~~~~~ Of all possible '90s throwbacks — high-waisted jeans, scrunchies, the music of Mariah Carey — a renewed debate about abortion law has to be the least welcome. Isn't this something we settled more than a decade ago? ~~~~~
~~~~~ Yet she has been roundly attacked for doing so, and not by the usual misogynist mainstream media crowd. Before they could even get their gleeful paws on the story and trumpet, yet again, how foolish and misguided the PM was to re-engage the "gender wars", they were — astonishingly — knocked out of the ring by the dismissive comments of several feminists.
Gillard's speech was "a rather desperate attempt to exploit the gender tensions that exist in our society," proclaimed academic Eva Cox. She described it as "rather limp, probably professionally devised".
Destroy the Joint bandwaggoneer Jane Caro weighed in, attacking Gillard for raising the issue of abortion: "Strategically, this is not something that should be shouted loudly from the rooftops and certainly not by our first female PM," she wrote in Fairfax Media on Wednesday. Then there was the "Sorry Julia. But women aren't buying your gender wars" headline on the usually Gillard-friendly mamamia website. ~~~~~
~~~~~ But the attempt to exploit abortion took Gillard into a league of political desperation unseen since McMahon. Much of the media reporting this week has described it as an abortion "debate".
But there is no real debate. Neither main party has any intention of changing the status quo. It is a settled matter. It was settled 40 years ago. It was settled in favour of legalised abortion. It is merely posturing and innuendo by Gillard in an attempt to create a fear campaign.
[...]
Abortion became legally available not because of a parliamentary act but because of a 1972 decision of Justice Levine in the NSW Supreme Court in the case of Regina versus Wald. The argument in the political arena was irrelevant to the law. ~~~~~
Australia's opinion on abortion politics is that they're a problem we don't have. We cringe at the United States' public tussles between pro-choicers and pro-lifers. Many of us feel relieved that abortion isn't under constant threat from conservative demagogues. The unfortunate thing is, however, our understanding is entirely backwards. For the most part, abortion rights are protected more strongly in the US than in Australia. The refusal of Australians to make abortion a political issue, as Prime Minister Gillard did, has resulted in laws that are far more restrictive and tenuous than those of even the most conservative American states.
Take Texas, for instance. Today has seen a great deal of attention directed at the legislature of the Lone Star State, where Wendy Davis, a Democratic senator, has mounted a 13 hour–long filibuster .. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590966/texas-senator-wendy-davis-filibusters-against-abortion-bill/ .. to prevent the state senate from taking up a bill that would greatly restrict access to abortion for women in the state:
~~~~~ Wearing pink tennis shoes to prepare for nearly 13 consecutive hours of standing, a Democratic Texas state senator on Tuesday began a one-woman filibuster to block a GOP-led effort that would impose stringent new abortion restrictions across the nation's second-most populous state.
Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth began the filibuster at 11:18 a.m. CDT Tuesday. To derail a vote in the GOP-dominated Senate, she must keep speaking on the bill until midnight — the deadline for the end of the 30-day special session.
Before Davis began speaking, her chair was removed. CBSDFW.com reports that Davis must speak continuously — and stay on topic — the entire time. She is not allowed to lean against something for support. And she will not be able to stop or take a break, not even for meals or the restroom, during the entire 13-hour ordeal. ~~~~~
~~~~~ The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require abortion clinics to meet the same standards that hospital-style surgical centers do, and mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Supporters of the bill, including the governor and other top Republicans, said the measures would protect women’s health and hold clinics to safety standards, but women’s rights advocates said the legislation amounted to an unconstitutional, politically motivated attempt to shut legal abortion clinics. The bill’s opponents said it would most likely cause all but 5 of the 42 abortion clinics in the state to close, because the renovations and equipment upgrades necessary to meet surgical-center standards would be too costly. ~~~~~
~~~~~ Legal up to 20 weeks, some restrictions particularly for under 16s. Very restricted after 20 weeks.
[...]
After 20 weeks of pregnancy, two medical practitioners from a panel of six appointed by the Minister have to agree that the mother or unborn baby has a severe medical condition. These abortions can only be performed at a facility approved by the Minister. ~~~~~
Or South Australia and Tasmania:
~~~~~ Legal if two doctors agree that a woman’s physical and/or mental health endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality. Referral for counselling compulsory in Tasmania. Unlawful abortion a crime. *NB An abortion law reform bill has been passed by the Tasmanian lower house in April 2013, and is awaiting debate by the state's upper house. If passed it decriminalise abortion on request to 16 weeks gestation, and after that point if two doctors approve. ~~~~~
The Texas law would still be as liberal as those of some Australian states!
Which doesn't mean it's a good law. Nor does it mean it's a constitutional one. In the US, unlike Australia, women have a constitutional right to privacy; the Supreme Court has ruled that a state must allow abortions until the point of foetal viability. Under current precedent, the proposed Texas law would violate the US Constitution.
Australians — or, at least, those who care about women's rights — should look at the battles of the US and see a country willing to protect its citizens' freedoms, not a citizenry fighting over issues we are too mature to make the stuff of politics.
~~~~~ But the area where the Commonwealth plays a huge role in relation to abortion is Medicare funding.
The Commonwealth could decide to no longer provide public funds for pregnancy terminations. It could reduce the level of funding or change the circumstances under which women receive rebates.
Like any other health service cost is a factor for people when deciding whether or not to go ahead with a procedure. ~~~~~
The US doesn't have a system of universal health care like Australia. But it does provide some government support of health care, for instance, with Medicaid and now the Affordable Care Act. But a 1976 law known as the Hyde Amendment bars federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape or incest. Australia is clearly far more progressive than the US in this regard.
In Australia 1 in every 4 pregnancies is terminated, with 80,000 women undergoing abortion every year. International research shows that women will still seek abortion, even if it is illegal, and a number of surveys reveal a majority of Australians support the idea of safe and legal abortions. Abortion laws are different in each Australian state and territory, yet some of the legislation is vague and open to interpretation. This book explores the topic in two chapters: Abortion Options; and The Abortion Law Debate. What can be done to avoid unplanned pregnancy in the first place; if a woman finds herself in this situation, what are the options? Should Australia’s abortion laws be standardised? What are the pro-choice and pro-life arguments in relation to decriminalisation, availability of non-surgical abortion (RU486), late-term abortion, birth defects, the health of the expectant mother, the status of the fetus, and conscientious objections of health practitioners? Whose rights should prevail in this ethically complex debate?
Chapter 1: Abortion Options Chapter 2: The Abortion Law Debate
Glossary; Fast Facts; Web Links; Index
Fast facts: * It is estimated that there are almost 200,000 unplanned pregnancies in Australia every year. Unplanned pregnancies occur for a wide variety of individual, social and political reasons. * An estimated 23% of all known pregnancies in Australia are terminated. This makes abortion one of the most common surgical procedures in the country, with around 80,000 women undergoing abortion every year. * Comparatively speaking, Australia’s abortion rate is reasonably low by international standards. For instance, the United States of America has a 30% abortion rate, while countries such as the former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria have recorded abortion rates of over 50%. * Abortion laws are different in each Australian state and territory. Research has shown that the majority of Australians support the idea of safe and legal abortion. Yet some of the legislation remains vague and open to interpretation. * Around one in three Australian women will undergo an abortion. * The typical profile of a woman seeking abortion includes: aged in her 20s; single; childless; well-educated; and employed. * Studies show that between half and two thirds of all women presenting for abortion were using contraception at the time. * An increasing number of older women are having abortions, and most are working mothers who choose to focus on their career, current children and financial stability than have another baby. * Increases in global contraceptive use have contributed to a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies and, in turn, a decline in the number of abortions, which fell from an estimated 45.5 million procedures in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003. * Unsafe abortion causes an estimated 70,000 deaths each year worldwide, and an additional five million women are treated annually for complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Approximately three million women who experience serious complications from unsafe procedures go untreated. * Most abortions occur in developing countries – 35 million annually, compared with seven million in developed countries – a disparity that largely reflects the relative population distribution. * Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe. However, in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe. * Of the estimated 208 million pregnancies that occurred worldwide in 2008, 33 million (16%) resulted in unintended births and 41 million ended in induced abortions. (20%). * Public support for access to abortion in Australia has steadily increased in the past twenty years. The series of polls conducted by the Australian Election Study showed 38% of respondents in 1987 believed ‘women should be able to obtain an abortion readily, when they want one.’ In less than ten years support for “abortion on demand” had increased to 53% and by 2004 support had risen to 54.2%. Conversely, the percentage of respondents fundamentally opposed to abortion dropped from 6% to 4% in the same period.
The Maddow video was great .. all those little maps excellento e.g. Virgina clinics now 20 closing to 4 .. one thing i'll add to the above .. on a quick glance at this one ..
it looks that Australian states have more abortion clinics available than some now, e.g. N Dakota going to none, in America .. then again, your states are much smaller than ours, so conceivably i guess there could be an area the same size as N Dakota in Queensland that had no abortion clinics .. no, haven't checked any 'sizes' .. just a maybe afterthought ..
