Tuesday, February 23, 2010

“All good things must come to an end, but all bad things can continue forever.”

Life is an unanswered question, but let's still believe in the dignity and importance of that question. ~ Tennessee Williams

The ideal man bears the accidents of life with dignity and grace, making the best of circumstances. ~ Aristotle

Let us endeavour so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. ~ Mark Twain

The spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes;
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin. Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death—
The undiscovered country, from whose bourne
No traveler returns—puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.
~ Shakespeare

Wait who died?!

Tiger Woods seemingly gave an über important eulogy on Friday last. This eulogy was covered by all of the major networks, pre-empted a plethora of AM and PM radio stations, reduced liquidity on Wall Street, drastically impacted the productivity of almost all corporations tremendously.

As I sat in my cube with the streaming video player open and no sound as the office got quieter and quieter as each moment passed, I plopped the sound on, put my headphones in the jack and listened to the somber moment.



HOWEVERRRRRRRR, as I listened I began to notice that no one infact died. I scratched my head furiously, then it dawned on me. A golfer was discussing/apologizing/revealing to the world his sexual (adulterous) dalliances.

This was one of the more revelatory moments of this decade for me. The level of obsession with Tiger Woods and particularly this "issue" is beyond ridiculous. This gossipy nightmare is being covered with more zeal and fervour than current real news stories such as health care, Haiti, the economy, unemployment, and the 2 wars in which our country is fighting. This was evident a couple months ago as Woods "graced" the cover of the NY Post 20+ times making it the longest-running fixture on the front page. The previous record was held by the 9/11 attacks.



Do we really care about this golfer that sells Buicks and razors that much? Or rather should we? Sportynation, if I asked you 4 months ago (gun to your head) is Tiger Woods, a billionaire athlete whose job demands that he travel all across the world...the whole wide world, faithful to his wife (gun to your head!) you would say what? Then, if I asked you is he sleeping with dozens of women, you'd say what? Mind you, you have a gun to your head. You'd probably say yes. After all, he is not a humanitarian. So why the outrage?

I don't think we as a society would be as outraged and entitled if a CEO of a major company or member of high society cheated on his her spouse (ironic that some might argue that consumers of the products that he endorses American Express, Accenture, Buick, and Titleist are a part of the demographic most likely to be unfaithful). In fact, we'd maybe expect it, we certainly would not be shocked. Tiger is almost no different from a CEO, he's rich, has a limitless amount of resources, is powerful, and is impactful. You could maybe argue though that Tiger represents himself. He plays an individual sport and is not a part of a team. I thought that we liked and loved Tiger Woods because he was and is maybe the best golfer ever? Is that a wrong assumption. Would we care if he weren't so good at golf? Nope.

The ugly, hateful, spiteful, entitled nature of society was put on full display Friday last. The pathetic simple-minded mob has perhaps finally gone too far. Taking an easy stance or joining in with the mob is not difficult, commendable, or noteworthy. In fact, it usually does not require thought and is lazy. Clearly, if Woods were single this wouldn't be happening or an issue....so he's apologizing to us for not honoring his marriage, his wife, and a moral code. Apologizing to us...



How are people ok castigating behavior that they themselves would partake! If placed in the same situation, what would you do? I'm willing to bet overwhelmingly similar behavior would occur. The infidelity statistics are staggering (http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html).

As Chris Rock famously said,

You see all these fat Republican-like guys going:

"l would never do such a thing.
This is a travesty."

Rock is like, "Nobody's trying to [please] you."

Ain't no [whatever]-year-old girls
trying to [please] Orrin Hatch.

Ain't nobody trying
to give Newt Gingrich some.

l don't [care], you ain't never
gonna hear Newt Gingrich go:

"Man, l wish these [floozies]
would back up off me/"

"l wish they would just
back the [heck] up off me."



