Last year, Rachel Maddow, Lee Camp and others offered their resolutions for 2008. Below are a round-up of this year's progressive goals from friends in progressive media, progressive organizing, and...well...just friends.

Fred Gooltz, Advomatic:
A few days ago I saw Holiday Inn which reminded me how it takes an audience's protest to move hate from the mainstream. This armchair activist resolves to make a point of telling friends and family exactly why I refuse to watch movies riddled with cheap bigot jokes. For homophobia to go the way of blackface minstrel routines, the actors and producers responsible for the homophobia need to hear that we think they are shameful embarrassments who spread hate for money.

John Javna, 50 Ways To Fight The Right:
Number one on my list is to reuse stuff more instead of buying new things. Finding ways to reuse household consumer goods, for example, saves me money and also cuts back on the production/packaging/ transport etc of stuff. Freecycle is a great site for this. Another approach is just finding ways to reuse items for other purposes, e.g. an old shoebox helps me organize my closet. For me, this will also include shopping more at consignment and second hand shops to update my wardrobe. I've gotten addicted to online shopping, so this is gonna be a good challenge.

Negin Farsad, Laughing Liberally/Nerdcore Rising:
Mentor a young woman! If your field is anything like mine - standup comedy, film & tv production - you're surrounded by a veritable and exhausting sausage fest. Only 15% of directors, producers and editors are women which seems downright medieval. The figure among professional standup comics is equally abysmal. So if you're a VIP in whatever field, mentor a young woman. Yes we can... shift those numbers!

Sam Seder, Air America Radio:
Never let your friends, family or neighbors forget that it was conservative "governance" that dug this massive hole our country finds itself in.

Seth D. Michaels, Coordinator, Working Families Vote 2008:
Eat less meat, and remember that being a consumer is a political act - whether you intend it to be or not - so be an aware shopper.

Buy from locally-owned stores. Not only does this shift income (slightly) lower on the income distribution, it also has the potential to be a huge stimulus, given that the owners of these stores are more likely to patronize other stores in your area--and if you go to a store like Fleet Feet, where Phil Fenty is going to spend his profits at other locally-owned stores, the multiplier is just huge. Also, get off Verizon. AT&T, or even better, CREDO, does not spend its energy attempting to destroy the American workforce. Verizon does.

Amanda Mittlestadt, The Liberal Card:
Become a card-carrying liberal. It'll give you a chance to show your liberal pride, help support Living Liberally, and support and sustain liberal businesses with the
liberal discounts you'll receive.

Matt Browner-Hamlin, SEIU:
The power of the liberal blogosphere is only as great as the willingness of bloggers, commenters, and readers to take action when called upon by our peers. When we work together, we can compel Congress to hear us. In my experience this is best done with direct phone calls and visits to the offices of our Congressional representatives. So here's my resolution: when I see the bloggers I read and trust make a call to action, asking me to pick up the phone, I'll do it. Not just on the issues I care the most about, but on the ones that you all care about. Solidarity means we can get more done and solidarity ensures that our movement can bring more change to our country every day. So I'll stand in solidarity with all of you in the New Year...I hope you'll join me.

Matt Filiopwicz, HeadzUp:
Make your local Democratic Party more liberal by showing up. Go to local meetings of the party and speak that sweet progressive mind of yours. Especially if you live in a conservative area. You can help steer your Democrats in the right direction. Which is the left direction.

Mike Connery, Future Majority:
The Obama Presidency - through wireside chats on YouTube, calls for ideas on Change.Gov, and house parties across the country - offers us the first real chance to be more than spectators in our democracy, grading politicians at the polls once every four years. My resolution is to take full advantage of these new opportunities - to contribute ideas when I have them, support Obama when he advances progressive causes, and raise a ruckus when I think he's making the wrong decisions.

Jamie Kilstein, Laughing Liberally:
- Not to become complacent after electing the cool black guy. Racism is not over. American imperialism is not over. We have a lot of work to do. There are corporate lobbyists working everyday to move Obama to the right. That is their job. If we are not there to counter, if we don't make countering our job, it doesn't matter how good a guy Obama is, we will lose.

