Franken Versus the Hudson Institute

This is an old item from late October, but it's great and I never got around to posting it. The short clip is from a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on medical debt. Senator Al Franken is questioning Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the right-wing Hudson Institute. She's claimed that (as Think Progress puts it) "moving towards a European-style system of universal health care would increase bankruptcies." Franken challenges her on this:



A partial transcript:

FRANKEN: I think we disagree on whether health care reform, the health care reform that we’re talking about in Congress now should pass. You said that the way we’re going will increase bankruptcies. I want to ask you, how many medical bankruptcies because of medical crises were there last year in Switzerland?

FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: I don’t have that number in front of me, but I can find out and get back to you.

FRANKEN: I can tell you how many it was. It’s zero. Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were last year in France?

FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: I don’t have that number, but I can get back to you if I like.

FRANKEN: Yeah, the number is zero. Do you know how many were in Germany?

FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: From the trend of your questions, I’m assuming the number is zero. But I don’t know the precise number and would have to get back to you.

FRANKEN: Well, you’re very good. Very fast. The point is, I think we need to go in that direction, not the opposite direction. Thank you.

The partial transcript comes from , which has a number of other links on the hearings, and the staggering, crippling rate of medical bankruptcies in America:

Medical bankruptcies are an epidemic in the United States. According to a peer-reviewed study published earlier this year in the American Journal of Medicine, nearly 62 percent of all U.S. bankruptcies in 2007 were due to health care costs — and 78 percent of people who were driven into bankruptcy by their medical bills had insurance.

Franken has been doing this sort of debunking since at least 1996 in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. What's refreshing is that while Furchgott-Rott is an unconscionable hack, Franken's done his homework and exposes her for what she is. Health care wonks do debate on various measures for reform, but the hacks are there to deceive to impede any improvements. It's doubtful that if Furchgott-Rott had studied health care in any depth she wouldn't know the answer to Franken's questions. Nor if she actually wanted to improve the health care system would she outright lie as she does here (Think Progress links her prepared testimony, which contains much more bullshit). Furchgott-Rott may not be as successful in her hackery as the loathsome Betsy McCaughey, but her goal is the same - lying for pay, all to derail health care reform. If more people die as a result, well, too bad. She's got hers.

It'd be nice to have more honest policy debates, but hackdom is ever in fashion, and it seems hacks are rarely challenged, debunked, and exposed. It was refreshing to watch Al Franken do just that, and I hope he continues.

Franken Takes on Halliburton Rape

Earlier this month, Al Franken introduced his "Defense Contractor Mandatory Arbitration Amendment." Here's the video, and his prepared remarks from Franken's website:

Remarks on Defense Contractor Mandatory Arbitration Amendment
2009-10-06

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is inspired by the courageous story of a young woman who has dedicated four years of her life to make sure no other woman lives through her nightmare.

Four years ago, at the age of 19, Ms. Jamie Leigh Jones signed a contract to become an employee of KBR, then a Halliburton subsidiary. That contract contained a clause which required her to arbitrate any future dispute against her employer. This means it forced her to give up her right to seek redress in court if she was wronged. At the time, Ms. Jones had no idea what implications this seemingly innocuous, fine-print clause would have.

Ms. Jones arrived in Iraq in July of 2005. Immediately, she complained to supervisors about the hostile conditions imposed by KBR—she was constantly being harassed by her male colleagues, and was housed in barracks with 400 men and only a few women. Her pleas for safer housing were ignored. Four days after her arrival, Ms. Jones was drugged and gang raped. She requested medical attention, and a doctor administered a rape kit. Parts of that rape kit have since mysteriously disappeared. After Ms. Jones reported the rape to her supervisors, she was locked in a shipping container with an armed guard and prohibited from any contact with the outside world. They locked her in a container?!? It was only after she convinced one of the guards to lend her a cell phone that she was able to talk to her father, who enlisted the help of Representative Ted Poe, a Republican congressman from Texas, to arrange for her safe return to the United States.

But, Ms. Jones’ horrific plight did not end there. Having survived this ordeal, most of us would expect that she would have her day in court to seek justice for the actions and inactions of her employer. Instead, KBR sought to enforce the arbitration clause in Ms. Jones’ contract, and tried to force her into arbitration. So, over the past three years, Ms. Jones has been fighting for her right just to bring a lawsuit. And KBR has been fighting her every step along the way. This is simply too long for a rape victim to wait, just to have her day in court.

