discuss public money, do they? They offer outrage at the propsect of rape with no remedy. Even if I concede that the issue is solely public money, that's not what was being argued here.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yes.

Of course, when the Republicans did it, I condemned it, as did the vast majority of voices here. Now that the Democrats are successful at it... hey, well, it sucks, eh?
If the Democrats make a habit of it I'll see fit to condemn it. As long as it's a one-time thing, on the other hand...

You didn't address my main point (see previous page), which is if the rationale for the nay votes was that it was overly broad, why didn't they say so?

[gonzomax]

http://costofwar.com/ Wars are about money. That has been said since the time of the Greeks . Somehow we get convinced otherwise. But,never has it been more obvious that our move into Iraq. A war that continues longer than WW2 and Vietnam. Corporations are making a fortune in this war. Blackwater and the other mercenary companies are not the only ones.
Halliburton and the other war companies are reaping fortunes off the changes in the Iraqi Laws that we made when we took over. One immediate rule change we made was opening Iraqi business to foreign corporations. That rule was change not made with the interests of the Iraqi people in mind. I suppose we can figure out who made money off that change.
So we allow the war companies to make their own laws. Is that a surprise.? Thae are not labor friendly since the corporations write their own agreements. Having to obey American l laws would just slow down the cash machine.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They're not unenforceable. The gravamen of Jones's complaint, intentional tortious conduct, fell outside of the subject matter of the employment contract, and accordingly, the forum for resolving those outside-the-contract disputes is not determined by the arbitration clause.
This is a disingenuous (bordering on sophist) point since Halliburton fought (and appealed) for 4 years to assert it did NOT fall outside the bounds of arbitration.

EP's point about Halliburton/KBR strategic stalling the process still stands.

[Bricker]

If the Democrats make a habit of it I'll see fit to condemn it. As long as it's a one-time thing, on the other hand...

You didn't address my main point (see previous page), which is if the rationale for the nay votes was that it was overly broad, why didn't they say so?

Apart from Sessions' comments, I have no idea what they said. I suspect, however, that given the spectre of "You are supporting GANG RAPE!!!1!" there may have been some reluctance to voice opinions at all.

And so long as it's a one time thing you don't think condeming lying to advance the cause, eh?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

This is a disingenuous (bordering on sophist) point since Halliburton fought (and appealed) for 4 years to assert it did NOT fall outside the bounds of arbitration.

EP's point about Halliburton/KBR strategic stalling the process still stands.

Oh noes! So not only is it outrageous that she might have to go to arbitration, it's outrageous that she might have to litigate the matter in court.

While we're watching the public fisc (as you, utterly guilelessly, keep insisting that this is what the whole debate is about), why not just get rid of the federal bench and bar entirely and refer all controversies to Dio for an immediate summary ruling. Who could have a problem with that?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Apart from Sessions' comments, I have no idea what they said. I suspect, however, that given the spectre of "You are supporting GANG RAPE!!!1!" there may have been some reluctance to voice opinions at all.
Sessions commented before the vote, and presumably, therefore, before the "OMG you guys luv gang rape!" stuff. I presume the other Senators who gave comment also did so.

Anyway, if I was being accused of being a gang rape sympathizer I'd make damn sure my non-gang-rape-sympathy-related justifications for my vote were on the record, rather than hiding.
And so long as it's a one time thing you don't think condeming lying to advance the cause, eh?
They're not telling lies. They're offering misleading statements. Since by your own admissions the Republicans aren't doing much to refute them, they might even be true.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Sessions commented before the vote, and presumably, therefore, before the "OMG you guys luv gang rape!" stuff. I presume the other Senators who gave comment also did so.

Anyway, if I was being accused of being a gang rape sympathizer I'd make damn sure my non-gang-rape-sympathy-related justifications for my vote were on the record, rather than hiding.

Or maybe they just don't think the braying of Dio and his ilk is worth responding to. I'd have supposed that a vote for gang-rape in the United States Senate would have made the newspapers, but outside of the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, nobody really seems to be carrying this story.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Or maybe they just don't think the braying of Dio and his ilk is worth responding to. I'd have supposed that a vote for gang-rape in the United States Senate would have made the newspapers, but outside of the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, nobody really seems to be carrying this story.
That might be true, but the story appears to be gathering momentum, if anything. I guess we'll see if they respond later on.

On a side note- Jamie Leigh Jones is really quite hot.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Oh noes! So not only is it outrageous that she might have to go to arbitration, it's outrageous that she might have to litigate the matter in court.
No, it's outrageous that she was prevented from being able to go to court by corporate slimeball lawyers for four years.

While we're watching the public fisc (as you, utterly guilelessly, keep insisting that this is what the whole debate is about), why not just get rid of the federal bench and bar entirely and refer all controversies to Dio for an immediate summary ruling. Who could have a problem with that?
This makes no sense. I don't understand even what kind of facetious point you're trying to make here.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Or maybe they just don't think the braying of Dio and his ilk is worth responding to. I'd have supposed that a vote for gang-rape in the United States Senate would have made the newspapers, but outside of the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, nobody really seems to be carrying this story.
The Daily Show did a segment on it.

[SenorBeef]

Just to clear something up, with all this talk about being prevented from going to court and such ... the actual gang rape committed is outside the scope of this thread, right? There was a criminal trial for that I assume? And we're only debating on whether or not she could sue Haliburton? It seems that the characterizations in this thread being thrown around of people being pro-gangrape neglect this.

And if that's not the case, what the fuck?

[Bricker]

They're not telling lies. They're offering misleading statements. Since by your own admissions the Republicans aren't doing much to refute them, they might even be true.

Wow.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'll be linking to this post each and every time you complain about Republican lies.

Or "misleading statements."

[furt]

If the Democrats make a habit of it I'll see fit to condemn it. As long as it's a one-time thing, on the other hand...Y'know that joke about about the guy offering a million dollars for sex, then offering a dollar? "We've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price."

Though wrong, it's understandable when working politicians whore their integrity out for political gain; after all, re-election offers them several more years of money, power and fucking interns. But it's sad when private citizens do it to gain nothing more than the chance to feel self-righteous on the internet.

[Myself]

Quickly: There are plenty of laws that are vague. The lower courts do their thing, the Supreme Court does its. And Congress is free to come up with future clarifying legislation.


Can't we step back and see the entire elephant?

If you only touch the trunk, the elephant is snake-like. Only touch the tail and it's more like rope.

This issue is about both using public money to support a company that acts illegally and violates American standards of justice. How can this be a bad idea?

It's also about preventing binding arbitration from being abused for the same reasons. We're all for being fair to everyone, right?

Some of us have a hunch Big Business' lusty penchant for binding arbitration because it has it’s hairy thumb on the Scales of Justice.

Maybe if the heady and aloof enterprises didn’t hide the arbitration clause in the nano-print, we wouldn’t think they’re pulling something untorid on those of who don’t have a legal education or a stable of thorough-bred lawsters.

But too often you get articles like this:

LOS ANGELES, March 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The son of a Kaiser Permanente patient who died under Kaiser's care filed final papers with the court today in a groundbreaking suit which requires Kaiser to disclose to patients that its arbitration provisions may be unenforceable. Kaiser routinely funnels aggrieved patients and survivors into binding arbitration and denies them access to the courtroom. Chant Yedalian's case, brought under the unfair business competition law and finalized today, restricts the ability of the HMO to continue forcing arbitration on patients as a way to limit their liability.

Yedalian went to law school following his mother's death to find a way to prevent others from suffering as his mother did. [She died from breast cancer after Kaiser denied her a bone marrow transplant that could have saved her life.] Now, Kaiser has contributed $100,000 to a ballot initiative which would gut the unfair business competition law, which Yedalian used to force Kaiser's disclosure.

