Mediaboss Marketing

Bloomington City Council at its virtual meeting earlier this week. (Photo courtesy HOI ABC)

By HOI ABC

BLOOMINGTON A Bloomington City Council member is calling on the council to support using taxpayer dollars for direct aid to residents feeling economic hardships from the coronavirus pandemic.

According to our news partner HOI ABC, Jeff Crabill recommends spending at least $100,000 because aid administered by federal and state governments, as well as non-profit organizations, is limited, hard to access, subject to delay, and not available to all in the community.

Crabills request comes as a coalition of community activists demands increases in spending, secure housing, and the release of jail inmates who face increased risk of exposure to COVID-19, but cant afford to post bail required for their release.

We know there is a need, as there has been a significant increase in joblessness through the closing of nonessential businesses and a reduction in staff by restaurants, Crabill said in a document asking for the matter to be discussed at Monday nights committee-of-the-whole council meeting.

The council is being asked to decide if theres sufficient support to place the issue on the April 27 council meeting agenda.

At the council meeting this past Monday night, Mayor Tari Renner indicated local leaders will have to take action.

For some people, its more than an inconvenience, its really, really a crisis in terms of employment, in terms of housing issues, in terms of food, in terms of health care, the mayor said.

Theyre hitting our least advantaged citizens the hardest, and I think weve got to recognize that as we move forward, Renner also said.

The City of Bloomington Township would oversee any new funding. The city council acts as township trustees.

Direct local government aid to the needy is one of the demands from the Protect Our People coalition, which has been holding weekly meetings on Zoom to discuss the pandemics impact.

The group argues Bloomington and Normal governments have tens of millions of dollars available to help the poor.

Illinois Peoples Action, the Bloomington-Normal Democratic Socialists of America, and the local chapter of Black Lives Matter are organizing the coalition and its lobbying effort.

WJBC News can be reached at news@wjbc.com

Here is the original post:
Bloomington council urged to boost aid to hardest hit in pandemic's fallout - WJBC News

If so, it will be on the ballot this November.

The Trump campaign has launched a new theme on social media that makes the Willie Horton ad of 1988 look like childs play. Here are a couple of examples.

That is a good indication of what we can expect from Trump over the next few months. I am reminded of something one of the presidents advisors told Maggie Haberman: The president, whose own approval ratings have stayed upside down, needs voters to feel negatively not just about his opponents but about longstanding institutions. Neither the president nor his advisors are interested in raising Trumps approval ratings. They simply want to gin up fear and hatred for their opponents.

As Philip Bump documented, that strategy worked in 2016.

As it turns out, while people who liked Trump and didnt like Clinton voted heavily for Trump (as youd expect), the current president also had an edge among people who disliked both him and Clinton. He won those voters by 17 points nationally and by margins in the closest states that were likely enough to hand him the electoral college victory he needed

By the numbers, exit polls had Trump leading Clinton among those who didnt like either candidate by 37 points in Wisconsin, 25 points in Pennsylvania and 21 points in Michigan.

Of course, Trump got a huge assist with those voters from former FBI Director James Comey, Russia, Sanders supporters, and the media in painting Clinton as corrupt. There has been a concerted effort to do the same thing with Biden by linking him to his son Hunter Bidens activities, but that hasnt taken hold the way the smears against Clinton did in 2016. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Biden leads Trump among voters who dislike both candidates by 32 percent.

Jon Favreau once said that every election is a competition between two stories about America. Trumps story this year will be similar to the one he told in 2016.

He is a celebrity strongman who will single-handedly save the country from an establishment that is too weak, stupid, corrupt, and politically correct to let us blame the real source of our problemsMuslims and Mexicans and Black Lives Matter protesters; the media, business, and political elites from both parties.

While it is important for Democrats to point out the overwhelming failures of the Trump administration and call out their lies, it is also important to tell a competing story of America. Joe Biden is doing that by talking about the need to reclaim the soul of America. Telling a compelling story always starts with identifying the challenge.

It then links the current struggle to those we have overcome in the past.

Finally, it identifies our strength to overcome.

Especially at this moment in our countrys history, it feels like it could be a risk to put our faith in the American people. But I am reminded of something Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote shortly after Barack Obamas election.

