Sparkman murder exhibits culture of violence taking over across US

Originally published October 1, 2009.

Obama’s administration thus far has certainly been a controversial one for many, but it also seems to have unintentionally spawned something much less anticipated—a culture of violent response to politics.

Bill Sparkman was 51 years old. He lived in London, Kentucky, where he worked as a substitute teacher and classroom aide. He was a cancer survivor. He was also a part-time census worker.

On September 13, Sparkman was found dead at Hoskins Cemetary in the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky. He was bound, gagged, and almost naked. Though his feet rested on the ground, there was a noose around his neck tied to a nearby tree branch. The word “Fed” was scrawled on his chest in red marker, and his census ID was taped to his neck.

Close on the heels of Bill Sparkman’s death came the posting and removal of a Facebook poll asking whether participants thought President Obama should be killed. And of course, all of this follows increasingly aggressive demonstrations at town hall meetings and healthcare reform discussions at which people have turned out with guns and posters calling for the death of Obama.

Obama’s administration thus far has certainly been a controversial one for many, but it also seems to have unintentionally spawned something much less anticipated—a culture of violent response to politics.

It’s not as though people have never committed destructive deeds over political reasons or disagreements. It’s not even as though worse acts have never been carried out. The disconcerting aspect is that this aggression is highly public and directed at one common target—Barack Obama and anything perceived as having to do with him: legislation, speeches, public gatherings, you name it, right down to census workers.

Given what was written on his body, it seems Bill Sparkman paid dearly, not specifically for his census work or his personal life, but for his connection to our current president.

But the motivation for such serious enmity remains unclear. Accusations of racism have been made left and right, and while I think issues of race play especially heavily into the evolving dynamics of American culture right now, it seems too cut-and-dry to attribute this inclination toward violence strictly to racial tension.

One of the most confusing elements of this rabid anti-Obama sentiment is that, though some of it had existed before he was even elected, much of it has been amplified by debates on healthcare reform and stimulus spending. While having fervid feelings and opinions about both issues is quite valid, I can’t wrap my head around the pseudo-logic that leads to these overt threats of violence. How does someone make the jump from criticism of Obama’s (and Congress’s, for that matter) suggestions for economic recovery and healthcare reform to a decision that the clear solution is simply to suggest or carry out the president’s murder?

How does someone who comes to a well-researched conclusion on either side of the healthcare debate feel so intensely about it that killing someone is justifiable? How do people get riled up more over Obama speaking to schoolchildren about working hard and making a commitment to their country (which most presidents notably do, even to adult audiences) than the fact that we are at war?

More importantly, how do we get off the track we’re on? It’s a typical response for people to shut out everything someone else says when their beliefs differ on a single issue—something much more common than politically-motivated violence. But until we can determine what has pushed political disagreement to this openly hostile level and why television news media seems so intent on urging it on—until we can figure out why Bill Sparkman was murdered in a place without a history of politically-motivated violence—questions are all we have.

Chelsea is a senior in LAS.

Let’s hope these nicknames are none of yours

Originally published May 12, 2009.

You could call this semester a number of things: too long, for one, but also frustrating, boring, hazy, or maybe fulfilling. Plenty of momentous things happened, too. 2009 so far has meant Obama’s first 100 days in office, the election of the first openly gay head-of-government (she’s Iceland’s prime minister; Her name contains too many non-standard characters to successfully write here), Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez allegedly using or testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs, and Arlen Specter walking across the aisle (not to be confused with producer Phil Spector, who was finally found guilty of murdering Lana Clarkson).

With so many famous figures and so little space to talk about them, it would be difficult to name them all and link them to their much-discussed exploits. Likely you’ve heard their names being thrown around on campus at one point or another.

It seems to me some are so well-known that they deserve to become slang — nicknames or titles to fully express how impressive or appalling someone’s actions have been.

So, for your convenience, here’s a brief guide to all of the up-and-coming titles soon to grace your spring 2009 Facebook memes.

If you managed to take the helm during a group presentation due to other members forgetting two of the most crucial parts of your presentation and successfully land the presentation with a conclusion that wasn’t your original thesis but got everyone out of the presentation alive and unharmed (and maybe even an A), you may have earned the title of “Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger.”