"Kaiser broke California law by forcing patients into secret arbitration proceedings without fully and properly disclosing that they had given up their rights. Today's filing closes the door on the HMO's illegal actions. The unfair business competition law was the only tool I had to hold Kaiser accountable for its deception. With today's resolution of the case, Kaiser should take back the donation it made to the anti- patient initiative and stop its efforts to restrict patients' rights," said Yedalian.

Mandatory arbitration is a private proceeding in which there is no public record or judicial appeal, and arbitrators are often biased in favor of the HMO. Kaiser failed to follow state law requiring the HMO to disclose to enrollees that they were giving up their right to go to court in case of a dispute. Because of this failure, a court found that the HMO's arbitration provision was not enforceable. ...

BA is dangerous and regularly abused:
Halliburton proves for you that binding arbitration is unfair corrupt and one sided (http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/halliburton-proves-for-you-that-binding-arbitration-is-unfair-corrupt-and-onesided-597561.html)

Bankrate.com (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20041117a1.asp) (Neutral?)

BA is good and necessary:
Conservative Thoughts and Profundity, “The Truth About the Franken Amendment” (http://conservativemeanderings.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/the-truth-about-the-franken-amendment/) (On the webpage Mr. Moto provided earlier or linked thereon.)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'll be linking to this post each and every time you complain about Republican lies.

Or "misleading statements."
Feel free to check my posting history; I've never complained about Republican lies. Refuted them, yes, but I've never tried to moralize about political strategy; on the contrary, I have often chastised the Democrats for failing to pander to the lowest common denominator on hot-button issues.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Just to clear something up, with all this talk about being prevented from going to court and such ... the actual gang rape committed is outside the scope of this thread, right? There was a criminal trial for that I assume? And we're only debating on whether or not she could sue Haliburton? It seems that the characterizations in this thread being thrown around of people being pro-gangrape neglect this.

And if that's not the case, what the fuck?
There was no criminal trial, no. Not even any arrests. Nor is there ever likely to be. It happened in Iraq. They were officially contracted by the State Department, which has no ability to investigate. The DOJ has no jurisdiction to investigate. The Defense Department collected a rape kit, then turned it over to KBR (not to any kind of court or law enforcement organization).

The DOD basically covered for Halliburton, and now there isn't anything that can be done about it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Though wrong, it's understandable when working politicians whore their integrity out for political gain; after all, re-election offers them several more years of money, power and fucking interns. But it's sad when private citizens do it to gain nothing more than the chance to feel self-righteous on the internet.
I hope you're not accusing me of whoring out my integrity. What I posted was totally in line with what I've said before, namely that there is no way for the Democratic Party to compete from a position of complete honesty, at least not if they want to be competitive. The electorate just doesn't get it.

In politics, integrity is something you pretend to have, not something you actually have.

[Myself]

Kimmy_Gibbler, Google: ‘Jones, Halliburton, rape.’

I got 9500 hits including Mother Jones, Gaurdian UK, ABC News, WSJ.

Does this thread have to degenerate into a D v R, name calling session?

[Myself]

Disregard.

[Myself]

Undisregard.

Point of clarification.

The remark: Does this thread have to degenerate into a D v R, name calling session?

was not aimed at Kimmy_Gibbler.

Sorry for my fore-paws.

[furt]

I hope you're not accusing me of whoring out my integrity.More precisely, I'm observing that w/r/t politics at least, you apparently don't have any.

If you wanna be one of those "ends justify the means" people, go for it. But as Bricker points out, it gives you no room to complain when the pubs lie. You're both playing the same game.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The Dems didn't lie. The comparison to "death panels" is bogus.

[Euphonious Polemic]

They're not unenforceable. The gravamen of Jones's complaint, intentional tortious conduct, fell outside of the subject matter of the employment contract, and accordingly, the forum for resolving those outside-the-contract disputes is not determined by the arbitration clause.

Blah blah blah lawyer speak.

Thanks for proving my point that its all about the technical details of the law for some, and not about whether it is morally defensible that a company can put in place policies designed to prevent employees from getting justice when wronged.

[Really Not All That Bright]

If you wanna be one of those "ends justify the means" people, go for it. But as Bricker points out, it gives you no room to complain when the pubs lie. You're both playing the same game.
See my response to Bricker- I've never complained when the pubs lied.

[Mr. Moto]

Thanks for proving my point that its all about the technical details of the law for some, and not about whether it is morally defensible that a company can put in place policies designed to prevent employees from getting justice when wronged.

Oh grow up. You presumably support the Franken Amendment, which as far as I can tell is a law with a lot of little details in it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Oh grow up. You presumably support the Franken Amendment, which as far as I can tell is a law with a lot of little details in it.
Did you not read it? It's like five lines of text.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Oh grow up. You presumably support the Franken Amendment, which as far as I can tell is a law with a lot of little details in it.

But he's got quite a talent for feeling emotions. And really, isn't that the most important thing when designing a system for the administration of justice? Not all this boring, bloodless "lawyer speak."

[Myself]

Personally, I'm rather disappointed at the name-calling and personal attacks on this thread.

I've seen so much better stuff elsewhere on this site.

I'm not sure you are really trying.

[Bricker]

The Dems didn't lie. The comparison to "death panels" is bogus.

I've conceded that this lie is not as egregious as the "death panel" business.

But it's most certainly a lie. The Dems characterized this as a principled stand against gang rape, failing completely in the public debate to mention the long list of Title VII claims that would be ineligible for binding arbitration.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I've conceded that this lie is not as egregious as the "death panel" business.

But it's most certainly a lie. The Dems characterized this as a principled stand against gang rape, failing completely in the public debate to mention the long list of Title VII claims that would be ineligible for binding arbitration.
Again, the language of the amendment would seem to exclude most of that long list unless they arise from sexual misconduct.

[Steve MB]

I won't defend Halliburton here, but I will note that when you need to carry water for the trial lawyers' lobby, and when one of their major goals is limiting arbitration as much as possible

Arbitration is not limited one whit by the Franken amendment.

If you want to eat pork, don't convert to Judaism or Islam. If you want government contracts, don't impose a binding arbitration requirement on your employees. If you want to drive at 10 PM, don't drink at 9 PM. Et cetera.

[Steve MB]

Since the legislation in question goes well beyond gang rape, and forbids arbitration for a wide variety of claims

It does not forbit arbitration for any case whatsoever. See my previous message.

[Euphonious Polemic]

But he's got quite a talent for feeling emotions. And really, isn't that the most important thing when designing a system for the administration of justice? Not all this boring, bloodless "lawyer speak."

I can at least see when a large corporation is using the law as a blunt tool to intimidate employees, and keep them from seeking legal redress when wronged.

The Franken amendment, from what I can see (when I'm not all crying and emotionally overwrought) simply says that federal funding will be denied to a contractor or a subcontractor at any tier (who) requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.


This would prevent a company such as Haliburton from:

a) coercing an employee into binding arbitration when the employee is not actually obligated to follow the terms of their contract*, and signing away their legal rights

b) drawing out a complaint about being forced into binding arbitration for 4 years in court, using lawyers who specialize in horseshit nit-picking, very legal behavior designed to stall, stall, stall, and make it as difficult as possible for a victim to get justice.

I further note that this amendment only applies to
any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

I fail to see why the honorable Mr. Gibbler would wish to defend the scummy politicians that seem to feel that Haliburton would be unduly harmed by this amendment.

*I believe that you can't be forced by contract into signing away your legal rights - I"m sure someone will correct me if wrong

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

It does not forbit arbitration for any case whatsoever. See my previous message.

And DADT doesn't forbid gays in the military, it just imposes an extra hurdle here or there. No big whoop.

Can we give up the canard that the Franken Amendment takes dead aim at a practice with the intention of eliminating it? And that the supporters need to establish why we should eliminate it, and not blithely--and insincerely--suggest that maybe defense contractors could just find clients other than the federal government?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And DADT doesn't forbid gays in the military
Yes it does.
Can we give up the canard that the Franken Amendment takes dead aim at a practice with the intention of eliminating it? And that the supporters need to establish why we should eliminate it, and not blithely--and insincerely--suggest that maybe defense contractors could just find clients other than the federal government?
You're the one who needs to convince us that they are entitled to our money.