Here is where Barack Obama and the civil rights leaders of old are joined in a shocking, almost certifiable faith in humanity, something that subsequent generations lost. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. may have led African Americans out of segregation, and he may have cured incalculable numbers of white racists, but more than all that, he believed that the lions share of the population of this country would not support the rights of thugs to pummel people who just wanted to cross a bridge. King believed in white people, and when I was a younger, more callow man, that belief made me suck my teeth. I saw it as weakness and cowardice, a lack of faith in his own. But it was the opposite. Kings belief in white people was the ultimate show of strength: He was willing to give his life on a bet that they were no different from the people who lived next door.

The truth is that an America that buys into Trumps vision of hate and division might not be worth saving. But if there is a soul of America that is still dedicated to the struggle to perfect our union, it will be on the ballot this November.

Excerpt from:
Is There a Soul of America Worth Reclaiming? - Washington Monthly

Courtesy PBS The new PBS documentary connects the de-institutionalization movement that emptied postwar psychiatric hospitals with the surge of homelessness in U.S. cities.

Todd slams his phone on the ground, cracks it in pieces, then picks it up and throws it again. Frustration pours out of him like flames.

Todd has HIV, and a long history of depression and manic symptoms; after a stint at the L.A. County Hospital a year earlier, hes been living on the streets of Los Angeles. Hes been promised an apartment of his own, a months-long process arranged by a case worker. But theres a new snag: Hes just been told that hell hopefully be able to get the keys within a few days. They were just waiting for the current owners of the unit to finalize the move.

It makes no sense to me, he yells. You have somebody sleeping on the goddamn sidewalk when hes got a f---ing apartment? Later, more troubles: Todd is charged with a minor offense and loses his housing after a three-month jail sentence.

Todd is one of the estimated 350,000 people in the U.S. with severe mental illness who are also experiencing homelessness, 20,000 of whom can be found in Los Angeles. His story, and others like his, form the backbone of psychiatrist and filmmaker Kenneth Rosenbergs new documentary Bedlam, which tracks the rise and fall of mental health institutions in the U.S. and the subsequent criminalization of the countrys most vulnerable.

The film, which premiered on PBS this week as part of the networks Independent Lens series and is streaming online until May 12, is based on Rosenbergs book, also called Bedlam; both projects were drawn from seven years of research and reporting in L.A.s hospitals, jails, and streets. The titles come from the nickname of Bethlem Royal Hospital, a pioneering and notorious London asylum that opened in 1403. Today, the word is synonymous with uproar and confusion, and asylums are gone.Insead, the largest facilities to house the mentally ill in the U.S. are urban jails: Los Angeles Twin Towers, Chicagos Cook County Jail and New Yorks Rikers Island.

Rosenberg has personal stakes in this history. His sister Merle struggled with schizophrenia for three decades, while their parents struggled to confront and accept her illness. Rosenberg, who was in charge of Merles care after his parents passed, found her dead in her bedroom at the age of 55. Her illness led him to become a psychiatrist; the failures of the profession, and the lack of progress made in managing cases like hers, inspired him to make the film.

We cant fix something that we cant face, Rosenberg says.

To chronicle those failures, Rosenberg guides viewers through the history of the U.S.s mental illness treatment. Like another troubled American institution public housing, the subject of this recent PBS documentary the story begins with a well-meaning plan to build government-funded shelter for vulnerable populations. What follows is disinvestment, decline, demolition and denial.

The best way to follow issues you care about.

In the 1950s, more than half a million American patients were held in a vast network of psychiatric hospitals. They provided necessary mental health care, Rosenberg says, but the conditions were inhumane; shutting down these human warehouses became a goal of the postwar era. John F. Kennedy, who took office in 1961, provided another push for reform his sister, Rosemary Kennedy, was lobotomized for what wed now call bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and lived the remainder of her life in a mental institution. Soon before his assassination, Kennedy signed an act to open hundreds of federally funded community health facilities, meant as preventive alternatives to hospitalization. But when Ronald Reagan became president in the 1980s, he tried to push the responsibility back to the states.

We built asylums and they were pretty dreadful, or they became pretty dreadful, said Rosenberg. Then we decided for good reason that we wanted to get rid of the asylums. But we didnt replace them with something better. We just tore them down.