If you come from a long tradition of U of I alumni entering into a particular field, you may have been thinking that your familial connections would be enough to get you in good with the employer of your choice instead of going through the standard application and interview processes as most other graduating seniors.

Regardless of whether you have the conscience to back out of using such distasteful celebrity status at the last moment, you’ll likely have already established yourself as a “Caroline Kennedy.”

For those of you who decided to quit your fairly successful college career in order to grow a spectacular lumberjack beard and pursue your dream of becoming a rapper, the people who knew you probably think of you as “Joaquin Phoenix” now.

People might have attributed the nickname “Betty Brown” to you if you’ve recently ranted that Americans should change their last names so that “Americans” (white Texans, of course) can pronounce them more easily.

And while we’re thinking about Texas, if you’ve made the claim that you can secede from the United States at any time, your friends are probably calling you “Rick Perry” behind your back.

If you’ve made a big fuss that your views on gay marriage kept you from getting that coveted exec board position in your RSO, other members may have started calling you “Carrie Prejean.”

All the people who got so drunk at Kam’s that they couldn’t remember where they left their phones, keys, or i-cards, couldn’t recall the name of the bar or even that they vomited all over another patron? These are the “Lady Gagas” of Champaign-Urbana.

And, if you’ve constantly boasted about your magnificent spring break cruise that may have included a guest appearance by T-Pain, you may be going by “Andy Samberg” these days, especially if you happened to be flipping burgers while your friends were at Kinko’s straight flipping copies.

Aside from all of these, here’s hoping that nothing you’ve done this semester has garnered you any of the following references: “Rush Limbaugh,” “Norm Coleman,” “Levi Johnston,” “Timothy Geithner,” “Rick Wagoner” and “Roland Burris.” And if you’ve done anything to achieve status among your peers as “Blago” or “Octomom,” we’ll certainly be reflecting on your “claims to fame” come the end of next semester.

Chelsea is a senior in English and creative writing.

Hurricane-victim housing the real indicator of economic improvement

Originally published April 9, 2009.

For the last few months, it’s been easy to find some snippet of news about home foreclosures and the housing market.

For the last few months, it’s been easy to find some snippet of news about home foreclosures and the housing market. We’ve blamed bad mortgages all we can for the freefall of America’s economy, and we’re still wondering whether President Obama’s stimulus plan is really keeping anyone from the facing eviction.

Some people advocate that we should be angry with the lenders who led us into the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Others wash their hands of the whole issue by putting it on the shoulders of the homeowners themselves, especially when interviews make it harder and harder for us to pity them — “We knew we were buying a house beyond our means, but … ”

And on May 1, buried beneath all the ongoing rage about the housing market and its effect on the recession, almost 6,000 people will be quietly evicted from their homes.

In Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, these displaced survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have been told that “that’s just the end of the program” by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, according to an AP article on Tuesday. FEMA, who issued people these trailers for what was originally meant to be an 18-month transition period, insists 44 months later that the trailers must be revoked. They’re encouraging residents to connect with case managers in order to solidify permanent housing or, if living in larger-model trailers, to purchase their existing shelters.

But in Louisiana especially, getting government assistance is almost impossible. The most prominent aid program, the Disaster Case Management Pilot, was entitled to $32 million by FEMA in 2008 to provide these case management services, employment workshops, healthcare and more to help people back on their feet.

The DCMP was originally meant to be a nine-month program. It’s never even gotten off the ground, which explains why FEMA’s trailers have become more than just temporary housing.

Other living options have been derailed by bureaucratic red tape — the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency has yet to build more than one “Katrina Cottage,” a housing project for which $75 million was set aside in Louisiana. The same program has thankfully been somewhat successful in Mississippi, which perhaps explains why almost two-thirds of the 6,000 people facing eviction by FEMA live in Louisiana.

To top it off, currently existing housing in all three states demands such high rent that the majority of these people, most of whom are over the age of 65 or with special needs, cannot afford permanent housing, let alone find employment.

According to the results of a New York Times/CBS News poll on Monday, 20 percent of Americans polled seem to think our current economic situation is improving. On NPR’s Morning Edition Tuesday, David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal pointed to increased car sales in March and sales of existing homes due to low mortgage rates. He mentioned talk of factory orders being up, and the behavior of the stock market in the last four weeks. He also indicated, however, that it’s hard to tell when a recession is ending.

