Prairie Advocate News


Discover rewarding casino experiences.

best online casinos

Letters to the Editor and Commentary

Sportsmanship: How is it defined?

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, sportsmanship is conduct and attitude appropriate to sports; especially fair play and courtesy. We are in the middle of baseball season: pee wee, little miss and senior miss leagues just to name a few. How do you as a spectator measure up?

Give it some serious thought . . . Do you positively support your teams and coaches, or do you yell negative comments at them? Is your adult conduct at these games one to be proud of, or do you need to make some changes in your “support” of our young people?

This is a learning experience for many - some aren’t so athletic, so what? Support all levels of ability; do not pick on the better players (with disparaging remarks on their talent, attending sports camps, and being spoiled because they get to “play all the time”), and certainly encourage those who are trying their best . . . make this a good experience for them. FUN should be the operative word here - and remember, winning is not always the most important goal. Getting along, working together, and high self esteem should be the most important dynamics.

I have attended several games this summer in the area. Hey people, some of you need to seriously get your sad acts together. You are an embarrassment to the nth degree. When players on the field and in the dugouts can hear your nasty comments - well, that just is not cool.

I saw the best ever sportsmanship at the boys basketball state playoffs between Eastland and Forreston; it was displayed by parents, players, student bodies, and the fans attending. It made me proud to be a part of it.

Let’s see that degree of sportsmanship displayed on the baseball fields this summer. No more trash talk about the young players, the coaching decisions that are made, or the parenting skills of the players involved. Honestly, good sportsmanship makes us all winners.

Marietta Scott-Preston

Kirkland, IL

Bi-Partisan

We all know our great nation is broke. The ranch is mortgaged to the hilt, there’s nothing in our pockets but lint, the penny jar is empty but for a stale M&M, our kid’s piggy bank is lying in shards on the floor, and we’ve cleaned under the seat cushions.

The economic collapse of the United States of America WILL be non-partisan. No one, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Socialist, or Independent, will escape unscathed. In referencing the nation’s 14 trillion dollar debt, politicians of both parties have said the following phrase: “We face the most predictable economic crisis in history.”

Quick quiz: All of the following said it - who was first?

a) Alan Simpson (R)

b) Erskin Bowles (D)

c) Paul Ryan (R)

Answer:

This is no time for games - it doesn’t really matter who said it first, does it?

Terry Smith

Lanark, IL

Free Trade Agreements Are Not Free

President Obama has stated that he is going to submit several so-called “free trade agreements” to the Senate for ratification soon, perhaps by next week. He will tout the benefits of these agreements and with the pressure to create jobs here, he will undoubtedly stress how good they are for the U.S. economy. Ever since NAFTA, we can be justifiably doubtful.

What lessons from NAFTA have been learned that are corrected in these treaties? Opening Mexican markets to U.S. subsidized corn put at least a million Mexican subsistence farmers out of business. Needing to feed their families, they came north to the U.S.A. looking for work. Obviously not all were legal immigrants. What is there about the Columbian Free Trade Agreement that will prevent this from happening? Nothing.

What is there in this treaty to keep U.S. corporations from manufacturing products in Indonesia at pitiful wages and shipping them to Columbia thus benefiting the corporations based here but not the American worker?

Free Trade Agreements cost families their livelihood. Where is the hold harmless clause? Doesn’t this really end up a massive redistribution of wealth? Upward!

Who was at the negotiating table representing workers and consumers? Were they creditably represented? Oh, and by the way, why were the talks held in secret?

It is past time to end so-called “free trade” agreements and look at a model that is a FAIR TRADE. Fair to workers and families, sustainable for the environment and protective of the rights of workers. The Columbia Free Trade Agreement meets none of these criteria and it should be rejected. Hopefully, our U.S. Senators will vote to reject it.

Arthur C. Donart, Ph. D.

Thomson, IL

Government Child Abuse Report Abused

Pat Wemstrom blundered badly in her June 8 letter (“Statistics Can Be Misleading” - may be viewed at http://www.pacc-news.com/flip/flip6_8_11/PA_1-8_6_8_11.html) She didn’t even read the document she was criticizing – the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse (NIS-4.) This is evident from the fact that the statistics she quoted on the relationship between poverty and incidence rates were taken from NIS-3, compiled 18 years ago.

NIS-4 considered that aspect of abuse as well, updating the data and examining how the incidence and severity of abuse and neglect vary by specific characteristics of the children’s families, including their parents’ employment and socioeconomic status. Why, then, would Pat cite an older document when she could have quoted from the most recent one? It seems obvious to me: because she didn’t read it. That’s the definition of a prejudice.

