Reflections on an American Moment

How fitting it is that as I prepare to write this, neither “Barack” nor “Obama” are recognized as legitimate words on my current Microsoft Word program. Yet as of just about an hour ago, these two new words are now officially preceded by the long awaited title of “President.” Yes, we can now finally cease stumbling over the varying titles concomitant with each step of the road that Obama has taken to arrive at this point. No longer the freshman Senator, no longer the long-shot candidate, no longer the Democratic-Nominee, and no longer the President-Elect. Ladies and gentlemen, at long last; President Barack Obama.

Part of the excitement of this moment, no doubt, is due to the arrival of a much-anticipated national break with the incompetency, obstinacy, and overall mediocrity that has been tragically exemplified by the Bush administration. To clarify, I do not in any way identify myself with the pusillanimous crowd at Move-on.org or with anyone else prone to making foolish, sweeping claims that blame Bush for all the world’s ills. I cringe when I hear people make blanket accusations against “Bush and his cronies” or when they sardonically joke about “moving to Canada” whenever anything doesn’t go their way. While I may sympathize with most of their frustrations, I continually find such rhetoric to be crass, lazy, and simply foolish.

To the best of my ability to tell, George W. Bush seems to be a well-meaning and amiable man. Yet, to be as terse as possible, he quite simply should never have been President of the United States. Even acknowledging some of his successes (AIDS treatment funding in Africa, and dare I say, the ousting of Saddam Hussein, one of the most manifestly sadistic figures of our generation) the Bush administration as a whole has been largely characterized by a continuous series of unfortunate events. We watched as a city drowned, as an economy collapsed, and as the world as a whole looked at us with increasing bewilderment, skepticism, and even distain. Clearly, none of these realities lie solely on the shoulders of George W. Bush. Yet that said, it has been a painful eight years to watch. At the same time then, we must also recognize that many of the dire problems that we now face are also due to our own failures as a people to step up and start thinking more seriously about the long-term effects of many of our short-term oriented actions.

This here inauguration day, it seems more appropriate than ever to reiterate the point that what matters now is not the failures of the past, but rather the way in which we move ourselves forward in the future. As of noon, the twentieth of January, 2009, I would like to collectively invite everyone (myself included) to spend a little less time reciting stupid Bush quotes, and to start putting a little more thought into what we can all do to rise to the challenges of this moment and start the difficult work of making this country great again. In his inaugural address, President Obama hit upon a timeless truth when he said that “Greatness is never given, it must be earned.” From this point onward, it is on us as a people to ensure that it is greatness that we are striving for.

To be honest, it is my personal opinion that Obama’s inaugural address was a bit tepid. Perhaps this is a somewhat predictable reaction, given all the dramatically high expectations and sloppy allusions to Lincoln, FDR, and JFK made by countless political analysts. After reading the aforementioned Presidents’ inaugural speeches recently, it seems to me that Obama’s did not quite match up with many of the principle elements that made these speeches memorable. First off, I can’t help but be slightly turned off to most of the Obama-Lincoln comparisons, in part due to the fact that Lincoln himself makes it manifestly clear in his first inaugural address (and in many other documented occasions) that he had neither the “intention…nor the inclination” to change the status of the Southern man’s “property” (to be read: black slaves). The idea of Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator” or the leader of a moral movement against the fundamental injustice of slavery seems to be, at best, a nieve and revisionist version of history. We can save that conversation for another day, but suffice it to say that I find the apathy that Lincoln displays towards slavery in his first inaugural address to be hardly comparable to Obama’s ongoing theme of adherence to universal virtues of fairness and justice.

Perhaps Lincoln’s notion of appealing to “our better angels” or even attempting the task of seeking to unite a “divided nation” is more of a legitimate comparison to what Obama sought to accomplish with his speech, but it still feels like a bit of a convenient stretch to me. Furthermore, I also found it challenging to draw parallels between the speeches of other watershed Presidents and that of Obama’s. At first view, it seemed that there was no single epic line that will be forever enshrined in history along with FDR’s “…Fear itself” or JFK’s “Ask not…” In my view, the strongest part of Obama’s speech was definitely in the communication of his foreign policy stances. He was firm and assertive on terrorism, but without being bellicose or showy. This may prove to be a fine-line to manage in the future. He was clear in annunciating that America will turn its back on the dubious and sometimes criminal shortcuts that have been taken in the “War on Terror.” He declared that we “see as false the choice between our security and our values.” Furthermore, Obama said that America is a “friend of each nation” and that we will be willing to “extend a hand [to historically less friendly foreign governments] if [they] are willing to unclench [their] fists.” I can only imagine the enthusiasm those lines must have engendered in much of the crowds watching the speech everywhere from Paris, to Nairobi, to Tehran.

To be sure, aside from its foreign policy implications, it already looks like the speech is being billed as one introducing the theme of an “era of responsibility.” Yet perhaps my biggest disappointment with Obama’s speech was not the lack of a sound-bite to be immortalized, but that, for whatever reason, he failed to fully capitalize on the opportunity to ask the American people to stand with him in this new era, and to make some of the individual choices and sacrifices that will be absolutely crucial to the restoration of the renewed generation of American prowess that we all seek. He did speak vaguely of responsibility and hard choices, but I was honestly waiting for a more direct line to the effect of, “America, the challenges that we face are great, but I need you to be with me in this. I need you to start spending a little more of your free time volunteering to better your communities. I need you to turn your lights off when you’re not using them. I need you to start making smarter choices about your health. Parents, I need you make sure your children are reading some books at night, and not just plugging themselves into the TV. And children I need you to work hard at school and to never stop dreaming big dreams.”

