Just to refresh your memory about the full extent of Jamie Leigh Jones' nightmare, thanks to ohcanada in the comments for posting this description from todays' Guardian:

In legal papers Jones, who was 20 at the time, says she was fed a knockout drug while drinking with KBR firefighters. "When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured and her pectoral muscles torn‚ which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again," the papers say. Jones was treated by a US army doctor who gave forensic evidence to company officials. She says the firm placed her under guard in a shipping container and she was released only after her father asked the US embassy to intervene. When the forensic evidence was handed to investigators two years later, crucial photographs and notes were missing. Jones says she identified one of the men who attacked her after he confessed, but that Halliburton/KBR prevented her from taking legal action against him or the company by pointing to a clause in her contract requiring disputes to go to arbitration.

...

KBR has sought to discredit Jones's account by saying she was seen drinking and flirting with a firefighter before leaving the gathering with him, and that the man claims to have had consensual sex with her. The firm denies that Jones was held prisoner, but not that her injuries indicated serious sexual assault.

I was originally intending on simply reposting the diary as is, with the hope of a second shot at the Rec List (update: and thank you for that!), but another development caught my eye tonight, and seems to provide a perfect contrast to Sen. Franken.

I'm referring to this:

Sensitivity Training: GOP Senator Batters Witness Over Domestic Violence Report After the Huffington Post reported that eight states still allow insurance companies to treat domestic violence as a precondition, leaders from three of those declared that they would put an end to the practice. North Carolina Republican Senator Richard Burr took a different approach and instead challenged the head of the organization, the National Women's Law Center, that issued the original report at a Senate hearing Thursday. Burr's reaction was the polar opposite of Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, who told the Jackson Free Press after the story broke that he was ashamed that his state was on the list.

Read the whole thing for the backstory, but then make sure to come back here so you can watch the two Senators' performances side by side.

Note: The first clip, of Sen. Franken grilling a KBR lawyer, is 10 minutes long, but trust me--watch the whole thing for the full impact. Chilling stuff.

So. In one case, you have a U.S. Senator tearing apart a guy for trying to defend the gang rape, battery and imprisonment of a young woman.

In the other case, you have a U.S. Senator tearing apart a woman for trying to help domestic violence victims get medical attention.

(It probably goes without saying that the second Senator, Richard Burr (R-NC), was one of the 30 GOP Rape Defenders who voted against the Franken amendment.)

If you ever needed a crystal clear example of the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, I'd say these two videos are it.

PS If you're looking for a darkly satirical, but disturbingly accurate overview of today's GOP, I recommend checking out the new parody (?) site Republicans for Rape.

Update: I should also have included a link to the Jamie Leigh Foundation

Update x2: To expand on the diary somewhat, while it may be blatantly obvious to most of us here, there are those who have been trying to defend the "No" votes against the Franken amendment. In case anyone asks about what possible justification there might have been for voting against this amendment, there are only two:

If the amendment was attached to some totally unrelated larger bill which you were against, and the only way to vote against the bill as a whole was to vote against this amendment (which happens in many cases).

if the wording of the bill was too vague or open to massive abuse (the "unintended consequences" issue).

HOWEVER, in this case, you could vote for the amendment and still vote against the main bill (which is actually a DoD spending bill anyway, not the sort of thing Republicans are going to be against as a rule), and the actual, full text of the amendment is VERY specific and narrow (bottom right of page S10069):

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

In other words, it specifically covers:

--Violations of core civil rights

--Rape

--Assault

--Torture

--Kidnapping

--Knowingly (or being criminally negligent about) hiring sick, sadistic, twisted rapist/murderer types

These are all criminal actions which have absolutely NO business being dealt with via arbitration, which is intended for disputes over intellectual property, compensation, nondisclosure of corporate secrets, that sort of thing.

In addition, this amendment doesn't force the companies abandon contracts with these provisions--it simply says that the Federal Government of the United States refuses to do businesses with those businesses that continue to do so. Halliburton is still free to do business with other corporations if they wish; they just lost their single biggest client, that's all.

In this particular case, there are exactly zero legitimate reasons to vote against it. Christ, they could have at least abstained or something (for the record, 2 Democrats didn't vote at all due to illness or scheduling conflicts).

Update x3: Here's Jon Stewart's take on it:

Update x4: If you think you can stand to read more on the issue of sexual assault, PLEASE read Clytemnestra's diary, When all is made hostile; a story of sexual assault.

Update x5: For those without video, special thanks to Britkid for adding in a full transcript of the Franken clip. The diary is too long for me to paste it in directly, but you can read it in the comments below. I have it set to load in a separate window so you won't lose the rest of the diary.

Update x6: I just wanted to formally apologize for the first poll choice. As several people have pointed out in the comments, women staying with partners who abuse them is a complicated matter, with more than one reason, and it's inappropriate to try and compare the two situations, even out of bitter snark. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any way of deleting a poll that's been voted on without deleting the entire diary. I've apologized for the poll several times in the comments. This is the last time I'll do so.

Update x7: I just wanted to say an obligatory thank you to everyone--I know I was pushing hard for this to hit the Rec list, but I'm still overwhelmed by the response once it finally did. In addition, I should note that the story made it to the FRONT PAGE OF DIGG earlier this evening...although, oddly enough, it was yesterday's original posting (which didn't include the Richard Burr footage) which made it big on DIGG. Strange, but that's fine as long as the Franken clip goes viral.

Anyway, thanks again. God Bless Al Franken and Jamie Leigh Jones, and may God not have mercy on the souls of the rapists, the KBR supervisors, the KBR executives, the 30 GOP Senators who voted NO on the amendment, and the douchebag attorney who were responsible for these atrocities in the first place.