There is more to the picture of child abuse in the U. S. than poverty. Research on homeless and welfare recipients has found that over 40 percent of homeless mothers and housed welfare mothers were sexually molested at least once before they reached adulthood. Nearly two-thirds of the overall sample were subjected to severe physical assault by an intimate as adults. NIS-3 has no data on cohabitation or stepfamilies. Biological parents married and biological parents cohabiting are considered equivalent configurations.

The most misleading data offered by the National Incidence Studies may be for the either-mother-or-father category. The British category of biological mother cohabiting is not documented in NIS-3, although it is the most dangerous of all family configurations in the U. K. Stepfamily configurations (biological mother and married husband) are not reported, although the British data demonstrate that the incidence of abuse in stepfamilies may be as much as six times higher than in the biological-married-parents category. In NIS-3, these categories are collapsed into one. The lack of these distinctions in NIS-3 masks grave risks for children, and therefore may be seriously misleading.

NIS-4 went much further. No previous government studies had included data on family structure and living arrangement circumstances. That was the whole point of my letter. The experts didn’t deny or ignore the fact that poverty is a contributing factor. What was unique and important about NIS-4 is the fact that it proved that family structure is critical -- that children brought up by their own married parents are at far less risk of abuse than other children. The findings are all right there in NIS-4. I didn’t make them up. They are not my “assertions.”

All kinds of people get married – rich, poor and middle class -- but the statistics show that the rates of abuse are much lower in families with two married parents no matter what their socioeconomic status. It apparently never occurred to Pat that love, commitment, stability and fidelity rather than income might explain the difference. I know a lot of poor families who take better care of their children than wealthier parents do. I’ll bet most Advocate readers know such families too.

Poverty doesn’t break children’s bones. Poverty doesn’t torture infants with cigarette burns. Poverty doesn’t cause the bruises, scars and swollen faces suffered by abused children.

People do. People – not poverty -- maim and kill America’s infants and young children (about 2,000 -- 6 per day -- each year) and NIS-4 shows what kind of living arrangement many of them prefer.

These shocking NIS-4 statistics are based on documented abuse reports filed by teachers, law enforcement and child welfare agencies (involving 10,667 professionals!) and court records in 122 counties (80 more than NIS-3) nationwide. A total of 16,875 reports were studied. Pat calls the results “bashing” single and gay parents by religious fanatics! I can’t imagine a more fanatical accusation.

Notice, too, that Pat’s the one who played the race, homophobia and religion cards, even though neither lifestyles nor religious affiliation were identified in the study. It’s amazing how far some people will go to deny results that conflict with their own ideologies

Pat advises readers to disregard these statistics and the victims they represent and try to solve the problem some other way, ignoring the fact that these are crimes. You can’t help the victims and prosecute the guilty if you don’t know where to look. Fortunately, the NIS-4 team came up with more intelligent and practical suggestions. Don’t be like Pat. Get a copy of the report and read it, because today’s abused children will be among tomorrow’s most dangerous criminals.

At the same time, let’s not forget that the worst kind of child abuse is abortion. The same government that conducts surveys like NIS-4 has been condoning, promoting and subsidizing the fatal abuse of the unborn for decades. What sense does that make?

Richard O’Connor

Pearl City, IL

Beware of Wolves In Sheep’s Clothing

In 2008 many American voters were mesmerized by the deception of Mr. Obama and his hope and change. In the past few years we have seen what his hope and change was and that is more control over our lives! Just around the corner is 2012 and I hope all readers of this letter will cut my letter out and put it in plain sight as a reminder to the truth.

Mr. Obama’s lies have caught up to him like these liars are sooner or later found out to be mesmerizing deceivers! “Beware of Wolves In Sheep’s Clothing,” for we do have them running in 2012 for the Presidency in both parties. Mr. Obama said he will have billions of dollars to run in 2012. Where is that money coming from? I thought Americans were broke?!

There are four pillars or levers of elitist powers wielded over the U.S.A. They are economic, political, military & police, and mind control (religion & media). This is the beating down of our Nation. As Rothschild, Kissinger, Seacrofts, Bush’s, Bryzinski, Rockefellers to name only a few culprits, the New World Order is forged and we the citizens are driven to desperation and over 230 years of American soverignty is coming to an end.

Why do I believe Obama will win in 2012? The voting in America with the machines and no paper trail can be rigged. It will make no difference if the economy is in the tank. Mr. Obama is the New World Order’s puppet or past Presidents were to some degree or another and that is why the past 50 years we have been losing our freedoms in America. It’s like a frog in a slow boil! Except the frog is us! We have been and still are being deceived by treason in high places, behind the scenes of our government and the military industrial complex that loves to go to war. We are the policemen of the world that President Eisenhower warned about in the 50’s in his farewell address to be aware of the military industrial complex power.