Over the course of the late 20th century, psychiatric hospitals emptied out about 1.4 million of their patients in a process of de-institutionalization. But most didnt land on their feet. What happened is that people werent de-institutionalized, they were trans-institutionalized, said Rosenberg. They went from one institution to another: from the asylums to the jails, and the streets.

Many patients Rosenberg follows also find themselves in the L.A. County Hospital, where overworked staff counsel, restrain, and try to treat them. Todd thrashes and lashes out at staff; after 20 years in jail, being bound to a bed in a hospital cell, surrounded by police officers, feels no different, he said.

But after being discharged, relief can be fleeting, even for those who have stable housing. Unfortunately, once patients leave our hospital, theres really little we can do, says one doctor. We cant keep people detained for long periods of time.

For cities, the fallout of this exodus is clear. California, which led the charge in emptying its hospitals of patients, is now afflicted with some of the highest homelessness rates in the country. Not all unhoused people are mentally ill estimates range from a quarter to more than a third but those who are struggle to keep up with medication, and have encounters with law enforcement that can escalate.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results, says an ER psychiatrist identified only as Dr. McGhee, who explains her decision to quit working with mentally ill patients at the L.A. County Hospital. The way we treat mentally ill in this country is insane.

Because of these glaring institutional gaps, Rosenberg says that the responsibility of caring for the mentally ill often falls on their families, perhaps more so than for any other disease. And its the families in the film that offer the shiniest glimmers of hope, short-lived as they may be.

Patrisse Cullors, whos known as one of the co-founders of Black Lives Matter movement, helps care for her brother, Monte. Hes sweet and sensitive I just want to live and be happy and just be left alone, he says in the film but Cullors fears that Monte will be hurt by police during a manic episode.

Racial discrimination compounds the endless jail-to-streets merry-go-round. When two people display the same symptoms of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, the person of color gets a worse diagnosis, a worse prognosis, and a worse disposition, says Rosenberg. Meaning they go to jail instead of a hospital.

One month after Cullors helps lead the charge to replace a mens jail in L.A. with a mental health hospital, Monte stops taking his medicine, and turns psychotic; after a stint in a private hospital, hes discharged; after another psychotic break, hes on the streets.

The movement continues, but the reality really sucks, said Rosenberg.

The book and film were completed before the coronavirus crisis arrived, but Rosenberg says that the pandemic stands to have serious long-term mental health impacts he fears that the isolation and anxiety will open people up to problems that may have laid dormant otherwise. But the crisis may also underline the importance of preventative public health care.

You realize now more than ever that health of the entire world affects our own personal health thats true with mental illness as well, he said. If we have a segment of our society that we abandon, it hurts us economically and socially and psychologically.

Sarah Holder is a staff writer at CityLab covering local policy, housing, labor, and technology.

Continued here:
How America's 'Bedlam' Became Jails and Streets - CityLab

Bold thinking is an essential part of Dukes approach to scholarship, and three ongoing projects show the unexpected results.

Adriane Lentz-Smith, Gabriel Rosenberg, and Aarthi Vadde have been named 202021 National Humanities Center Fellows. They will spend a year away from their regular teaching duties as resident scholars at the Research Triangle Parkbased center, researching and writing new books. Chosen from 673 applicants, they join 30 other humanists from the U.S. and four foreign countries working in 18 different disciplines.

Here are the books theyre working on.

In 1985, a Black San Diego resident named Sagon Penn was pulled over by the police. The encounter quickly turned violent. Fearing for his life, Penn shot and killed one officer while wounding another and a civilian who was riding with them.

Penn was charged with murder, and his trial highlighted the rampant racial tensions of 1980s southern California, which would explode with the assault of Rodney King six years later. Though he was eventually acquitted, Penns life deteriorated. He was later arrested on charges of domestic abuse, among other things, and, in 2002, he committed suicide.

Adriane Lentz-Smith, associate professor of History

The basic story itself is riveting and heartbreaking, said Adriane Lentz-Smith, whose project, The Slow Death of Sagon Penn: State Violence and the Twilight of Civil Rights, centers around the case. It has you think about the ways in which state violence becomes more personalized types of violence and travels throughout a community, touching all kinds of folks.