Almost everybody with a television in the world knows who Tiger Woods is, they know that he is married, they know that he is an athlete, they know that he is powerful, the know that he is one of the greatest ever at his craft, and they know that he is worth more than a billion dollars. I can't even begin to understand how often he is hit up for money and business opportunities. And, I certainly can't begin to understand how often people throw themselves at him. The stories of groupies are staggering. If high school basketball and college basketball players are kings, what is he?

This post is not in defense of Eldrick Woods' poor judgment and behavior, but rather it is trying to offer just a little perspective.

Let's not overlook that the media's unethical successful pursuit of ruining his life FURTHER for its own profit is taking place. That is to say, the more scandal and garbage is found on Tiger Woods, the more profits are made and the more we turn our heads to the absolute demolition of his personal life (We HAVE to ask his mother and his wife graphic often times sexual questions, we HAVE to follow his 2 year daughter and announce the address of her school, We HAVE to receive an apology).

The media is a for profit industry. It "reports" on "news" and opines early and often. Never mind, the implications of this "reporting." It simply no longer matters. The media is probably the most powerful thing in the U.S. and maybe the world (likely behind religion). It is more often than not unquestioned and the final say. Journalistic principles are thrown out the door. You or I could have made an allegation regarding Tiger when it was popular and there is a non insignificant chance that it would have gone viral. Opinions are made and solidified by the media in a matter of seconds. Many do not have enough time or energy to delve more into what is actually happening. Opinions of journalists pass as fact! The U.S. Constitution gives the press an almost limitless amount of power which undoubtedly is instantaneously abused. Just because they can use the power, does not make or mean that this power should be used to report on abhorrent behavior such as Tiger Woods cheating on his wife.

Perspective has officially been lost and we have expectations and expect behavior from others that we do not expect from and for ourselves. How would we feel if we made a mistake and then people were following our entire family including our toddler daughter around while also releasing there whereabouts, reporting facts, and etc. What if our darkest moments that only affect our loves ones are made public and were illuminated??

We are smack dab in a society full of jealousy and entitlement. We just want to see how far the successful can fall. We are in the business of profiting from the downfall of others.

Does the media want the story to go away?

Does Tiger need the media and golf or do the media and golf need Tiger Woods?

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

This is my Minority Report.



(Many of the insights were inspired by Miami 790 AM The ticket)

Monday, February 15, 2010

The blaming of the victims continues...




Today, the NY Daily News detailed an account and report that women are surprisingly less forgiving than men of rape victims. More than half of the women who participated in a new survey think certain rape victims should accept some responsibility for the violent attack they endured.

One third felt that provocative dress or returning to the attacker's house to have a drink makes a victim deserving of some blame for the rape, according to the survey, which was reported by BBC News.

The online survey of more than 1,000 people in London, called Wake Up To Rape, found that more than half of both men and women said that in some instances, the victim should take responsibility for a rape. The survey participants, who ranged in age from 18 to 50, included 712 men and 349 men, according to BBC News.

Some 71 percent of the women who said they felt some rape victims should take responsibility said the victims were accountable for the crime if they'd gone to bed with the attacker. Only 57 percent of the men felt that way, according to the survey.

Sportynation, victim blaming is nothing new, but is 100% something to fear. Victim blaming is holding the victims of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment to be entirely or partially responsible for the unfortunate incident that has occurred in their life.

Historically victim-blaming has often emerged in racist and sexist forms. It is also about blaming individuals for their personal distress or for social difficulties, rather than the other parties involved or the overarching social system in place.

Victim blaming serves as a diversion and/or rather a mechanism to make one feel good, better, safe, or safer. That is, the mentalities that that would never happen to me because I live in a nice neighborhood, I don't dress "suggestively/scantily clad" or that that would never happen to me because I'm smart, I have good parents, I raised my kids properly, or that I have superior talent.



Stated simply, we as humans look for reason any and everywhere...even when it is not there. In addition to that we seem to be naturally hard-wired and programed to not look at the situation in its most basic form. Instead we look at things that may not be "totally" true, correlated to the situation, or insignificantly related.

