So I was watching TDS last night and got some background on this Franken-bill intended to stop the government from doing business with companies (cough***Haliburton***cough) that have contractual agreements with their employees to not be allowed to sue if they are raped on the job. I figured it might be a fun thing to add to this here web log but alas, not very genuine as I wrote one paragraph and sounded exactly like Stewart. So in lieu of that, I'm just gonna post the video.
Plus, I'm lazy.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
| ||||
Gotta love the contrast between Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh. One stands up against rape protectionists while the other does battle with people who don't like his racism.
Posted by: Schmoopie | October 16, 2009 at 04:48 PM
Those senate floor statements should make for some great campaign fodder. What scumfuckers would protect gang rapists besides the GOP. Oh yea, the "liberal" media.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | October 16, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Fucking outrageous. I hope there are 30 new senators come the next election.
Posted by: bethany | October 16, 2009 at 08:38 PM
"What scumfuckers would protect gang rapists besides the GOP."
This amendment isn't really about rape. It's about forced arbitration clauses in contracts. Such clauses are not uncommon and are not only used by defense contractors. They are often used in contracts with consumers as well. The main purpose behind these clauses obviously has to do with saving litigation costs and limiting exposure to the public. Congress has been arguing the general practice of these clauses for some time now. There are even two bills currently in limbo that would specifically outlaw any use of forced arbitration in contracts. Even still, the arbitration clause was overruled in the Jones case. The court ruled that the woman's rape claims were not directly related to her employment and were beyond the scope of arbitration -- so the arbitration clause could not prevent the criminal and civil cases from going to court.
So it wasn't even the practice of forced arbitration that was the problem. What there should be is further investigation into KBR/Halliburton's handling of this (and all other past rape claims). I don't know every single factual detail, but by all appearances Halliburton/KBR's modus seems to be shady cover-up whenever such claims are made. Addressing that would seem to have more to do with helping past rape victims and (preventing future ones) than by denying funding based solely on a practice that is widely used (not just by defense contractors).
I think automatically labelling these 30 Senators as "protecting gang rapists" is a bit extreme considering what the actual amendment addresses.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | October 19, 2009 at 09:13 AM