A Response to My Senators
Posted On Monday, November 02, 2009 at at 3:13 PM by DanI wrote a letter to my senators asking why they would vote no to Senate amendment 2588. They both responded, but I still have questions. Here's my response to their response.
Dear Sen. Johnny Isakson, Sen. Saxby Chambliss:
Thank you for replying to my letter asking you about your no vote on S. Amdt. 2588 of the Defense Authorization Bill. I am sending this follow-up letter because from reading your response your no vote was based on different information than what I was aware existed. I’m hoping that this letter can help clarify matters, so if I’m wrong please let me know.
Sen. Isakson, you wrote that you voted against the amendment “in accordance with the recommendation of the President and his Department of Defense, which opposed this amendment.” Perhaps you aren’t aware that the President is not against the intent of this legislation. He had some concerns about how it would be implemented, but he supported the legislation. The Department of Defense had questions about whether the amendment was enforceable, but it is overstating the case to say they opposed it.
As an aside though, can you clarify how important the President’s opinion is in casting your vote? I don’t have a problem with you deciding to vote “in accordance with the President.” That cannot be any worse than any other way of voting. I’m assuming that since the President is for the Employee Free Choice Act, you will now also vote in favor of that bill.
Sen. Isakson you also wrote that the amendment “would lead to defense contractors eliminating arbitration altogether as an option for employees.” Sen. Chambliss you wrote that employers would be “forced to eliminate mandatory arbitration as an option for resolving employment disputes.” Are you both aware that, in fact, this amendment wouldn’t do that? The amendment doesn’t eliminate arbitration, it eliminates having arbitration as the only option. In other words, workers would still be able to go to court.
What’s interesting to me is that the both of you are so concerned about making sure employees have multiple options when it comes to settling grievances. I applaud this intent. I would once again like to suggest you support the Employee Free Choice Act since this legislation would give employees, not employers, more options when it comes to deciding whether or not to have a union. Right now, workers can be forced by their employer into an election, “a very expensive and lengthy process.” (That’s from your letter about the court system, Sen. Isakson.) Also, the current process is ripe with employer abuse including harassment and illegal firings. Giving employees more options- like only having them vote once on whether they want a union rather than filing cards asking for an election and then voting in a months-long election process designed to protect employers while they abuse human rights- would help stop this process.
Lastly, I’m curious about your votes on federal funding for ACORN. The both of you have supported banning the group from receiving federal monies because of their transgressions. Will you also call for other organizations to be banned from federal funds? I’m talking about organizations like Blackwater since they killed civilians in Iraq. In fact, they have a history of it. Also there’s the case of Halliburton. Jamie Leigh Jones, a former Halliburton employee, alleges she was gang raped by her coworkers while in Iraq. You both know about her because Sen. Franken introduced his amendment to give her some relief in court. She also alleges that Halliburton covered up the crime. If this is true, then Halliburton would be guilty of covering up a horrific crime. Without a doubt you both would agree with this since you both stated in your letters how much you believe rape to be a terrible violation. I have no doubt that you both would support banning Halliburton from receiving federal funds. That's the only way I can see your votes as being consistent. If you aren't consistent, then there must be some ulterior motive for attacking ACORN but leaving Halliburton and Blackwater alone. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing more from you.
Dan
Saxby Chambliss Responds
Posted On at at 2:26 PM by DanOn Tuesday, October 27 I received a response from Sen. Saxby Chambliss. I had sent both of the Georgia Senators a letter asking why they opposed Sen. Al Franken's amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. Franken's amendment would have (will, actually, since it passed) banned the federal government from giving contracts to companies that do not allow their employees to sue in court for sexual harrasment or assault. Those opposed to the amendment have been accused of supporting rape. In my letter I ask why the Senators would support such an amendment, if they really meant to vote for gang rape. Sen. Chambliss initially responded with something about Kevin Jennings. He now is answering the question.
Dear Daniel:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senate Amendment 2588 (S. Amdt. 2588) as it pertains the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2010 fiscal year (NDAA). It is good to hear from you.
During the recent debate on the NDAA, Senator Franken introduced S. Amdt. 2588 which would drastically change the way the Department of Defense (DoD) interacts with defense contractors. Specifically, this amendment bans the DoD from doing business with any contractor that has a mandatory arbitration clause with its employees. Therefore, all defense contractors that want to continue to receive federal funding will be forced to eliminate mandatory arbitration as an option for resolving employment disputes.
I strongly believe rape is a terrible crime and that those who commit sexual assault should be punished. However, the Franken amendment was not the proper way to address this issue. This amendment creates a major, fundamental change in U.S. labor law that goes far beyond Ms. Jones' claim against Halliburton. Instead, I strongly support the U.S. Justice Department being more aggressive in prosecuting cases of rape and violent crime in all situations where they have jurisdiction.
