This is to draw your attention on the following event:

‘Climate Change and Energy Security - Major Challenges of European Energy Policy’

The Institute of European Studies and the Law Faculty of the University of Leuven in cooperation with the Energy Law Research Forum organize a two days event focusing on the analysis of the geopolitical and legal aspects of climate change and energy security.

Location: Auditorium Jacques Thierry, Rue du Trône, 1, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium

Date: 15/16 December 2008

 http://www.elrf.org/

Among confirmed speakers:

Prof. Peter Cameron (Dundee University)
Prof. Leigh Hancher (Tilburg University)
Prof. Kurt Deketelaere (K.U. Leuven)
Prof. Philip Andrews-Speed (Dundee University)
Prof. Sebastian Oberthür (Vrije Universiteit Brussels - IPCC)
Prof. Paul. Nihoul (Université catholique de Louvain)
Prof. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Université catholique de Louvain - IPCC)
Prof. Nicolas de Sadeleer (Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis)
Prof. Yves Smeers (Université catholique de Louvain)
Dr. Sanam Haghighi (Econgas)
Dr. Shamil Yenikeyeff (Oxford Institute for Energy Studies)
Mr. Claude Mandil (Former President IEA)
Mr. André Mernier (Secretary General of the Energy Charter)
Mr. Christian Cleutinx (Director General of Euratom Supply Agency)
Dr. Jorge Vasconcelos (Former president of CEER)
Mr. Jean-Arnold Vinois (DG TREN)
Mr. Jean-Marie Devos (Secretary General EUROGAS)

For any information please contact: Mme Danielle Bidoul, Tel: +3210474706,  danielle.bidoul at uclouvain.be

————-
On behalf of the ELRF,

Leonardo Massai

Researcher EU Environmental Law
T.M.C. Asser Instituut

P.O.Box 30461
2500 GL The Hague
The Netherlands

Obama Addresses Worries That There Isn’t Enough ‘Change’ in His Cabinet Picks
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 6:28 AM on November 26, 2008.
 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/10883…

“Understand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost: it comes from me.”

At his third economic-related press conference in as many days, Barack Obama announced the creation of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, modeled on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board created by President Eisenhower to “provide rigorous analysis and vigorous oversight of our intelligence community by individuals outside of government — individuals who would be candid and unsparing in their assessment.” He introduced former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as the chairman of the panel, and University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee as its staff director and chief economist.

During the Q&A, CNN’s Ed Henry asked if there were enough new faces on his team to fulfill Obama’s pledge to bring change to Washington. The president-elect first noted it would be even more jarring if his team didn’t include officials with experience from the Clinton administration.

“It would be surprising if I selected a Treasury secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration because that would mean the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever. And I suspect you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council … who had no experience whatsoever … What I don’t want to do is to somehow suggest that because you served in the last Democratic administration that you’re somehow barred from serving again — because we need people are going to be able to hit the ground running.”

But even more importantly, Obama insisted that it won’t be his team that shapes the vision for his administration.

“[U]nderstand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost: it comes from me. That’s my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure that my team is implementing it.

It was the first real inkling that Obama is aware of the media chatter, and he hopes to put some of this to rest, reminding his audience that he plans to “combine experience with fresh thinking.” The change, according to his argument, will come from his vision, not his cabinet picks.

From:    emma.barnes at earthscan.co.uk
Subject: Earthscan’s new journal Climate and Development
Date:      November 25, 2008

For more information on the journal “Climate and Development” - please visit http://www.earthscan.co.uk/Journals

Emma Barnes
Dunstan House,
14a St Cross Street
London EC1N 8XA
+44(0)20 7841 1930
www.earthscan.co.uk

The UNU on Arid Aquaculture.
11 November, 2008

The UNU researchers issued a report “Arid Aquaculture Among Alternative Livelihoods Promoted to Relieve Worsening Pressure on World’s Drylands” as a result of the four-year study in cooperation with the International Centre on Agricultural Research in Dryland Areas (ICARDA), and UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program.

“Arid aquaculture” using ponds filled with salty, undrinkable water for fish production is one of several options experts have proven to be an effective potential alternative livelihood for people living in desertified parts of the world’s expanding drylands.

