Former NBA baller Paul Shirley hasn't apologized for his column on Haiti -- the one in which he asks Haitians to wear a condom, if it's not too much trouble, and begs the question "Shouldn't much of the responsibility for the disaster lie with the victims of that disaster?"
This has proved an unpopular stance -- one that just cost Shirley his freelance gig with ESPN.
Shirley has instead issued "a reaction" in which he says his "goal was to question the psychology of donating, the way we react to natural disasters and the nature of responsibility leading up to and immediately after those disasters."
Yes, let us ponder the "psychology of donating" while people are buried under rubble.
Shirley points out that if we didn't blame the Haitian people, we'd be insulting them:
The same respect Shirley showed them with this open letter, part of the essay:But to assume that the Haitians' fate was not at least in part their
own responsibility is to insult that group of people even more. It
rationalizes much of the United States' past meddling in the affairs of
Haiti. But most of all, it shows even less respect to the Haitian
people.
Dear Haitians -
First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in theWestern Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure,
and birth control should be applauded.
As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a politerequest: If it's possible, could you not re-build your island home in
the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of
flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a
condom once in a while?
Sincerely,
The Rest of the World
Oh, so that's how you examine the "psychology of donating."
Showing 1-6 of 6
When you reward people for having children; tax breaks, freebies, etc. there will always be a group that has children just for that reason. I'm sorry but John Holmes is correct.
Anyone who thinks otherwise and can't see this truth is simply blind.
If you haven't heard: only stupid people are breeding.
The intelligent ones among us don't have children until they can afford it and properly provide for them. Sadly, since indigent,stupid,ignorant people have more children and much sooner then they can care for them, nations become overrun by children who mimic their parents, and their (lack of) values.
@John Holmes
That is a great question. Do you think maybe being poor, under-educated and having a lack access to medical supplies (condoms included) has somehting to do with high birth rates? Naaaah, probably not.
It's probably the other way around. They had too many babies at one point and became poor. That sounds very rational.
Try reading Mountains Beyond Mountains. Great and interesting read that will give some insight to the Haiti situation.
Ignorance of the history of how things became they way they are now, and instead assuming things have always been this way, with the current causes creating the current effects instead of the other way around, makes everyone's opinion "genius"...
The place was a hellhole before the quake. Environmental devastation in Haiti is terrible. It bears mentioning that while (black and mulatto) Haiti was the first country to throw off the yoke of slavery, in 1802, twenty years later the (white and mulatto) Dominican Republic freed itself from the tyranny of the black Haitians, and the island has been divided since then.
Nobody knows how to help Haitians in a way that is not just pouring $$$,$$$,$$$ down a bottomless pit. Probably the population's average IQ is simply too low and/or their "culture" degraded beyond a point of return.
Yet again we see a former French colony being a pathetic mess, while the former British colonies are in much better shape.
what is the problem. shirley speaks the truth. why is it, the countries with the
least resources have the most children?
because they do it for sport. it is simply
unacceptable, you see all these slum cities overrun with children that should not be there in the first place. kind of like east kansas city.
like
dislike