The rationalization or explanation of a tragic incident was on full display this weekend when Nodar Kumaritashvili, a 21-year-old slider from the republic of Georgia, died Friday after he crashed in the final curve. He was traveling at nearly 90 mph when he slammed into an unpadded steel support pole.

Officials also have modified the final curve where he crashed and erected a wooden wall over the steel beams. Within sight of the finish line, Nodar Kumaritashvili crashed coming out of the 16th turn and slammed into an unpadded steel pole while traveling nearly 90 mph. Despite frantic attempts by paramedics to save his life, he died at a trauma center.

Concerns about the lightning-fast course had been raised for months. There were worries that the $100 million-plus venue was too technically difficult, and a lack of significant practice time by everyone but the host nation’s sliders would result in a rash of accidents.

But the International Luge Federation and Vancouver Olympic officials said their investigation showed that the crash was the result of human error and that “there was no indication that the accident was caused by deficiencies in the track.”

In a joint statement they said Kumaritashvili was late coming out of the next-to-last turn and failed to compensate. “This resulted in a late entrance into curve 16 and although the athlete worked to correct the problem, he eventually lost control of the sled, resulting in the tragic accident.”

Men lugers, who were scheduled to finish training Friday morning, will get two extra practice runs Saturday. Women will train four hours later than scheduled. Men’s competition will be held later in the day as planned.

Mikhail Saakashvili, president of Georgia, who defended Kumaritashvili hours after officials blamed him. "No sports mistake is supposed to lead to a death,'' he said at a news conference.

"Nodar was a very rapidly progressing sportsman," Saakashvili said. "He won qualification on his own merits. He didn't come here because he represents some country. He came here because he had to compete. He had to go through ... international competitions. He was training all around Europe. You cannot say it was inexperience.''

Kumaritashvili’s inexperience may have played a factor in the crash, but he had qualified to compete. This would have been his first Olympics. He competed in five World Cup races this season, finishing 44th in the world standings. To claim he didn't have enough experience for a guy who is among the world's top 44 lugers is tremendously arrogant, infuriating, and pathetic (that was kind of strong, sportynation).



Sportynation, I am not going fall into the easy stance that this "sport" is too dangerous, too fast, brutal, and should be outlawed like it is often said each summer when a horse dies or is seriously injured in the Preakness, Breaders Cup, Belmont Stakes, Kentucky Derby, and etc. However, I will say a few things...First, there should be more precautions, more responsibility delved out to the individuals and groups in charge, and research done by outside independent entities. You can't ask the commissioner like figure or the group in charge to oversee the sport because of their biases and agendas and you certainly cannot have athletes police themselves because they are far too close to the sport and could and probably would make decisions that are in the extreme. After all, many lugers have complained about "starting from the women's start", "the track is too slow", and "is not as fun" (albeit after a fatality just two days ago), but you also have emotionally distraught athletes that are and will be damaged for a long long time and also a group of athletes that have already left the competition.

It does seem particularly irresponsible, unkind, unreasonable, insensitive, and disingenuous "as the body is still warm" to proclaim and insinuate that it was the luger's fault, and that there was nothing wrong with the course excccccceptttttt that we are going to raise the walls, change the ice, lower the start, and offer more practice time. Sportynation, does this not sound like the luge federation trying to cover itself?

Indeed, luge is a dangerous sport, but the fact that they changed things with the track clearly shows they know the track itself was dangerous, even though they deny that. One of the changes was to wrap all metal columns exposed to the track with cushions similar to how NASCAR and Indy Car safeguards the corners when the cars come around corners. Seems pretty simple and easy of a change or precaution. Right?

The opposite point of view argues that the luge federation is only making the changes for the psychological or emotional aspects. The changes are being made so that people (including athletes, press, coaches, families, and the general public) feel better or safer.

Sportynation, the father of the Georgian luger killed at the Vancouver Olympics said Monday his son worried the track was too dangerous, but insisted on competing because he had come to the games to try to win.

"He told me: I will either win or die," David Kumaritashvili told The Associated Press. "But that was youthful bravado, he couldn't be seriously talking about death."