The Franken amendment does not seek to eliminate a practice. It seeks to impose a condition for federal contracts.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

I fail to see why the honorable Mr. Gibbler would wish to defend the scummy politicians that seem to feel that Haliburton would be unduly harmed by this amendment.

As I mentioned above, I do think our current system of arbitration (or maybe more accurately, our federal law and policy favoring arbitration) could stand a pretty thoroughgoing review. However, when you tinker with not just substantive law, but the substantive law of how other substantive legal questions will be tried, answered, and enforced, it seems to behoove us to be exceptionally scrupulous. After all, the enterprise goes to the organic heart of our system of dispensing justice.

So, with stakes as high as these, we need a comprehensive, systemic, well-informed review. Carving out exceptions here and there--especially to score shrill partisan soundbites ("subsidizing gang-rape"!? Does this sound like the kind of talk that should characterize a debate on what is essentially civil procedure!?)--only serves to vitiate and muddle our administration of justice.

[The Tao's Revenge]

More precisely, I'm observing that w/r/t politics at least, you apparently don't have any.

If you wanna be one of those "ends justify the means" people, go for it. But as Bricker points out, it gives you no room to complain when the pubs lie. You're both playing the same game.

The ends of hundreds of thousands died, people brutally tortured, and suffocating war debt was worth lying?

Maybe the justified end was the massive unemployment that could have been avoided had republicans stopped committing war crimes long enough to fix the banking sector?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

You're the one who needs to convince us that they are entitled to our money.

The Franken amendment does not seek to eliminate a practice. It seeks to impose a condition for federal contracts.

Because there's a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If it won't apply in any other case, then no company should have anything to worry about. As long as they don't practice gang rape, they won't be affected.

[gonzomax]

Because there's a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason.

They should be proud of their ability to police their employees and provide a safe place for females to work. I would think that is the cost of doing business. To suggest it is too expensive to keep employees safe, is a horrible line of thinking. It is not an added expense. It should be well understood that when you go to work for them ,you will not be gang raped. And if it happens ,vigorous legal response will be taken. There can be no excusing the rapists or Halliburton in this at all.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Because there's a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason.

Are you suggesting that it would cost a company too much money if they were NOT allowed to put an unenforceable binding arbitration clause into an employment contract? A clause that only deals with forcing binding arbitration in the case of any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.??

You suggest that it would be an undue financial hardship on a company if they were unable to coerce employees into signing away their legal rights?

I'd suggest that if companies are concerned about their bottom line, they should not go to court for over 4 years, drawing out the inevitable decision against them, piling up lawyer fees.

[SmartAleq]

Because there's a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason.

Wow, it's a good thing this regulation wasn't in force before this, because otherwise KBR might have been forced to sell us lower quality materials and shoddy workmanship that could have led to substantial numbers of American soldiers dying in the showers from electrocution! Whew, dodged that bullet! :rolleyes:

And if you think sexual abuse of American women by male colleagues in a war zone is an "extraordinary situation" then I submit you're pretty fucking naive about how business is conducted in Iraq. That extensive a gang rape scenario didn't just happen out of nowhere, coalescing in some mysteriously magical manner from the otherwise pristine purity of the KBR work environment and corporate ethos, wholly fuelled by a ragtag band of bad apples that Manchurian Candidated their way past the eagle eyed guardians at KBR Human Resources, who generally use the scales of Anubis to weigh the worth of each candidate--must've been in the shop that day. I'd say it's more reasonable to assume that the case that spurred this amendment was much more likely to be "business as usual that got out of hand, oops."

[Bricker]

Again, the language of the amendment would seem to exclude most of that long list unless they arise from sexual misconduct.

NO.


...through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

OR.

Any claim under title VII OR any sexual misconduct claim.

[furt]

The ends of hundreds of thousands died, people brutally tortured, and suffocating war debt was worth lying?

Maybe the justified end was the massive unemployment that could have been avoided had republicans stopped committing war crimes long enough to fix the banking sector?Of course not. Why would I say that?

Oh, I get it ... you're making assumptions about people you don't know.

[Peanut Gallery]

Because there's a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason.

No apparent reason? The reason is knowing that my tax dollars do not go to companies who systematically suppress rape cases and god only knows what else for profit. I can accept that by giving up the practice, they'll raise their fees to accommodate the projected increase in costs, and then some tyrant liberal will raise my taxes to pay them more (and we'll still get reduced service...). If it costs a little more to do business while treating people decently, then we pay more. Or we invade less countries for recreation.

Halliburton should just fuck off and die for plenty of reasons by now. I sure hope their next contract has some other bidders. Suggesting that we not improve standards just because they happen to be the one doing the work today (and guilty of the abuse today) is complacent.

And it's not "regulation". This is the free market at work. This is the customer defining what they want from sellers, and giving them a chance to perform or adapt in some other way. It is only unusual as contract requirements go because instead of being a demand to squeeze more money out of something, it is a demand to inject more care for human beings into it.

[Peanut Gallery]

Any claim under title VII OR any sexual misconduct claim.

Great. Let's discourage companies from trying to suppress crimes, and/or trick people into giving up their rights. I feel even better about it.

[gonzomax]

No apparent reason? The reason is knowing that my tax dollars do not go to companies who systematically suppress rape cases and god only knows what else for profit. I can accept that by giving up the practice, they'll raise their fees to accommodate the projected increase in costs, and then some tyrant liberal will raise my taxes to pay them more (and we'll still get reduced service...). If it costs a little more to do business while treating people decently, then we pay more. Or we invade less countries for recreation.

Halliburton should just fuck off and die for plenty of reasons by now. I sure hope their next contract has some other bidders. Suggesting that we not improve standards just because they happen to be the one doing the work today (and guilty of the abuse today) is complacent.

And it's not "regulation". This is the free market at work. This is the customer defining what they want from sellers, and giving them a chance to perform or adapt in some other way. It is only unusual as contract requirements go because instead of being a demand to squeeze more money out of something, it is a demand to inject more care for human beings into it.

It is more likely it was rewarded to them without bids ,and then guaranteed profit and accepting cost over runs. That is not about free enterprise. That is how unconected people do business. If you are connected you just do pretty much what you want and get guaranteed profits.

[Bricker]

Great. Let's discourage companies from trying to suppress crimes, and/or trick people into giving up their rights. I feel even better about it.

AGAIN:

That's fine. Perfectly valid point of view.

But let's NOT accomplish that perfectly fine goal by claiming that it's a way to redress harms caused by gang rape.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I will totally agree Bricker, that the hyperbole of senators "voting for gang rape" does not help.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Even though it's true.

[Bricker]

Even though it's true.

Your only value in discussions here, Diogenes, is to offer up commentary that others read and then compare unfavorably with actual arguments. You are the great rock, practically immovable in your own ideas once you have announced them. While it happens that you will concede error, you do so only after mountains upon mountains of incontrovertible evidence has been piled in front of you and pages upon pages of your intransigent refusal to look at any point of view besides your own have passed.

In short, the effort required to convince you to change your mind is so mind-bogglingly absurd that it's practically never worth it.

But ignoring you is not the best solution, because continuing the dialog allows many other people reading the discussion to get a good sense of the actual issues and perhaps change their own minds, a task not nearly as herculean as changing yours.

In case you were wondering why people keep talking to you, now you know.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Even though it's true.

Oh, Dio, if you're going to be daft, do at least be consistent. A few pages ago you got quite shirty when I said you called this a referendum on gang-rape. You were very adamant that it was about subsidizing gang-rape--a much different thing, one presumes, in Dioland. But now we see it embraced head on.

So which is it? Once and for all?