Maybe the best indicator we have as to the effectiveness of the government’s efforts to curb unemployment and home foreclosures are the fates of these 6,000 people. Maybe the best ways to implement the stimulus money can be deduced by reaching a better understanding of what it will take to get these people into jobs, affordable homes, and healthcare opportunities.

After all, it is thanks to faulty programs at both state and national levels that the people of Louisiana have been kept from accessing any of their recently-allotted relief funding — all of which FEMA has declared will dry up May 31. As Obama mentioned in his inaugural address, isn’t it crucial to the success of the stimulus that “programs that don’t work will end”?

Perhaps if we start with empowering these 6,000 to reclaim the lives some have put on hold for four years, the rest of the country will follow.

Chelsea is a senior in English and Creative Writing.

Spotlight on kids’ sexual education

Originally published September 18, 2008.

In light of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, a smear ad directed at Obama’s support of a comprehensive sex-ed bill and a recent letter to the editor, sex education is – or definitely should be – a hot topic.

Many people seem to read the words COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION and conjure images of teachers encouraging teens to have sex by touting the effectiveness of contraception, throwing condoms at them and showing them a porn while having a classroom orgy. These concerned citizens imagine the subject of abstinence thrown completely out the window with the morals of American youth.

The truth is that comprehensive sex education doesn’t just concern what we teach teens specifically pertaining to the act of sex. It encompasses a broad range of topics including teens’ body image and self-esteem, physical development and the formation of positive, healthy relationships with others – not just romantic ones. Teaching kids about sex ultimately involves teaching them to understand and love their OWN bodies, to respect themselves and others, and using these ideas to make well-informed personal decisions.

What pro-abstinence people seem to forget is that comprehensive sex education programs are also pro-abstinence. After all, abstinence is the only 100 percent-guaranteed way not to get pregnant or contract an STI, and comprehensive sex-ed teaches that. Programs just discuss it in addition to realistic and medically accurate information about the use of contraceptives (among many, many other things).

Despite public argument otherwise, this promotion of abstinence is not the crux of the sex education issue. The reasoning behind comprehensive sex-ed comes from the idea that we should prepare our children for much more than the “dangers of sex.” It’s crucial for both parents and schools to introduce children to positive and informational messages about their bodies in age-appropriate formats.

Instituting comprehensive sex education programs in grades K-12 (to return to the smear ad concerning Obama) doesn’t mean teaching kindergarteners about getting their freak on. It means beginning to provide age-sensitive information in order to set the foundation for further learning as kids begin to have more questions about their bodies. It means making kids comfortable with talking to their support networks, especially their parents, about relationships and sex later on – and vice-versa.

But let’s face it. We’re obsessed with making the battle between abstinence-only education and comprehensive sex-ed about the perceived encouragement that “safe sex” and “no sex” have equivalent results (no babies, no STIs). It’s absolutely true that abstention from sex is the only guaranteed way to avoid undesired outcomes. However, when 17 is the average age for Americans to lose their virginity and most young people aren’t married until between the ages of 25 and 27, it’s vitally important that we provide them with additional safety options.

Comprehensive sex education programs strive to equip youths with truthful data about sex that they will carry far beyond high school, and that’s what we must concern ourselves with. Teen pregnancy and STI rates certainly do not comprise the majority of our list of goals when implementing a sex education program (or shouldn’t, anyway).

We want future generations to live without fear of or embarrassment about their genitalia. We want them to implement protective sexual habits within the context of any relationship. We want them to value consent and respect at a higher level of importance than desire. And of course, we want them to realize the amount of physical and emotional health that relationships, especially sexual ones, impact.

For parents, this issue comes down to trust. If we provide kids with all the information they need to know to protect themselves, we acknowledge that the choice to have sex is ultimately theirs (which it is), and we provide them with a comprehensive amount of knowledge in order to make that choice in the way that is best for them. People must then trust their parenting skills to have shaped these children to consider their own best interests.

Long story short, we tell kids not to do a lot of things. Sometimes they listen, and sometimes they don’t. But when we tell them not to have sex without providing them any other information, we are to blame for leaving them open to all of the potential consequences because they have no other understanding of how to protect themselves. Instead, let’s use this recent sex-ed limelight wisely. Refusing to discuss our options leaves American youth in the same boat as Bristol Palin.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and needs to buy new socks.