Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
March 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


Sparkman's death a suicide

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:54:26 AM MST


Kentucky police have concluded that Bill Sparkman's death was a suicide:

State police, working with the FBI, said at a press conference moments ago that Sparkman had recently taken out two life insurance policies that would not pay out for suicide. It appears Sparkman hoped that the scheme would benefit his son, Josh Sparkman.

Sparkman, of course, was the Census worker who was found hung, bound with duct tape, and with the word, "fed," scrawled on his chest. At the time, I wrote:

More gruesome details about the death of Census worker, Bill Sparkman, have emerged that make it obvious that - regardless of motive for the killing - Sparkman's killer was, by stripping Sparkman, binding his hands and feet with duct tape, scrawling "fed" on his chest, and attaching his Census ID card to his head, was participating in an exceptionally violent and lunatic way with the anti-government rhetoric promulgated on cable television and talk radio.

Obviously I was wrong about Sparkman having killers. It seemed fantastic at the time that anyone would kill themselves they way Sparkman did - it still does, frankly - and that a murder with such blatant anti-government details was, in fact, a reaction in some way to recent anti-government rhetoric. Instead, it turned out that Sparkman was spoofing Beck and Bachman, and a lot of us were wrong about his death, and obviously rushed to implicate high-profile, cable television righty extremists in it. In this particular case, we were wrong.

But beyond the senseless death and Sparkman's convoluted acts and the effect it will have on his family, the worst thing that will probably come out of this isn't that leftys suddenly look like jerks, but that the Glenn Becks and Michelle Bachmans of the world will somehow feel "exonerated" or cleared. But their vile rhetoric has already led to recent killings. The story here shouldn't be that leftys jumped to conclusions, but that extremist rhetoric has already created dangerous tensions. Frankly, the only difference between the extremist rhetoric that touched off Nidal Hasan, and that which touched off Poplawski is that the Pittsburgh shooter's fare is widely promulgated on cable television and underwritten by mainstream businesses. Politicized right-wing misinformation and paranoia has been legitimized, and the revelation that Sparkman's death was a suicide means warnings about rightwing extremism will be viewed as unfounded or exaggerated.

Jay Stevens :: Sparkman's death a suicide
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The last paragraph (0.00 / 0)
sounds like the "devil made me do it" defense for politicizing Sparkman's death.  The "yeah but..." remarks do not recover from the misinformation and paranoia spread by the Left to grab political advantage over his death. The man died through his own hand.  People were FALSELY accused of instigating it.  An apology without the "yeah but..." would have been meaningful.  Since that didn't happen, your commentary appears to be just more politics as usual.  

Sorry for the harshness of my comment. I wish everyone a meaningful Thanksgiving.


well... (0.00 / 0)
I do apologize for rushing to judgment on this one. But mostly because it'll make the warnings about extremist rhetoric seem hollow.

Is it political? Of course it is. But political violence spurred by political extremism is political. Do I think that Glenn Beck is dangerous? Yes, I do. And I regret writing about a story in a way that will make my discomfort with folks like him seem exaggerated. Extremism in any form is dangerous. I don't think we should legitimize it.


[ Parent ]
I agree. (0.00 / 0)
However, it is not extremism per se.  The problem is when people ACT on political ideology wrapped in emotion and bias without taking the time to challenge the narrative.

[ Parent ]
Are you, like, from the future? (0.00 / 0)
Have you ever read you?

[ Parent ]
A simple question (0.00 / 0)
Why does Jay or anyone owe someone else an apology over this?  Because they were incorrect on a rather obvious assumption in this one case?

(And before anyone tells me what I owe before wishing me well for Turkey day, I didn't jump to conclusions about this case and actually cautioned against doing such until the facts were in.  I would also point out that one mistake does not exonerate hate-mongers like Beck.)