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Diogenes, do you know that feeling you get when you hear an argument centered around, I don't know, Swift Boats or medals or inventing the internet or birth certificates or being a secret Muslim? You know how it makes you sick and makes you want to just give up entirely on the idea that people can be more or less decent something like half of the time?

You know how it fills you with that toxic cocktail of superiority and moral indignation and spite and contempt, and prevents you from even acknowledging that there's such a thing as a reasonable disagreement with your point of view?

I'm as anti-corporation, regulation-tolerant, socially liberal a person as you're likely to ever run across on these boards, and you're giving me that feeling. Fuck, if the Franken amendment had been a proclamation that "Hey, Fuck Halliburton, they're all going to jail," on a personal level I would have been just tickled like a motherfucker. But you're still giving me that feeling. I agree with your perspective, broadly speaking, but you're being a dick and you've got yourself stuck in despite not really knowing what you're saying.

You're getting a pretty mild reaction, actually, considering the way you're behaving in this thread. Give it a rest. Engage an idea or two, for christ's sake. There are important things happening in the world. Don't be on my side and be one of the people playing catchphrase Bingo, please? Fucking please?

[Measure for Measure]

Bricker. Thanks for the legal analysis. But for the third time, if the gang rape of thirty didn't want the broader language, they could have offered an alternative amendment. They didn't, so it creates the appearance that they are not unduly concerned about gangrape or sexual harrassment.

eg:
Hypothetical Republican Amendment of 2009 #1:
"...subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or and any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."

If the Republican Senate offered an amendment like that, we could have serious discussion. Since they didn't, I'm inclined to go with the hypothesis that they were simply obeying their corporate masters. Yes that's shrill. But I fear that it's accurate: today 3/4 of Republican Senators take the sort of extreme positions that 20 years ago would have only attracted a mere handful.



Separately for the 2nd time, Bricker hasn't named any Republican Senator that actually shared his concerns. Admittedly that would require some digging and I can understand why he'd be reluctant to go to that effort. Suffice it to say that Bricker wasn't working off of Senator Sessions' remarks on the subject.

[Measure for Measure]

Hypothetical Republican End Gangrape as We Know It Amendment of 2009 #2:
"...subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or and any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."

[gonzomax]

Or maybe they just don't think the braying of Dio and his ilk is worth responding to. I'd have supposed that a vote for gang-rape in the United States Senate would have made the newspapers, but outside of the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, nobody really seems to be carrying this story.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1&page=1 Hows ABC news. Is that main stream enough.

[gonzomax]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-11-halliburton-rape_N.htm USA Today is pretty mainstream too. I suppose Fox did not cover it.

[Measure for Measure]

The USA Today and ABC news articles are from Dec 2007. They therefore cannot cover the Senate vote.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1&page=1 Hows ABC news. Is that main stream enough.

I meant more that the Franken Amendment isn't really newsworthy. Jones's story, when it broke two years ago was, obviously. But I think most outlets aren't covering it because the Franken Amendment is kind of nakedly not much more than an attempt to paint the GOP into a corner.

But it's exceedingly unimportant legislation, and I'll put it to you that the circumstances that have inspired it will likely never recur (not, clearly, that we should hope they recur--but this really is a "solution" without a problem).

My problem with the Franken Amendment is that I don't like this kind of desultory tampering with the substantive law of dispute resolution procedure. I would like to keep procedural justice as whole and systematic as we can, and not to turn it into a battlefield for partisan point-scoring.

[Measure for Measure]

But it's exceedingly unimportant legislation, and I'll put it to you that the circumstances that have inspired it will likely never recur (not, clearly, that we should hope they recur--but this really is a "solution" without a problem). I'm puzzled. A KBR employee (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/090715_kbr_assault_allegations) was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in October 2008. During the 2000s the military contracted out much of its work to private services, for reasons that were somewhat dubious. Why do you believe that women working for KBR et al won't be raped while on duty in the future? Or do I misunderstand?

[Euphonious Polemic]

You didn't see that rape of a KBR employee in October 2008.

<waves hand>

You can go about your business now.

Move along.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

I'm puzzled. A KBR employee (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/090715_kbr_assault_allegations) was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in October 2008. During the 2000s the military contracted out much of its work to private services, for reasons that were somewhat dubious. Why do you believe that women working for KBR et al won't be raped while on duty in the future? Or do I misunderstand?

I guess we have different subjective beliefs about the likelihood of gang-rapes occurring at KBR sites abroad and correspondingly different figures as to the expected value of gang-rape occurrences.

I'm not sure why you bring up the federal contractor nature of KBR and your doubt as to the legitimacy of that engagement. Could you flesh out how you think those facts correlate with an increased probability that such an entity's employees will engage in gang-rape.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Objection!

Counsel is seizing upon an inconsequential tidbit in order to throw up a smokescreen - aka the "dazzle them with diversion" gambit.

[Measure for Measure]

More generally, there are more military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan than there are US soldiers. Many of these contractors are local, but not all are. And AFAIK, none fall under the DOD code of justice, though I understand that there's a supreme court case being debated now.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/study_more_contractors_in_afghanistan_than_militar.php

So the Franken amendment isn't primarily about arbitration. It's about placing a check on abuses hurled on those who serve the US in war but wear no military uniform.

On preview:
I *think* I just addressed KG's point. Huh. Specifically, when there are thousands of Americans fighting wars out of uniform in foreign lands, I would expect abuses of various sorts to occur. Their employers should be liable for negligent supervision, given that they are not subject to military discipline. Said abuses include both rapes and gang rapes, in case it wasn't clear.

[Measure for Measure]

The dubiousness of military outsourcing was discussed in this 2006 Business Week article. Potentially, privatization could prompt cost savings. But no bid contracts are up to $100 billion by now and there has been a steady trickle of articles about private war zone fraud. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_31/b3995075.htm

Now military mercenaries are not going away (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200709u/kaplan-blackwater): they will work hand in glove with the US military to a greater or lesser extent. But it's important to put the proper controls in place and we've really only just begun that task. Muscular congressional oversight is appropriate.

I thank Jamie Leigh Jones for standing up to abuse, for pushing for needed reforms and for her service to America.

[Measure for Measure]

I meant more that the Franken Amendment isn't really newsworthy. Jones's story, when it broke two years ago was, obviously. But I think most outlets aren't covering it because the Franken Amendment is kind of nakedly not much more than an attempt to paint the GOP into a corner. There are 2 elements to the story:


Gangrape!
Incomprehensible mumbo jumbo about requiring said parties to submit themselves to civil courts rather than alternative dispute resolution mechanisms even when the underlying activity was criminal, though for Haliburton it was only a matter of negligent supervision, and the unit was spun off and is now called KBR anyway... snorrrre....
So I guess #2 trumps #1, as far as the media is concerned.

But I believe it probable that this vote will come back to bite at least a few of the 30 Republican Senators in the ass in 2010. At any rate I hope so. Pending explanations offered by them that withstand scrutiny, I believe they deserve it.

[Gadarene]

Any claim under title VII OR any sexual misconduct claim.

Actually, I'm not so sure. That was my initial reading of the amendment's language as well, but looking at it more closely (since it seemed bizarre that the scope of the amendment would be crafted to encompass all Title VII claims), I think it might just be a case of sloppy drafting. Specifically, I think it's missing a couple of commas.

Here's the relevant text:

any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Here's what I think was intended:

any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any tort, related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

That is, it seems to me that a cleaner, more plausibly narrow reading of the amendment is that "related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment" modifies both "any claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and "any tort." Under that construction, the only Title VII claims for which binding arbitration could not be required would be those related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment. Which makes way more sense.

Of course, if you have a statement from Sen. Franken evincing his intention to foreclose mandatory, binding arbitration for all claims that could possibly arise under Title VII (which, as you point out, is a fairly broad category), then I'll cheerfully admit I'm wrong -- and then scratch my head in confusion about their reason for couching the amendment to include stuff that had nothing to do with the facts of the Jones case.

