Are These 30 People Insane?

[Minkie]

There are 30 white male Republican Senators on this list. They voted against an amendment that Senator Al Franken attached to a military appropriations bill. The amendment passed 68 to 30.

The amendment was created because of the case of the female Halliburton employee in Iraq who was gang raped by several male co-workers. To try and persuade her not to report them, they locked her in a storage container for over 24 hours.

Because the crime took place outside US jurisdiction, her main legal recourse would be to sue Halliburton. But a clause in her contract stated that any sexual harassment allegations had to be settled by arbitration, a process which invariably favors companies over employees.

Franken's amendment essentially said that the US government would not do business with companies that forbade such legal recourse in cases of sexual harassment. No brainer. Do these Senators, then, have no brains?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html?page=3

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)

[king mob]

I'd assume this lot are in the payroll of Halliburton, as well as being utter wankers.

[Cloudman]

Alexander (R-TN)- 10
Barrasso (R-WY)- 10
Bond (R-MO)- 10
Brownback (R-KS)- 10
Bunning (R-KY)- 10
Burr (R-NC)- 10
Chambliss (R-GA)- 10
Coburn (R-OK)- 10
Cochran (R-MS)- 10
Corker (R-TN)- 10
Cornyn (R-TX)- 10
Crapo (R-ID)- 10
DeMint (R-SC)- 10
Ensign (R-NV)- 10
Enzi (R-WY)- 10
Graham (R-SC)- 10
Gregg (R-NH)- 10
Inhofe (R-OK)- 10
Isakson (R-GA)- 10
Johanns (R-NE)- 10
Kyl (R-AZ)- 10
McCain (R-AZ)- 10
McConnell (R-KY)- 10
Risch (R-ID)- 10
Roberts (R-KS)- 10
Sessions (R-AL)- 10
Shelby (R-AL)- 10
Thune (R-SD)- 10
Vitter (R-LA)- 10
Wicker (R-MS)- 10

This calls for a Rumbles-style survivor game.

[Darrell D.]

The question is now, will the Democratic party capitalize on this? I know sure as shit the Republican party candidates would if the roles were reversed.

I am so glad my state wasn't represented in that list of douchebags.

[worstblogever]

I started a brief, but nice little discussion about this over on YABS, if you're interested...

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=290992

[Charles RB]

The question is now, will the Democratic party capitalize on this?

It happened days and days ago, so if they haven't done so by now they aren't going to.

(And oh look, McCain voted against it.)

[worstblogever]

It happened days and days ago, so if they haven't done so by now they aren't going to.

(And oh look, McCain voted against it.)

Shame. I miss when he was a moderate who'd buck against party lines. Haven't seen him do that since... well... about mid-2008. He's too busy bugging Barack Obama to pardon the late former heavyweight boxing champion, Jack Johnson, for a crime he committed in 1913 (http://www.current-movie-reviews.com/people/2009/10/17/political-posturing-mccain-presses-obama-to-pardon-jack-johnson-boxer/). Because, you know, the president wants to rectify racist injustices against people who have been dead for sixty years, rather than handle the problems of the living folks.

[Omega Alpha]

I'm sure they all had their very relevant reason$. $everal reason$.

[DonC]

Corrupt politicials being bought by evil corporations?

Now I've heard everything.

[clayholio]

I don't think they're insane, I just think they don't understand that most Americans aren't pro-rape or pro-sexual harassment. Alternately, and more realistically, they've allowed their votes to be bought off. And as such, they are no longer representing the people that voted them in, and all 30 of them should all be on the unemployment line. Politicians are utterly disposable, they lose all value when they stop representing their constituency.

[Arvandor]

Corrupt politicials being bought by evil corporations?

Now I've heard everything.

So why didn't they buy off the rest? They only needed to bribe twenty more to get it blocked.

[mikekerr3]

There are 30 white male Republican Senators on this list. They voted against an amendment that Senator Al Franken attached to a military appropriations bill. The amendment passed 68 to 30.

The amendment was created because of the case of the female Halliburton employee in Iraq who was gang raped by several male co-workers. To try and persuade her not to report them, they locked her in a storage container for over 24 hours.