While it may sound far-fetched, researchers say using briny water to establish aquaculture in a dry, degraded part of Pakistan not only introduced a new source of income, it helped improve nutrition through diet diversification. The researchers also showed it possible to cultivate some varieties of vegetables with the same type of brackish water.

The project based on the results of the research will be launched by the project partners in Istanbul, Turkey, at 1:00 pm local time Nov. 12 at meetings of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

A policy brief based on the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project and News Release on “Arid Aquaculture Report” are available on-line.

People in Marginal Drylands. Managing Natural Resources to Improve Human Well-being. A policy brief based on the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project Drylands_policy_brief.pdf

Arid Aquaculture Among Alternative Livelihoods Promoted to Relieve Worsening Pressure on World’s Drylands. Four-year Study Calls for Urgent Reforms to Avert Further Desertification That Threatens Millions of “the Poorest of the Poor” Worldwide.

Dryland policy brie new release.doc

Greenland’s future: Divorce up north? Greenland creeps towards independence from Denmark?
Nov 27th 2008 | COPENHAGEN, From The Economist print edition

THIS week’s referendum in Greenland marks a milestone in the protracted divorce proceedings between the world’s largest island and Denmark, one of its smallest colonial powers. Over 75% of Greenlanders voted to give themselves the right to loosen ties with Denmark by slowly taking control of such areas as security, justice and police affairs. The vote also promises Greenland (population: 56,000) a bigger slice of future profits from minerals, including oil, rubies, gold and diamonds.

Jupiter Images

An icy independence looms
For most Greenlanders, the referendum was as replete with a sense of the righting of historic wrongs as Barack Obama’s election in America. “I’m extremely moved, because now, like other peoples, we will be recognised as a nation,” said Hans Enoksen, the premier. Yet although Mr Enoksen wept tears of joy in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, it is premature to assume that full Inuit independence will come quickly.

Denmark has ruled Greenland since the 18th century. It conceded limited home rule only in 1979 (Greenland chose to leave the then European Community in 1985). The Danes have conceded that Greenland has a right to divorce. But independence may be a dream that the Greenlanders cannot afford. The population is tiny and the problems vast. The main export is fish and a DKr3.4 billion ($590m) annual grant from Denmark pays for public services like education and health care.

Even with the grant, the difference in living standards between Greenland and Denmark is stark. Education is bad, nutrition is poor and problems like alcoholism and child abuse abound. To tackle these problems, Greenlanders would need a bigger source of income than the Danish subsidy, which would presumably be phased out. In theory, this could come from minerals, but exploiting these requires big investment that it might be hard to finance now. Greenland’s west coast may hold more oil than the North Sea, but harsh conditions could push the cost of extraction as high as $50 a barrel.

“Expectations have been unrealistic,” says Jens Frederiksen, leader of the Democrats, the only political party in Greenland to oppose this week’s vote. Soren Espersen, a member of parliament for the Danish People’s Party, is blunter: “Greenlanders have been brainwashed by unprecedented propaganda.”

From:  mcastillo at caf.com
Date: November 25, 2008
Subject: Call for Offers VER (Transport Sector)

TransMilenio public transport system in Bogotá (Colombia, South America) is the first mass transit system in the world to be considered as a project activity in the frame of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The project was approved by the Executive Board of the CDM on December 2006, included the phases II to IV.

The phase I of the project reduces emissions that can be considered in the voluntary markets.  These are the first voluntary emission reductions in the world coming from a mass transit system project.

Corporación Andina de Fomento – CAF, on behalf of Transmilenio S.A., has the exclusive right to sell the Verified Emission Reductions – VERs – generated by the BRT BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA: TRANSMILENIO PHASE I PLUS PARTIAL PHASE II Project.

In order to sell these VER, CAF is sending this Call for Offers - CFO - to potential purchasers who may be interested in presenting offers for the purchase 880,506 VERs produced by the Project for the period 2001 – 2006.  Please find more details in the enclosed document.