As it stands, though, I think the language of the amendment is ambiguous at the very least, and in such cases the general canon of construction is that it be read as narrowly as possible while still being consistent with its plain meaning.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm puzzled. A KBR employee (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/090715_kbr_assault_allegations) was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in October 2008. During the 2000s the military contracted out much of its work to private services, for reasons that were somewhat dubious. Why do you believe that women working for KBR et al won't be raped while on duty in the future? Or do I misunderstand?
I think it's probably fair to assume that the next victim won't get stuffed in a shipping container until her congresscritter intercedes on her behalf.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Oh, Dio, if you're going to be daft, do at least be consistent. A few pages ago you got quite shirty when I said you called this a referendum on gang-rape. You were very adamant that it was about subsidizing gang-rape--a much different thing, one presumes, in Dioland. But now we see it embraced head on.

So which is it? Once and for all?
I don't see how voting to subsidize gang rape does not show de facto support, or at last indifference to, gang rape. That observation does not, however, equate to a statement that the Franken amendment is a referendum on gang rape. I don't know why you've convinced yourself that you've located some kind of insconsistency on my part, but you haven't.

[Bricker]

Actually, I'm not so sure. That was my initial reading of the amendment's language as well, but looking at it more closely (since it seemed bizarre that the scope of the amendment would be crafted to encompass all Title VII claims), I think it might just be a case of sloppy drafting. Specifically, I think it's missing a couple of commas.

Here's the relevant text:



Here's what I think was intended:



That is, it seems to me that a cleaner, more plausibly narrow reading of the amendment is that "related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment" modifies both "any claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and "any tort." Under that construction, the only Title VII claims for which binding arbitration could not be required would be those related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment. Which makes way more sense.

Of course, if you have a statement from Sen. Franken evincing his intention to foreclose mandatory, binding arbitration for all claims that could possibly arise under Title VII (which, as you point out, is a fairly broad category), then I'll cheerfully admit I'm wrong -- and then scratch my head in confusion about their reason for couching the amendment to include stuff that had nothing to do with the facts of the Jones case.

As it stands, though, I think the language of the amendment is ambiguous at the very least, and in such cases the general canon of construction is that it be read as narrowly as possible while still being consistent with its plain meaning.

Um.... huh?!?

The plain meaning of the words are not ambiguous. They're quite clear. Yes, if the commas were in different places, it would mean something different. That's true, but utterly irrelevant.

Nor could a court construing the language even look to a statement from Senator Franken, since legislative intent is irrelevant when a statute's meaning is plain on its face, as this is.

That said, I am perfectly willing to believe it was originally sloppy drafting, and that Sen. Franken intent was more in line with what you envison. But since most people in this thread, and in Congress, with (D) after their name seem perfectly happy with the expanded meaning of capturing all Title VII claims as safe from forced arbitration,let's see if there's a rush to correct the "sloppy draft."

I'm guessing there won't be.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't see what kind of horrrible, unintended consequences this thing is supposed to have. What's the worst that will happen? A few scummy, sleazy contractors won't get my money anymore? Who gives a shit? We shouldn't be contracting with these criminal organizations anyway. It's not like they serve any vital purpose. The contract with Halliburton, in particular, was just a scam for Cheney and his cronies to loot the public coffers.

[Bricker]

I don't see what kind of horrrible, unintended consequences this thing is supposed to have. What's the worst that will happen? A few scummy, sleazy contractors won't get my money anymore? Who gives a shit? We shouldn't be contracting with these criminal organizations anyway. It's not like they serve any vital purpose. The contract with Halliburton, in particular, was just a scam for Cheney and his cronies to loot the public coffers.

Maybe none. Maybe it's a great idea to force federal contractors to eliminate Title VII claims from forced arbitration.

But that's not the debate that we had about this bill. The debate we had was about favoring gang rape. My point is that the presentation of the issue was dishonest.

Your post above, inartfully and amateurly phrased, at least has the virtue of being basically honest: let's screw the sleazy contractors.

[Really Not All That Bright]

A few scummy, sleazy contractors will incur significantly increased litigation costs, presumably. Now, obviously it shouldn't be difficult for Halliburton to continue to turn a sizeable profit with their outrageous no-bid federal contracts, but assuming Bricker is right and this does apply to all Title VII claims the cost of doing business with the fed could rise a lot.

Litigated employment-related torts usually settle for significant* amounts regardless of the merits of individual claims, because (a) the cost of litigation is so high, (b) the potential exposure if the case goes to trial is really, really high, and (c) because most people who do have a valid claim usually have grounds for one or two more, so getting the thing settled and making sure you're released from further liability is generally a good idea.

*not necessarily individually significant to corporations of the size to win federal contracts, but they'd add up - say, $20,000 a pop.

[gonzomax]

http://www.alternet.org/world/81266/?page=1 One Houston Law Firm is handling 15 cases of sexual assault by American contractors in Iraq, including KBR and Halliburton. It is not an isolated case. It is not to be waved away. It is a problem.

[Gadarene]

Bricker:
The plain meaning of the words are not ambiguous. They're quite clear. Yes, if the commas were in different places, it would mean something different. That's true, but utterly irrelevant.

I completely disagree. I think the language is absolutely ambiguous, and it's easy to see how it might have happened. (We're not talking about commas being in different places, by the way, but about the drafters omitting commas or figuring they weren't needed to convey their meaning. To think about it a different way, put imaginary brackets, programmer-style, around each of the intended clauses, as I do below.)

(any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort) (related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment,) (including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention).

The other construction makes no real sense in context (some courts might not consider legislative history, but you and I can), especially given the name of the freaking amendment, and I'm kind of at a loss as to how you can say that it's plain on its face (except that you then get to score points against Democrats by chiding them for injecting needless politics into the amendment).

But since most people in this thread, and in Congress, with (D) after their name seem perfectly happy with the expanded meaning of capturing all Title VII claims as safe from forced arbitration,let's see if there's a rush to correct the "sloppy draft."

Cite that "most" Democrats who voted for the amendment did so with the understanding that it would apply to all Title VII claims, rather than those relating to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment?

[Bricker]

Cite that "most" Democrats who voted for the amendment did so with the understanding that it would apply to all Title VII claims, rather than those relating to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment?

*sigh*

The plain language of the amendment.

Although I concede on reflection that they may well have not read it, or been overly influenced by the same rhetoric we're discussing here, and may well have believed that they were voting for something less expansive.

So I'll withdraw that claim. I have no idea what the legislators on either side were actually thinking.

[Gadarene]

And since it's my position that "[t]he plain language of the amendment" is not, in fact, plain, it looks like we're at an impasse and can agree to disagree.

[gonzomax]

Since Title 7 is the law of the land, why shouldn't companies doing business with the American government and receiving tax payer money be subject to it? It should simply be a restatement of the law, with a stress on sexual harassment and assault, because they are what generated the amendment. There have been more than 15 sexual harassment cases . This is not an isolated case getting special treatment.

[Gadarene]

Since Title 7 is the law of the land, why shouldn't companies doing business with the American government and receiving tax payer money be subject to it? It should simply be a restatement of the law, with a stress on sexual harassment and assault, because they are what generated the amendment. There have been more than 15 sexual harassment cases . This is not an isolated case getting special treatment.

They are subject to it. Title VII just bestows a private right of action -- it says, basically, that anybody with X grievance may file a civil suit in federal court seeking redress. But it doesn't force them -- that is, people with X grievance -- to do so. If you get discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of your gender, you're not obligated to make a federal case out of it.

So companies come along and insert clauses in their employment contracts which say, essentially, "By signing this I agree that if I ever have X grievance, I will forego my ability to seek redress of that grievance in federal court. Instead, should I choose to pursue a complaint against my employer based on X grievance, I will do so through private arbitration (which wrests our dispute out of the hands of the federal courts and away from pesky things like rules of civil procedure, published caselaw, transparency, and the need for judges to explain their decisions through reasoned elaboration)."

