Everybody's favorite former NBA bench warmer and idiot-savant Paul Shirley recently got back into the news as he was fired from ESPN for critical comments he made in a blog post regarding donating to Haiti.
Since then, he has apologized for the remarks and we had our cracked staff here at That NBA Lottery Pick to decode his reaction/not apology:
In writing a column about the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, it was not my intent to suggest that I don’t care about the fate of Haiti, or that I am not sympathetic to the people who make up the huge numbers and heartbreaking images we see flashed across our television and computer screens.
(No, of course not. However, writing a blog post regarding how you never give your hard-earned money to people in Haiti by comparing them to the homeless was a great idea to begin with. Also, I thought you didn't own a tv?)
Instead, my 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. Regardless of the outcry that followed, I think I did those things.
(Okay, we agree with you on that. However, did you really have to go into some Haitian people dying regardless of the earthquake? Isn't that a little not sensitive to the situation?)
When I wrote about the responsibility borne by the Haitian people for their circumstances prior to the earthquake, I did not make clear that I understand that outside influences have played a large part in determining those circumstances.
(O RLY? That's a huge shocker right there)
However, I maintain that much of the responsibility (not all) for one’s fate – or for the fate of a group of people – lies with that person or with those people.
(I think you stole that from Deepak Chopra)
I understand that dire circumstances can make taking the yoke of that responsibility very, very difficult. 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.
(Wait, so your saying that were insulting them by giving them help?)
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.
(Like that time when Kobe Bryant swatted you when you were with the Lakers in training camp?)
I’m disappointed that some outlets chose to extract segments of my column, framing my opinions in their own.
(Well, I agree with you on that one. The media machine is one fickle mistress)
Many readers were going to disagree with my opinions regardless of the context in which they were presented – that was, in some ways, the point of writing them.
(So, your saying that you wanted to piss people off, right?)
But when they were enticed into reading the piece by potentially inflammatory bits that were taken out of context, readers had little chance to look at my views with the proverbial clean slate.
(Proverbial Clean Slate? I haven't read something that pretentious since college)
While I will not apologize for writing my column,
(Wait, this sounded like an apology..It wasn't?)
I do accept the repercussions associated with writing it and hope that some good may come out of those repercussions: that people will stop and think about their own motivations for giving and that someone else might be inspired to come up with a better way to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters like the one in Haiti.
(I think that was the same line that college's try to peddle to get their students. It didn't work then and doesn't work now)
Thanks for reading.
Paul
(No, Thank You, Mr. Shirley and have a nice career in Europe)
(Courtesy of Flip Collective)