The father, in an interview at his home in the snow-covered slopes of Georgia's top ski resort, said he had spoken to his son, Nodar, shortly before the fatal training run Friday.

"He told me: Dad, I really fear that curve," the elder Kumaritashvili said. "I'm a former athlete myself, and I told him: 'You just take a slower start.' But he responded: `Dad, what kind of thing you are teaching me? I have come to the Olympics to try to win.'"

Kumaritashvili, a Soviet-era luger himself, seemed to have mixed feelings about the cause of the crash.

"Maybe my son was at fault, but if the beams weren't there this wouldn't have happened, he would be alive," Kumaritashvili said. "This could have happened to anyone, anyone could have made that mistake. That's what I think."

Unfortunately, this young man tragically died.




Sportynation, I would like to reiterate that I'm not an authority on luge course design/engineering or luge techniques or etc., to me, luging is an exceptionally interesting sport. The point of this post his to point out that victim blaming is a serious thing that we must all be aware. Indeed, it may be human nature to blame the victim or search for reason in things that happen in the world, but we must not dismiss the obvious. We should think more and more while not over-thinking, give the benefit of the doubt more, and take things as they come.

This is my Minority Report.

Below is an account by Jay Mariotti a former writer for the Chicago Sun Times and Chicago Tribune and current writer for AOL Fanhouse. It is significantly stronger than my take and also very interesting.

__________________________________________________

WHISTLER, British Columbia -- Oh, sure, blame the accident on a dead man who can't defend himself. As if the tragedy on Blackcomb Mountain wasn't devastating enough to the Olympic movement, the legacy of the XXI Winter Games, Canada's dreams and a heartbroken family in the republic of Georgia, now we have to endure insensitive, clumsy finger-pointing from officials who won't accept a grave reality: They made the luge track too fast. Incredibly, they ruled Saturday that Nodar Kumaritashvili was a reckless driver who failed to compensate on his sled when he was late coming out of the next-to-last turn.

"There was no indication the accident was caused by deficiencies in the track,'' concluded the International Luge Federation, a motion seconded by Vancouver Olympic organizers. "This resulted in a late entrance into curve 16, and although the athlete worked to correct the problem, he eventually lost control of the sled, resulting in the tragic accident.''

It's a bogus explanation akin to posting a speed limit of 95 mph on an expressway, then blaming the driver for spinning out of control at, say, 95 mph. For months, serious concerns had been voiced that the track at Whistler Sliding Center was dangerous and vulnerable to a horrific event. Among the alarmed was none other than Josef Fendt, president of FIL, who said in November 2008 that racers were flying too fast on the course at 92.5 mph (149 kilometers) and urged that top speeds be reduced in the future to 85 mph (136 kilometers). "This is not in the interest of our International Luge Federation, and it makes me worry,'' Fendt said then -- in an FIL news release, no less. He also was critical of the Whistler track's designers, saying he didn't expect "such a leap'' in speeds.

Yet there was Fendt on the morning after in this stunned village, claiming that he never said such things. "We never said it is too fast. We are not saying this track is too fast, but that the track is fast,'' he said, using an interpreter because his English is lacking. "We did not expect those speeds, but after that, we found out that the track is safe for the athletes. We know all tracks are getting faster over time, and in planning future tracks, we have to make sure we don't go beyond 140 kilometers an hour. The speed of 137 here is an appropriate number.''

So why did Fendt, the most powerful man in the sport, watch idly as some racers hit 95 mph (153 kilometers) on practice runs this week? If he was so worried 15 months ago, why wasn't he mortified as several lugers were expressing fears, comparing themselves to "crash-test dummies'' who felt like their bodies were "on fire'' when they wrecked at high speeds? There had been more than a dozen crashes on the track during training before Kumaritashvili's 89-mph death ride. Where were the big bosses?