On the Republican front of 2012 Presidential hopefuls, I know for a fact these hopefuls are wolves in sheep’s clothing also like Obama. Mr. Gingrich is a C.F.R. globalist member - study his past record. Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, is a Bohemian Grove globalist. Mitt Romney being pushed by RNC top guns is a flip flopper, not a true conservative.

Learn the facts before you vote in 2012 - www.infowars.com on your computers can tell you who is loyal to the U.S.A. We have had way too many wolves in sheep’s clothing in the Republican party and that is why so many have left the party in droves and have become Independent like I have.

In 2012 we do have a choice. Please consider Ron Paul. Don’t believe the bias in the media who will brainwash the masses to vote for their person. After all, the media, too, is controlled by the New World Order crowd! Yes, money does talk, doesn’t it?

Patricia Blount

Lanark, IL

Local Mission in Savanna

Dear Editor,

This past week the team members of Savanna’s First United Methodist Church conducted its second annual ‘local mission’ in Savanna.

Projects totaling 231 man hours were completed for elderly, handicapped and those in need. These projects included the following: two complete handiap ramps, painting, cleaning gutters, landscaping, window and blind cleaning, yard renovations, garden and flower planting; a ramp extention and tree trimming.

It was a gratifying opportunity for the team members to assist our local residents. All projects were funded at no charge to the recipients through fundraising events, a grant from the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church/Northwest Town & Rural Foundation.

A special ‘thank you’ to Duane Kistler and his True Value crew for their expertise, guidance and support.

The team members were: Shelby Rathje; Tim, Kay, Jerry & Brennan Cavanagh; John & Ginny Anderson; Burt & Peg Dauphin; Frank Grove; Jason Moore; Lynette Thomson; Burt & Kathie Prins; Mary Irons; Susan Michelle Jepsen; Joe, Sharon & Haley Guilinger; Bill Wright; John & Florence Powell; Esther Losh; Ruth Kelly; Erik & Alice Riffe-Torrison.

Again, thanks to all for their hard work and support.

Alice Riffe-Torrison

Local Mission Team Leader

COMMENTARY . . .

This Fourth of July:

Confirm Thy Soul in Self-Control

By Dr. Paul Kengor

I encourage you to set aside the burgers and dogs and soda and beer for a moment this Fourth of July and contemplate something decidedly different, maybe even as you gaze upward at the flash of fireworks. Here it is: Confirm thy soul in self-control.

What do I mean by that? Let me explain.

The founders of this remarkable republic often thought and wrote about the practice of virtue generally and self-control specifically, two things long lost in this modern American culture of self. Thomas Jefferson couldn’t avoid a reference to one of the cardinal virtues—prudence—in our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which, incidentally, ought to be a must-read for every American every Fourth of July (it’s only 1,800 words). Our first president and ultimate Founding Father, George Washington, knew the necessity of governing one’s self before a nation’s people were capable of self-governance. As Washington stated in his classic Farewell Address, “’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”

A forgotten philosopher who had an important influence on the American Founders was the Frenchman, Charles Montesquieu, whose work included the seminal book, The Spirit of the Laws (1748). Montesquieu considered various forms of government. In a tyrannical system, people are prompted not by freedom of choice or any expression of public virtue but, instead, by the sheer coercive power of the state, whether by decree of an individual despot or an unaccountable rogue regime. That’s no way for human beings to live. There’s life under such a system, yes, but not much liberty or pursuit of happiness; even life itself is threatened.

Montesquieu concluded that the best form of government is a self-governing one, and yet it is also the most difficult to maintain because it demands a virtuous populace. As noted by John Howard—the outstanding senior fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, & Society—Montesquieu noted that each citizen in a self-governing state must voluntarily abide by certain essential standards of conduct: lawfulness, truthfulness, honesty, fairness, respect for the rights and well-being of others, obligation to one’s spouse and children, to name a few.

“Each new generation must be trained to be responsible citizens … to be virtuous and conscientious,” writes Howard in The St. Croix Review. “Once the free society is well-established, the daily life of the family and the society is such that becoming virtuous is not a monstrous chore for the young people.”

Sadly, becoming virtuous has indeed become a monstrous chore in a society not only lacking virtue but eschewing virtue—fleeing virtue like a vampire fleeing a cross. Living life in a good way—what Benedict Groeschel calls The Virtue Driven Life—becomes so alien that the people prefer darkness over light. When virtues are not taught—whether at home, at school, or by America’s educator-in-chief, the TV set—they become unknown and ignored and unfulfilled, desiccated and dead upon the national landscape.

And perhaps saddest of all, as John Howard notes, virtue is something that can be acquired, like learning to speak a culture’s language. Once inculcated, however, it needs to be continuously reinforced by the cultural elements of the society. Virtue needs to be nourished, like fruitful plants need water and sunlight. Says Howard emphatically: “I want to repeat…. Virtue must be continuously reinforced by the culture.”

