Am I to understand that I voted for the right guy?

Who did you vote for?

Franken

Oh okay.

Thank you very much.

Did you ever know that you're my hero?

And you are the wind beneath my wings?

I shakes my head.

Generally having a Republican tag is enough of an identifier for the corrupt ones. :P

Democrats are usually just as corrupt, they just make it less obvious X3

Well, in terms of what reaches the news over here (Scotland), it all seems to be Republicans. Mind you, all our major parties have plenty of corruption too. That's why I'm a Green. :P

I beg to differ. I usually see Dems in the news more often for corruption. I think the thing is that Reps aren't reported as much because it's usually a matter-of-fact thing with them. *shrug*

Yeah it's pretty bad when it's assumed that they're corrupt by default simply due to affiliation.

I've seen Fox "News" label Republicans with a (D) when they do something illegal or when they vote outside the Republican block.

Yeah, I've seen that too. When a news organization has to constantly tell you that they're "fair and balanced" you can bet they are neither.

*prod prod* someone said this, dont know who, but none the less its still quite true...

"when speaking of the primarily two party democratic system that exists in american government, what you are speaking of is a giant, two headed dragon, its long necks intertwined and locked in eternal mortal combat with its self, and god have mercy on anyone so ill fated as to be caught beneath its feet..."

I'm happy with Mr. Franken. Talk about a smart and capable mothafucka

wasnt he the one who described the republican health care plan as "dont get sick, but if you do, die quicky"?

That was Alan Grayson :P

A man I'd love to have voted for. :P

sorry *politics fail*

No, that would be Rep. Alan Grayson. He was talking about how the Republicans don't have a plan for healthcare at all and used that to push his point.

noted above, sorry

Bravo for Franken to call upon such an amendment.


Now we know which Senators to not vote for in the near future. Glad to see that on FL senators were on the list.

Most corporations practice very shady tactics. I actually took the time to read the mound of paperwork I was expected to sign to start a job and here are a few of the highlights:

Arbitration. Any potential legal action is required to have undergone arbitration first. Obviously with a corporation-friendly organization.

Prior legal action. The company wants to know if I had sued an employer in the past. Not why, just if I had done it.

Pay. In the event I ended my employment before my first paycheck, any wages owed would be paid at minimum wage, rather than the agreed amount. This lets them be lazy/misleading when it comes to recruiting.

To add (because there is no edit button)

These corporations probably require, even in the event of sexual assault, battery, and discrimination, that the case go through arbitration first.

Well, duh.

How would companies make money if they had to worry about employee rights and basic human compassion.

Remember business ethics are pretty much just the opposite of real ethics.

And yet they expect their employees to be honest and ethical :P

Well we aren't a corporation now are we?

Nope, we have to live by the word of Jesus, while they toil away in their tower of corruption.

Imagine how horrible it must be to be in their positions

That reminds me... While I was working that corporate job, they updated the handbook that outlined a bunch of ethics for the employees to follow. Curiously, the handbook specifically said that some members of management may be exempt from the guidelines. They admitted (buried in a bunch of crap few people bothered to read) that they don't need ethics.

yeah, i once had a corp. terminate me under situations that would have been fair grounds for law suit, everything from wrongful termination, failure to follow company SOP for termination of employment, unsafe working environment, or how bout just plain emotional distress

(doubt i would win that one, basically my manager was a pussy...forgive me, who knew i would take it badly, and didnt want to have to fire me, so basically told the company i quit, and stopped putting me on the schedule, and he just strung me along when ever i came in to ask why i wasnt getting any hours, with a help wanted sign in front of the business...like i said, assholish, but not grounds for law suit, the other stuff they pulled was)

anyway, pissed as i was, i never even bothered to think about law suit, cause it follows you to any decent job you might find...and i have heard of people winning dumber lawsuits then some of the dirt i had on these guys...

It's amazing how hard it is for a group of (supposedly) educated people to come up with the obviously right answer.

"I say we shouldn't do business with companies that try to protect rapists. Who's with me?"

RESPONSE: "Erm... uh... geez. I'll Have to think about it"

I saw that on Rachel Maddow last night. It's funny that the republicans with their 'party politics' (voting against anything that the democrats are suggesting or in favor of) came to bite them in the ass.