His editorial goes on to say: "What most U.S. citizens don't know -- including most progressives -- is that when the southern pipeline segment starts flowing with tar sands oil in a short while, the fuse will have already ignited the (carbon) bomb." Given that we just passed 400 parts per million .. http://ecowatch.com/2013/400-ppm/ .. of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is time for every big national environmental group to demand that President Obama extinguish this 485-mile carbon bomb fuse, before it's too late.
As someone who pedaled the entire route in 2011 in support of farmers, ranchers and tribal communities fighting this toxic tar sands pipeline, I am as committed as anyone to blocking TransCanada's northern leg permit, but how can anyone seriously talk about stopping Keystone XL without mentioning the need to stop the actual construction now dangerously close to completion in Texas and Oklahoma?
The key to blocking Keystone XL's northern leg is ensuring that Keystone XL's southern leg never gets completed. If you agree, join me, and more than 5,000 others, in signing .. http://ecowatch.com/2013/stop-keystone-xl-petition/ .. the "Tell President Obama to Stop Construction of the Southern Leg of Keystone XL" petition. We will be delivering the petition to the White House soon, in dramatic fashion.
Southern Leg of Keystone XL Pipeline Nearly Complete July 9, 2013
Energy & Commerce Committee United States House of Representatives Chairman Fred Upton
After 1,754 Days, It’s #TimeToBuild the Rest of the Keystone XL Pipeline
While the president continues to delay construction of the northern route of the Keystone XL pipeline, the southern half of the project, known as the Gulf Coast pipeline, is nearing completion. United Press International reports nearly 80 percent of the 450-mile pipeline has been completed so far this year. Compare this progress to the nearly five years that have passed since TransCanada first submitted its application to build the full Keystone XL project with the U.S. State Department.
Posted on May 23, 2013 at 7:00 am by Zain Shauk in Beaumont, Keystone XL
Wayne Knox, a contractor for TransCanada’s Keystone XL project, looks at a pipe before it’s lowered into the ground in Wood County, Texas. (Cody Duty / Houston Chronicle)
The southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline is more than 75 percent complete and construction is proceeding on schedule, a spokesman for pipeline owner TransCanada told FuelFix.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during the 2013 NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits at the George R. Brown Convention Center on May 3, 2013 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
By DAVID ESPO 08/03/13 11:01 PM ET EDT
WASHINGTON — The barbs are personal, the differences are multiplying among Republicans, a party divided over spending, foreign policy, a willingness to risk a government shutdown in order to defund the health care law and more.
"I didn't start this one and I don't plan on starting things by criticizing other Republicans," Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said recently as he and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie likened one another to various cuts of a butchered pig.
"But if they want to make me the target, they will get it back in spades."
No matter who started it, in the past few months, one Republican called others "wacko birds," another said some of the party's lawmakers were "stale and moss-covered" and a third suggested one member of the GOP was a tool of the White House.
A recent flare-up over defunding the health law prompted Texas Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas to question the political manhood of fellow Republicans unwilling to risk closing down the government over the future of "Obamacare," as GOP critics call the law they want to repeal. "They're scared of being beaten up politically," he said.
Not all the disagreements are dipped in acrimony. Some are re-emerging after the party papered over its differences in an unsuccessful campaign to defeat President Barack Obama last year. This spring, 14 Senate Republicans supported legislation that included a chance at citizenship for millions living in the country illegally. The other 32 opposed it, including the entire top leadership.
In some cases, though, policy or strategic differences are overshadowed as Republicans simply call one another names, a type of clash that frequently pits newer, tea party-backed lawmakers against more experienced conservatives.
Two months ago, Sen. John McCain of Arizona likened Cruz, Paul and others to "wacko birds" for their style of confrontational politics.
Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan responded from across the Capitol. "Bravo, senator. You got us. Did you come up with that at (hash)DinnerWithBarack?" he tweeted, a none-too-subtle suggestion that McCain was parroting a line he had heard at the White House.
Paul responded a short while later to McCain, the party's 2008 presidential candidate and a fifth-term senator. "The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don't think we need to name any names, do we?" he told an audience of conservatives.
Other, more recent clashes appear born of political calculations, and fall just shy of personal criticism.
Cruz, along with Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida, recently urged Republicans to swear off voting for any year-end spending bill that includes money for the health law.
Others countered that the result could be a partial shutdown of the government and a political windfall for Democrats.
"I think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. "Some of these guys need to understand that if you shut down the federal government, you better have a specific reason to do it that's achievable."
Burr was in the House nearly two decades ago when Republicans threatened they would shut down the government in hopes of winning spending concessions from President Bill Clinton. They followed through, but were eventually forced into a retreat as the White House held firm and public opinion turned against them.