[ Parent ]
Wulfgar, (0.00 / 0)
remember how you reacted when someone mentioned suicide back in September?  Did you not read the vitriol and fingering pointing at right-wingers in general as if Sparkman's death was the consequence of an angry act by "They?"

If you can't see it, well, so be it.  No one made the Left act or react as they did. It's a matter of taking responsibility without deflecting.

Happy Thanksgiving.  Hope everything goes well for you now that you have your mother under your roof.  


[ Parent ]
Heh (0.00 / 0)
Hope everything goes well for you now that you have your mother under your roof.  

Wrong way to ingratiate yourself to me ... ;-)

It's funny, Craig.  I never posted about Sparkman here or at my place.  I did comment to Timmeh (thankfully gone) about how ridiculous it was to foist the suicide theory above the more obvious assumption, while he was chiding Jay.  I also threw out hypotheticals that showed how hate speech can and should be considered a causal factor in violence.  You'll notice, I wrote "he (they)".  We didn't know.  I didn't know.  There is no exoneration for the rightwing excuses (suicide!) any more than there is for the obvious assumptions from what we knew at the time.  And, regardless, people like Beck can and do inspire violence.  Jay has shown that in a contra-case.  One case does not equate to all.

No, no one made "the LEFT" (you forgot the scare quotes) respond as they did.  No one made the "right" respond as they did either.  But I will posit this much; in the history of politically motivated error, this case is a blip.  WMDs maybe?

Happy Turkey, Capitalist Parade and Football Day to you as well.  Go Broncos!


[ Parent ]
Go Broncos!!! (0.00 / 0)
May they be gracious in their upcoming loss.

I hope your brother is able to share the day with your family.  I miss mine.  


[ Parent ]
They're on their way as I write this. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I'll hoist one (0.00 / 0)
to your good health and family warmth.

[ Parent ]
As I will to yours. (0.00 / 0)
Happy Thanksgiving, Craig.  And go Broncos!

[ Parent ]
I don't know what's worse... (0.00 / 0)
the jumping to conclusions by the left, or the right's rushing to take advantage of the left's speculation.

In any case, I don't see the right's taking advantage of Sparkman's death by lambasting the left as any better than the left's tagging tea baggers in this instance for inciting crazies to murder.

So to those who want to score points by beating up on the left and people like Jay, for drawing a false conclusion here, I say you're just being opportunist political ideologues, as culpable as those who condemned the right, here. Are you going to apologize for wanting to one-up your counterparts? I doubt it.

The real tragedy here always has been, and still is, Bill Sparkman's death. Knowing that he committed suicide should galvanize all of us to the rampant despair and mental illness that permeates our culture. Any and all suicide deaths can be prevented, given a community that cares, a family that pays attention, friends that listen, a health care system that is accessible, mental health treatment covered by insurance...

For me it is a sad day when liberty and freedom trump a society's desire to provide security to its citizens. And that is what all of this ideological right/left hoopla has come to: a war of values. The culture war is being revved up, once again, by both sides.

David Brooks nailed the problem with a recent commentary:

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

[health care] Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details.

This debate is about values.

I hope everybody goes home to their family and/or friends for thanksgiving tomorrow and be thankful for their blessings, and think about those less fortunate. Then decide whether or not the lesson of Bill Sparkman is one of how the left rushed to conclusion, or one of how American failed to prevent another needless and preventable death.

Their will be many, many empty seats at thanksgiving tomorrow... not just Bill Sparkman's.


I beg to differ. (0.00 / 0)
Brooks didn't nail anything, except his word quota for the editorial.  He posits that HCR would make us a less "vibrant", less "youthful" nation.  WTF?  Because the rich can't exploit we become a lesser nation?  In simplest terms, he foists a false dilemma.  He founds his argument on the premise that vibrancy is directly related to profit, but never ever shows profit to be a "value", or the relationship between value and vibrancy.  He's shown coincidence as design, a common rightwing trick.  Doesn't one have to ask why "vibrancy" implies being "unforgiving"?  To a degree, he's correct that this a debate about values, but his value choices are all screwed up here.

