First, some SSP — you can now find “The Morning Jones” at the iTunes Store. If you haven’t heard the new show, I think you should get on it. It ain’t bad. Now, moving on…
From what I can tell, many of you are very upset with Paul Shirley. You’re upset because of this blog post he wrote on Haiti.
Then there’s the rest of you — those that have no idea who in the world Paul Shirley is. That proportion of you is large, and there are certainly more of you than those who are incensed. Shirley played professional basketball, a fact I would not have known had he not been a contributor to a Web site I’ve done a lot of work for.
As a basketball player, he’s nobody. As a thinker, he’s nobody. His writing, at least what I’ve read, has centered around the life of a basketball nobody. Subsequently, given that he has zero influence or power over the public discourse, he’s a nobody when it comes to talking about Haiti. Were I not killing time as we try to repair technical difficulties related to this morning’s show, I wouldn’t have the time to talk about him.
I don’t say that to insult Shirley. But I only know, literally, one person that gives a damn about Paul Shirley. The rest of you are just wasting time with him.
Why be mad at Paul Shirley? He spoke about something he knew absolutely nothing about. The crux of his ideology certainly isn’t unique. It’s basic, “bootstraps” stuff that we hear all the time, that many of you happen to agree with. I know this because these same arguments are consistently raised when discussing the American poor. Shirley just brought it up in the aftermath of a tragedy (which is usually when these arguments are mentioned about the American poor).
I understand being annoyed by the condescending tone. However, that’s typically what happens when people write about things they don’t know about (which usually happens when discussing the American poor). In his mind, the question is simple — if Haiti’s so messed up, why don’t you leave (which sounds like what’s said about…)?
Right, because no one ever thought of that one before. In fact, someone did.

Paul Shirley passed a Sam Kinison routine off as food for thought. How could I stay mad at that? Look how funny Sam was (and really, that route it hiiiii-larious).
(Oh, BTW, ask Bill Clinton about the Haitians that DID try to move somewhere else.)
What he wrote wasn’t hateful. It was just really, really stupid. And if stupid got me riled up all the time, I’d have to find another job. Hosting sports talk would send me to an early grave if I didn’t have a certain patience for the uninformed among us.
But enough about Shirley. Pop quiz — how many of us are truly less ignorant than he is?
He was too stupid to be quiet. I’ve made that mistake a few times. The rest of you know what answers you should and shouldn’t give at a time like this.
That said, do you understand why Haiti’s so poor? Do you get why the country was so ill-equipped to handle such a disaster?
If you don’t, then the only thing that makes you better than Paul Shirley is silence. Except for the fact that doesn’t really make you much better.
If you’re short on answers, here’s a good place to start. Tyler Duffy also contributed a great post to The Big Lead.
Shirley raised some interesting questions about the obligation the more fortunate do and don’t have to donate, and the concerns that come from donating money and not knowing where it’s going. Truth be told, if you’re donating money and have no concern to where it’s going, then you’re not donating the money to help. You’re donating it because it makes you feel good to say you did your part. Like Shirley — I assume, at least, he feels this way — I’m not impressed by that. If you’re giving, do it for them. Not for your conscience or the vision you have of yourself, but for the people that need the help. Otherwise, what you’re doing is masturbatory, at best.
He also addressed the tricky question of rebuilding a place that is constantly at risk of being the victim of natural disaster. I raised this exact same question about New Orleans five years ago, and I said the city should not be rebuilt.
I wouldn’t say that now. What I didn’t consider at the time was the value of culture and the value of being home. I’ve never felt a “home sweet home” to any of the places that I’ve lived, and I generally believe all these places around the world are, essentially, the same. City really ain’t much bigger than the friendly people that you meet, Bill Withers said. I think he’s right.
But it’s really easy for me to say they shouldn’t rebuild somebody else’s city. It’s really easy for me to say that people should jet out from a bad location just because it’s bad. There’s something, clearly, that keeps people in these places, and that something isn’t stupidity. It isn’t my place to spell it out, nor do I find that necessary. The bottom line is that home is home, being Haitian is being Haitian, and it’s hard to do either one from Miami.
The point I’m trying to make — Shirley did give us some things worth considering and discussing, especially if he’s speaking as someone whose money may go toward these efforts. Too bad that got obscured by his abject lack of a clue.
But mad at Paul Shirley? He’s a hooper and a writer. I’ve worked in sports media for years, and I only know who he is because we have a mutual friend.
He’s not worth my blood pressure. Yours either. I just recommend making sure there’s not more Paul Shirley in you than you recognize.