Kerry Vows to Make Climate a Top Priority with Foreign Relations Committee. By Kate Sheppard, Grist, November 26, 2008. “Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) wasn’t on the Democratic ticket this year, but he’s set to gain some additional influence in Washington thanks to the Obama-Biden victory. With Biden leaving the Senate for the vice presidency, Kerry will become the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and on Tuesday he told reporters that climate change will be an issue that is ‘front and center’ for the panel next year. Kerry is heading to Poznan, Poland, next week for the United Nations climate talks, and he said today that he will carry with him the message that Congress and the new president are serious about action on climate change… ‘I have both the chairmanship of the committee as well as a president to work with,’ he continued. ‘The President-elect made it very clear that after eight years of denial and delay, the United States is going to confront this global challenge.’”

White House Notice to Allies: Last Chance to Weaken Emission Rules. By Juliet Eilperin, WashPost, November 26, 2008. “As the Bush administration prepares to issue its ruling on whether to limit greenhouse gases, it’s sending out a message to some of its allies: Tell us how much you don’t want us to regulate emissions linked to global warming. Last week, the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs sent an e-mail to mayors reminding them that time was running out if they wanted to comment on the proposal the administration issued in July, which laid out how the government might curb greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A 2007 Supreme Court decision required the EPA to issue such a ruling, but the White House made it clear in its e-mail that it does not think that is a good idea… The e-mail notes in bold, underlined text that the comment period for the rulemaking ‘closes on November 28′ and provides a link to a U.S Chamber of Commerce blog post [Do Not Let EPA Hijack the Clean Air Act to Regulate Greenhouse Gases ] that warns that a federal cap on greenhouse gases ‘will operate as a de facto moratorium on major construction and infrastructure projects.’”

Federal Judge Blocks Automakers from Challenging Stricter Rhode Island Tailpipe Emission Rules. By Ray Henry, AP, November 26, 2008. “Automakers cannot sue to block Rhode Island from enforcing tighter standards on tailpipe emissions first adopted by California because the industry has already lost similar lawsuits elsewhere, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Court Judge Ernest Torres dismissed General Motors, Chrysler and two automakers associations from the case, but his ruling permits several local car dealers to pursue the lawsuit for now. The automobile manufacturers have lost similar lawsuits in California and Vermont. In his ruling, Torres said allowing another lawsuit could prove a waste of court resources. ‘It is difficult to see what interest the public has in permitting the plaintiffs another bite of the apple in challenging regulations limiting the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,’ Torres said in the ruling, which was signed Monday and made public Tuesday… Charles Territo, a spokesman for one of the plaintiffs, The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said his organization was pleased the local auto dealers can continue the lawsuit in Rhode Island. He said the association intends to pursue similar cases outside the state… In California, proposed restrictions would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016. Rhode Island and 11 other states - Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington - have adopted California’s tailpipe standards. The governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah have said they plan to adopt the regulations. The rules have been under review elsewhere.”

       From:        editor at tompaine.com
Subject:     A Compass, Not A Road Map
Date:             November 26, 2008

 http://www.ourfuture.org

Talking Turkey: Ten Myths Conservatives Believe About Progressives

By Sara Robinson
November 25th, 2008 - 2:06am ET

POPULAR THIS WEEK

Study: “Center-Right Nation” Narrative Spiked Immediately After Election Day
by David Sirota
November 21, 2008
Conservatism: The Talk Radio Problem
by Rick Perlstein
November 21, 2008
more» 
YOU MIGHT ALSO ENJOY