From a legal standpoint, the elimination of arbitration as an option leaves employees with only the option of going to court, which often to the determent of the employee is a very expensive and lengthy process. Arbitration allows employees to still make their claim and pay nothing or nearly nothing to do so because an employee does not have to hire an attorney for arbitration. As such, I voted against the inclusion of the Franken Amendment to the NDAA.
From the WTF File of Sen. Chambliss
Posted On Monday, October 19, 2009 at at 1:21 PM by Dan I just got an email from Sen. Chambliss. I have no idea why. I sent him an email about supporting gang rape, and he sent me an email about Kevin Jennings. Way to deal with things head on! My response is below and the Senator's email is at the bottom.
Dear Senator Chambliss:
On October 13 I sent you a letter and Sen. Johnny Isakson asking you to explain why you voted against S. 2588. This amendment would deny federal contracts to employers that deny employees the right to sue against sexual harassment, assault, and discrimination. This amendment would allow a young woman, gang raped in Iraq by her coworkers, to have her day in court. You apparently voted in favor of gang rape.
Today, October 19, you sent me an email about my concern about Kevin Jennings. In the email you mentioned I had contacted you about my concern about Kevin Jennings. Senator, I have never emailed you, or anyone else, about Kevin Jennings. I don't care about Kevin Jennings and find any reference to him to be a distraction. Let the man do his job and concetrate on real issues. An example of a real issue would be shielding war privateering corporations like Haliburton from charges of covering up gang rape.
I would like you to please explain why you would oppose S. 2588. Thank you.
Dan
------------
Dear Daniel:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the appointment of Kevin Jennings to the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. It is good to hear from you.
Kevin Jennings was recently appointed as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools under the Department of Education on May 19, 2009. The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools is charged with assisting in drug and violence prevention activities for students at all grade levels. I understand your concerns regarding this appointment and will keep your thoughts in mind.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
Very truly yours,
Saxby Chambliss
SC:md
Jon Stewart on the Gang Rape Amendment
Posted On Friday, October 16, 2009 at at 10:38 AM by DanIn an earlier post I wrote a letter to Sen. Johnny Isakson and Sen. Saxby Chambliss about their inexplicable support of Haliburton's efforts to cover up gang rape committed by their employees in Iraq. To date, I haven't heard a reply from the senators. Jon Stewart has a great 4 minute clip on this amendment. Although he doesn't mention the good senators from Georgia, he hits all of the arguments.
If you would like, you contact the Senators yourself:
Sen. Johnny Isakson
One Overton Park, Suite 970
3625 Cumberland Blvd
Atlanta, GA 30339
Tel: (770) 661-0999
Fax: (770) 661-0768
Email Contact
Sen. Saxby Chambliss
100 Galleria Parkway
Suite 1340
Atlanta, GA 30339
Main: 770-763-9090
Fax: 770-226-8633
Email Contact
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
| ||||
Did My Senators Really Vote to OK Gang Rape?
Posted On Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at at 5:35 PM by DanDear Senator Johnny Isakson & Senator Saxby Chambliss:
The 2010 Defense Appropriations bill had an amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken. The amendment was S. Amdt. 2588. Sen. Franken's amendment would ban companies that restrict their employees' ability to take sexual assault cases to court. According to an article on Alternet, Sen. Franken specifically offered this amendment to provide relief for Jamie Leigh Jones. Jones was gang raped by her co-workers at Haliburton while she was in Iraq. She was then threatened if she left Iraq for medical treatment. This is according to ABC News.
Apparently, both Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss voted against this amendment. I'd like to know why. You must have a good reason. Sen. Sessions from Alabama suggested that the amendment would violate the due process clause of the Constitution. Was that your reason? Sen. Franken did a good job of explaining how an amendment, one that does target a specific company but does specify how federal funds are to be spent, is quite constitution. But if that was your reason, why do both you Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss support, nay co-sponsor, an amendment to insure ACORN no longer receives federal money. If a bill that would target a specific organization is not un-Constitutional in your mind, how would a bill that doesn't target a specific company be unconstitutional?
Sen. Chambliss, you said that organizations that "undermine our democratic process should not be eligible for taxpayer dollars." Doesn't raping a woman, covering up the crime, and not allowing her access to the courts count as undermining democracy? Sen. Isakson you signed on to a letter that said, in part, "American taxpayers must be able to trust that their money is being spent responsibly and is not being used to fund criminal enterprises." Why is it that when it comes to ACORN both of you are able to feel such outrage, yet an effort to make sure women have a chance to hold rapists receiving federal funds accountable gets a no vote? Can you explain this to me?