Asleep, that's where. Which is why they were so quick to cover their butts when a shocked world, sickened by the video of Kumaritashvili hurdling out of his sled and slamming grotesquely into an unpadded steel pole, is demanding answers that apparently aren't coming. If the luge federation and Vancouver officials did nothing wrong, riddle me this: Why were they compelled to reduce speeds by moving the start of the men's run further down the track to where the women start? Isn't that an admission of some sort, especially when speeds during the training run Saturday were significantly slower?

Nope. It's all Kumaritashvili's fault.

"Our technical officials studied the tape and walked the track. Based on this, they were able to render their opinion as to what happened,'' said Svein Romstad, FIL secretary general. "The run of Nodar appeared to be routine until curve 15. At that time, he came out late on the curve. This resulted into a late entrance into the final curve. Although he attempted to rectify the situation, he shot up into curve 16. The result is that he experienced a G-force that literally collapsed his body, rendering it difficult to control the sled, which in this case he was not able to do. Once this happened, he was literally at the mercy of the path of the sled.''

Because he was GOING TOO DAMNED FAST. How convenient of Romstad to omit that small detail.

All of which wasn't lost on Mikhail Saakashvili, president of Georgia, who defended Kumaritashvili hours after officials blamed him. "No sports mistake is supposed to lead to a death,'' he said at a news conference.

"Nodar was a very rapidly progressing sportsman," Saakashvili said. "He won qualification on his own merits. He didn't come here because he represents some country. He came here because he had to compete. He had to go through ... international competitions. He was training all around Europe. You cannot say it was inexperience.''

Then he thrust the dagger. "We were told by our sportsmen there was some suggestion that walls should have been higher there because there was eventuality of this happening," Saakashvili said.

Something reeks in the mountains, where a memorial to the fallen athlete -- candles, flowers, notes, a photo with the inscription "In Memory of Nodar Kumaritashvili, May he rest in peace." -- has been erected in the medals plaza. They should have shut down the luge competition for days, or canceled it entirely, after the first fatality at a Winter Games in 18 years. But only briefly was that option discussed, Romstad said. So there were the racers Saturday, resuming their craft even if it required sliding eerily into the same final turns where their colleague had perished. According to Fendt, not one luger expressed a desire to cancel the two-day event. You can call it steely dedication to one's passion.

I call it insanity.



"Everybody deals with these things different,'' said U.S. luger Tony Benshoof, among those who have wrecked this week. "I can't personally deal with it until after the Games.''

"It's a big hit to the luge community and the Olympic committee, but today is a new day,'' Canada's Samuel Edney said. "We are racing with Nodar in our minds. It's honorable that everybody got on their sleds today. It was a tough moment for sure, but there wasn't fear. I'm confident of the safety of the track.''

They should have been saved from themselves by their federation, the race director and the technical delegates. Instead, these daredevils continued competing on a death track where only minor changes were made. Yes, life goes on, but why so soon at the risk of more tragedy? Even with reduced speeds, the track remains the most dangerous in the world. A 12-foot-high wooden wall now covers the unpadded beams. The exit in the killer curve has been reshaped to "change the ice profile.'' And that's it, folks. Almost defiantly, they've done a minimum of work to the $105-million venue, convinced that this was "an extremely exceptional accident.'' Said Fendt: "For me personally, (Friday) was the worst day and saddest day in the history of the sport. We've been competing since 1964, almost 50 years, and it was the worst event that has happened. We had not had a fatal accident in 35 years on artificial tracks.''

Keep telling yourself that, sir, and you'll have another. The good news was that the racers, at least in the practice sessions, were going slower: None of the 36 sliders broke 90 mph. But conspicuous by his absence was Georgia's Levan Gureshidze, who didn't take his sixth practice run. When you think about it, who in his right mind would want to slide down the world's most dangerous track, face first, 24 hours after the grisliest scene they'd ever experienced? "It's really difficult to start,'' Slovenia's Domen Pociecha said. "Everybody's thinking the same thing. You can see it in their faces.''

"It eats you inside,'' Canada's Jeff Christie said. "It reminds you that it's a speed sport and that we take risks doing it. We're all racers; this is what we do. Our decision is to race.''