Erin Hofteig, Media Matters For America:
Changing the world happens in small, personal steps and large institutional (or revolutionary) leaps. Something as small as bringing your own bags to the grocery store ensures less trees are cut down and less petroleum is needed to make new plastic bags. Not buying products manufactured in countries that use child labor, don't abide by environmental standards or health standards helps everyone. These small steps make a real difference. Support the organizations that are fighting for the values you hold dear. Take actions and let those in power know what you think, and give money. The flagging economy is going to make it extremely difficult for these groups to operate effectively and ten dollars from you will help them remain relevant. Most importantly, stay informed. The policy debates coming on energy, health care and other important issues are going to be twisted with half truths and spin. Only an informed and engaged electorate will give legislators the backing, or the push, they need to stand up against the special interests.

Josh Bolotsky:
I want to say the same thing I said last year.

Drinking Liberally has good friends in Pasadena, California.

It's a chapter that was started by Asa Hopkins several years ago. Asa was a Convention delegate in '04, he was active in YDA, and I met him first at the 2020 Democrats launch conference in late '03.

But what makes the Pasadena strong is not that it was started by a good leader; it's that it has remained vibrant even after Asa moved on.

You see, chapter leaders come and go. Sometimes, a chapter doesn't fare so well when a host has to move. But Pasadena regular has attendance in the teens, on Election Night had over 50, and was featured (with photographs) in a great article.

Patrick Burns, Lauri Fiedler and Mike Anderson -- the current hosts -- deserve a great amount of credit. They also deserve our thanks -- for gathering tips from chapter members and Tipping Liberally, sending funds to support the national network.

So next time you're out in southern California, stop by and toast them in person, every Tuesday night at Madeleine's Wine Bistro.

Violence explodes between Israel & Hamas,
repeating an old story stuck in old thinking
that needs a new approach to create the peace.

Slow Christmas buying echoed the weak economy,
but a $500 rebate isn't going to fix it,
as we need to be innovative in our stimulus.

Bush pardons cronies, then revokes one,
& Blagojevich appoints a replacement Senator --
the corrupt keep finding new ways to be corrupt,
so we need fresh approaches to stop them.

From Wall St to Detroit to Senate obstruction,
problems have come from a failure to evolve;
but in this new year, does a new Administration
finally have the resoluteness to resolve?

May Obama make a New Year's Resolution
to a Year of New Revolutions...
revolutionary ideas, actions & progress.

That's a New Year wish we can toast to.

Sing out the old & ring in the new
as you start 2009 off on the Left foot
at your local progressive social club.

DRINKING LIBERALLY
Find - or start - a chapter near you.

Here's hoping that 2009 will be the year that we finally wise up to all our follies, and, in the words of NY Times columnist Bob Herbert, Stop Being Stupid.

(With a click of her mouse, EatingLiberally’s kat corners Dr. Marion Nestle, NYU professor of nutrition and author of Pet Food Politics, What to Eat and Food Politics:)

Kat: The Sacramento Bee reported on Sunday that a supposedly organic fertilizer used by nearly a third of California's organic farmers was in fact spiked with the synthetic fertilizer ammonium sulfate. In 2004, a whistleblower told California's Department of Food and Agriculture that this deception had been going on for five years.

The Department of Food and Agriculture tested the product and determined that the claim was true, but didn't order the company to take its product off the organic market until January 2007. "As a result," according to the SacBee, "some of California's 2006 harvest of organic fruits, nuts and vegetables – including crops from giants like Earthbound Farm – wasn't really organic."

The SacBee adds:

The product was finally yanked for the vague violation of "improper labeling." The state chose not to pursue harsher penalties against California Liquid Fertilizer for violating California's organic product law, and also declined to refer the case to the attorney general's office for civil action as an unfair business practice. An agriculture department spokesman told the SacBee that "our priority was to remove the product from the market...More process would have delayed that."

This sort of incident perpetuates the notion that higher priced organic foods are some kind of scam, and vindicates the many small-scale sustainable farmers who've chosen to go "beyond organic" and opt out of the organic certification process altogether. Doesn't California's Department of Food and Agriculture have a stake in maintaining the integrity of the organic standards?