The only thing more outrageous than KBR’s actions here is that Ms. Jones’ story is not isolated. Since Ms. Jones courageously shared her story, many more women have come out of the shadows, saying the same thing happened to them. And yes, some of these women are still waiting for their day in court, too. Others were forced into arbitration, and their outcome remains secret due to the non-disclosure clauses in the arbitration agreement.

Arbitration has its place in our justice system. For two companies haggling over the price of goods, arbitration is an efficient forum, and the arbitrator will undoubtedly have the appropriate expertise. The privacy that arbitration offers can protect their proprietary business information. But arbitration has its limits. Arbitration is conducted behind closed doors, and doesn’t bring persistent, recurring and egregious problems to the attention of the public. Arbitration doesn’t ever allow you a jury of your peers. Arbitration doesn’t establish important precedent that can be used in later causes. Many of our nation’s most cherished civil rights were established by individuals bringing claims in court, the court ruling in their favor, and then extending the protection of those rights to anyone in a similar situation. Arbitration does have its place in our system, but handling claims of sexual assault and egregious violations of civil rights is not its place.

Ms. Jones won a small but important victory just a few weeks ago. The conservative Fifth Circuit Court, encompassing Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, ruled that most of Ms. Jones’ claims do not belong in arbitration, and she is entitled to her day in court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that even when you sign an employment contract requiring arbitration, there are some rights to sue your employer that just can’t be signed away. These include assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. But the Fifth Circuit’s ruling only applies in the Fifth’s Circuit’s jurisdiction, so it’s not settled law throughout the United States. Who can say what might happen to claims filed in other circuits? My amendment seeks to extend much of the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning to government contractors who continually subject workers to these so called “mandatory arbitration” clauses. The government shouldn’t be doing business with defense contractors like KBR as long as they continue this practice.

The amendment I’m offering today seeks to narrowly target the most egregious violations. The amendment applies to defense contracts, many of which are administered abroad, where women are the most vulnerable and least likely to have support resources. The amendment will apply to many contractors that have already demonstrated their incompetence in efficiently carrying out defense contracts, and have further demonstrated their unwillingness and their inability to protect women from sexual assault.

This seems pretty clear-cut. Here's some footage of Franken in action during a hearing on this matter (via Blue Gal):



Again, pretty clear-cut. Arbitration has its place, but also its limitations, which are painfully apparent here. Jamie Leigh Jones' treatment was horrific, and sounds like some nightmare scenario devised for a TV crime show. She should never have been put in that situation in the first place. She certainly shouldn't have been confined afterwards, and Halliburton/KBR should have punished the perpetrators and made amends to Jones, rather than using legal obstruction against her to prevent justice.

Jones has been gutsy to keep pursuing this. And Franken is doing exactly what an elected official should be doing – correcting a gross abuse of power by a mighty entity against a citizen. He gives a damn. And he sticks up for Jones, who's clearly grateful, and later said, "It means the world to me... It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it."

Back when he was on Air America, Franken would often bring up the Truman Committee, and how Truman went after war profiteers during WWII. When Joe Lieberman was a guest, Franken pressed him on why he wasn't doing the same thing, since Lieberman at that point (after the 2006 midterms) had oversight. Lieberman dodged the question, and (unless I missed it), didn't come back as a guest. So Franken has shown a consistent interest in fighting corruption in general. Still, allowing rape of employees is about as bad as it gets (along with contracting torture).

C&L and Think Progress have more, and this Balloon Juice thread has some legal discussion. However, I thought Franken addressed the procedural issues quite well, and all the female Republican senators voted for Franken's amendment. The only people to oppose it were Republican men. I really can't see any honorable, principled stance in opposing it after listening to Jeff Sessions' arguments and seeing the double standard practiced by the amendment's opponents. As usual, The Daily Show captures the full absurdity:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Franken and the Crowd

Al Franken has engaged people with differing view like this, and done his homework, for a long time now. Those are key reasons why I like the guy and think he may do very well in the Senate.

Franken on The Wellstone and Coretta Scott King Memorials

Al Franken has a great post on the Wellstone and Coretta Scott King memorial services. This is why the quality of news coverage matters so much... the "first draft of history" is often wrong, and inaccurate takes on important stories become crystalized, turned into memes, and later accepted unquestioningly as part of the conventional wisdom. When I saw any footage of the Wellstone memorial, one of the only clips the news showed was Mark Wellstone speaking passionately, and as I recall, politically. As the critical comments about the memorial started flowing in, my first thought was, jeez, man, give him a break, he's just lost both his parents and his sister. I think we can cut the guy some slack.