All Republicans say they want to repeal the health law. But the tea party-backed campaign has thrust some lawmakers into difficult positions as they juggle competing political imperatives.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has refrained from signing the letter circulated by Lee, Cruz and others, even though he faces a primary challenge from the right in his re-election campaign in Kentucky.
The second-ranking GOP leader, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, signed the letter, then removed his name. A spokeswoman, Megan Mitchell, said that after the senator reviewed the document, which he already signed, he "felt the best approach" was legislation advanced by Cruz to "actually defund Obamacare."
Differences among rank-and-file lawmakers make for bipartisan agreements, as on the immigration bill, but they also can make it hard for party leaders to negotiate effectively with the White House and Democrats.
Ironically, the consequences of a lack of party unity were clearly on display recently when Republicans were able to exploit a split between Obama and Senate Democrats over student loan legislation.
Among Republicans, disagreements over foreign policy and national security are "normal, kind of an ideological contest that's been with the party in the 20th century and will be in the 21st," said McCain, referring to an isolationist strain within the GOP that last flourished decades ago.
In the case of government surveillance, Republicans who might have swallowed their misgivings when President George W. Bush was in the White House are freer to express them.
Elected in 2010, Paul has been sharply critical of widespread National Security Agency surveillance in the wake of recent disclosures. But so, too, has Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a 35-year veteran of Congress.
He sided with Amash and others in both parties recently in voting to restrict the NSA's activities. Sensenbrenner noted that he was the principal author of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act, first passed in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks, and worked to reapprove the measure five years later.
Now, he said, the NSA is conducting surveillance far beyond what was envisioned, and "the time has come to stop it."
Once again, one Republican pleaded with others to think back only a few years. "Have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly that we've forgotten what happened on Sept. 11," asked Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
The disagreements extend beyond the Beltway.
Paul and Christie recently engaged in a running battle that befits a pair of rivals for the presidential nomination – which they may someday be.
They warmed up with a spat over national security, then moved on to spending.
Paul referred to the costs of repairing damage caused by Superstorm Sandy last fall, and said Christie and GOP Rep. Peter King of New York "are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense."
Two days later, Christie said he had "nothing personal" against Paul, then unloaded.
"I find it interesting that Sen. Paul is accusing us of having a `gimme, gimme, gimme' attitude toward federal spending when in fact New Jersey is a donor state and we get 61 cents back on every dollar we send to Washington. Interestingly, Kentucky gets $1.51 on every dollar they send to Washington," he said.
"So if Sen. Paul wants to start looking at where he's going to cut spending to afford defense, maybe he should start looking at the pork barrel spending he brings home to Kentucky."
Pork?
Paul evidently prefers a different breakfast portion.
The following day, he called Christie the "king of bacon."
When President Obama frames the story of the American dream as one that is harmed by economic inequality, progressives should cheer - and they should also prepare to sharpen that story and tie it to action.
Barak Obama captured the national imagination on the strength of his ability to tell his own story as part of our national story, starting with his keynote address .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html .. at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. He was elected and remains personally popular in no small part because of the resonance of his story with the way Americans want to view themselves. In his speech yesterday on economic mobility .. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-president-economic-mobility .. , given at a Washington DC hub for community organizations that fight poverty, he continued to update that story, with a sharper focus on the dire crisis of the American dream, a stronger emphasis on the role of government, and a clearer attention to race.
The President repeated the core of his story about America yesterday:
----- Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity -- the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. [Emphasis added]. -----
Obama has consistently framed our American story in terms of our values, and then linked those values to our economic success. The focus of his speech is that the story is no longer true:
----- The combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe. And it is not simply a moral claim that I’m making here. There are practical consequences to rising inequality and reduced mobility. [Emphasis added] -----
Opening his speech by saying that what he’s come to talk about is “a belief that we’re greater together than we are on our own,” he declares that the “defining challenge of our time” is “making sure our economy works for every working American.”
Obama gives a history lesson, both about how we made the American Dream real and about how it has been lost. The President makes it clear that America’s success is grounded in an activist government, from Lincoln’s land grant colleges; to Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting and eight-hour workday; to FDR’s Social Security, unemployment insurance, and minimum wage; to LBJ’s Medicare and Medicaid. “And as a result,” he summarizes, “America built the largest middle class the world has ever known. And for the three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity.”
That last phrase – the middle class as the engine of prosperity[emphasis mine] – is at the core of the progressive economic narrative .. http://www.progressivenarrative.org/ . This is a direct contradiction to the conservative story that business in a free market is the driver of wealth. That’s backwards, Obama explains, “When families have less to spend, that means businesses have fewer customers, and households rack up greater mortgage and credit card debt; meanwhile, concentrated wealth at the top is less likely to result in the kind of broadly based consumer spending that drives our economy, and together with lax regulation, may contribute to risky speculative bubbles.”