Dr. Nestle: What a dismal story, and on so many levels. Cheating is the Achilles’ heel of organics. The entire organic certification system is based on trust. If trust goes, the organic industry collapses like a house of cards. Organics means two quite different things. To people who care about the food system, organics is about growing crops and raising animals using methods that are good (for the health of people and animals), clean (for the environment), fair (to the people who produce the food), and sustainable (meaning renewing—not wasting or destroying—the earth’s natural resources).

To everyone involved in raising and selling organic foods, organics is a business. This business commands higher prices if—and only if—buyers believe that the food is produced according to those criteria and is better for their health and that of the planet.

The rules that govern USDA’s organic certification program attempt to address both food system and business concerns. As is usual for government agencies in the current political environment, business concerns take precedence. In setting the organic standards, the USDA tackled good and clean (although with some unfortunate compromises), but didn’t bother at all with fair or sustainable.

The “beyond organic” folks want to eliminate the compromises and deal with the missing pieces. Fine, but what they do also depends on trust, especially because if they aren’t certified, they are not inspected.

As I see it, trust in organic certification depends entirely on the integrity of the inspection system. The USDA certifies a motley group of agencies to visit farms and check to make sure that producers are following the rules. As I learned when researching the “organic” fish chapter of What to Eat, and even more from looking into the business of “organic” pet food, certifying agencies differ substantially in their application of the rules for organic production. Some take them seriously; some clearly don’t.

When I was writing What to Eat, I went to a lot of trouble to evaluate the integrity of the organic system. I interviewed producers, government officials, and inspectors. In 2006, everyone involved with the system told me that the system worked pretty well and violations were more a matter of misunderstanding than of evil intent. But large industrial vegetable growers in California told me that they think the organic system is corrupt from top to bottom. They have a vested interest in thinking so, of course. So whom are we supposed to trust?

One of the problems with the depressing instance discussed in the Sacramento Bee is that you have no way of knowing whether it is rare or common. We need to know this. Much is at stake. If, as is clearly the case, the organic rules don’t cover issues the public cares about, the inspection system is flawed, the USDA is constantly trying to weaken the standards, industrial producers are constantly trying to weaken the standards, and state departments of agriculture don’t want to bother enforcing them, why should anyone be willing to pay more for organics?

That is why strong organic standards, diligently enforced, are better for everyone concerned and especially for business. Everyone should be lobbying the new administration for stronger and better organic standards. But maybe the whole thing is moot? In the current economic climate, organic sales are tanking (see chart). While waiting for all this to sort out, here’s what to do: buy local from someone you know personally and think is worth trusting.

Image from G Living

(We're pleased as punch that Elanor Starmer, the Ethicurean's resident agriculture policy expert, found time amid all the holiday festivities to weigh in on whether Wal-Mart's been naughty or nice. Thanks, Elanor, and happy sledding!)

Kat: I used to shop at Wal-Mart, until I figured out that low prices based on lousy labor practices and shoddy made-in-China schlock are not such a bargain. But now that Wal-Mart--America's largest food retailer--has jumped on the organic bandwagon, it's making organic products available to folks who lack the access or means to shop at farmers' markets or, say, Whole Foods. Wal-Mart has also made a great show of going green, and just shelled out more than $352 million in what may be the "largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations."

As you noted over at the Ethicurean a couple of weeks ago, global food companies such as Wal-Mart have a terrible track record when it comes to workers' rights. Can Wal-Mart ever be a force for good? Is it OK to advocate shopping there if it's the only way you can get your hands on organic stuff (even if it's industrial organic)?

Elanor: This is the perennial question, isn't it? Wal-Mart is so huge that it's easy to make the argument that any "good" thing Wal-Mart does - from stocking organic food to changing to energy-saving lightbulbs - makes a huge impact. And in a sense, that is absolutely true. But its potential to make a huge positive impact in one arena can't be viewed in isolation from its potential to hugely screw things up in other arenas. Looking at the sum total seems to be the only way to answer that question fairly.

