Who understands the meaning/usage of the term progressive? If it is interchangeable with labor union leaders' agenda, then there is a fundamental conflict worth exploring.

The labor union leaders' agenda = regressive and here is how: taxes (even when they start low and end high) and regulations land most heavily on those who can least afford them, while subsidies are mostly granted to those who least need them (i.e. developers, politicians).

The labor movement was founded on the principles of liberty and voluntarism - progressive values - but having become primarily government-sector and mostly oriented toward politics & elections & legislation, it now it relies on the force of mandate.

Is this not regressive, rather than progressive? Please provide some examples where the progressive agenda deviates from the regressive labor union leaders' agenda.

Note: I am not referencing the rank-and-file union members' agenda. A significant share of union members do not agree with the agenda and approach pursued diligently by our anti-competitive, monopolistic labor leaders.

Be sure to secure your beer glass if Kari shows up at your table.

So - are they speaking? Are they reading? Are they schmoozing?

I understand this is a fund raiser but I'd be curious what's going to be happening this evening.

The original meaning of Progressive had as much to do with Teddy Roosevelt's agenda as anything--the concerns of rank and file people of all sorts as opposed to Wm. McKinley's term when big monied interests held sway. TR thought there should be regulation of corporations, pure food and drug laws, wild areas maintained so people could go hiking in them.

Unions were a different movement, from the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in NY to the whole AFL-CIO story, to the UAW story which went on long after TR died, and other union stories like mineworkers. TR died around the time women got the right to vote.

We learned in 8th grade social studies that McKinley's supporter Mark Hanna was pictured in a political cartoon as not leaving footprints in the sands of time, but $$ in the sands of time.

That Mark Hanna is reportedly Karl Rove's hero should tell you what you need to know.

Ramon,

Labor is not homogeneous. There is a generational battle within the labor movement that parallels the general population. Within the labor ranks it is manifested as multiple tiers for pensions.

But the pension's today are just the banks of the 1920's that took bank assets and placed them into risky stocks and declared them sound. It is a major PR game to redeclare bank soundness as instead a full funding question so as to avoid correcting unsoundness and funnel ever more money into unsound banks.

A labor movement action the takes into account the concerns for sound savings for retirement of a new generation would match that of Associated Portland Educators. (pdxape.us) The right to form a new union is a part of the labor laws and is quite compatible with individual liberty.

The generation X-er's ought to give me support, if they could see through the haze some day.

The monied class has convinced older labor representatives to have a shared concern with asset protection, via savings/pensions, protection. So, off Kari goes down the yellow brick road to find the wizard so he may find his way home.

Ramon: I see that you see monopoly as bad, in unions as well as business.

ron, your website states: "No law that enables collective action can restrict the liberty of others, regardless of whether it be collective bargaining by individual laborers or the formation of incorporated entities with limited liability"

i think there is an important distinction between the two types of collective bargaining (labor via unions/capital via corporations).

remember, much of the initial progress for labor in this country--such as the 8 hour work day, and the weekend off--was made by radical libertarian, and anarchist groups such as the IWW, outside of the government. they engaged in unilateral work stoppages. the effectivness of their direct action, provoked the ire of business, which lead to their persecution, and legal retaliation by the government (outlawing "street meetings", filing "anti-trust" suits, and even the espionage act). eventually leading to positive labor law which mainly gave power to the bosses of the AFL's conservative craft unionism (who kept out low skilled workes, non-whites, and women), and heavily regulated how workers could collectively bargain (outlawing secondary strikes, secondary picketing, jurisdictional strikes, closed shops, multi-employer bargaining, how unions could be formed, how/when member could join, etc), and limited what they could bargain for (basically, revokable improvements in wages and conditions). many unions originally rejected the NLRB after it passed.

labor does not need positive law to organize, but capital does need positive law to both smash labor, and receive the government privilege of limited liability. on the balance, looking at laws that regulate labor and capital, the goal seems to be to stabilize already established business conditions, and cartelize industry, for steady profit growth, so any benefits to (established) labor are seconday in purpose.

It's one of the best ideas in a long time. Get involved. Make a difference!

You want to know what's cool? Doing whatever you can to make life better for more Oregonians...

Kari, Your apparent definition of right wing is broad enough to include a teacher that has not voluntarily joined a union that argubly represents their interests at the bargaining table.

"I don't want my readers to be readers. I want them to be activists," Moulitsas said. "... I want them to turn off the computer, walk outside and talk to real people."

What? Like a Schumacher's protest?

I asked for examples where Progressivism diverges from the Regressive Labor Union Leader Agenda. It's an honest question that bears no hostility toward anyone, especially not toward the rank-and-file, average hard-working union member or toward union membership per se. I made no personal insults or ad-hominum attacks.

Name calling me a "right-winger" for putting the question says more about the name-caller than me. It demonstrates an insular intolerance that is not in the liberal spirit of free speech. Remember, free speech is about tolerating speech with which you disagree. If you didn't like the question, it begs a few other quesions: Why? Does it cut too close to the quick?

If there are no examples of divergence, then is it fair to conclude that the term Progressivism is simply marketing, intended to lure the innocent into the Regressive Labor Leaders' flock?

How'd the fundraiser do?

So what did Markos and Jerome have to say? Not to go off-topic from the general theme of off-topic-icity here.

<h2>I love the dailyKos... they've had a couple of good frontpage discussions about Measure 37 there. Apart from a few minor blips, like the tendency for posters who use "F***" in their titles to get more attention than the quality of their writing deserves, it's the very model of a modern major blog.</h2>