And since your employment contract is, y'know, a contract between you and your employer, it has the force of law, and you've given up your right to redress X grievance against your employer in federal court forever and ever and ever and can't get it back, not even if you ask nicely. Unless you renegotiate your contract and bargain for exclusion of the clause....which, practically speaking, doesn't happen.

[Peanut Gallery]

But that's not the debate that we had about this bill. The debate we had was about favoring gang rape. My point is that the presentation of the issue was dishonest.


That's the debate you and Dio had. I just re-read the OP, and I don't think it was presented dishonestly. I think it was a bit hysterical and unclear, but the OP doesn't charge any Rs with "voting for gang rape". The charge made is in the sfgate quote:

“The most repellent part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.”

Bolding mine. While paraphrased, it is near enough to the truth. The Satan bit is over the top, but that's charging them with being in Haliburton's pocket, not with loving rape.

As I've said before, the votes had more to do with politics than rape. I would expect 30 Republican Nays if Senator Franken proposed an amendment giving all Senators pay raises. I agree that "they voted for rape!" is counterproductive (with 5 pages of this thread as my cite). But any way you twist it, a Nay vote clearly sides with money over human rights. If they objected to Senator Franken's way of approaching it, they could have offered any of the alternative ideas that posters here have come up with, some so easy that you only need to move 2-3 commas. But they didn't. They argued that Haliburton was being made a victim, not about the scope of the language. They flat out voted that No: they are not at all interested in finding ways to improve our standards as a customer in order to guaranty that some victims are able to seek justice in court. I also think they managed to twist the meaning of the amendment, as if it rewrote federal law on how all companies do business, ignoring the fact that it only applies to who we want to shop with.

I'm not sure you've really indicated your own opinion, Bricker. My guess is that you'd have voted Nay on the basis that it is too broad. Is that right? It is written in a way that allows too many victims get their day in court? The govt should not strive to require contractors to treat people better? Arbitration is just as just as a trial in court? Costs must be kept down, even it it means people's rights get trampled? It was already illegal, nothing to see here, move along (Gibbler's argument, I think)?

[Bricker]

That's the debate you and Dio had. I just re-read the OP, and I don't think it was presented dishonestly. I think it was a bit hysterical and unclear, but the OP doesn't charge any Rs with "voting for gang rape". The charge made is in the sfgate quote:

“The most repellent part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.”

Bolding mine. While paraphrased, it is near enough to the truth. The Satan bit is over the top, but that's charging them with being in Haliburton's pocket, not with loving rape.

No, it's not "near enough to the truth." To claim that the senators were definitely saying,"Women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped" is false. As should be clear, the senators could well have been saying, "This solution is overbroad, and goes too far; it's cynically exploiting the rape to pass a broad-reaching restriction that otherwise might not have gained sufficient support."

But any way you twist it, a Nay vote clearly sides with money over human rights.

That's crap. Since when is it a human right to be able to sue, vs. settle by arbitration, a claim that you were discriminated against because you have a pre-schooler?


If they objected to Senator Franken's way of approaching it, they could have offered any of the alternative ideas that posters here have come up with, some so easy that you only need to move 2-3 commas. But they didn't. They argued that Haliburton was being made a victim, not about the scope of the language. They flat out voted that No: they are not at all interested in finding ways to improve our standards as a customer in order to guaranty that some victims are able to seek justice in court. I also think they managed to twist the meaning of the amendment, as if it rewrote federal law on how all companies do business, ignoring the fact that it only applies to who we want to shop with.


Wow. The other side was busy equating them to rapist collaborators, and you call THEM out for twisting the meaning of the amendment?


I'm not sure you've really indicated your own opinion, Bricker. My guess is that you'd have voted Nay on the basis that it is too broad. Is that right? It is written in a way that allows too many victims get their day in court? The govt should not strive to require contractors to treat people better? Arbitration is just as just as a trial in court? Costs must be kept down, even it it means people's rights get trampled? It was already illegal, nothing to see here, move along (Gibbler's argument, I think)?

Again with the rights. There is no right to sue if you have agreed to binding arbitration.

And this is an interesting shift of perception. I say they freely agreed to binding arbitration when they took the job; you say (I assume) that they had no choice.... jobs are scarce... the company's bargaining power was so much greater and the company had all the money, so it wasn't REALLY a free choice. Something like that, right?

But when it's the federal government telling a company whose sole business is government contracting,"Do this or no more work for you," you look innocently around and say, "Oh, they're not forcing them to eschew arbitration. It's just a matter of who we want to do business with!"

So which is it? Or is it that evil corporations can never be pressured, only virtuous people?

My vote on this would have been a resounding NO. And then I'm sure my next election campaign would have been littered with ads claiming I support gang rape, intermixed with ads dcrying the lies Republicans use in order to win on issues.

Have some integrity, for crying out loud. Admit it. On this issue, Democrat's hands are simply not clean. Advocating for no arbitration is fine -- noble, even. Advocating for no arbitration by claiming the other side collaborates in the interests of gang rapists is a scumy lie.

[Measure for Measure]

No, it's not "near enough to the truth." To claim that the senators were definitely saying,"Women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped" is false. As should be clear, the senators could well have been saying, "This solution is overbroad, and goes too far; it's cynically exploiting the rape to pass a broad-reaching restriction that otherwise might not have gained sufficient support." But for the third time, that interpretation is speculative: you have shown no quotes of any Senator making that argument. And for the fourth time, if a restriction is sincerely thought to be overly broad the proper response is to propose narrower language. Have some integrity, for crying out loud. Admit it. On this issue, Democrat's hands are simply not clean. Advocating for no arbitration is fine -- noble, even. Advocating for no arbitration by claiming the other side collaborates in the interests of gang rapists is a scumy lie. This is not the first time that I've seen you dodge arguments that you find inconvenient Bricker. I know you're capable of balanced writing, as I have read your splendid Staff Reports. You are table pounding.

Again and with feeling, anybody who votes an anti-rape amendment down on the basis of it being overly broad without *also* proposing a bill with a sharper focus on rape is indeed displaying their indifference to sexual assault.

As it happens, I suspect some Republicans may have other reasons for voting down this amendment. The Department of Defense (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/why-the-dod-and-the-white-house-opposed-the-franken-rape-amendment.php?ref=fpblg) have expressed some concerns and legislators are reportedly considering a rework of the language. Awkwardly, the DoD seems to want to broaden the scope of the proposal in certain ways.

----
Really Not All That Bright: Sexual assault is not exactly unheard of in war zones. The Franken amendment addresses a serious issue: see my posts on the expanding role of wartime pentagon subcontracting.

[Myself]

Peanut Gallery: I just re-read the OP, and I don't think it was presented dishonestly. I think it was a bit hysterical and unclear, but the OP doesn't charge any Rs with "voting for gang rape".

Thanks for the 'honesty' part. I do try.

I'm guessing King George called Patrick Henry hysterical. You may draw the lines as you please; to each his own.

(This is frickin' THE PIT, right?)

<The rest of this is not aimed at Peanut Gallery in particular.>

If raised my voice against what many of us feel is an unjust war, I'll be far from apologetic. (A dead horse, I'm sure.) My views may be colored however, because I'm a veteran and I didn't believe the 'evidence' prior to the authorization vote...and my nephew is in Iraq as we speak.

For the record: I think the Republicans would vote down Mother's Day if the Democrats offered the bill in the current climate. All the hostility, distortions and outright lies from the Right are scandalous. IMHO, the Republican's foolish knee-jerk vote on this matter is, de facto, a vote for rape. They didn't say they didn't understand it, nor voice a desire for a more precisely drawn bill. They didn't present one themselves and the reaction from one of the 30 I saw was far from flattering or statesmanlike. (Yes, I'm a Democrat. But neither party has much to be proud of for at lease a decade.)