On the plus side, it's pretty clear that Wal-Mart has gotten organic food into the hands of people who might not otherwise buy it or have access to it. But a major caveat is the quality of organic product that Wal-Mart actually provides. Wal-Mart isn't just a seller -- it's also a buyer, one that is able to offer lower prices to consumers (and still turn a massive profit) in part by lowering the prices it pays to its suppliers. In many cases, lower prices equals a lower-quality product. We saw this play out publicly when Wal-Mart decided to offer organic milk: Organic Valley was originally bidding for the contract along with Horizon (owned by dairy giant Dean Foods, which controls some 60% of the organic milk market in the US). Reportedly, Organic Valley dropped out of the bidding process because it realized that it couldn't maintain its high standards, including the tradition of offering its farmer-members a "fair" price for milk, given what Wal-Mart was willing to pay. Horizon ended up with the contract.

So is that good for consumers or not? Not so much. Consumers buy organic milk for a lot of different reasons -- because the cows aren't fed synthetic hormones or antibiotics, because they have access to pasture (and some studies suggest that grass-fed cows produce healthier meat and milk products than cows fed grain), because organic producers have to manage their dairies in more environmentally-responsible ways than conventional dairymen may, or because they want to help keep family farms in business by paying them a fair price for milk. What we're seeing with Horizon and other industrial-organic dairies is that the pressure to sell milk cheaply becomes pressure to cut corners on the organic standards. Horizon and Aurora, another big organic milk company, have been sued by the Cornucopia Institute for violating the standards by confining cows in giant feedlots rather than letting them out on pasture. The USDA has been pathetically lax in forcing the big guys to comply with the rules. As a result, consumers buying organic milk at Wal-Mart are getting milk that is far closer to the conventional stuff than most of them would probably ever imagine.

If consumers want to pay more for milk from cows that are fed organic feed but otherwise raised in conditions not unlike those of their conventional brethren, then Wal-Mart will help them do that. If they want healthier milk from cows that munch on pasture, where family farmers are able to care for the animals and the land because they're paid a fair price, then Wal-Mart isn't the answer. And as the pressure on suppliers to provide organic food at very low prices gets stronger and stronger, we'll see fewer domestic family farms able to compete and more organic food coming in from China and elsewhere, where enforcement of the standards is even weaker than it is here at home. The U.S. organic movement has spent so long building strong organic standards - it would be a tragedy if the label went the way of so many downtown shopping areas, drained of all its life by Wal-Mart's market power.

There's one more angle to this issue as well, and that's the fact that in addition to being a seller and a buyer, Wal-Mart is also an employer. Wal-Mart's labor track record is horrendous -- riddled with union busts, gender discrimination, refusals to pay overtime or provide health benefits or pay decent wages (the average full-time associate's salary was $13,000 a year in 2001) -- and the result is a major population of workers who struggle to put food on the table. It's arguably Wal-Mart's pathetic labor record, not its organic food sales, that has the greatest impact on the health of low-income consumers. After all, Wal-Mart workers are also consumers, and Wal-Mart is the single largest employer in the United States.

I can't help but think that there has to be a better way to increase access to organic food. I recently read a 2004 report by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce that estimated that one Wal-Mart store with 200 employees costs U.S. taxpayers over $420,000 per year in subsidies for free or reduced school lunches for the employees' kids, Section 8 housing assistance, public health care coverage, and other programs. That begs the question of whether, instead of using that taxpayer money to effectively subsidize Wal-Mart's operating costs, we could use it to increase poor households' access to healthy and organic food in other ways. I mean, does it really have to be a choice between Wal-Mart organics and no organics at all? I am definitely not an expert on food access policy, but I know there are other options out there; WIC coupons that can be redeemed at farmers markets are but one small example.

If we want to increase low-income access to organic food, pay family farmers a fair wage for their sustainability efforts, and safeguard the strength of the organic label - all requirements for a healthy, functional organic system - we'll need new policy solutions. That's not a short-term fix by any means, but anything less won't get us where we want to go. In the meantime, each of us will have to decide whether or not to shop at Wal-Mart -- and not delude ourselves about what we're getting if we do.