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

The BBQ Pit
181

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.”

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?

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

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.

182

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.

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 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.

183

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.

184

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.

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

From your link:

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.

185

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.

186

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

187

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

188

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 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.

189

Of course, it’s not likerape is exactly widespread at KBR, or that the arbitration clause is having a chilling effect on women coming forward to tell their stories.

Yeah, no problem with the arbitration clause at all–move along… :rolleyes:

190

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.

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.

191

Yes, Republican Congressman like Daniel Inouye.

Or is he not a True Scotsman?

192

  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.

  1. 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.
193

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.

194

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 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 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 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.

195

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.