Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Franken Sense
Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON -- Picking one's battles has never been trickier,
especially if you're a member of the benighted Republican Party.
So the question is this: Do you support rape?
And, of course, no one (except a rapist) does, right?
Yet, 30 Republican members of the U.S. Senate have been getting phone calls lately from people asking, "Why do you support rape?"
These callers most likely are familiar with the mock Web site "RepublicansForRape.org," which recounts the recent skirmish over Sen. Al Franken's so-called "anti-rape" amendment to the Senate defense appropriations bill.
For something so un-funny, the subject has become an exercise in the absurd.
The amendment, which passed Oct. 6 by a 68-30 vote, was intended to prevent the Pentagon from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than through the courts.
The impetus behind the amendment was the 2005 horror story of Jamie Leigh Jones, then a 20-year-old employee of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq, who alleged that she was drugged, gang-raped and held captive for 24 hours in a shipping container without food or water. When Jones sought legal recourse, the defense contractor argued that, under their employment contract, she had to pursue her complaint through arbitration rather than the courts.
No one hearing details of the alleged assault wants to be on the side of those who attacked her -- or the company that refused to help her. If you're a remotely savvy politician, that's not a battle you want to join. One might assume, therefore, that there must be some reasonable explanation for 30 Republican senators taking a position that would invite vilification. It's true that Halliburton donates more campaign money to Republicans than to Democrats, 67 percent compared to 9 percent of its total, according to CampaignMoney.com. Then again, while we're crunching numbers, journalists donate disproportionately to Democrats (73 percent compared to 13 percent).
Politically, this couldn't be worse timing for Republicans, who can't seem to shake their white-male-patriarchal-oppressor image. Picture it: 30 Republicans, all men, all white, pitted against a young woman who says she was raped by a gang of Halliburton thugs. Voila: Corporate evil incarnate versus feminine innocence. Is there a better metaphor for the popular perception of how the parties differ? For the conspiracy-minded, the only things missing from this Halloween tableau are the Dick Cheney masks and the "W" branding irons.
A cynic might wonder whether the Franken amendment was engineered for such purposes. Republicans, alas, haven't been brilliant in explaining their position. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., in a statement cringingly ridiculed by "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart, said the Senate shouldn't be in the business of regulating contracts and that the amendment was a political attack on Halliburton.
In fact, the reason some Republicans objected is that the amendment was overbroad and might not be enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by the Department of Defense in a letter to senators, saying that the DOD or its contractors "may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic."
It would be easy enough to infer a conspiracy of denial, if not for the fact that the White House agrees. And, if not for what followed in the Defense Department letter:
"It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse."
Apparently, the "why-do-you-support-rape" crowd overlooked that detail. It's far more entertaining to insist that Republicans, instead of objecting to a potentially bad law, don't mind if women get gang-raped. Legal wrangling is not for sissies in Twitter World.
The real goal, obviously, should be to ensure that no one is denied access to justice and that arbitration agreements are nonbinding in criminal acts. In fact, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month in Jones' favor, agreeing that the alleged gang rape wasn't related to her employment and that she, therefore, wasn't bound by the company's arbitration agreement.
Jones' painful ordeal is far from over, and her Byzantine route to justice has been indefensibly arduous, but at least now she can have her day in court. Though it appears that there are plenty of bad guys in this story -- may they get their due -- the 30 Republican senators have been unfairly smeared for doing the harder thing, for the right reasons.
========
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kathleenparker(at)washpost.com
Copyright 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 10/25/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
10-25-2009 23:23
PER wrote:
Arbritation? Perhaps for working overtime for less-than-equal pay; or having having a less-than-ergonomic chair: YES!! Let's nip this in the bud!! But: rape and false imprisonment? HMMM: let's see what a committee might elucidate as the most effective procedure to take. Thank God we live in the greatest country in the world: one that would never have to come to such a moral decision.
10-25-2009 22:01
JCE wrote:
She obviously wasn't defending them, just trying to understand how they could justify it. Big difference. Shame that the people even let it get to this point. NO bill should be so huge. Something like this should have been a separate bill, a few pages, posted online for all to read, then the results of the votes posted as well. Only the people can make that happen. For our government to even do business with companies that force an employee to sign away legal rights is reprehensible, and again, the people should never allow it. Haliburton may not be public enemy #1, but they are damn sure in the running. The 3 biggest ironies here are: 1)an American woman can be gang raped by an American company, and not be able to have the legal redress. 2) These senators will get reelected and 3) This would have been impossible under Bush, but under Obama, taking on special interests is something that is actually happening.
10-25-2009 14:10
MarineMom wrote:
I applaud this young woman's courage for insisting on justice for her terrible ordeal. She could easily have been daunted by the powerful bureaucracy and publicity that she face; instead, he cause becomes the cause of all women who find themselves in oppressive misogynistic work environments.
The name "Halliburton" is synonymous with rape. This woman's rape was a sexual assault, but Halliburton has been raping our public funds and our public trust for as long as Cheney and thugs have been in Washington. Parker seems to think that "Halliburton" should be extricated from this story so their abysmal practices do not perfuse into other areas of the law. I suppose that case can be made. But if Halliburton is not held up as a standard against which our justice system measures itself and promises justice to victims, then they have gotten away with rape and pillage.
The 30 who "favor rape" are perhaps being unfairly judged here. But one is judged by the company one chooses to keep, and Halliburton in one's front pocket is righteous cause for condemnation, in my book.
The name "Halliburton" is synonymous with rape. This woman's rape was a sexual assault, but Halliburton has been raping our public funds and our public trust for as long as Cheney and thugs have been in Washington. Parker seems to think that "Halliburton" should be extricated from this story so their abysmal practices do not perfuse into other areas of the law. I suppose that case can be made. But if Halliburton is not held up as a standard against which our justice system measures itself and promises justice to victims, then they have gotten away with rape and pillage.
The 30 who "favor rape" are perhaps being unfairly judged here. But one is judged by the company one chooses to keep, and Halliburton in one's front pocket is righteous cause for condemnation, in my book.
10-25-2009 12:18
casey42 wrote:
It is very easy to infer a conspiracy of denial, the republicans are in Haliburton's pocket, bought and paid for. Cheney was and still is crook #1, followed by 30 of his band of merry men.
10-25-2009 11:49
old cowboy wrote:
Rape
Why would be surprised by this vote. The Republicans allowed Haliburton,(read Cheney) to rape the whole country for 8 years with their no-bid contracts and other favors.
I am in no way trying to down play the plight of this woman, I am just saying this is to be expected of the bunch in Washington. I also do not excuse the Dems as they are all a bunch of crooks lining their pockets by doing favors for big donors.
I am in no way trying to down play the plight of this woman, I am just saying this is to be expected of the bunch in Washington. I also do not excuse the Dems as they are all a bunch of crooks lining their pockets by doing favors for big donors.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Kathleen Parker ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
FIND JOBS