Adding to this exercise in denial was the organizers' stated reason for the subtle course alterations. They were made, Romstad said, more for emotional reasons than safety purposes. "We're trying our best to alleviate the traumatic components of this tragic event,'' he said, fighting back tears and sniffles. "The primary concern is the emotional aspect of it. We haven't experienced this in 35 years. We are unfamiliar with how to deal with this. In our discussions, it became clear that none of our athletes has experienced anything like this. They lost a friend yesterday, and it's emotional for everyone. Hopefully, psychologically, this will help. We believe this is the best course of action.''

Let's see. The man knows G-forces and psychology, but when it comes to the simple questions of why the track was too fast and why there were so many practice crashes, he draws a blank. "This is a fast sport,'' Romstad said, "and athletes do encounter problems on a regular basis. There was nothing out of the ordinary that signaled need for a change. There were no signs that were unique."

Nothing out of the ordinary? No signs that were unique? I'd say lugers going 95 mph, when Fendt strongly suggested not long ago that they shouldn't exceed 85 mph, is something out of the ordinary and unique. I'd call it a scandal, actually, and if the International Olympic Committee doesn't investigate, then president Jacques Rogge and his people should be investigated, too. "We certainly didn't hear anything about excessive speed,'' said Mark Adams, the IOC's communications director. "We're very, very confident it is safe.''

The lugers talked of high speeds all week. They were quoted in stories, interviewed on TV. Where was the IOC? Is it not apparent that a pall has been cast over the Games? "It's really unfortunate to have something like that happen," said U.S. snowboarding star Shaun White, who had his own ugly wreck last month. "We're all in different sports and from different countries, but when we get here, we're all part of the same family. It has definitely affected everyone here."

As a group, the lugers decided to wear a piece of black tape on the left side of their helmets. "He crashed on the left side of curve 16,'' France's Thomas Girod said, "so we are wearing tape on the left side of our helmets in his memory.''

Finally, somebody at the luge track did something smart.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

"Paul Shirley is the worst person in the world!"

Paul Murphy Shirley (born December 23, 1977) is an American professional basketball player, most recently a member of Unicaja Málaga in the Spanish ACB.



He is also a writer, with his primary focus on his basketball experiences. Shirley is noted for briefly maintaining an online journal while playing for the Phoenix Suns in 2004-05. His first journal dealt with a several-day-long road trip, while the second chronicled the Suns' NBA Playoffs run. After their playoff elimination, the Suns did not re-sign him, as he rarely played in his twelfth man position.

SPortynation, Paul Shirley is and was an inconsequential basketball player. I'd like to argue, think, and say that he is an inconsequential human being as well, but that can't be argued as I believe that all individuals are with consequential in varying degrees. Mr. Shirley had a poingnant, agonizing, bitter, piercing, intense, sad, pitiful, heartbreakingly emotional blog entry about Haiti and the consequences of its earthquake.

He begins the entry by stating that he has not donated to relief efforts in Haiti and "probably will not... 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."

Initially, this entry does not seem like anything ridiculous or out of line. Whether or not you agree with this introduction he is undoubtedly entitled to his opinion, but he quickly goes too far. He becomes utterly irrational by more or less blaming the Haitians for the devastating earthquake that set the entire nation back tremendously, in addition to that he also loses any and all perspective, becomes divisive, while also attempting to paint himself as an elitist, rich-miser, racist, and/or idiot. His POV ultimately led to him losing his job and maybe ruined his career and life for a long long time (maybe some hyperbole).

Sportynation, you can't say the below sarcastic comment about a natural disaster and the VICTIMS! Right? It's insensitive, cruel, out of line, and terrible with its timing. Right?

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

Sportynation. I would like to say this guy right here is inconsequential person, but he is clearly with consequence because he is able to disseminate information to thousands upon thousands of people and ESPN ultimately decided to end its relationship with him even if already tangential in nature. I will post the entirety of his article/rant/opinion/whatever below. I would use a link to the page, but I don't want to give his page any more hits.