Well they can't be expected to read all of the boring crap that gets tossed in front of them, can they?

The more you look into what goes on at the capital building, the more I'm convinced that I could do the job just as well as any of them.

I'm not being arrogant, I really think most of them are just THAT dumb.

What, you mean do exactly what their job entails? :p That's something that kills me about all of this; their job is to read massive bills and to be knowledgeable about these things. That's what they are there to do. That's what they are being paid to do. o_o;

Last time I checked, Sexual harrasment and Rape were criminal acts, and as such, are not regulated by business. Criminal matters are to be handled by the police and court system. Regardless of the company you work for, if somone touches you innapropriately, or god forbid, rapes you, I PROMISE that if you call the police, the offender will be arrested, regardless of your companys HR policy.

Before all of ya go touting Mr. Franken as a hero, realise that he wasted your taxpayers dollars and time on what is essentially a non-issue.

Its all feel-good legislation to make defense conractors look evil, and those that didnt vote in favor of this law most likely knew it was just paper with no meaning, and had no effect on anything.

Its being done in response to KBR actually doing these things in Iraq.

Security companies that opperate on foreign soil sadly have a history of violating the law. Personally, I wish that they would persecute the criminals, even if that they did didnt happen in the US. If not a domestic crime, call it a war crime.

KBR higher-ups 'discourage' their employees from going to the police. The Pentagon has actively blocked investigations when thing do come to light.

After reading up on the Franken amendment and everything it covers, pointing out just one facet of it is not fair. This amendment would bar any contractor that held employee contracts that for mandatory arbitration for resolution of any Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964 claim or any tort claims for sexual assault and harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

This is not just for sexual assault cases, but will include a great number of cases. This will prohibit many contractors that are working above the board from being contractors anymore as mandatory arbitration clauses are common in their work, since they work with Secret and Top Secret level information that may come to light in an investigation or court proceedings.

This is another example of liberal revenge attacking people that are not involved. Yes, what Halliburton/KBR did was wrong, but they should be banned, not everyone else. Arbitration is a good way to settle many of these cases. The information in this amendment is too broad. This amendment has no enforcement information for existing contractors, but simply to not spend money on them. And just FYI, Ms. Jone's case was allowed to go to court, as it did not meet the arbitration standards, like ALL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES THIS SEVERE!!!

The Senators that voted against this aren't FOR supporting criminal violations. They think this will limit government defense contractors for this upcoming year, already handicapping a castrated military. If this was applied to ALL government contractors, GSA would have to close as all contractors could be found in violation at one point in their history.

I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

What part? Limiting the national security of the country by bringing classified material to light? Limiting the ability to defend ones country and correct injustices? Realizing that the acts of individuals, no matter how disgusting, should not be able to force corporations that we depend on both economically and for security to go out of business? Or that offering broad legislation about a subject is can lead to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement?

What do you see as not a bad thing?

Limiting the national security of the country by bringing classified material to light?

Not Related to this in any way.

Limiting the ability to defend ones country and correct injustices?

That's what the army is for. Generally companies that cover up injustices aren't doing a good job correcting them.

Realizing that the acts of individuals, no matter how disgusting, should not be able to force corporations that we depend on both economically and for security to go out of business?

When the company permits, protects and does nothing to discourage such action then it is permissible to let them go out of business. Not only that but prosecute those responsible.

Or that offering broad legislation about a subject is can lead to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement?
From what you described it didn't seem broad at all.

Just because a company is large or responsible for important things does NOT give them carte blanche to protect criminals from prosecution. Any company that does that should have their contracts revoked.

Arbitration is a way to keep any of the case dispute behind doors and limited in scope for the investigation. If this becomes part of a Title 7 CRA of 1964 violation, the employer would have to discuss the employees role in the corporation and what they work on. This has brought out classified material before. Not all this is for sexual assault cases. This can also happen in cases for negligent hiring, supervision and retention cases as an employees work would be discussed.

If the contractors do not stay on the cutting edge, our already limited military powers would be further limited. It is not the government that makes advances, but the private sector. Armor, vehicles, arms, munitions, remote operations, drug and explosive detection are all from companies like GE, Maytag, Boeing, Lockheed/Martin, etc.