When the President gets to his telling of how we got into this mess, he skirts lightly over who is to blame, which is the biggest consistent failing throughout his rhetoric. He begins by blaming technology and globalization, ignoring the fact that the other countries Obama recognizes as having much more economic mobility than the U.S., faced the same challenges.
He then says that “As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither.”
The President appears to be excusing business for their behavior. What he doesn’t say is that business was a leading force in breaking down those values, deciding that enriching shareholders and CEOs was more important than providing decent wages and support for communities. The reference to “trickle-down ideology” obscures the relentless attack by corporate America and the right upon Obama’s core values of “we’re greater together than on our own.”
Any powerful story needs villains[my emphasis] and it is here that Obama punts. Teddy Roosevelt laid it on “the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics.” FDR clearly laid the blame on the “economic royalists.” For the right’s great communicator, Ronald Reagan, it was “welfare queens.” It is never clear from Obama who is to blame, which is a key reason that core parts of his story get lost. The President says that Americans have a “nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them.” The truth is that Americans have a very strong sense that the deck is stacked against them by powerful corporations and the super-rich who use their lobbyists and campaign contributions to control our government.” If Obama is going to rally people to take on those forces, he has to name them and take them on.
The President does take on President Reagan’s villain, a villain which is still at the center of right-wing opposition to Obama and government more generally. The speech yesterday was notable in that he directly challenged “the myth that this is a problem restricted to a small share of predominantly minority poor.” He says, “African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity.”
After acknowledging continued racism, he bridges to class, “The decades-long shifts in the economy have hurt all groups: poor and middle class; inner city and rural folks; men and women; and Americans of all races.“ He says that we’re seeing the problems “one attributed to the urban poor” “pop up everywhere.”
----- So if we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts. [Emphasis added] -----
The point of this speech – “you'll be pleased to know this is not a State of the Union Address” he jokes – is not to give specific solutions. Given the impossibility of passing anything in the House, that would be a fool’s errand. Obama instead aims to lay out a vision for how to move forward, based on his insistence that “government action time and again can make an enormous difference in increasing opportunity and bolstering ladders into the middle class.”
His program for government action is grouped in five categories: tax policy and investment for growth; education and skills training; empowering workers; targeted programs for hard-hit communities; and programs that provide security, from Social Security to the Affordable Care Act.
That third bucket – empowering workers – is a welcome focus, [my emphasis] one that the President has too often skirted. “It’s time to ensure our collective bargaining laws function as they’re supposed to -- (applause) -- so unions have a level playing field to organize for a better deal for workers and better wages for the middle class.” Sensing one area with current political umph, he made a big push for raising the minimum wage.
Stories need a happy ending, or at least some prospects of one. The last paragraph of Obama’s speech places that happy ending squarely on the shoulders of government, with echoes of FDR (“Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us”). Obama concludes with:
----- But government can’t stand on the sidelines in our efforts. Because government is us. It can and should reflect our deepest values and commitments. And if we refocus our energies on building an economy that grows for everybody, and gives every child in this country a fair chance at success, then I remain confident that the future still looks brighter than the past, and that the best days for this country we love are still ahead. -----
While progressives are often frustrated by the President they worked so hard to elect, we have a huge amount to learn from Obama’s deep understanding of how to powerfully express our core American values and link them to a story about the government’s role in creating broadly-based prosperity. Our job is to tell a sharper version of that story – with villains and anger to motivate action – as well as with hope, through our words and through our organizing. Today’s fast food actions around the nation are a great example. We agree with the President that an America that works for all of us “is the defining challenge of our time.” And it will remain our challenge long after Obama leaves the White House.
Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.
President Obama Speaks on the Economic Impact of the Government Shutdown
.. that's the first item .. see particularly about 2" down ..
Are the Republicans Crazy? No!.. one bit ..
There are two general types of negotiation. The "win-win" approach (aka "integrative negotiation") is marked by collaboration and creative problem solving. Most of the popular books on negotiation emphasize a win-win approach.
What we haven't heard so much about is "distributive negotiation." That's where someone must win, and someone must lose. It's exactly the approach House Republicans have chosen.
In distributive negotiations you watch your back and you never assume that irrationality lies behind seemingly reckless actions. At the extreme of distributive negotiation, the most intransigent side loses sight of its original goals and tramples on the wellbeing of others in the service of being able to say: "We won." Sound familiar?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