Sportynation, this is as judgmental as I think I can be. I absolutely hate being judgmental in this sense, but this really really rubbed me the wrong way and inspired me to write something.

This is my MINORITY REPORT!

Article below.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not know if what I’m about to write makes me a monster. I do know that it makes me a part of a miniscule minority, if Internet trends and news stories of the past weeks are any guide.

“It”, is this:

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.

In this belief I am, evidently, alone. It seems that everyone has jumped on the “Save Haiti” bandwagon. To question the impulse to donate, then, will probably be viewed as analogous with rooting for Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, or the Spice Girls.

My wariness has much to do with the fact that the sympathy deployed to Haiti has been done so unconditionally. Very few have said, written, or even intimated the slightest admonishment of Haiti, the country, for putting itself into a position where so many would be killed by an earthquake.

I can’t help but wonder why questions have not been raised in the face of this outpouring of support. Questions like this one:

Shouldn’t much of the responsibility for the disaster lie with the victims of that disaster?

Before the reader reaches for his or her blood pressure medication, he should allow me to explain. I don’t mean in any way that the Haitians deserved their collective fate. And I understand that it is difficult to plan for the aftermath of an earthquake. However, it is not outside the realm of imagination to think that the citizens of a country might be able to: A) avoid putting themselves into a situation that might result in such catastrophic loss of life. And B) provide for their own aid, in the event of such a catastrophe.

Imagine that I’m a caveman. Imagine that I’ve chosen to build my house out of balsa wood, and that I’m building it next to a roaring river because I’ve decided it will make harvesting fish that much easier. Then, imagine that my hut is destroyed by a flood.

Imagining what would happen next is easier than imagining me carrying a caveman’s club. If I were lucky enough to survive the roaring waters that took my hut, my tribesmen would say, “Building next to the river was pretty dumb, wasn’t it?.” Or, if I weren’t so lucky, they’d say, “At least we don’t have to worry about that moron anymore.”

Sure, you think, but those are cavemen. We’re more civilized now – we help each other, even when we make mistakes.

True enough. But what about when people repeat their mistakes? And what about when they do things that obviously act against their own self-interests?

In the case of mistakes and warnings as applied to Haiti, I don’t mean to indict those who ignored actual warnings against earthquakes, of which there were many before the recent one. Although it would have been prudent to pay heed to those, I suppose.

Instead, I’m referring to the circumstances in which people lived. While the earthquake was, obviously, unavoidable, the way in which many of the people of Haiti lived was not. Regrettably, some Haitians would have died regardless of the conditions in that country. But the fact that so many people lived in such abject poverty exacerbated the extent of the crisis.



How could humans do this to themselves? And what’s being done to stop it from happening again?

After the tsunami of 2004, the citizens of the world wailed and donated and volunteered for cleanup, rarely asking the important – and, I think, obvious – question: What were all those people doing there in the first place? Just as important: If they move back to a place near the ocean that had just been destroyed by a giant wave, shouldn’t our instinct be to say, “Go ahead if you want, but you’re on your own now.”?

We did the same after Hurricane Katrina. We were quick to vilify humans who were too slow to respond to the needs of victims, forgetting that the victims had built and maintained a major city below sea level in a known target zone for hurricanes. Our response: Make the same mistake again. Rebuild a doomed city, putting aside logic as we did.

And now, faced with a similar situation, it seems likely that we will do the same.

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

It shouldn’t be outlandish to hope that we might stop short of the reactionary word that is so often flung about after natural (and unnatural) disasters. That word: Rebuild. Thus, the tired, knee-jerk cycle of aid/assist/rebuild would be replaced by a new one: Aid/assist/let’s-stop-and-think-before-we-screw-this-up-again.

If forced to do so through logic-colored glasses, no one would look at Haiti and think, “You know what? It was a great idea to put 10 million people on half of an island. The place is routinely battered by hurricanes (in 2008, $900 million was lost/spent on recovery from them), it holds the aforementioned title of poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, and it happens to sit on a tectonic fault line.”

