Let’s just say that former National Basketball Association player Paul Shirley shot 50 percent from the field with his recent comments about Haiti.
Shirley was, until recently, a blogger for ESPN.com. That was before he decided to enlighten us with his wisdom about relief efforts for Haitians.
Tens of thousands lost their lives when an earthquake recently hit their tiny nation. Upward of one million were left homeless. All of this raised not one iota of compassion in Shirley.
He won’t be among those Americans donating money toward relief efforts in Haiti. Shirley explained why in a blog on a Web site called Flip Collective:
“I haven’t donated a cent to Haiti relief efforts,” Shirley wrote. Later in his blog, Shirley wrote a mock letter to the people of Haiti:
“Dear Haitians,” it began. “First of all, kudos on developing the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure and birth control should be applauded. And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?”
That last line was a low blow and a cheap shot. It was probably the condom line that got Shirley canned as an ESPN.com blogger.
Some may feel he’s the latest victim of political correctness run amok, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who’d have rooted for the lions to kill Christians in an ancient Roman arena.
But there was one line in Shirley’s Haiti blog that I appreciated, one where he was right on target. Or, as they might say in basketball, where he hit the three-point jump shot from 60 feet.The line, or lines, to be more precise, went like this:
“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.”
BINGO! Shirley was right about panhandlers, wrong about Haiti. Of course, he used the term “homeless men,” but I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant panhandlers. And yes, there is a difference.
On the streets of Bodymore, Murderland, I can tell which folks are homeless and which ones are panhandlers. The homeless have certain characteristics. They usually have one, two or three bags in which they carry all their worldly possessions. They may have a shopping cart or a laundry cart to carry those possessions.
And they seldom, if ever, ask for money.
Panhandlers have no possessions with them. They just stand on the corner begging for loose change or paper money. Some claim they need money for food. The dimmer bulbs come up with a story about needing bus or subway fare to get home.
“You left home knowing you didn’t have money to get back home?” I’ve asked them.
Panhandlers, unlike the truly homeless, always ask for money. And Shirley’s right: Giving them money will help them not one iota.
Shirley was also on the mark when he noted that some of these panhandlers don’t know enough English to grasp the difference between “you’re” and “your.”
But panhandlers aren’t the only guilty parties in that regard. I’ve had students in my college writing class — Johns Hopkins University students, mind you — who don’t know that. Some have problems with “their,” “there” and “they’re” as well.
I was taught the difference between all those things before the federal government spent billions of taxpayer dollars on public education.
Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.