By writing about Penns life in the era of Black Lives Matter, Lentz-Smith, an associate professor of History, hopes to provide historical context to now familiar debates about policing and racism. The Civil Rights Movement didnt begin with Brown vs. Board nor end with the Voting Rights Act, she said. She will use Penns experience to connect individual victims of state violence to the national history of policing, border policies and white supremacy, showing how the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement continue today.

Approaching the topic this way also allows Lentz-Smith to humanize the issues. When you make it not an abstract debate, but a life that we see destroyed, that takes his loved ones and his children with it to see it as tragedy, and not just an individual tragedy but Americas that seems significant, she said.

Gabriel Rosenberg, associate professor of Gender, Sexuality & Feminist Studies

According to Gabriel Rosenberg, associate professor of Gender, Sexuality & Feminist Studies, if you want to understand why eugenics and race science were widely popular in the United States in the early 20th century, you cant just look at intellectual debates over the theorys scientific merits (or lack thereof). The actual answer, he says, can only be found on farms.

There are really intriguing and interesting institutional ties between eugenic organizations and the livestock breeding industry, Rosenberg explained. This is a well-known empirical fact about the history of eugenics, but its often sidelined as a peculiarity.

Rosenberg aims to make it central, because thats what it was at the time. In the early 1900s, most Americans lived in rural areas, surrounded by farm animals. In fact, in 1900, the nations livestock was worth more than the countrys railroads combined. The only asset worth more at the time was land.

As a result, eugenics the practice of selectively mating people with specific hereditary traits was a familiar idea, Rosenberg argues. Many accepted the theory because it mirrored the way they bred their livestock. All that was needed was to apply the same logic to humans with horrific consequences.

By placing farming practices into the history of eugenics, Rosenberg is also making broader arguments about the forces shaping our world. The practice of making meat at these truly world historical levels is reformulating human social relations with each other, fundamentally restructuring human societies, he said. Were creating a new ecology that confines and conditions our own social relations. In other words, the supply chains and husbandry practices that define how we treat animals and nature also define how we treat ourselves.

Is fan fiction a form of literary criticism? Should people who love literature care about self-published novels, Instagram poetry or the millions of words written, read and shared on digital platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or Reddit?

Aarthi Vadde, associate professor of English

By turning to popular digital forms of writing, associate professor of English Aarthi Vadde is taking questions typically asked by scholars of Internet culture and examining them with a literary lens. The new perspective raises the very question of what makes writing literary, asking what impact its form and venue of publication have even the device on which its read.

Vadde points out that while curling up with a good book is still many readers ideal way to consume literature, its not the predominant mode of reading in the 21st century. I didnt feel like enough people were talking about the actual sociological circumstances of the way literature is consumed today, Vadde said. You cant assume that people are reading the physical book. And if they are reading the physical book, you still have to take into account the ecology that the book exists in.

That ecology is defined by the Internet. We spend most of our reading time on digital devices, reading not just news articles and e-books, but social media posts, reviews and other kinds of everyday writing. And writing them ourselves. Writing is eclipsing reading as a literacy skill, Vadde said. Its so important to write in all areas of work and play these days. Thats something that is very different than the old idea of the reader and writer having a very clear boundary between them.

Titled We the Platform: Contemporary Literature after Web 2.0, Vaddes project examines how the social web is changing the relationship between literature and literacy, or the broader understanding of how people read and write today. She will examine works of literature that probe the conditions of reading and writing, make creative use of digital platforms and reflect upon the computing technologies shaping our interaction with all kinds of art, including Teju Coles Twitter fiction, Jarett Kobeks self-published satire I Hate the Internet and more.

In doing so, Vadde will analyze how the principles and rhetoric of Web 2.0, alongside its tech, influence the form and circulation of literature.

Learning to use digital tools is not enough, she said. Humanists should more pointedly address the philosophies behind those tools. We the Platform will show how literary works and humanistic criticism can play key roles in the dialogue on responsible computing.