Just the phrase "H/KBR" makes steam come out of my ears--I admit it. But I wasn't there and I haven't talked to anyone who was, so maybe Ive missed something. Maybe they're sweatin' bullets to advance our war effort, support our troops, and, hey, who isn't allowed to make an honest buck?

RE: Rape. As I said, someone I love very much was gang raped. And I happen to think that was rude. I might even raise my voice at the culprits, but, as with the Jones case, it's very unlikely the perps will face justice.

The title of my thread is : It doesn't matter, right? She wasn't your daughter.

I don't know how I could be more plain.

I read the articles about Halliburton's 'aleged' actions and wondered if things might have turned out just a shade differently if Jones was the daughter of H/KBR's CEO.

Think he would have done more than raise an eyebrow, or wave a hand?

Think, maybe, he woulda become a bit hysterical?

How the Franken amendment will be interpreted and applied, (assuming, and god forbid!), will be most interesting to watch. I guess we'll all just have to wait and kick this around again then.

SIDEBAR: I find it interesting that if Diogenes the Cynic and Really Not All That Bright take a position based on the evidence as they interpret it, and have the courage of their convictions they're called suborn and moronic. But if those with an opposing view do exactly the same, well...you know.

[Bricker]

But for the third time, that interpretation is speculative: you have shown no quotes of any Senator making that argument. And for the fourth time, if a restriction is sincerely thought to be overly broad the proper response is to propose narrower language. This is not the first time that I've seen you dodge arguments that you find inconvenient Bricker. I know you're capable of balanced writing, as I have read your splendid Staff Reports. You are table pounding.

No. As I have said before in response to your statement that they have proposed narrower language, they were perhaps sytmied by the realization that their opponents would characterize their efforts as favoring gang rape. And they may have well seen the futility of such amendments by simply vote-counting and realizing that the bill had the votes to pass, regardless of what amendments they proposed.


Again and with feeling, anybody who votes an anti-rape amendment down on the basis of it being overly broad without *also* proposing a bill with a sharper focus on rape is indeed displaying their indifference to sexual assault.

Don't agree. An equally, if not more, credible interpretation is the one I just offered: the recognition of futility of effort.

As it happens, I suspect some Republicans may have other reasons for voting down this amendment. The Department of Defense (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/why-the-dod-and-the-white-house-opposed-the-franken-rape-amendment.php?ref=fpblg) have expressed some concerns and legislators are reportedly considering a rework of the language. Awkwardly, the DoD seems to want to broaden the scope of the proposal in certain ways.


From your link:

The White House does say it supports "the intent of the amendment," spokesman Tommy Vietor told TPM.
.
.
.
The department suggests that "it may be more effective" to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction.

So much for the protests above that this only applies to "who we do business with," eh?

So if I disfavor the broadening does that mean I'm in favor of gang rape, or all rape and brutality? Or does that weaken it and mean that I just like to kick puppies?

Considering the existence of republicansforrape.org, I say again that offering reasoned responses like proposing narrower language, against a backdrop where the majority is arguing you favor rape and wants their overly-broad language expanded even more, is not necessarily a go-to-response.

[Peanut Gallery]

Human rights? idunno... civil rights? labor rights? legal rights? The principle that corporations should not be able to cover up crimes among their operations, and that people have a right to a trial for crimes against them. Even the ridiculous charges, which the legal process will weed out. Whatever you call it, there's a scale here with profit at one end and decency at the other. This law will slide us a bit toward decency. A vote against it is accepting the status quo, which is obviously not OK since this situation has arisen.

"The department suggests that "it may be more effective" to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction."

Excellent news. I hope that's what comes out of it. IMHO arbitration should be left between two corporations or between two individuals. Maybe sometimes between the two, but an employer enforcing it on employees seems clearly unjust to me. I got the impression from her testimony that she didn't realize the extent of the contract when she signed it. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me, considering the way they've handled the whole thing, for the company to bury such a clause as best it can. Or perhaps she read it and thought "but I know I can't legally forfeit my right to trial, so that must not apply to heinous felonies", which the court has apparently upheld, but only after Haliburton fought tooth and nail.

I reject the idea that we shouldn't change the law because of Haliburton's current contracting status. Nobody is irreplaceable. And if we are stuck with them for now, that's more reason to keep making more demands of them, not reason to let them have their way. Especially when it comes to people's ____ Rights. They need someone to watch over them, as they've shown a tendency to push the envelope.


Myself, I didn't mean to insult you. Hysteria is a normal reaction to the circumstances of this story. I just meant that I could see how somebody might misinterpret the OP by the tone of it. I guess that somebody was me.

I think it's ridiculous to believe that anyone reasonable actually 'supports rape'. What people do support is giving corporations way too much leeway to cover up crimes in general. Or maybe they support invading other countries and recklessly offering immunity to the conquerors. Those things benefit rapists, but they are done in the name of profit.

I agree with Bricker that republicansforrape.org is shameful. That's some sound byte "death-panel" nonsense. I think there is some connection, and room for mention of rape in criticizing them, but not in that manner. I see it more as 'republicans for corporations running over individuals' rights, even when rape is involved'. Or 'republicans for NOT correcting problems'. Still pretty shameful IMO.

[Measure for Measure]

This website is (mostly) satire. Its creators do not endorse rape nor do they oppose anti-rape legislation. There is no parallel between republicansforrape.org and the assertion of death panels. None. There is nothing shameful about an explicitly satiric website that documents the indifference to sexual assault as a matter of policy, by the Republican Party. Nada.

Bricker: Thank you for responding to my concerns. While I'm at it, thank you for clueing me in about Title VII and the like. No. As I have said before in response to your statement that they have proposed narrower language, they were perhaps sytmied by the realization that their opponents would characterize their efforts as favoring gang rape.Horsepucky. Offering language that fully covers gang rape and nothing else doesn't favor gang rape. That's a very simple argument to make. Voting down language that covers gang rape and perhaps other aspects without offering a better proposal exhibits indifference to violence committed against our private workers in US warzones. And they may have well seen the futility of such amendments by simply vote-counting and realizing that the bill had the votes to pass, regardless of what amendments they proposed. Plausible, relatively speaking. But opposition parties tend to like offering annoying amendments AFAIK. And this is the senate, where there is no cost to gumming up the works with procedural and substantive suggestions. Furthermore, one of the Republicans could simply state that they favor thus and so. (ETA later: and indeed some did: see HUFPO link below).

Gestures that are futile over the short run should only be avoided when there are at least minimal costs attached. The GangRape Thirty's injuries are self-inflicted.


Separately, I actual have some sympathy for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are sufficiently regulated, cover small bore problems, or are voluntary in practice (such as mediation). Cases of rape and injury in warzones are different.

Some more facts: Bricker's selective quotation of the TPM page blends remarks made by the White House (working on a solution) with the Department of Defense (""it may be more effective" to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction.") The DoD is concerned that KBR (for example) may have difficulty regulating the arbitration agreements with its subcontractors. A broader law would be to their benefit, but would also raise a pretty substantial set of policy questions that deserve greater debate, IMHO.

HUFPO (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html) reports on some of the justifications offered by Republican lawmakers.

Senators Corker and Thune were in sync with Bricker. Chambliss and Isakson offered misleading statements about employees denied binding arbitration. The Franken amendment only banned mandatory BA: employees could still skip over the court system if they wanted to. Cochrane doesn't want employment contracts mandated, though the law only applies to companies wanting to do business with the government. I think it's ridiculous to believe that anyone reasonable actually 'supports rape'. What people do support is giving corporations way too much leeway to cover up crimes in general.... Those things benefit rapists, but they are done in the name of profit. It seems to me that the GangRape Thirty simply didn't put too much thought into the matter, which explains the incoherence of their remarks and response. See Sessions' initial Senate floor speech. But now at least they have found their footing as seen by the remarks of Sen. Richard Burr's spokesman at HUFPO. But I still see no evidence of constructive legislative behavior: recall that this measure hasn't passed both houses yet.