With A Compass, Not A Roadmap
by Eric Lotke
November 26, 2008
False Progressive vs. Pragmatist Divide
by OurFuture.org Staff
November 25, 2008
more» 
Oh, Lordy. It is that time again. Thursday is Thanksgiving— the official kickoff event of the 2008 holiday season. For a lot of progressives, these festivities also mean that we’re about to spend more quality time with our conservative relatives over the next six weeks than is strictly good for our blood pressure, stress levels, or continued sanity.
Personally, I’m not a wholehearted fan of turkey—probably because the mere smell of it instantly slams me back into memories of several decades of Thanksgiving dinner arguments with conservative kin that took a turn for the ugly. We all know we’re supposed to stick to “safe” topics like the kids, college football, and the weather; and avoid controversial issues like religion, politics and whether oysters belong in a proper bird stuffing. But the afternoon is long, and after the approved topics have been exhausted and that third bottle of Cabernet vanishes and the tryptophan torpor hits, decorum and discipline are at high risk of going all to hell. After that, things can and do get contentious, usually in ways that make everyone wish we could all just go back to fighting over oysters in the stuffing.
These family gatherings were hard enough to stomach through the appalling years of the Bush Adoration—but this year, it’s likely to be even worse. Our beloved family wingnuts were insufferable, in a grotesque Mayberry-on-acid surreal kind of way, while crowing into their succotash about the manly Godliness (or was it Godly manliness?) of Our Divinely Ordained Commander-in-Chief. But this year’s different. This year, they’re on the way out of power—and they’re scared witless about it. Which means big steaming heapin’ helpings of liberal-bashing are likely to be featured prominently on the menu next to the mashed potatoes, as they put fresh vigor into every paranoid anti-liberal fantasy ever spouted by Rush, Reverend Pat, or their new darling, Sarah Palin.
The black guy won. Armageddon—or, at the very least, socialism, atheism, gun control, and a national epidemic of erectile dysfunction—must certainly be at hand.
As you prepare to head once again into the family fray, it might be useful to note that most of the right wing’s favorite anti-liberal slanders are rooted in some deeply-held—and deeply wrong—assumptions about who liberals are, and what we believe. If your relatives, God bless ‘em all, insist on going down that road, your best defense this year might be to listen closely for these underlying myths and fables at work—and be prepared to challenge them head-on when they surface in the discussion.
Here’s a basic set to get you started. Tuck it away in your bag with your Xanax and Maalox, and apply (liberally, of course) as needed.

1. Liberals hate America.
For the record: Liberals love America. In fact, what makes us liberals is that we actually read and believed all those pretty words in the Declaration of Independence about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and in the Bill of Rights about freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, and all the rest of it.
We’re idealists that way. We want to live in the country the Founders described. We believe that the nation’s founding documents expressed a uniquely powerful moral contract between the people and their government, and an audaciously positive vision of people’s ability and competence to shape their own future. When we get annoying and whiny, it’s usually because we believe so much in America’s astonishing promise—and our own responsibility for realizing it—that we’re sorely disappointed when the country falls short of that standard. We really want to believe we can do better.
Conservatism, by contrast, tends to take a dim view of human nature, prefers hierarchy to liberty, and isn’t completely convinced people can or should be trying to contravene the will of God or their betters by trying to arrange their own futures. This tends to lead to a selective reading of the Constitution (as well as the Bible), and—as we’ve seen in the Bush years—a far more flexible attitude toward its interpretation.
The proof, however, is in the history—and it’s pretty irrefutable. America’s greatest moments of progress, generosity, and moral strength occurred when the country stuck most closely to its progressive ideals. We loved America so much that we freed the slaves, passed child labor laws, built schools and colleges, gave the vote to women, enacted civil rights laws, rebuilt Europe after a war we helped win, and put a man on the moon. All of these were progressive projects—and all were fought tooth and nail by conservatives in their time, simply because they feared change and saw power as a zero-sum game. Yeah, we sometimes overshoot and miss—but you can’t argue with the daring scope of our dreams.
Conversely, most of our worst moments—the Native American genocide, the continued justification of slavery and Jim Crow, the Japanese internment, Abu Ghraib —were conservative projects that were driven by narrow-minded xenophobia and short-term greed, and are regretted by everyone (including most conservatives) when we look back now.
Rick Perlstein has called this out as a predictable pattern: conservatives will loudly obstruct social progress for decades before finally accepting it—and then, they’ll insist they were 100 percent for it all along.
Love us or hate us; but we’re every bit as American as our conservative friends and relatives, and have been since the day the Declaration was written (by a liberal, in fact).

