ST. JOSEPH — Evan Cook of St. Teresa High School captured the title at the Spartan Classic on September 28, 2024, posting a time of 14:54.97, the second-best in the state this season for the Class 1A division. The race, which featured 195 runners from 28 teams, took place under clear skies and mild temperatures in the upper 60s.
Cook's performance marked a significant milestone in his career, as he achieved a new personal record, surpassing his previous best times of 16:35.9 as a freshman, 15:22.9 as a sophomore, and 15:37.6 last year. His victory solidifies his status as one of the top competitors in Illinois cross country.
Unity cross country standout Eli Crowe runs his first lap around Detweiller Park at last year's state cross country meet. Crowe recorded a career best 3-mile run at the Spartan Classic, finish the course 15:19.7 in fourth place. So far, he as turned in the 9th best time in Illinois in Class 1A this season. The Rockets finished fourth in the team standings St. Joseph-Ogden's annual cross country meet.
Photo: PhotoNews/Clark Brooks
The Spartan Classic continues to be a highlight of downstate Illinois' high school cross country season, showcasing the talent and determination of harriers across the state.
Three other local runners finished in the top 15, showcasing the depth of talent in the region. Eli Crowe of Unity finished fourth with a time of 15:19.69, while Jack Fisher of St. Joseph-Ogden and Camden Fairbanks of Unity placed ninth and tenth, respectively.
Crowe's performance was particularly impressive, as he recorded his season-best time of 15:19.7 at the Spartan Classic, currently ranking him ninth in the state for Class 1A.
The team competition saw University High take the top spot with a score of 110, followed by Clinton with 133 points. St. Joseph-Ogden and Unity both finished with 174 points, but St. Joseph-Ogden secured third place based on tiebreakers. Pleasant Plains rounded out the top five with a score of 219.
Urbana U-High had several notable finishes, with Ross Kimme placing sixth at 15:34.75. Other top finishers for U-High included Pieter Duursma in 20th with a time of 16:00.31, Kai Schwartz in 24th at 16:03.36, Luke Fahnestock in 28th at 16:13.79, and Bruce Tang in 32nd at 16:18.76.
St. Joseph-Ogden's Jack Fisher runs to the finish line at the 2023 IHSA Cross Country State Finals last November. Fisher led the Spartans to the finish line at last month's Spartan Classic.
Photo: PhotoNews/Clark Brooks
St. Joseph-Ogden's top finishers included Jack Fisher in ninth place (15:43.97), followed by Lance Retz in 33rd (16:21.42), EJ Beckett in 37th (16:31.49), Colin Burnett in 44th (16:44.62), and Eli Franklin in 51st (16:58.06).
Unity's top finishers were Eli Crowe in fourth place, Camden Fairbanks in tenth (15:44.63), Collin Graven in 30th (16:15.82), Ryan Akers in 66th (17:18.14), and Alex Mowrer in 81st (17:37.29).
The top 15 finishers were as follows:
1. Evan Cook (12) - St. Teresa - 14:54.97
2. Elijah Teefey (11) - Pleasant Plains - 15:11.28
3. Johnathan Iacobazzi (11) - Sullivan - 15:14.02
4. Eli Crowe (11) - Tolono Unity - 15:19.69
5. Blake McLeese (11) - Tuscola - 15:33.40
6. Ross Kimme (12) - Urbana U-High - 15:34.75
7. Xander Neamtu (12) - Tuscola - 15:35.04
8. David Hornaday (12) - Tuscola - 15:43.44
9. Jack Fisher (12) - St. Joseph-Ogden - 15:43.97
10. Camden Fairbanks (11) - Tolono Unity - 15:44.63
11. Ryne Norton (12) - Maroa-Forsyth - 15:45.52
12. River Derby (12) - Monticello - 15:47.83
13. Julius Ramos (11) - Effingham - 15:50.29
14. Ryan Kuhn (12) - Deer Creek-Mackinaw - 15:51.39
15. Tim Sikorski (9) - Monticello - 15:52.79
There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.
They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.
There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.
Chaos conspiracists, aka trolls, a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of their personal beliefs.
I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.
Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.
You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”
Combative conspiracists – the disinformants
Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.
Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.
As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”
For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.
Commercial conspiracists – the profiteers
Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”
When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.
Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.
Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.
Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation.
Common conspiracists – the attention-getters
You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.
These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?
Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.
Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.
It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write – and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”
Abortion is a critical, if not the most important, issue for many voters – especially women, according to polls – ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion.
Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion. As an academic, my scholarship focuses on reproductive health law, health care law and family law. In this piece, and in anticipation of the election, I briefly consider the broad strokes of each candidate’s past positions on and actions regarding abortion.
Harris’ abortion record
As California’s attorney general, Harris co-sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which, among other requirements, mandated that crisis pregnancy centers inform patients that they are not licensed medical facilities and that abortion services are available elsewhere. These centers are nonprofit organizations that counsel pregnant people against abortion, sometimes using deceptive tactics.
As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses.
In 2017, Harris investigated the tactics of undercover videographers at Planned Parenthood clinics who, through deception and fraud, sought to entrap clinicians into making controversial, though legal, statements, and who possibly contravened state law on secret recordings.
Conversely, Harris championed various bills that would have protected and advanced reproductive rights. In 2019, for example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal statutory right to abortion. It also did not pass.
Finally, during Harris’ tenure as vice president, the Biden administration has used its executive power to ease barriers to abortion access, primarily through federal agency actions. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, removed a rule in 2021 that prohibited mailing medication abortion.
The Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance affirming that federal law requires emergency rooms to perform an abortion when it is medically necessary to stabilize a patient needing urgent care.
The Biden-Harris administration also supported federal legislation that includes accommodations for abortion. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in 2023, requires employers to provide time off for a worker’s miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who wouldoverturn Roe v. Wade.
Although the Biden-Harris administration’s abortion policy is not necessarily based on just the vice president, Harris, since Roe’s reversal, has been at the helm of the administration’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour, speaking nationally in support of a right to abortion. Harris has also stressed the damage done in 14 states, in particular, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy or after six weeks of gestation.
Trump’s abortion record
During Trump’s tenure as president, he supported various changes – in the form of judicial appointments, federal funding and agency actions, some led by anti-abortion federal employees – in the service of making it harder for people to gain access to abortion care.
Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He nominated three justices – Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – who joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing Roe in June 2022.
The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to replace the Affordable Care Act and undermine its coverage for contraceptives as well as its neutral stance on insurance coverage for abortion. Trump supported bills such as the never-passed American Health Care Act to limit abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.
Trump also appointed several people with anti-abortion positions to his administration, including Charmaine Yoest, the former CEO for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, who served as a top communications official at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration advanced numerous other anti-abortion policies. For instance, the Department of Human and Health Services’ 2017 strategic plan defined life as beginning at conception – a decision that supported funding for crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only education programs.
Finally, the Trump administration adopted an anti-abortion approach when it came to foreign policy. Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding from performing abortions or referring patients for abortion care elsewhere. Under the Mexico City Policy, Trump in 2017 removed US$8.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid for overseas programs that provide or refer for abortions.
In the coming weeks, both candidates will have a lot to say about abortion, possibly refining or changing their stances on aspects of abortion law. In assessing what both candidates have to say about how their administration will approach abortion, voters might consider what we know about their past actions.
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings. Read more . . .
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally. Read more . . .
Photo Galleries
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.