[Bricker]

...It seems to me that the GangRape Thirty simply didn't put too much thought into the matter....

A very reasonable-sounding post, until the inclusion of this swipe, which.... sort of kills the impression of reasonableness.

[SmartAleq]

Something I'd forgotten--apparently the main problem KBR had in this case was that their employees didn't actually follow the SOP for gang rape established by the LaVena Johnson (http://www.alternet.org/rights/129646/lavena_johnson:_raped_and_murdered_on_a_military_base_in_iraq/) case. See, if you kill the women after you rape them the DoD can then rule it a suicide and nobody has to worry about he pesky arbitration clauses.

I think KBR needs to lose its contracts. It would be nice if about the six highest tiers of management would lose their lives as well, but we can't have everything, I guess.

[SmartAleq]

Of course, it's not like rape is exactly widespread at KBR (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/houppert), or that the arbitration clause is having a chilling effect on women coming forward to tell their stories.

Worse, those figures represent only the official count. Given that so many women are now coming forward complaining that they have been hushed by their private-military-contractor supervisors, it's clear that the real tally is likely far higher. Even in cases where the victims do report the incidents, most complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts, which compels employees into private arbitration instead of allowing their charges to be heard in a public courtroom. Todd Kelly, a lawyer in Houston who is trying to fight the legality of private arbitration, says his firm alone has fifteen clients with sexual assault, sexual harassment or retaliation complaints (for reporting assault and/or harassment) against Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, as well as SEII.

Obviously, US military contractors have an interest in avoiding the bad publicity that would follow if these complaints were not kept secret. With huge sums hanging in the balance--KBR has an estimated $16 billion in contracts--the stakes are high.

Yeah, no problem with the arbitration clause at all--move along... :rolleyes:

[Measure for Measure]

A very reasonable-sounding post, until the inclusion of this swipe, which.... sort of kills the impression of reasonableness. Sometimes the shortest arguments are the best. Nicely played.

There have been some developments that I'd like to pass on. KBR lobbyists are pulling out the stops and Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI) is considering a modification of the Franken amendment to the outrage of HUFPO (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/frankens-anti-rape-amendm_n_329896.html). Inouye's office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up. The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her. They seem to be going beyond the point advocated by Bricker: rape safety in the workplace would remain a matter for binding arbitration.

I contend that we're seeing a symptom of the total collapse of the Republican Party's policy apparatus. That collapse happened years ago, both in the Bush administration as outlined by John DiIulio, and in Congress when the Repubs initiated their K Street project. Methinks the Democrats deserve a more serious opposition party and America deserves a GOP that delivers more than Pavlovian reflex. After all, there appears to be a version of the Franken amendment that falls well short of what this liberal would like, but nonetheless addresses some of the issues that arise when military outsourcing is vastly expanded. Yet Republican Congressmen have shown no interest in shaping that: they are only comfortable while voting things down.

[Bricker]

KBR lobbyists are pulling out the stops and Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI) is considering a modification of the Franken amendment to the outrage of HUFPO (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/frankens-anti-rape-amendm_n_329896.html).
.
.
.
I contend that we're seeing a symptom of the total collapse of the Republican Party's policy apparatus.

Yes, Republican Congressman like Daniel Inouye.

Or is he not a True Scotsman?

[Measure for Measure]

Yes, Republican Congressman like Daniel Inouye.

Or is he not a True Scotsman?1. So it's clear that a modification of the Franken Amendment was politically plausible, and the idea that constructive suggestions were futile reflects a misunderstanding of the political dynamics, right?

2. When 3/4 to 100% of Republican Congressmen show themselves to be on the take with corporate lobbyists, the response by Republican apologists is invariably
a. Look at this 20% of the Democrats! They're on the take as well!
b. What about the trial lawyers? And the unions?

Regarding a: There are 3 powers in Washington. They are the Republicans, the Democrats and the special interests. You can form a bipartisan coalition against #3 (as in 1986 tax reform). But to the extent that one party or another is AWOL, the majority party has to buy off the special interests in order to pass reform. You can see that in health care reform and you can see it in this particular effort to address the problems associated with military outsourcing. It can get expensive.

3. Inouye is responding to concerns that no Republican has voiced publicly, to my knowledge. The issue of military subcontracting deserves investigation in this context. If Inouye kills this amendment altogether though, I want (though I may not receive) a damn good reason. I put the odds of some sort reform within the next 12 months at greater than 60% though, no thanks to the absence of effort by the Republican delegation.

[Bricker]

1. So it's clear that a modification of the Franken Amendment was politically plausible, and the idea that constructive suggestions were futile reflects a misunderstanding of the political dynamics, right?

No. Inouye, as a Democrat, was safe from the attack dogs that would call him a fan of gang rape. So it's true to say that a modification of the Franken Amendment was politically plausible but if and only if initiated by a Democrat, in the same way that Nixon could go to China without fear of being called soft on communism.

[Measure for Measure]

Anybody who doubts that modern conservatives have a heightened sense of persecution and agrievement need only have a look at the posts of one Bricker, Esq.

His latest claim is wholly unsubstantiated.

Insofar as the hypothetical can be evaluated, it is false. Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sources-frankens-anti-rape-provision) says, "This is infuriating. If there was any doubt in your mind as to whose side the political establishment is on, this should settle it." Unsurprisingly Republicansforrape.com (http://www.republicansforrape.org/blog/2009/10/22/senator-daniel-inouye-an-ally-across-the-aisle.html) has inserted the shiv and twisted. Finally, the outrage in the HUFPO article --linked to above-- is pretty clear: the justification is couched entirely in terms of pressure from special interests.

Nixon to China my ass: Inouye is getting as much heat from the usual suspects as the Republicans did -- and just as little from the mainstream media.

Exploring the Modern Conservative Mentality
So why does Bricker feel like he and his pals are at siege? Cognition springs from empathy. Modern conservatives look out at the world and assume that moderates and liberals share their Pavlovian inclinations. But it's just not so. The strength of this assumption overwhelms the ability of even a relative bright modern conservative to evaluate evidence. Bricker could read the attack piece that HUFPO penned against Inouye -- but it didn't register because it was directed at the opposing side. The great quack Sigmund Freud called this projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) or "the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are ascribed to the outside world..."

Sorry Bricker, but moderates and liberals simply don't circle the wagons to the extent that conservatives do. Inouye is meeting resistance from bloggers -- which admittedly doesn't amount to much, but neither was it especially significant for Republicans.
-----------------


Insult-fest aside, what happened here I think is that Gang of 30 blundered into an evil position -- refusing to consider any sort of response to the challenges created by GWBush's expanded military outsourcing. It's one thing to oppose this legislation as overbroad -- but AFAIK those objections took a while to get voiced. Sessions' remarks as I understand them were pretty incoherent.

In the end though the G30's problem is rather manageable. They need only throw some support behind a milder version of Franken's amendment: they can even leaven such constructiveness with a few attacks on trial lawyers. Sen. Richard Burr's spokesman had a number of dubious claims, but it potentially leaves little room for objection to a narrowly focused amendment, absent factual substantiation.

[Gangster Octopus]

The Federal Governement already puts more restrictions on its contracting than probably any other entity. Ther are restrictions on hiring, wages, drug testing, reporting of payments, etc. This boils down to one thing and one thing only: Does the Federal Governemnt want as a matter of policy to put requirements on those it contracts with regards to how they can contract with their employees regarded sexual assault and harrsssment cases. Clearly the Governement has every right to do so, so the question is, should they do so. And for the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone would be ooposed to the Federal Governement beikng able to impose this restriction. I would not necessarily say that those who opposed the amendment are pro-rape so much as they are pro-laissez faire to an almost psychotic degree. Their basic position is that a company and an employee should be able to enter into any agreement they want and even the aspect of gevernment funding is an egregious hegation of the sanctity of personal rights.