2. Liberals want to leave us defenseless in the face of evildoers around the world.
The big disconnect on security issues begins with the fact that we have a far more expansive definition of “security” than conservatives do. And, perhaps, a broader sense of what the actual threats are, and what can be done about them.
When conservatives discuss “security,” they’re usually thinking in terms of solving all our problems by sending in more guys and gals with guns. The flip side of this that they tend not to give much credence to real threats that can’t be fixed by guys and gals with guns.
But as progressives, we know that the country’s financial crisis is a security issue. And in a world of superbugs and epidemics, universal health care is a security issue. And global warming is, plain as day, a looming security issue (and the Pentagon agrees). We also know that sending in the Marines, hiring more cops, and taking off our shoes at the airport won’t begin to address some of our most terrifying problems. Real-world security is far more complex, and requires a much wider range of solutions, than most conservatives are willing to consider.

3. Liberals hate the free market.
If that’s so, why does everyone down at the Apple Store know my name?
The operative word here is “free.” Liberals believe wholeheartedly in the amazing power of markets to deliver all kinds of important goods. But we’ve also noticed that some of the deepest human goods of all—a strong family, a caring community, a healthy environment, safe food, clean water and air, and time to enjoy them all—are assigned no economic value at all in unfettered markets. If we want to protect the value of things that money can’t buy (and even conservatives will usually agree that such common goods exist, and deserve to be protected), then we need to put some restrictions on markets so they can’t encroach into those areas.
Besides, any 10-year-old who’s played Monopoly (or any adult who’s been within reach of a TV or newspaper in the past two months) can tell you how free markets invariably end up. One person ends up owning the whole game board, and everybody else ends up broke. Game over. That’s not an accident; it’s just how capitalist systems work. Good regulation can go a long way toward preventing that, too.
It can also be argued that conservatives don’t really believe in free markets, either. Truly free markets can only work if there’s also a free market in labor—which means open borders (it’s fun to drop this suggestion with a broad wink on border-fence grognards) and unfettered collective bargaining—neither of which are exactly pet conservative causes.
Because free-market theory also asserts that markets only work right when people can make rational, fully-informed choices, they break down if there’s not a parallel free market in information, too. If conservatives really believed in free markets, they’d support efforts to preserve and maintain that market. Keeping good information flowing means putting tight regulations on media consolidation, and firm limits around how far advertising and PR firms can go to stretch the truth or bury negative information. It also means abolishing laws that deprive consumers of important purchasing information, like food-libel laws and federal bans on rGHB labeling. It’s a rare conservative who’s willing to go that far to protect the sanctity of the free market.

4. Liberals hate our troops.
We love our troops. We love them so much that we want them brought home safe and sound to their families, as soon as possible.
This one’s almost depressingly easy. Who blocked the new GI Bill because it might encourage troops not to re-up? Who refused to increase VA funding? Who oversaw last year’s debacle at Walter Reed? Who is making soldiers buy their own body armor?
News flash: it ain’t the libruls. Putting a yellow ribbon decal on your car is not enough. Making sure our troops have everything they need to do their jobs—and keeping our promises to them when they get home—is putting our money where our mouth is. Liberals have been there doing the heavy lifting from the start, while the conservatives in government have been nowhere on the scene unless there was a photo op involved.

5. Liberals are a bunch of elitists who hate decent working- and middle-class Americans.
…as opposed to those sainted corporate men-of-the-people who fly around in private jets and pull down eight-figure salaries while closing plants and cutting 10,000 jobs at a time. That’s what real populism looks like, you betcha.
Liberals are funny people. We think that sending well-paid American jobs overseas is a bad idea. We think the minimum wage should be big enough to cover life’s necessities, with some left over. We think it’s insane that over half the bankruptcies in the country are due to lack of adequate medical insurance. We think everybody who has the grades should have a shot at college. And we believe that middle-class prosperity is absolutely essential for maintaining a healthy democracy—because history (via Kevin Phillips) has taught us that no democracy that’s tolerated our current levels inequality has ever survived for long.
You’d be surprised (or maybe not) at how many conservatives making this accusation have never stopped and taken stock of the role government has played in making their own middle-class life possible. Their dad or granddad got through college on the GI Bill. They financed their own education with Pell Grants and federally-guaranteed loans. They grew up in FHA or VA-funded houses, and collected fat mortgage interest deductions—which, right there, ensured their family’s place in the middle class. They went to decent public schools—and, perhaps, state universities. They’re several thousand dollars richer every month because they’re off the hook for Grandma’s living expenses, thanks to Social Security and Medicare. They or their parents may have started businesses with help from the Small Business Administration, or relied on government advice and subsidies to keep the farm going. They work for businesses that depend on government contracts.
And then they’ll sit there over the second helping of candied yams and loudly insist that they made everything they had, all by themselves, with no help from anybody and especially not from the government.
All you can do is laugh. And then, because they’re family, go back to 1945 and start re-telling the family story—this time with Uncle Sam’s forgotten role in the drama front and center.