As to the rest of your argument for the value of compassion, I do agree.  I simply don't find that to be at odds with anything save the lack of compassion (mean spiritedness.)


[ Parent ]
Huh????? (0.00 / 0)
JC:

So to those who want to score points by beating up on the left and people like Jay, for drawing a false conclusion here, I say you're just being opportunist political ideologues, as culpable as those who condemned the right, here. Are you going to apologize for wanting to one-up your counterparts? I doubt it.

As you present your strawman argument, could you possible jump up and down on your dick any harder?  Man-up without the "yeah buts."  


[ Parent ]
Man-up for what? (0.00 / 0)
I have nothing to apologize for, or to "man-up" too. I kept my opinions to myself about Sparkman's death.

And as to your weak attempt to dismiss my comments as a "strawman argument," did you or did you not say the following:

"An apology without the "yeah but..." would have been meaningful.  Since that didn't happen, your commentary appears to be just more politics as usual. "

What gives you the right to demand an apology from anybody about that they said? Were you unjustly accused?

And to whom do you think Jay owes an apology? Tea baggers? Since when have tea baggers ever apologized for anything offensive they've ever said, or for the despicable words they've carried around on signs?

Who appointed you the apologist-demander-in-chief?

Your attempts to exact some groveling by the left is as opportunist and wrong as the left's jumping to conclusions in the Sparkman death.


[ Parent ]
You are clueless (0.00 / 0)
I demanded NO apology. Read!!!!!! I commented on what was offered with one hand and taken away by the other.  Jay understands my point, what's wrong with you?

[ Parent ]
You demanded that I "Man-up" (0.00 / 0)
which to me means you are demanding an apology from me.

I have nothing to apologize to you, or to any tea bagger, about. I choose my words carefully, so as to not have to eat them. And if I do say something hurtful, I'll apologize in my own way, in my own time--and not according to your standards... no matter how many exclamation points and ALL CAPS!!!!!!! exhortations you put out there.


[ Parent ]
JC, your integrity is at stake. (0.00 / 0)
from B-birds: http://4and20blackbirds.wordpr...

==================
JC

September 25, 2009 at 10:37 am

As long as the far right keeps spreading conspiracy theories about the census and census workers, RWC whackos are capable of anything.
====================

Care to disavow your comment, or are you capable of manning-up, and admit you said it. Your integrity hang's in the balance by your claim you never opined on Sparkman's death about right-wing crazies.  Any apology is superfluous.


[ Parent ]
Absolutely not (0.00 / 0)
You didn't carry the link I was pointing to:

As long as the far right keeps spreading conspiracy theories about the census and census workers, RWC whackos are capable of anything.

As long as right wing whackos keep spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories, anything is possible. That is a very general statement that happens to be very true.

I'll stand by that statement. And there is nothing in it to apologize over. I reread that comment (and everything else I wrote about this issue) before I said what I said above.

I hear nothing but crocodile tears here. And I could care less about your views of my integrity. You're making a whole lot of something out of a whole lot of nothing, Craig.

What I want to know Craig, is why do you keep standing up for right-wing whackos? The democrat party didn't get anywhere until it jettisoned its left-wing crazies. Likewise republicans aren't going to be a viable party again until they do the same with their whackos. I'd think you and any other rational republican could see that and act accordingly, like a grown up.


[ Parent ]
I have to agree... (0.00 / 0)
...with JC's comment. Sparkman's death turned out to be not politically motivated. I still think there's a danger to that kind of talk, and I'm surprised a major network promulgates it, and that a number of businesses pay for it.

[ Parent ]
Surely you Reagan Democrats (0.00 / 0)
are not going to quarrel with RightWingCrazy claims that radio hate jocks are little more than mischievous lads not yet paralysed by political correctness..?  

[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox