Al Franken, our newest Senator and legal comedian, introduced a law to the Senate making it illegal for any company contracting with the federal government to require its employees to sign a document agreeing not to sue the company should they be raped while they worked for that company.
No, I'm not joking. He really had to come up with a bill because Halliburton really had this document ready for women to sign before they would employ the women. Tim spent a lot of time last night explaining to me why a woman might look at a document like that, which at the very least implies another woman has been raped while under this company's employment in such a way that she thought it justified to sue the company for complicity in her rape, and still sign the paper and take the job. Since he really worked very hard at his explanation, I'm going to let him continue to believe he showed me how there would be a woman who would look at that document, sign it, and go to work.
Moving on from my mental block, behind which I stand shrieking and beating my fists on it, we come to: Al Franken creates the bill and takes it to the Senate. He says, "Here is this infamous company practice; they are as much as setting up the defense that a woman agreed to rape; they are denying her the right to legal recourse, this is nuts." 68 Senators agreed that this was the right bill to pass.
30 Senators, all Republican, voted to allow companies not just to wink at rape, but to give it a legal shield. Thirty men, most of them husbands and fathers.
It's doubtful you'll have heard about this. As the Buzzflash editors point out, the mainstream media, instead of covering that story, chose instead to go after ACORN. Yeah, you know, the organization that empowers poor people and allows them to take part in their own futures. Because one outstation of the organization fouled up (and because Obama seems pretty much bullet proof), Congress pulled their funding. See, poor people shouldn't have money, because some people (::coughGoldman Sachs AIGcough::) might mishandle it, so you have to defund the entire organization (because you can't attack Obama, so get one of the popular groups that supported him (::coughnotBankofAmericaFreddieMaccough: :). Poor people having power in the political ring? Crush them. Crush them like you crush those women who complain about being raped by their fellow employees. Don't they know they're hired as "comfort troops"?
I've been reading a lot about women under Islam. Then I come back to shit like this, and think maybe the biggest differences are our clothes and the lie that we're more free.
Yeah, I know they have it a lot worse. They really do. But reading stories like this, and the back-up information (because really, BuzzFlash is a progressive polemical outfit and should be checked), makes me feel weak and dirty.
No, I'm not joking. He really had to come up with a bill because Halliburton really had this document ready for women to sign before they would employ the women. Tim spent a lot of time last night explaining to me why a woman might look at a document like that, which at the very least implies another woman has been raped while under this company's employment in such a way that she thought it justified to sue the company for complicity in her rape, and still sign the paper and take the job. Since he really worked very hard at his explanation, I'm going to let him continue to believe he showed me how there would be a woman who would look at that document, sign it, and go to work.
Moving on from my mental block, behind which I stand shrieking and beating my fists on it, we come to: Al Franken creates the bill and takes it to the Senate. He says, "Here is this infamous company practice; they are as much as setting up the defense that a woman agreed to rape; they are denying her the right to legal recourse, this is nuts." 68 Senators agreed that this was the right bill to pass.
30 Senators, all Republican, voted to allow companies not just to wink at rape, but to give it a legal shield. Thirty men, most of them husbands and fathers.
It's doubtful you'll have heard about this. As the Buzzflash editors point out, the mainstream media, instead of covering that story, chose instead to go after ACORN. Yeah, you know, the organization that empowers poor people and allows them to take part in their own futures. Because one outstation of the organization fouled up (and because Obama seems pretty much bullet proof), Congress pulled their funding. See, poor people shouldn't have money, because some people (::coughGoldman Sachs AIGcough::) might mishandle it, so you have to defund the entire organization (because you can't attack Obama, so get one of the popular groups that supported him (::coughnotBankofAmericaFreddieMaccough:
I've been reading a lot about women under Islam. Then I come back to shit like this, and think maybe the biggest differences are our clothes and the lie that we're more free.
Yeah, I know they have it a lot worse. They really do. But reading stories like this, and the back-up information (because really, BuzzFlash is a progressive polemical outfit and should be checked), makes me feel weak and dirty.
- Location:home
- Mood:bleak
- Music:"F**k You," Lily Alan

Comments
A) I trust any company that has money they stand to lose, and
B) Rape is not a civil act. By dealing with it by private arbitration the company is breaking the law.
Plus, I was wrong -- it's that every dispute between employee and employer goes to arbitration; again, an illegal clause.
I can tell you that. If it's take that job or be on the streets...
Rape either way? At least on the streets I can pick my ground.
Gasp! Dangerous cash-sucking militants!
I hope they get a better hearing there than they are getting here.
I'm with Tim. Here's three reasons I can come up with off the top of my head:
1) the economy is that bad and they need the work (and it's very high pay) that desperately
2) it didn't really happen anyway; that woman was lying to make a buck off Halliburton
3) anyway, even if it did happen, it was because that woman was a slut or dressed wrong or did something to provoke it; it won't happen to me because rape happens to women who asked for it somehow. And my gosh, look at that salary.
And so on. I'm sure there are other reasons as well. It's scary.
2) it didn't really happen anyway; that woman was lying to make a buck off Halliburton
3) anyway, even if it did happen, it was because that woman was a slut or dressed wrong or did something to provoke it; it won't happen to me because rape happens to women who asked for it somehow. And my gosh, look at that salary.
For a moment my head started to explode. Then I read your clause 3 and calmed down.
Whew! Don't scare me like that!
The 10 minute tape of Franken at the Senate was awesome. I loved how he went out of his way to tell the young woman how courageous and strong he thought she was for doing what she is doing.
And magnificent!
Ever.
Which makes me wonder about the hidden clauses in the contracts of assorted civilian employees working at Kandahar Air Field...
I can't believe it was ever allowed to enter the contract in the first place--the men who wrote and approved it should lose their legal licenses.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di
This is the link to the debate on Franken's amendment, bit by bit:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r
The vote is on Page: S10148.
Here are the names of the thirty RepublicanU.S. Senators who voted against Senate Amendment No. 2588 to DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010:
Alexander
Barrasso
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Gregg
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
Which *also* makes me uncomfortable, that there's the possibility that someone's using such a terrible thing as a convenient way to advance their own political agenda... whether that agenda is right, or wrong.
Not what is happening here.
On the House side, a Republican Congressman is the one with this amendment - the one the woman's father called who then got her released.
She was not just gang-raped. She was held in a container for an extended period of time after she reported it - that was a part of the suit.
She is not being used - unless you think she is using herself.
It's not about arbitration vs. litigation as a corporate practice - it is about forcing people into arbitration over civil rights violations and rape and other things that have no business being handled privately - crimes have been committed.
People sign contracts they don't understand all the time. If the contract didn't explicitly use the word rape and more talked about arbitration I can see how some one who didn't know better would breeze past. I imagine 19 year olds are more likely to do it than your typical employee. My mother taught me from an early age to never sign anything I didn't understand but I work in contract management and I see people do it all the time. I thought it was scary when it was just people's lively-hood at stake.
Your mom is a wise woman. My friend Bruce Coville always reminds writers to read their contracts. It's boring, but the butt you save may be your own.
I believe it is important to respect the beliefs of other people, and not to assume that just because someone is, say, of another political party, it doesn't mean that their views aren't coming from a position that could be justified if I could put myself in their shoes. I want to believe that Republicans are reasonable, rational, and not evil. When 30 senators vote against an amendment that is so patently the right thing to vote FOR, it's hard for me to believe that it's worth listening to Republicans on anything. (And yes, I do believe there are Republicans who aren't idiots. It's just that it seems there are perishingly FEW of them in government these days.)
And just in case you need something else to fume about, here's a link to the story about Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell, who refuses to officiate at the marriages of interracial marriages out of concern for any children the couple might have.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1
I did hear about this. I'm sure he thinks, in his redneck cracker way, he's doing a good thing. It looks also like he's going to lose his job, and I think that is a good thing. The Klan years are over, old man.
And if you try to point this out, you are an EVIL LIBERAL SCUM. And probably a COMMUNIST. OH. Oh no. God save us all from liberal communists.
Republicansconservatives. Not you. Your observations on the horrendous treatment of women are notably not hate-filled.)You noticed that, didn't you? I've been reading a lot about the lives of women under Islam, and this just made me queasy.
And it was so apt, and so true (despite the numerous decent white, male, hetero guys in the world), and so sad. By and large, that part of the political circle sees anyone who doesn't fit those three criteria as inferior.
Just... like he pointed out - when to protect Haliburton, you have to side AGAINST RAPE VICTIMS, there's a BIG PROBLEM. And yet they did anyway, the bastards.
Always!
I'm not sure if you've seen this comic or not, but it's kind of cheering. Not very much in the face of stuff like this, but a little bit, at least?
?
Also, love the comic! :)
(I'm guessing.)
If you keep going forward through the blog it's posted on, she and Babbage have Adventures. And there are historical notes! And it's awesome!