See the article here:
The Police State, Livestock Breeding and Web 2.0: Research by 3 Duke Professors - Duke Today

[He provided] Russians with Austrian military secrets. He also doctored or destroyed the intelligence reports which his own agents were sending in from Russia with the result that the Austrians, at the outbreak of the war, were completely misinformed as to Russias mobilization intentions.

U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) spoke these words in the 1950s in the midst of the second Red Scare. He would go on to assert that there were somewhere between 50 and over 200 known communists in the State Department despite offering no evidence. McCarthyism, as it would come to be known, would stifle much of the gains made by the working class since the Great Depression.

Just like the first Red Scare, which occurred three decades earlier in response to domestic labor activism and the Bolshevik Revolution abroad, McCarthy was utilizing the fear of communism, which he referred to as a well-placed fear, to combat democratic populism illustrated in the labor and civil rights movements. A half century later, the mass mobilization of individuals in Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Yellow Vests, #MeToo, Eco-Justice, Democracy Spring, and more, coupled with the populist rejection of neoliberalism expressed in the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns, helped foster a Third Red Scare. Although the playbook is the same, this Red Scare differed in that it treated Russia, not communism itself, as the boogeyman. Trumps populist campaign, which co-opted economic anxiety for electoral victory, followed by his unexpected presidency, primed the American liberal class for a Third Red Scare.

Starting in 2016, the corporate media published false stories about how the Russians had obtained compromising content on Trump, altered the 2016 election with social media ads, made Trump into a Manchurian candidate, hacked a Vermont power-grid, and more. The Russia hysteria continued through his presidency with the press inflating the number of intelligence agencies investigating Trump from 4 to 17; The New York Times falsely reporting that Maria Butina was a Russian spy who traded sex for favorable policy; theWall Street Journalmaking the baseless claim that international intelligence serviceswere withholding intelligencefrom the U.S. because Trump had been compromised; and CNNfabricating the notion that Trump was in constant contact with Russians known to U.S. intelligence. Buzzfeed went further, printing the origin of much of these unsubstantiated stories, an opposition research dossier paid for by Republicans and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Steele Dossier, from British Intelligence Office Christopher Steele. The speculative reporting continued with minimal retractions and suspensions. In fact, many of the discredited articles are still online. In addition to the press, the Third Red Scare was perpetuated by members of the intelligence community and Democratic Party such as United States Navy senior chief petty officer and media commentator Malcolm Nance, NSA employee John Schindler, former U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and House of Representatives minority leader Adam Schiff (D-CA). These crest of the speculative red scare wave broke when the Mueller Report revealed that much of the Russia hysteria was baseless. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party, assuming that the Third Red Scare was responsible for their electoral victories in 2018, shrouded their impeachment of Trump in Russian hysteria.

In 2020, Democrats have viewed Bernie Sanders and his supporters as the only thing standing in their way from electorally removing Trump and reestablishing their neoliberal hegemony. However, it would be challenging to completely discredit Sanders considering that he was the most popular candidate in 2016 and 2020, was polling best among voters of color, and captivated the coveted youth vote with a message of replacing the current system with democratic socialism. Therefore, a comprehensive, multifaceted attack was implemented by Democratic leadership and their corporate media enablers. In addition to a months-long blackout of his campaign and repeated manipulation of graphics and math regarding his support, the media and party establishment turned the Third Red Scare on Sanders and his supporters. For example, two days before Sanders landslide victory in the Nevada caucus, The New York Times ran an article titled Lawmakers are Warned That Russia is Meddling to Re-elect Trump. A day later they ran an article titled Russia is said to be Interfering to Aid Sanders in Democratic Primaries. On the same day, the Washington Post ran an article, with a headline, Bernie Sanders Briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is Trying to Help his Presidential Campaign, which obfuscated the not insignificant/crucial detail that the briefing offered no evidence. On the day of the Nevada primary, The New York Times published an op-ed titled, Same Goal, Different Playbook: Why Russia Would Support Trump and Sanders. The 24-hour news networks echoed the newspapers Russian hysteria with a guest on CNNs State of the Union claiming that the real winner in Nevada was Russian president Vladimir Putin. As it turned out, the articles content was based on anonymous sources making baseless claims.