If it were apparent that Haiti would likely rebuild in an earthquake-resistant way, and if a cure could be found for hurricane abuse of island nations, then maybe one could imagine putting a sustained effort into rebuilding the place. But that would only be feasible if the country had shown any ability to manage its affairs in the past, which it has not done.



I can tell, based on my own reaction to that last sentence, that it might strike a nerve. The reader might be tempted to think, “We can’t blame the people of Haiti for their problems. Surely it’s someone else’s fault.” A similar sentiment can be found in this quote, from article on the geology behind the quake:

“Unfortunately, [Haiti]’s government was not in a position to really do much to prepare for the inevitable large earthquake, leaving tens of thousands to suffer the consequences.”

The sentiment expressed is one of outrage at the government. But, ultimately, the people in a country have control over their government. One could argue that in totalitarian regimes, they do not have much control, but in the end, it is their government. And therefore, their responsibility. If the government is not doing enough for the people, it is the people’s responsibility to change the government. Not the other way around.

Additionally, some responsibility for the individual lies with that individual.

A Haitian woman, days after the earthquake:

“We need so much. Food, clothes, we need everything. I don’t know whose responsibility it is, but they need to give us something soon,” said Sophia Eltime, a mother of two who has been living under a bed sheet with seven members of her extended family. (From an AP report.)

Obviously, a set of circumstances such as the one in which Ms. Eltime was living is a heart-wrenching one. And for that, anyone would be sympathetic. Until she says, “I don’t know whose responsibility it is.” I don’t know whose responsibility it is, either. What I do know is that it is not the responsibility of the outside world to provide help. It’s nice if we do, but it is not a requirement, especially when people choose to influence their own existences negatively, whether by having too many children when they can’t afford them or by failing to recognize that living in a concrete bunker might not be the best way to protect one’s family, whether an earthquake happens or not.

Ms. Eltime’s reaction helps define what is the crux of my problem with the reaction to this and to other humanitarian crises. I recoil at the notion that I’m SUPPOSED to do something. I would like to help, but only if I feel that my assistance is deserved and justified. If I perceive that I am being told to feel a certain way, and if I can point to a pattern of mistakes made in similar situations, I lose interest.

When I was young, the great humanitarian crisis facing our world – as portrayed by the media, anyway – was the starving masses in Africa. The solution found, of course, was to send bag after bag of food to those people, forgetting the long-understood maxim that giving more food to poor people allows them to create more poor people. (Admittedly, it’s a harsh truth.) At the time, my classmates and I, young and naïve as we were, thought we had come up with a better solution. “They should just go somewhere else,” we said. Our teacher grimaced, saying, “It’s not that simple.”

It still isn’t. And I’m not as naïve as I once was – I don’t think the people of Haiti have the option of moving. But I do think that our assistance should be restricted, like it should be in cases of starvation. It simply does not work to give, unconditionally. What might work is to teach. In the case of famine-stricken segments of Africa, teaching meant making people understand that a population of people needs a certain amount of food, and that the creation of that food has to be self-sustaining for the system to work. In the case of earthquake-stricken Haiti, teaching might mean limited help, but help that is accompanied by criticism of the circumstances that made that help necessary.

In the case of the Haitian earthquake, it’s heartening to see people caring about the fates of their fellow men. What is alarming, I think, is the sometimes illogical frenzy toward casting those affected by the earthquake as helpless, innocent souls who were placed on the island of Hispaniola by an invisible force. In the case of some, this analogy might well be accurate; children cannot very well control their destinies. And as far as sympathy goes, much of it should go to those children.

But children are brought into the world by their parents. Those parents have a responsibility – to themselves and to their kids – to provide. They have a responsibility to look around – before an earthquake happens – and say, “I need to improve this situation, because if a catastrophe were to happen, we’d be in bad shape.”

The people of whom I write are adults. Functional, human adults with functional, human adult brains. It is not too much to ask that they behave as such. That they stand up and say, “Yes, we screwed this up the first time. We are forever indebted to you. Now show us how we can do it right. So that, next time, we won’t need your help.”