Do you think ESPN was right to fire Paul Shirley for his comments about Haiti?
Paul Shirley was fired from his freelance gig with ESPN on Wednesday.
In a inflammatory column, Shirley stated, "I haven't donated a cent to the Haitian relief effort. And I probably will not.
"I haven't donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don't give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don't think the guy with the sign that reads 'Need You're Help' is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don't think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either.
... Shouldn't much of the responsibility for the disaster lie with the victims of that disaster?"
He continued: "Shouldn't there be some discourse on how the millions of dollars that are being poured into Haiti will be spent? And at least a slight reprimand for the conditions prior to the earthquake? Some kind of inquisition? Something like this?:
Dear Haitians –
First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded.
As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: 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"
My question to you: Do you think ESPN was right to fire Paul Shirley for his comments about Haiti?
In a inflammatory column, Shirley stated, "I haven't donated a cent to the Haitian relief effort. And I probably will not.
"I haven't donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don't give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don't think the guy with the sign that reads 'Need You're Help' is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don't think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either.
... Shouldn't much of the responsibility for the disaster lie with the victims of that disaster?"
He continued: "Shouldn't there be some discourse on how the millions of dollars that are being poured into Haiti will be spent? And at least a slight reprimand for the conditions prior to the earthquake? Some kind of inquisition? Something like this?:
Dear Haitians –
First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded.
As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: 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"
My question to you: Do you think ESPN was right to fire Paul Shirley for his comments about Haiti?
Tags: ESPN, Haiti, Paul Shirley, comments
Views: 6
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Conor Campbell on -
Dear Haitians –
First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded.
oh and the embargos and tarriffs the US and France enacted after the Haitian revolution had nothing to do with it
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin on -
Wow, what an asshole! Right now money is going to keep people alive by providing food, water and shelter. Maybe a year down the road we can debate how the money can best be spent to insure a better future for the people of Haiti. This douche is pretty much say "I'm too big of a prick to care about thousands of people dying". And by the way, this guy writes for ESPN so maybe he should stick to Super Bowl predictions not issues he obviously does not understand.
-
Permalink Reply by B Pearleman on -
Crassly expressed, but Shirley is right. Overpopulation is a major problem for Haiti and aid should be conditional on contraceptive use. Otherwise the problems will only worsen. It is pathetic of ESPN to fire him.
His views overlook human genetic diversity though, which Lahn & Ebenstein wrote about recently in Nature. Genes occur in different frequencies across populations so you get group differences, including in physical and cognitive abilities. The Economist recently noted that the basis for this should soon be better understood, then hopefully gene therapies may be developed.
"We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in "The 10,000 Year Explosion" that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.
If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species-including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world's different economies."
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737
-
Permalink Reply by Martin on -
Under no circumstances should humanitarian aid be 'conditional'!
We are no discussing long-term infrastuctural development for Haiti, or the problems of overpopulation. Those are issues for the future.
People the world over are giving money for the immediate needs of those survivors who need medical assistance, clean water and food NOW.
If my neighbour's house burned down and I refused to help in any way because she has not been fiscally responsible in the past - what sort of human being would I be?
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin on
-
Thank you Martin! This guy is talking genetics and evolution while we are talking about not letting people die of starvation and disease. When I see kids homeless and starving on TV my first response is not to see what the latest issue of the Economist has to say on the issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Mathew K on
-
Maybe it should be. People die of starvation and disease on a permanent basis. Haiti was dying before this disaster and no one sent money then.
The problems with western aid to poor countries like Haiti have been pointed out many times and are a plenty. Corrupt officials usurping the money and perverse incentives caused by the money are just to mention a few.
The seeming general consensus, that throwing money at the problem will solve it, is not exactly accurate. This is exactly what economics and the Economist often try to examine and try and find solutions for.
I'm not trying to argue for either side - give or don't give to Haiti. But part of making a responsible decision, even on an individual basis, is informing yourself. Reading The Economist is part of that. Sending money purely because of the emotional response you get from images on the television may not be the best course of action to take.
It may very well be, on the other hand.
The point I'm making is purely that of the value of informing yourself properly about the decision of donating money.
-
Permalink Reply by Martin on
-
Aid agencies and NGO's are not naive when it comes to supplying aid to underdeveloped countries. The fact is that this is still an emergency, and without immediate help, thousands more people are at risk from injury, disease and the chaos that has followed the disaster.
I have lived and worked in Africa, where you do the best you can with what you have. Prejudice and conditional charity only blind us to the real needs of the people.
I now live back in Britain, where we have just had a whole year of news about corrupt politicians and the 'perverse incentives' caused by throwing money at the banking sector.
-
Permalink Reply by Mathew K on
-
Lived, studied and worked in africa too, in fact, the problems of western aid to african countries was heavily emphasized by my professors in economics.
The only reason I am highlighting this (and for the record, the IMF has proved pretty naive about aid with their failed conditional aid schemes) is to point out that merely saying "I see this on TV hence I know for a fact that it is the best solution to donate money" is a one-sided approach, which does not acknowledge the responsibility required to truly help poor countries. It's the unfortunate mentality that has, as history has proven, financed dictators in various african countries.
So let me reiterate. I'm not arguing for or against aid to Haiti. Hell, I acknowledge that many of the arguments against aid may not even apply to Haiti at the moment due TO the crisis. Again, that's not my point.
My point is merely to stress that when making these decisions, it is essential to inform oneself properly about what one is doing. As even with giving aid, there comes the possibility of doing more harm than good and thus a certain responsibility to avert such an outcome.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin on
-
In my opinion the IMF seems to be more interested in increasing the profits of the Western World (corporations) than helping poor countries. Case and point being their demands that countries privatise the water supply which prices it out of many peoples reach. This cause people to use dirty water and spread disease which then causes an even bigger problem.
-
Permalink Reply by Speedo on
-
With so much US dollars going in, why not just buy it like Alaska? Then they'll be endless supply of 'battle-hardened' troops to sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
Permalink Reply by Johnny Blue on -
Paul Shirley is a freaking idiot. The people in Haiti need help and all he can do is point fingers? He has no class at all.
© 2013 Created by alice.