Because the crime took place outside US jurisdiction, her main legal recourse would be to sue Halliburton. But a clause in her contract stated that any sexual harassment allegations had to be settled by arbitration, a process which invariably favors companies over employees.

Franken's amendment essentially said that the US government would not do business with companies that forbade such legal recourse in cases of sexual harassment. No brainer. Do these Senators, then, have no brains?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html?page=3

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)

They have brains but no morals

[Sabrinaset]

This calls for a Rumbles-style survivor game.

Crapo gets my vote!

[rick]

The 30 are not insane.

They are evil.

I know people think I go overboard about what true monsters the Republicans are, but there is no two ways about it, they are despicible.

[o1pickleboy]

I think it was predetermined that they were going to vote against anything coming from Senator Al Franklin. Seems like he is very high on their hate list

[Mister Blisterfists]

But they're the party of Morality!, They're Anti-Abortion!

but they're Pro-War, Pro-Death Penalty, Anti-Health Care, and PRO RAPE.

[mikekerr3]

It happened days and days ago, so if they haven't done so by now they aren't going to.

(And oh look, McCain voted against it.)

It will come up in the next election, you can be very sure:wink:

[Darrell D.]

I think it was predetermined that they were going to vote against anything coming from Senator Al Franklin. Seems like he is very high on their hate list

He calls them on their bullshit and he has the facts to back it up. They hate that.

He's also pretty funny. Why not Me? was hilarious.

[Mister Blisterfists]

Nothing can justify it, even if they determined to vote against Franken. That's not a Republic, that's a Mob.

and what they've done here is vile, and evil.

[Chris N]

In their defense (from the article Minkie linked to)


Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests...

[Mister Blisterfists]

there is NO justification that can make this right. None.

You're either pro-rape, or anti-rape, and by their vote, their stance is made clear.

[Charles RB]

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests...

Well no SHIT, Republicans.

[Adam C]

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests...

I think the article's response best sums this up...


I guess we must cover up crimes like rape in order to save capitalism.



there is NO justification that can make this right. None.

You're either pro-rape, or anti-rape, and by their vote, their stance is made clear.

Not true. They also claimed that they went against U.S. companies that do business with the U.S. government being held to U.S. law is apparently giving Congress undue influence over defence contracts.

[Valmore]

there is NO justification that can make this right. None.

You're either pro-rape, or anti-rape, and by their vote, their stance is made clear.

Uhm, no - that's not what the rider to the bill was. The rider was trying to set the United States government from doing business from companies that didn't allow sexual harrassment suits to go to court. There's probably a legality issue in the first place of a company not allowing such lawsuits, which is probably something that needs to be brought to the courts. But the bill wasn't "pro-rape" or "anti-rape" - it was a question of who the government does business with based on a certain model in said business.

The rider didn't say, "Hey, RAPE is bad or RAPE is awesome, depending on how you vote for this!"

[mikekerr3]

Not true. They also claimed that they went against U.S. companies that do business with the U.S. government being held to U.S. law is apparently giving Congress undue influence over defence contracts.

The amendment doesn't say that they can't do business however they want, it just say the US will not give them contracts ifd they have a certain clause in their contracts. It doesn't force them to obey US law unless they take US money

[carabas]

Uhm, no - that's not what the rider to the bill was. The rider was trying to set the United States government from doing business from companies that didn't allow sexual harrassment suits to go to court. There's probably a legality issue in the first place of a company not allowing such lawsuits, which is probably something that needs to be brought to the courts. But the bill wasn't "pro-rape" or "anti-rape" - it was a question of who the government does business with based on a certain model in said business.A rose by any other name?

It was between doing business or not with companies that hush up sexual abuse. That is very much pro- and anti-rapist.

[Valmore]

A rose by any other name?

It was between doing business or not with companies that hush up sexual abuse. That is very much pro- and anti-rapist.

Not so - that's what you're reading into it. Companies often have arbitration, which isn't shutting up, it's a different process.

Welcome to poltical spin 101.

[Adam C]

Uhm, no - that's not what the rider to the bill was. The rider was trying to set the United States government from doing business from companies that didn't allow sexual harrassment suits to go to court. There's probably a legality issue in the first place of a company not allowing such lawsuits, which is probably something that needs to be brought to the courts. But the bill wasn't "pro-rape" or "anti-rape" - it was a question of who the government does business with based on a certain model in said business.

The rider doesn't say "sexual harrassment" suits. It says that it would deny Federal monies to companies "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court," of which sexual harassment is only a subset.

In any case this whole rider was spurred by the case of amie Leigh Jones (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/franken-gets-first-amendm_n_312399.html) who was not only sexually harassed, but drugged and gang-raped, locked in a shipping container not by the soldiers who raped her but KBR security, and only got out because of intervention because of Senator Ted Poe. KBR disappeared her rape kit and tried to claim she couldn't sue and would have to submit to private arbitration. And worst of all she isn't the only one: (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert)


Jamie Leigh Jones, whose story made the news in December--when she alleged that her 2005 gang rape by Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Iraq was being covered up by the company and the US government--also initially believed hers was an isolated incident. But today, Jones reports that she has formed a nonprofit to support the many other women with similar stories. Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents--and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

Most of these complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts that compels employees into binding arbitration instead of allowing their complaints to be tried in a public courtroom. Criminal prosecutions are practically nonexistent, as the US Justice Department has turned a blind eye to these cases.

And all this happening within the operations of companies operating in Iraq under contract to the U.S. government. Yes this is "anti-rape" because there's a clear and consistent pattern of this going on and it makes it harder to defence contractors to do this by throwing another economic disincentive in their way, and thus making it more difficult for events like this to occur again since they would have to monitor and discipline their employees, including offering them up to and cooperating with law enforcement, rather than trying to cover up the matter.


Not so - that's what you're reading into it. Companies often have arbitration, which isn't shutting up, it's a different process.

Welcome to poltical spin 101.

The binding arbitration you are referring to does not have a public record like a civil or criminal trial. It leaves the details of these problems behind closed doors, which is why KBR fought tooth-and-nail to keep it from coming to court because it would air out the fact that these things were going on within its operations and the company or its employees essentially tried to cover-up a criminal act. So yes it is absolutely hushing it up and its political spin to claim otherwise.

[Iangould]

there is NO justification that can make this right. None.

You're either pro-rape, or anti-rape, and by their vote, their stance is made clear.

They're anti-rape.

But I suspect their argument for voting against the bill would go something like this: "Sexual harassment" covers much more behaviour than rape. We're no trying to defend rapists, we're trying to ensure that legal disputes over other lesser forms of sexual harassment are settled by an easier, cheaper option than a court case - because this makes it harder for vexatious litigiants to hold up their employers for money. Besides, if a rape occurs outside the US shouldn't it be dealt with by the criminal law of the country where it occurs and not under US civil law?"

I happen to disagree with them and feel that this is another disaster for the Republican Party but I'm not going to parody their position as simply "pro-rape".

[worstblogever]

These contractors seem to have all the innocence in this of a party boat ride into international waters.

[Adam C]

They're anti-rape.

But I suspect their argument for voting against the bill would go something like this: "Sexual harassment" covers much more behaviour than rape. We're no trying to defend rapists, we're trying to ensure that legal disputes over other lesser forms of sexual harassment are settled by an easier, cheaper option than a court case - because this makes it harder for vexatious litigiants to hold up their employers for money. Besides, if a rape occurs outside the US shouldn't it be dealt with by the criminal law of the country where it occurs and not under US civil law?"

I happen to disagree with them and feel that this is another disaster for the Republican Party but I'm not going to parody their position as simply "pro-rape".

Fair enough. I probably let my anger get the better of me on this one. And that is the reasoning offered by some Republican Senators (http://www.macon.com/197/story/883604.html?storylink=omni_popular) who voted against the bill. (Paper thin as it is.)

[worstblogever]

The bizarre part is that KDB contractors are supposed to be doing a lousy job in some of their efforts over there, from what I've read. There was a whole expose in Newsweek about their waste disposal team throwing shells, batteries, and any number of hazardous materials in an incinerator in Iraq (in the issue that remembered Michael Jackson).

[mikekerr3]

Not so - that's what you're reading into it. Companies often have arbitration, which isn't shutting up, it's a different process.

Welcome to poltical spin 101.

How many companies have arbitration over things that are felonies? That is a new one on me.

[Sean Walsh]

......so who else is there besides Halliburton to do this business over there? Even reading their Wiki entry, I have a hard time getting a grasp on what the f Halliburton even does/is.

One would think the Dems would just find a replacement for them and stop doing business with Halliburton altogether, rather than just passing more and more and more and more and more bills to prevent the government from dealing with them.

I mean.....the Dems do have a majority in Congress, right? Can't they get this done?

(Not being snarky, I'm just really curious why the Halliburton thing still goes on post-Bush...)

[Iangould]

......so who else is there besides Halliburton to do this business over there? Even reading their Wiki entry, I have a hard time getting a grasp on what the f Halliburton even does/is.

One would think the Dems would just find a replacement for them and stop doing business with Halliburton altogether, rather than just passing more and more and more and more and more bills to prevent the government from dealing with them.

I mean.....the Dems do have a majority in Congress, right? Can't they get this done?

(Not being snarky, I'm just really curious why the Halliburton thing still goes on post-Bush...)

Well first off, cancelling their contract could we mean paying them large amounts of compensation.

Better to let it wind down naturally along with the US military presence.

(Actually I think their original massive no-bid contract has ended but they have got other smaller contracts their still.)

As to what they do there: it comes under the fuzzy description "project management and logistics" which means running very big, very complex projects a long way away.

So they do everything from building airstrips to running mess-halls.

Their relevant background is doing similar jobs on major oil fields worldwide.

There are only a few companies that could do a job of this size unassisted - besides Haliburton, Fluor and Bechtel are towo US companeis that coudl probably have done it.

Of course, the Bush administration COULD have broken it up into a series of smaller contracts which more companies could bid for.

but what would be the point to that?

[mikekerr3]

Well first off, cancelling their contract could we mean paying them large amounts of compensation.

Better to let it wind down naturally along with the US military presence.

(Actually I think their original massive no-bid contract has ended but they have got other smaller contracts their still.)

As to what they do there: it comes under the fuzzy description "project management and logistics" which means running very big, very complex projects a long way away.

So they do everything from building airstrips to running mess-halls.

Their relevant background is doing similar jobs on major oil fields worldwide.

There are only a few companies that could do a job of this size unassisted - besides Haliburton, Fluor and Bechtel are towo US companeis that coudl probably have done it.

Of course, the Bush administration COULD have broken it up into a series of smaller contracts which more companies could bid for.

but what would be the point to that?

Of course they could have let the military grow enough to do that stuff for themselves, they are good at it and cost effective

[Omega Alpha]

there is NO justification that can make this right. None.

You're either pro-rape, or anti-rape, and by their vote, their stance is made clear.

No, voting against it doesn't indicate they are pro-rape necessarily. Only that they don't give a shit about whether rape happens or not, or about the victims. The US doesn't sign contracts with companies that try to shut up rape victims? Good. They do sign them? "We don't give a damn", that's what they say.

You see, completely different things.

[Mister Blisterfists]

They're anti-rape.

But I suspect their argument for voting against the bill would go something like this: "Sexual harassment" covers much more behaviour than rape. We're no trying to defend rapists, we're trying to ensure that legal disputes over other lesser forms of sexual harassment are settled by an easier, cheaper option than a court case - because this makes it harder for vexatious litigiants to hold up their employers for money. Besides, if a rape occurs outside the US shouldn't it be dealt with by the criminal law of the country where it occurs and not under US civil law?"

I happen to disagree with them and feel that this is another disaster for the Republican Party but I'm not going to parody their position as simply "pro-rape".

call it what you want. Rape is Rape, and they voted against it. They're Pro-Rape.

[worstblogever]

call it what you want. Rape is Rape, and they voted against it. They're Pro-Rape.

To a lesser extent that they're "Pro-kickbacks from contracting companies".

[o1pickleboy]

Of course they could have let the military grow enough to do that stuff for themselves, they are good at it and cost effective


but then comes the troops shortage and the lack of proper funding to provide reasonable wages and benefits to attract new troops.

[J. Robb]

I think it was predetermined that they were going to vote against anything coming from Senator Al Franklin. Seems like he is very high on their hate list
I'm sure Franken knew this as well and picked his first move very carefully, forcing Republicans into supporting an Al Franken amendment or supporting rape.

[o1pickleboy]

To a lesser extent that they're "Pro-kickbacks from contracting companies".

Kickbacks come from every direction. No reason to take the ones that side with Companies that side with rapists

[worstblogever]

Kickbacks come from every direction. No reason to take the ones that side with Companies that side with rapists

Too true. I will give thee a "harumph".

[Suzanne]

Yes, they're all insane. And yes, the Dems should absolutely take advantage of this. They'd be fools not to. But of course, we all know they won't.

[mgs]

Franken's amendment essentially said that the US government would not do business with companies that forbade such legal recourse in cases of sexual harassment.
well, from what I read, the Amendment was mostly against of sexual assault, which indicate a higher degree of criminality than 'harassment'.

[mikekerr3]

but then comes the troops shortage and the lack of proper funding to provide reasonable wages and benefits to attract new troops.

Fixing that would be cheaper than hiring KBR.

[Minkie]

I'm sure Franken knew this as well and picked his first move very carefully, forcing Republicans into supporting an Al Franken amendment or supporting rape.

Which would their constituents more likely forgive them for?

If Franken actually thought this through with this purpose in mind, he's diabolical as well as brilliant.

I find it easier to believe that he thought this was a worthy issue to tackle and was sure that it would pass meaning an early success for him. Any Republican votes against it could be seen as a bonus, but I can't really imagine that was a main goal.

[Iangould]

but then comes the troops shortage and the lack of proper funding to provide reasonable wages and benefits to attract new troops.

Don't forget the period prior to Congress voting to approve military action when Haliburton was doing stuff like lengthening UAE airfields to take heavy lift aircraft, laying minefields; building fortifications and taking other actions that the army could only do with specific congressional approval.

[Iangould]

call it what you want. Rape is Rape, and they voted against it. They're Pro-Rape.

So if there's a 1500 war authorisation bill and there's a single paragraph amendment added authorising mandatory rape for suspected rapists voting against the bill means you're pro-rape?

This is exactly the sort of bullshit the Republicans pulled for years over issues like "they voted against funding our troops" or "Obama voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions".

[Paradox]

"You're either for us or against us" is a stupid concept, no matter which side uses it.

[mikekerr3]

So if there's a 1500 war authorisation bill and there's a single paragraph amendment added authorising mandatory rape for suspected rapists voting against the bill means you're pro-rape?

This is exactly the sort of bullshit the Republicans pulled for years over issues like "they voted against funding our troops" or "Obama voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions".

The vote that we are talking about was not on the 1500 page bill, it was on a single one paragraph ( not even 100 words) amendment. they voted against and amendment that had no other point than to allow victims of crimes sue the company they worked for.

Your complaint would be valid if the situation was as you describe but the situation you describe has no relation to the facts. The fact is they voted specifically to stop those people from being able to take those companies to court for Rape, assault and sexual assault, no more and not less

Here is every word of what they voted against with nothing added or cut: the source in the Congressional Record via THOMAS:


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.



(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.



That's all of it so please check your facts a bit before calling bullshit:biggrin:

Edit here is a link to the source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1115DTuHE:e0:

[Shellhead]

It's been many years since I studied contract law, but I believe that a contract that requires one or both parties to sign away civil rights is a void contract, at least in the United States.

[Slam_Bradley]

It's been many years since I studied contract law, but I believe that a contract that requires one or both parties to sign away civil rights is a void contract, at least in the United States.


Nope. Happens all the time. Plea agreements are contracts. So are probation agreements. It's unusual in other contexts, but it isn't void.

[mikekerr3]

It's been many years since I studied contract law, but I believe that a contract that requires one or both parties to sign away civil rights is a void contract, at least in the United States.

The court decided it was invalid anyway