However, despite the lack of evidence, red-baiting against Sanders persisted. In addition to newspapers such as USA Today, and The New York Times doing it, Dan Pfeiffer on NBCs Meet the Press and Rahm Emmanuel on ABCs This Week claimed that Putin was aiding Sanders in the primary to ensure a Trump victory in the general election; The Daily Beast opined that Russia was helping Sanders because Biden was the Kremlins most feared candidate; CNN Host Michael Smerconish compared Sanders candidacy to the spread of the coronavirus; now disgraced MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews likened Sanders win in Nevada to the Nazis invasion of France and suggested that if the Reds had won the Cold War, Sanders might have been found cheering on hypothetical executions in Central Park; NBC news anchor Chuck Todd cited a comparison of Sanders supporters to a digital brownshirt brigade; and not to be outdone, former adviser to the Clinton campaigns, and MSNBC contributor James Carville claimed that Sanders was a communist aided by Putin. Just as the Red Scare helped prevent the electoral success of Eugene Debs and Henry Wallace, it is safe to assume it stifled Sanders campaign.

In addition, the Third Red Scare has been instrumental in protecting Joe Bidens neoliberal candidacy from legitimate critiques. For example, in 2020, after hearing stories from other accusers, Tara Reade, a former staffer to Biden, accused the former vice-president of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. In response, the very same Democratic Party that rightly rallied around Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had little interest in Reades story. Furthermore, not only did Times Up, the non-profit representing victims of sexual harassment after the 2018 public campaign against media mogul Harvey Weinstein, refuse to represent Reade because she was accusing Biden, it turns out that the managing director of Times Ups public relations firm is Anita Dunn, who is also the top adviser to Bidens presidential campaign. Worse, party leadership and loyalists in the media dismissed her story because they argued that, wait for it that it was a Russian conspiracy.

The Third Red Scare has served to marginalize legitimate critiques of the neoliberal establishment and hamstring the agenda of progressives. The reality is that Sanders agenda is not even radical. In fact, it is in line with Franklin Delano Roosevelts Second Bill of Rights proposal (constitutional right to employment, food, clothing, leisure, fair income, freedom from unfair competition and monopolies for farmers, housing, medical care, social security, and education). So, like FDR, Sanders is more of a New Deal Democrat, not a socialist or communist, simply as a matter of historical fact. Furthermore, the U.S. is unique in its derision for socialism. Most of the rest of the world has socialist policies and parties. Nonetheless, the seemingly endless propagation of the Russian interference and Red Scare narratives continue to inflict damage upon and hamper democratic populist politicians and movements. The time has come to discard this canard, putting it where it belongs once and for all into the dustbin of history.

Dr. Nolan Higdonis an author and lecturer of history and media studies at California State University, East Bay. Higdon sits on the boards of the Action Coalition for Media Education andNorthwest Alliance For Alternative Media And Education. His most recent publication isUnited States of Distractionwith Mickey Huff. He is co-host of the Along the Line podcast, and a longtime contributor to Project Censoreds annual book,Censored. In addition, he has been a guest commentator forThe New York Times,San Francisco Chronicle, and numerous television news outlets.

Mickey Huffis director of Project Censored, president of the Media Freedom Foundation, coeditor of the annualCensoredbook series from Seven Stories Press (since 2009), co-author ofUnited States of Distraction(City Lights, 2019), and professor of social science and history at Diablo Valley College where he co-chairs the history area, and lectures in communications at California State University, East Bay. He is also the executive producer and co-host of the weekly syndicated Pacifica Radio program, The Project Censored Show, founded in 2010.

Emil Marmol is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto/Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). As an interdisciplinary scholar with experience in professional film and radio production, he has published on critical media literacy, censorship, Cuban society, the impact of neoliberalism on higher education, repression of Latinx in education, standardized testing, labor struggles, and film. He is currently writing his doctoral thesis as an autoethnography/testimonio about growing up as the son of Latino immigrants in Orange County, California. His most recent publication is inCensored 2020: Though the Looking Glass, chapter 8, Fake News:The TrojanHorse for Silencing Alternative News and Reestablishing Corporate NewsDominance.

Learn more atwww.projectcensored.org

Read more here:
The Third Red Scare: Neoliberal's Effective Framing of 21st Century Populist and Progressive Movements - CounterPunch