6. Liberals are against “family values.”
This is one of the biggest disconnects between us. As George Lakoff has pointed out, conservatives and liberals have very different ideas about what families look like, how they function, and what rules they should run under. The problem is that liberals are quite willing to recognize the conservative model as a legitimate and valid way to do family, even if we don’t always agree with it. But when conservatives look at liberal families and their patchwork of made-up arrangements, they see a chaotic free-for-all that doesn’t follow any of their strictly mandated rules of family organization—and thus doesn’t qualify in their minds as any kind of “family” at all. We think it’s creative and flexible. They think it’s unstable and scary.
So it comes as a considerable shock to conservatives when you point out that progressive areas of the country have significantly stronger families, by almost any metric you can imagine. They have lower rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, infidelity, drug abuse, domestic violence, and juvenile delinquency than the more conservative areas do.

Massachusetts—the first state to offer gay marriage—also has the lowest divorce rate in the country. They like marriage so much there they think everybody should have a shot at it.
Looking at the statistics, it’s possible to conclude that the conservative obsession with “family values” may reflect the fact that families in Red America really are beset by devastating problems that aren’t nearly as common in Blue America. Rather than admit that maybe we know something about creating healthy families that they don’t, they’ll usually try to fix the blame for their family chaos on us and our crazy anything-goes family arrangements. (If there are Bible readers at your table, you might suggest they re-read Luke 6:42 before holding forth.)
Liberals believe in family. We take our marriage vows just as seriously as conservatives do. We love our children just as much. Our families are at least as successful and happy as theirs. This shouldn’t be a matter of debate; but it will continue to be one as long they refuse to believe that our families are just as healthy, valid, and sacred to us as theirs are to them.
7. Liberals want to raise our taxes.
It all depends on who is the “our” in this scenario.
If your dinner companions are well-off enough to be bringing in over $250K a year, there’s no point in finessing this. Their taxes probably are going up. The only comeback is that between Clinton-era tax cuts, the housing bubble, and the hot stock market of the past 15 years, they’ve probably made so much money that it’s time to start giving some back to the nation that made their boon possible. (Refer back to #5: they almost certainly didn’t make that pile without at least some government help.)
If ’s nobody at the table fits that happy description, then according to Obama’s plan, they’re going to get a tax cut. Sure, they’re not going to believe it until they see it (and, quite possibly, not even then); but it’s not an argument they even want to have until after an Obama tax plan is passed and the actual results are in.
Remind them also that there’s just no way to pay for a $600 billion war and a $700 billion bailout (and that’s just the current cost on both fronts—they’re likely to soar in the future) without somebody somewhere paying some more taxes. The bill for the war alone currently stands $5,000 per American household; the bailout may cost that much again, depending on how much of the money the government can recoup. The GOP went shopping on our credit card—and now it’s time to pay our share of the bill.
8. Liberals are Godless—and therefore, amoral.
This often sounds odd coming from people who raised you, who generally like you, and who usually think you’re a fairly sound citizen…well, apart from that weird liberal thing. One good comeback is to personalize that accusation: Do you really think I’m less moral than you are? Seriously? In what way? Hmm. (It’s good if you can resist the temptation to say: Gee, it must have been the way I was raised.)
Another twist on this: I’m liberal because you made me that way. You dragged me to church, where they taught me to love my neighbor and care for the poor and sick—and I became a progressive because I took the things you taught me to heart.
If personalizing the argument won’t work with your crowd, go general. A lot of progressives are deeply religious—and our politics are guided by our religious faith. Evangelical churches are getting involved with environmentalism, poverty, and human trafficking—all issues where liberals have been active for decades. It’s good to have the extra hands on board.
It’s also true that a lot of progressives aren’t religious. Unfortunately, many conservatives equate “secular” with “having no moral code whatsoever,” since they honestly believe that nobody can possibly behave themselves unless there’s some outside authority keeping a hairy eyeball on them. (It’s tempting to speculate about what people who believe this might try to get away with when they think nobody’s watching; personally, I think it’s an incriminating admission that they can’t be trusted behind closed doors.) Rejecting God means you refuse to follow His rules—which, according to their logic, can only mean that you hold nothing sacred and don’t recognize any rules at all.