Of course, that didn't happen. As Franken says, "reasonable people of good will were genuinely offended," and I understand that. But all that could easily be solved with a simple apology later. Where was the prominent conservative standing up to say, "let's remember Mark Wellstone's devastating loss and support him rather than criticizing him?" And, come on, Paul Wellstone was an extremely passionate man and one of the most progressive Senator our country had. How does one not get a bit political honoring a man, his wife, his daughter and their aides who have dedicated themselves to securing health care for mental illness, eliminating poverty, and achieving social justice?

The news coverage did go on to point out that most of the memorial was very civil. Still, they pulled the familiar old second-rate hack trick of playing up the "controversy" only to half-heartedly dismiss it.

Down in Atlanta, similar issues played out. How, for instance, does one honor Coretta Scott King and avoid mentioning her anti-war stance, her anti-poverty initiaves, and those pesky civil rights? More to the point, why the hell should anyone involved in the memorial service bother worrying if some conservative is "offended" by the mention of the deceased's legacy?

I also have to wonder why the hell anti-feminist Kate O'Beirne was on Hardball to comment on the King memorial service. I mean, she's not as bad as David Duke, but come on. She calls Jimmy Carter "shameful" and possibly our worst post-president? She conveniently ignores the fact that Carter, like King's husband MLK, won the Nobel Peace Prize? She conveniently overlooks that Carter was a family friend? I doubt very much that the O'Beirne weas marching in Selma.

In contrast, Reagan in his death suddenly became, listening to commentators, one of our greatest presidents ever and a virtual saint on earth. Everyone's due their good press, especially when they die, but the networks were not lining up liberals to discuss Reagan... it was all conservatives, just as shamelessly it was a parade of former Nixon aides decrying Mark Felt when his identity as Deep Throat was revealed, and a host of conservative commentators sniping at Wellstone and King's memorials. Since when do political enemies get to seize the microphone and deliver the eulogy? Mark Shields and either David Brooks or Paul Gigot spoke of Wellstone on the Newshour right after his untimely death. Shields spoke passionately, and his counterpart (Brooks or Gigot) also spoke of the enormous personal respect Wellstone had won from some of his staunchest opponents.

For those people who are offended by the 23-second standing ovation Reverend Lowery got at King's memorial when he declared there were no "weapons of mass destruction" - guess what. You weren't the audience for those words. Deal with it. Of course, you could also do as CNN and Fox News did, and edit out the standing ovation and applause and fail to indicate that to the viewers at home... but those attending the memorial were there to honor King, not Bush. Bush was a guest. One could say he should be treated civily. One could also look at him as a party crasher. Why the hell should anyone censor themselves for Bush's sake? Does that honor King? Is he really so fragile he can't take some honest, on-target criticism? Do something to improve the Katrina reconstruction, then we'll talk.

I side with those folks who believe civility is nice, but it should never supercede civil rights.

Who's Driving the Car?

Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow's latest entry for This Modern World offers an especially pithy and trenchant perspective on Iraq.

Hindsight is not always 20/20. It is possible, and tragically in some cases all too likely, to learn a bad lesson (I will not say wrong) from a momentous occasion, especially a traumatic one. I would argue that one of the essential lessons to learn from 9/11 is the value of human connections and international cooperation, not that a nation should act unilaterally against all advice and invade another country whose threat is already contained. Legitimate arguments existed in favor of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. However, those arguments were, by and large, not made (probably because it would raise our country's own spotty history with Iraq). I'm currently reading The Assassin's Gate, which shows, as others have before, that the neoconservatives had long wanted to invade Iraq. One school of thought is that 9/11 was merely an excuse for them to take action. Certainly many if not all of the neocons believed that Saddam Hussein was a genuine threat. Some of them even likely believed he was an imminent threat. However, the sincerity of the belief does not excuse the intellectual poverty of the philosophy, nor the manipulation of the Iraq intelligence, nor the skewing of the public debate, nor the lack of a postwar plan, nor the staggering and deadly incompetence of the actions taken. Finally, the sincerity of the belief does not excuse the inability to learn, adjust, and improve, as the neocons stubbornly stick with the same myopic hubris that got us into this mess to begin with.

Al Franken's offered a version of the following analogy: If someone drives a car into a ditch, throws away the tires, and then sets the car on fire, it doesn't make much sense to turn to the passenger and say, "Oh yeah? What's your bright idea for getting us out of this mess?" First thing you do is get rid of the driver. He's obviously not making good decisions, and time has shown that's just not going to change.

If only hindsight were 20/20.