We Americans might not think about this much, but we actually sing it fairly often, even if the words don’t sink in. Consider this line from one of our sacred political hymns, America, the Beautiful:

America, America,

God mend thine ev’ry flaw,

Confirm thy soul in self-control,

Thy liberty in law.

That’s the ticket: Confirm thy soul in self-control. Our liberty is enshrined in our laws, but liberty should not be license for opportunities for the flesh. Our liberties, protected and permitted as they are, should not be exploited to do anything and everything we want, including things harmful to oneself, to one’s family, to one’s neighbors, to one’s culture, to one’s country. That misunderstanding and abuse of freedom is what Pope Benedict XVI calls a “confused ideology of freedom,” one that can engender “the self-destruction of freedom” for others.

In truth, a genuine freedom requires responsibility. As the song says—and as Washington and Montesquieu intimated—we must successfully govern ourselves in order to successfully govern our nation.

It’s a timeless concept worth remembering this Fourth of July and every day going forward.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” and the newly released “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

My Congressman’s Tough Job

By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson

Being a congressman can be a great job. It can be attractive for someone who relishes the ersatz virtue of playing Santa Claus with other people’s money, who finds a year-round routine of fund-raising social events enjoyable, and who covets receiving one of the most generous pensions on the planet. It can also be a great challenge for someone who didn’t pursue the job for those purposes.

Consider my congressman, first-term Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA). (Full disclosure: I voted for him and contributed to his campaign.)

Kelly is an interesting case. He didn’t need Washington. Already set financially from his successful automobile dealerships, satisfied with the joys of living close to his family, Mike Kelly didn’t need the money, fame, prestige, or power of a congressman. He would have been happy to enjoy the good life he already had, watching his grandchildren grow up. He gave a lot in order to go to Washington belatedly, at age 62, but he did it in the hope of stopping a runaway federal government before its insane policies produce a calamity.

Having recently attended one of Kelly’s town-hall meetings, it is clear that he has been dealt a herculean task. First, he has the extremely difficult task of convincing many of his constituents that the federal government has to spend less, not more, in order to avert economic ruin. Based on what I saw and heard at the meeting, the odds are against him.

A conservative gentleman craved a government policy—certain to cost tens of billions of dollars—to convert our national automobile fleet to run on natural gas. A liberal lady wanted new federal spending on educational training. They meant well, I know, but I felt like asking, “What part of ‘we’re broke’ do you not understand?”

Kelly related a phone conversation that he had with a couple in their 80s: They begged him not to support Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare, even though the plan doesn’t touch benefits for anyone over 55. They were opposed to any plan that would increase consumer choice; they just wanted the government to tell them what to do.

More resistance to downsizing Big Government was typified by a lady who felt we could afford the ongoing federal spending binge if only we would raise taxes on “the rich” and on oil companies allegedly making profits of “38 percent.”

Alas, this anti-capitalist religion is founded on myths. Big Oil generally makes 7-8 percent profits, and earned 6.1 percent in the most recent quarter—enough to place their industry 112th after publishing, software, telecom, biotech, steel, restaurants, beverages, and other capitalist demons. Exxon, the biggest of Big Oil, has paid more in taxes on U.S. operations during the last five years ($59 billion) than government has allowed them to keep as profits ($41 billion).

As for “the rich,” whose percentage of total income taxes paid actually rose after the Bush tax cuts, you could take 100 percent of their income and still not eliminate the deficit. Rep. Kelly is going to have a difficult time curbing federal spending when many voters believe that they are morally justified in operating on the “principle” of “He has it, we want it, and we have more votes.”

Also standing in the way of Kelly’s goal of shrinking government deficits are many, perhaps most, of his congressional colleagues, who take the line of least resistance and vote for government largesse for so many who simply appeal and lobby for it.

Another formidable obstacle to the general goal of curbing Big Government before it ruins us is a president who has the opposite goal. President Obama is so committed to expanding government that he continues to call for new programs and has proposed no serious reforms of Medicare—a program whose costs are likely to increase exponentially in the future.

As if government-addicted constituents, a divided congress, and an obstinate president don’t make shrinking government seem like “mission impossible,” Mike Kelly and his colleagues have to contend with the entrenched power structure of Washington’s leviathan bureaucratic state. Trying to curtail bureaucracies’ expensive excesses is like the game Whack-a-Mole. For every abusive regulation that Congress is able to rescind—such as the EPA’s recently annulled rule that dairy farmers take costly oil-spill prevention measures (on the astounding ground that milk contains a type of oil!)—the bureaucracies promulgate dozens of new regulations.

I admire Rep. Kelly’s courage in waging this uphill battle. He’s trying to save his constituents from a runaway government, but many would rather run away with the largesse that government gives them.

— Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Google