Nats beat writer asks blog readers to send him to spring training

Dude, so if we don't spend every free minute thinking about Haiti and every extra dollar doesn't go to the Red Cross then we are indifferent to suffering?

Guess what? People are suffering everywhere in the world, including your hometown. Did you send any money to them? Oh, then you only care about helping the people whose suffering is on TV.

I gave money to Haiti. I gave money to Zuckerman. I bought my son a birthday present. I took the family out to dinner. I may not be able to "afford everything" but I can afford more than one thing.

 

You should send your dogs to Haiti. They could bring smiles.

Selfish jerk.

 

I'm curious why henry is wasting time posting on a message board when he could be down in Haiti pulling people out of the rubble. What a selfish prick.

 

don't get me wrong - i worry about zuckerman.

if he is forced out of sportswriting can he do anything else? if not, will he slide into poverty and homelessness? it's not that he doesn't deserve compassion, too - he could become a statistic.

in my hometown there are several unemployed sportswriters - hanging out in the mall, unkempt and dazed, mumbling about WHIP, EqRa, ROE rate, and FRAR - and it's unsettling.

 

I hope none of you heartless bastards subscribe to magazines or pay for cable or (gasp!) satellite. If so, you could have saved a Haitian.

It's apples and oranges, dumbass.

 

Wait. You're eating apples and oranges when there's suffering in Haiti?

You asshole!

 

This is a worthy topic for philosophical discussion in my opinion. Yes, it's an ideal and most people don't seem to reach it but it's a good point. If a neighbor was banging on our door asking for help after a disaster, we would most likely not be able to simply ignore them and turn the game on. Nor would I think we'd be able to sleep well that night if we threw them a couple of bucks and later said "hey, what do you want from me? I did my part."

I'm not judging because just about everyone lives their life this way, including me, other than the exceptional few. But, without judging individuals, I don't think it's bad to ask why? Why do we think it's OK to have "pleasures" when simply passing up on them would allow us to help others keep from dying or suffering? And do those choices really make us as happy as the alternative might?

Why does someone questioning that practice get attacked and ridiculed while not much criticism is geared toward folks who say they would rather help a recently laid off colleague than a nation going through a nearly unprecedented disaster? Maybe the posts came off as judgmental and that earned some of the anger, but the part I quoted is a solid basis for discussion, I think.

Isn't the purpose of escapes such as sports or entertainment to simply provide a diversion for a moment so we can gear up again to handle the more sobering realities of life? Or at least isn't that how they started out? It seems more and more people treat the escape like the reality and put a lot more time and effort into it than dealing with other issues. Does it necessarily make them happier?
At the end of the day, these things are all luxuries. Luxuries whose worth we sometimes defend by saying they serve a greater purpose.

In any case, while I don't think most people could reach the ideal of doing with a lot less to help others survive, I don't know that the concept is so asinine. I recently found this story interesting. Sometimes people find that going against the grain of everything we all seem to agree on as "normal" isn't such a bad move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24kristof.html

 

Another look at the potential implications, from a web biz POV:

http://garciainteractive.com/blog/view/54/

 

oscar - thanks for the link to kristof's column.

on point and provocative.

it is a philosophical dilemma. beyond the grasp of a some on this site, but sportswriters will be sportswriters.

kristof's family made a decision to live in half as expensive a house, and donate the other $800,000 to microbusiness in Ghana. imagine if it had given the $800,000 to zuckerman. yes, zuckerman's coverage of the Nats would be assured for years, and he could afford health insurance and better motels in florida. but the families in Ghana would remain mired in poverty. i think the family made the right decision - though a lot of Zuckerman's readers might disagree.

 

i'm going to find a haitian porn site to give to

 

You could send a Haitian prostitute to cover the Nationals' spring training.