One company (Haliburton/KBR) has already been proven corrupt and vile. It needs to be banned from all government service. They are not the only company that has a standard arbitration clause in their contracts for any of the possible crimes in their contracts. If a contractor has a clause for arbitration in cases of negligent employment, they cant get a contract. If they have arbitration for title 7 issues (which is a common use) they cant get a contract. This is once again not targeting JUST sexual assault cases!

The legislation targets too many companies, and it is not about cover ups or crimes that have been commited. It is for a company clause in an employment contract that happens at ANY tier of the contract or subcontract. This threatens most jobs I apply for as an arbitration clause is normal for all but the sexual assault, harassment, inflicting emotional distress, etc....you know...CRIMES.

The military is quite capable of picking itself up by the bootstraps and doing what they've historically done about their own supply lines and base security.

I see you don't want contractors to hold themselves to a slightly higher standard when it comes to business and personnel practices. They should be allowed to maim their own and their country's protectors. Thank you for being honest. Curse you for wanting to allow a precedent to propagate and thrive.

It's not about holding a contractor to a higher standard (and no...being in the military, when a contractor goes down, we were screwed as they hold proprietary equipment that is needed, resources that have been in their hands since the 1980's and work that has been outsourced during the Clinton administration) it is about punishing all contractors for the acts of one that has been proven to be corrupt already. Limiting the arbitration for cases that can benefit greatly from it (sister works in arbitration) will affect contractors that play a straight game in the first place.

If this was going to protect sexual assault victims rights, then simply put that in a bill, but oh wait, THEY ARE PROTECTED ALREADY AS IT IS A CRIMINAL ACT! One can take ANY crime to court, regardless of a contract signed. Arbitration is Alternative Dispute Resolution, but not the only path of legal recourse. Hence why Ms. Jones can go to court on this.

This amendment does not allow for investigators to be able go in and find out who is corrupt in a company and weed them out. This does not make for harsher penalties for criminal acts by government contractors. This just handicaps companies that we need, and yes...we need them...the government does not make the needed supplies and equipment.

Thank you for your ignorance! *hugs*

Proprietary equipment needs to change. End of story. That's a bill for the future. Hopefully in the near future. I'd do it if I were a Senator.

The Justice Department, under Bush/Cheney, blocked investigations. The Pentagon blocked other investigations. Employees and soldiers died and were not protected. Even if the investigations had taken place, the corporation is at fault and pays damages. More specifically, the corporation is at fault and the government funded contract would pay out damages. So now what? Let's just give them another contract so they can continue to do business?

So now we cut them off. Companies tend to listen to money. If you cut off their funding, they either change or dry up and blow away. Will no other company step in and take the place of KBR? Hahahaha. Someone will step up. Someone will bid on the contract. Someone will hire some engineers. It's not an instant fix. Nothing is.

No. proprietary ideas are what keeps ones hard work and effort their own. Works of art to innovations are all someones idea and baby that they created. If one makes it so that proprietary equipment the military uses is no longer proprietary, then it will get made by the lowest reasonable bidder (cheaper materials, more prone to failure). Keeping things proprietary forces the creator to keep it at a certain standard. Things like ammo and body armor are important this way. Thank goodness for DuPont.

Yes, the DoJ and Pentagon were muscled into silence from Cheney though Bush, but this did not stop the State Department from pursuing the case, and eventually obtaining the missing rape kit (even if evidence was missing). The corporation would have been found at fault had a court found that the work place had been where she had been assaulted and raped, but it wasn't, although the case is still US due to the SMTJ. The individuals that are presumed responsible for the rape have yet to be arrested. The corporation IS being sued in a civil court over this by the victim. Neither Haliburton or KBR is getting off this charge. Yes, they will be paying with money awarded to them for a contract. Does not matter if the money comes from the government or not, it is their money for providing goods and services. Companies that get "cut off" tend to find their contracts from elsewhere, such as the issue with selling their proprietary designs to other countries that are willing to pay. Keeping companies on our payroll keeps them from helping a foreign enemy or rival.