Call this out for the wrongness that it is. All non-religious progressives have things they hold deeply sacred: family commitments, community obligations, professional responsibilities, the Constitution, social and economic justice, the earth and its systems, the idea of democracy, the dream of a peaceful future. Those things form the basis of a demanding internally-driven moral code; and it’s not uncommon to find secular progressives who live more uncompromisingly moral lives than many overtly religious people.
9. Liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility.
Again, there’s a definitional disconnect at work here. Conservatives tend to use the rule of law to enforce traditional morality and social hierarchies, which usually means light treatment for those at the top, and harsh penalties for those at the bottom. Liberals tend to use the rule of law to maintain some semblance of fairness and equality, which means that those who have more should be given sentences proportional to their greater wealth and power; and those with less should be given a more gentle hand. Naturally, each side finds the other side’s reasoning and criteria appalling.
But there is common ground. The bare fact—which everybody at the table may agree on—is that in present-day America, nobody is happy with the way justice is being doled out, and people all over are getting away with things no civilized nation should allow to slide by. Absurd leniency abounds on both sides. You can either argue over whose side is getting the worst of it; or you can simply agree that the system is broken all over, and move on to the pumpkin pie.
10. Liberals are wimps.
Conservatives like to caricaturize liberals as being soft in all the places our society values toughness. Our refusal to adhere to any dogma must mean that we’re soft in our convictions. Our reflexive open-mindedness is often derided as evidence that we’re soft in the head. Our persistent and gentle insistence on humane government is evidence of hearts too soft to set hard boundaries or do what must be done. And all of this together makes it easy for them to portray us as a mushy bunch of feckless, effeminate intellectuals lacking in cohesion, backbone, focus, or purpose.
But you can only believe this if you don’t know anything about the history or reality of American liberalism. The Constitution is, itself, a liberal document—the ultimate expression of Enlightenment principles. In every decade since the republic was founded, progressives have stepped up and put themselves on the line to further the purposes of government laid out in the Preamble. We’re heirs to the people who fought and died to free slaves, organize unions, give the vote to women, end child labor, protect family farms, enact civil rights laws, and preserve our environment. Some of the boldest, bravest Americans in history— Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Teddy Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, and of course Dr. King—have proudly called themselves “liberal” or “progressive.”
Progressivism couldn’t have survived and thrived if we were half as weak and indecisive as conservatives like to think we are. Our progressive forebears were not fearful people. Nor did any of them seem to be bedeviled by a lack of conviction. “Mushy” or “feckless” are about the last words I’d use to describe any of them. (”Stupid” isn’t anywhere on the list, either.) When you sign up to become a progressive, this is the legacy you take on, and from then on attempt to live up to. It’s not God’s job to make the world a better place. It’s yours. This has never been work for the faint of heart, mind, or spirit—and in this era of conservatism gone rotten, it still isn’t.
It’s going to be a stranger season than most, in no small part because the changing political winds are going to put some fresh twists and turns into the same old holiday discussions. But holiday arguments over religion and politics are a tradition that’s as old as the republic. For most of us, wouldn’t be an American family holiday without a little hot conversation served up over a freshly roasted bird.

After three consecutive days of Obama Press conferences we conclude regarding style:

a)  “All Hands on Deck” - that means a very general set of advisers - all points of view to be heard.

b)   Policy execution to be done by Old Hands. Experience counts - and comes from Clintonites.

c) The New Presidents Economic Recovery Board will have a longer range view of the future. To include old business and new  high-tech, labor and academe. Under Paul Volcker a thorough threshing of ideas is guaranteed.

d)  Obama wants to be well informed but the VISION thing will be only his. Those that will execute can be old hands but the moment of change is in his personal responsibility.