Thanks,
Dan
What Could Happen If Georgia Votes are Counted?
Posted On Tuesday, October 07, 2008 at at 3:28 PM by DanBelow is an article from Five Thirty Eight about Black voter registration in Georgia. If voter turnout among workers, African Americans, and others is high there's a chance the state could go for Obama. Of course, that would be if all the votes are counted. Georgia has electronic voting and no paper trail. I remember Purdue's 23 point swing and have a hard time trusting the voting process. Still, there's always a chance. As an aside, most polls show Martin and Chambliss in a statistical tie for the Senate. To see Senator Shameless go down would be a pleasure.
In Georgia, Small Improvements in Black Voter Participation May Make Big Difference
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html
Perhaps the only happy consequence of the segregation era is that a number of Southern states like Georgia are required by the Voting Rights Act to keep statistics on registration and turnout by the race of the voter. Those statistics suggest that black voter registration is up materially from 2004.
Here are the numbers. In November 2004, black voters represented 27.4 percent of Georgia's active registered voter pool. As of October 1st, that figure has increased to 29.0 percent.
Now, that might not seem like all that big a difference. But suppose that the black vote is split 95/5 between Obama and McCain, and the nonblack vote is split 30/70. (Obama probably will not win 30 percent of the white vote. But since Georgia also contains material numbers of Hispanic and Asian voters, winning 30 percent of the nonblack vote is probably reasonable).
In 2004, also according to statistics from the Georgia Secretary of State, black voters made up 25.4 percent of election day turnout (this means that they participated at slightly lower rates than white voters). Applying those 95/5 and 30/70 voter splits to the 25.4 percent figure would work out to a 7.0-point win for John McCain, about where polls seem to have Georgia now.
Now suppose that black and nonblack voters each turn out at the same rates as they did in 2004, but that we account for the increase in black registration. According to our math, John McCain's 7.0-point lead is now cut to 4.9 points.
But that is probably too conservative an assumption. Newly-registered voters -- and nearly half of Georgia's newly-registered voters are black -- turn out at higher rates than previously registered voters. In addition, one would assume that the opportunity to vote for the first African-American nominee might be just a little bit of a motivating factor for black voters. Suppose that African-Americans represent 29.0 percent of Georgia's turnout, matching their share of active registrations. Using the splits we described above, McCain's lead is now cut to 2.3 points.
Even this, however, may be too conservative. For one thing, the registration window in Georgia is not yet over ... it concludes today. The statistics I cited above only reflected registrations through September 30. There is typically a surge of registrations in the final few days before the deadline. In 2004, Georgia's active voter rolls increased by about 150,000 persons in the first four days of October, before the registration deadline closed. That was more than they'd increased in the entire month of September.
So suppose that by tonight, black voters have increased to 30 percent of Georgia's registered voter pool. Plugging that 30 percent number in, McCain's advantage is a mere 1 point.
Think these numbers sound unreasonable? Early voting is underway in Georgia, and according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, black voters do not represent 30 percent of Georgia's early voter turnout. Instead, they represent almost 40 percent. Although early voting figures can be idiosyncratic , Barack Obama certainly seems to be having little trouble getting his vote out. Indeed, Barack Obama is winning Georgia right now.
A related question is whether the pollsters are underrepresenting the black vote in their turnout estimates in states like Georgia. I think they might be. In their past two surveys of Georgia, SurveyUSA pegged black voter turnout at 25-26 percent. This is a pretty safe assumption, since it exactly matches the Secretary of State's turnout estimate from 2004. But this isn't 2004. I would be surprised if black turnout wasn't at least 27-28 percent, and somewhere in the 29-31 percent range is entirely possible. If those numbers are achieved, Georgia is pretty close to being a toss-up. And if it is a toss-up for Barack Obama, it is probably also a toss-up for Jim Martin, who is attempting to unseat Saxby Chambliss from the Senate.
Georgia is not quite a tipping-point state. In order to win it, Barack Obama will have to have made at least some inroads with Southern whites, and if he's done so, that will mean that he's won states like Virginia and North Carolina and won't need Georgia's electoral votes. But I'd guess that it represents a more plausible pickup opportunity for Obama than states like West Virginia and Montana, which are nominally closer in the polling. And if these black voter registration numbers are replicated throughout the South, Elizabeth Dole, Saxby Chambliss and Roger Wicker could all face tough re-election battles, substantially increasing the Democrats' chances of winning 60 Senate seats.
Monday, Oct 6
Georgia Senate Polls
Electoral Vote
Pollster.com