But this amendment punishes other companies for the acts of one. This is like making a law where everyone needs to be fingerprinted because they are all possible criminals. Having each and very many submit DNA for use in future rape cases. To have ones whereabouts tracked at all times in case you are to be questioned. We are not a socialist country where laws can be made to that effect. We are a representative republic with a strong justice system where all are presumed innocent till proven beyond the shadows of a doubt they are guilty.

Politics: Poly = Many Ticks= A bloodsucking organism

Nuf said.

Actually "politics" comes from the Greek "Polis" meaning "city-state".

Yeah, but that isn't nearly as funny.

scrupulous NGOs and PMCs in places like that is the cancer that is killing /b/

i recall reading a story of a US army technician who had to train some NGO guy to replace him...

the NGO tech was paid 3 times the army tech's wage, and didn't even do his job right after his 'training', being a lazy bastard.

outsourcing done wrong

How to tell if a politician is corrupt?

They ran to begin with...

Jesus fucking... I'm glad the bill passed, but that even ONE person voted against it is fucking abhorrent. Fuck, I don't have words to express my anger right now, this was not what I needed to read upon first waking up. :P

HAHA that's what you get for reading one of my journals early in the morning X3

I know, I know, but with a title like that how could I resist? :P I don't drink coffee, so I needed a dose of rage to wake me up. X3

They are all corrupt to an extent, some more than others.

I would liek to hear those senators' arguments for why they voted against this amendment. Was there any justification they tried to give at all?

I know some might argue that they're just trying avoid "frivilous" lawsuits while they're working in a high danger environment, but "workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination" is not something to take lightly or to treat as frivilous.

Heh, one of the many reasons I support Democrats. As if 8 years of hell wasn't enough from Bush, Republicans are still trying to muck things up and keep us fighting a war we don't want, running a healthcare system that barely works, and just plain getting in the way of any kind of progress we could be having. They had their chance and blew it, it's time for the Dems to make the ideas. Not that I'm a Democrat, hell I hate democracy. But as long as I have to live under it, might as well pick the ones who aren't jerks. That, and I hate Glenn Beck, enough said.

How to tell: His title is Senator.

so Mccain voted AGAINST this

What do 9 out of 10 people enjoy?

Gang rape.

Huh.

This.

This is... I don't even know.

I'm speechless.

I once had a discussion with a political science teacher at a Duke TIP summer camp a few years ago.

We discussed many things about American politics. He was more left-leaning, and I was more right-leaning (though I do not lean quite as far anymore, I'm much more moderate). We talked in depth about Congress in particular. I don't recall exactly what the discussion entailed... But by the end of it, we both came to the agreed conclusion that lobbyists are the main source of political stagnation, incompetence, and polarization.

And I still hold that view to this day.

Why would those 30 who voted against the bill, thus "voting for gang rape", do so? Private military lobbyists in their ear obviously don't want that.

A check in their stock portfolios would probably reveal why :3

Yeah.

Or that nice vacation they're taking. Wonder who keeps sending those nice fruit baskets?

Lobbyists are pigs.

> How to tell if a senator is corrupt without any doubt.

If it HAS A PULSE.

... fucking Vitter.

Oh, something else I should point out...

Proposals like this are traps, pure and simple. A piece of crap legislation is proposed that either gives the government too much power, is poorly worded (which gives the government a lot of power) or executes what it aims to try very poorly and wastes taxpayer's money.

But, the legislation is aimed to protect an ideal. "For the children!" If you vote against it, you obviously hate children and you hate our future. You're not voting against bad legislation, you're voting against all that is good and mighty.

Ayn Rand covered this pretty well in The Fountainhead. The main character designs an apartment complex that can house people cheaply without government subsidies. But other people get their hands on it and add a gym, a playground, and more, and soon the original beauty of the design is destroyed and its intended tenants cannot afford to live in it. They made these changes because it was for the "good", but really they were riding on the coat tails of the main character's success and ruining it at the same time.

Very different application, but the idea of doing things under the pretext of a good ideal can garner a lot of support for crappy excecution.

yay for frank

Franken is grandstanding. It's already very illegal to go anywhere near trying to prevent someone from reporting a crime. Furthermore, assault, battery, and racist discrimination are typically prosecuted by state and local courts; not federal We don't need the feds butting in anymore on state and local affairs.