Despite being slightly underwhelmed with the inaugural speech as a whole, I still find myself caught up in the spirit of the moment. We truly seem to, at very least, have the potential to be on the verge of a new era in which the national zeitgeist is one of mutual respect and responsibility, rather than of asinine partisan rancor and unbounded individualism. I was living in Washington DC during the climactic final weeks of the election, and was there the night of November 4th when the victory of Barack Obama was announced. Walking through the streets and over to the White House at about midnight that night will certainly remain as one of the most memorable experiences of my life. There was a certain unguarded and long-suppressed enthusiasm on people’s faces that I have simply never seen before. Cars honked incessantly, celebratory chants erupted, and perfect strangers exchanged high-fives and hugs.

I’m not one much for blind adulation or mindless cult following. We must remember that Barack Obama is in fact a sentient human being, and only one at that. He will not save the economy, health care, energy, or education over night. Nor is he realistically likely to do so in the “first hundred days,” the first year or possibly even the first term. Yet I see this not as cause for cynicism. Barack Obama, though merely mortal, has now become the voice and symbol of a nation and a larger global community which has long been awaiting the unique combination of confidence, vision, equanimity and leadership that he has come to embody. Today he has become our President, and it is my hope that as a nation we will collectively understand both the extraordinary burdens and enormous opportunities that now await us. Let us capitalize on this intersection of both daunting and exciting challenges, and move forward with grace from this great American moment.

Back in Business

After taking a semester-long hiatus to complete internships in the US Congress, Walter Bond and Jordan Allen are now back in Siberian Milwaukee and ready to dive back into the Blogosphere business. Our intent is to contribute to and help facilitate a thought-provoking and civilized public discourse, and we fully welcome and encourage participation, commentary, and criticism from our readers. That said, it is our intention to hold this forum to high standards of honesty, consistency, and civility. We vow to never make personal character attacks on the people who participate in this forum, and we expect the same in return from our readers. At minimum, this site will feature new posts at least once a week. Enjoy!

A Dangerous Precedent for Africa?

This past winter, tragedy struck Eastern Africa, as Kenya, commonly heralded as being one of the continent’s best prospects for hope, found itself mired in chaotic political violence. The nation held its presidential election December 27th, and although virtually all third-party election monitoring organizations, including the European Union and the United Nations, decried it as being severely flawed, this did not stop the incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki, from declaring victory and immediately having himself sworn in through a sort of haphazard, shotgun ceremony. The leading opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, representing the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), declared that he did not accept defeat. And thus, literally overnight, chaos enveloped in many parts of Kenya, one of Africa’s most stable democracies. I myself was fortunate enough to have visited Kenya, along with neighboring Tanzania, in January of 2007. Thus, I was profoundly shocked and saddened in the days and weeks following the election, to watch this beautiful and peaceful country become entangled in such a rapid and senseless cycle of violence.

In many ways, Kenyan political parties are largely tied to ethnicities. Thus, much of the violence seen following the December 27th election involved groups of disaffected and enraged Luos (generally sympathetic to opposition leader Odinga) attacking innocent and unexpecting Kikuyus (generally sympathetic to president Kibaki). Retaliations occurred, generally in the notorious slums of Nairobi, and even in the rural Rift Valley region of the country. When the dust settled, 1,500 people had been murdered, and an estimated 600,000 people had fled their homes.

To clarify, this constitutes a crisis situation in a relatively pivotal country in the developing world. So what is an international community to do? With no immediate end to the violence in sight, one of the proverbial big guns of diplomacy was flown into Nairobi to help smooth things out: former UN secretary general Kofi Annan. Mr. Annan ended up staying in Kenya for over a month to facilitate negotiations between Kibaki and Odinga, and in the end, a deal was struck. A new “power-sharing” or “coalition” government was set up, with Kibaki staying on as president, and Odinga being granted a brand new position as “prime minister.” The national constitution was changed accordingly. Violence and rioting stopped. But, what next? Big questions follow. Will the opposition party actually be allowed to have a meaningful role in policy decisions? What exactly is the role of a prime minister, in relation to the existing president? In short, just how exactly is this “power-sharing” government going to work? From the outside, it seems that many of these tricky questions were pushed aside in a search of a short-term solution, attempting to pacify the opposition supporters and bring the immediate crisis to an end. It was certainly noble in its intention of ending the cycle of violence, which it succeeded in, but it still leaves the nation in quite a difficult spot moving forward.

More importantly, one could be forgiven for walking away from this hasty solution with somewhat of a bad taste in the mouth. After learning that the “coalition” government had been formally completed this past February, I remember thinking to myself, “What kind of a precedent does this set for Africa?” Let’s step back a second. According to the relevant international agencies involved in the monitoring of the election, the conclusion seems to be that Kibaki was in fact not clearly and legitimately reelected into office. Yet, in virtually no time at all, he has regained international legitimacy by capitulating to the idea of this new “power-sharing” government. So yes, it may be positive that the opposition party could theoretically have access to greater representation than they would have otherwise had in Kibaki’s government. Yet, what kind of message is this sending to the rest of the developing world? Do we really want to promote the notion that any dictator will be free to steal an election, while still enjoying the recognition of the international community, provided that dictator then agrees to formulate some nebulously defined “power-sharing” government to placate the opposition?

Unfortunately, as recent events unfolding in Zimbabwe are showing, this may be the case. Robert Mugabe, one of the world’s most infamous and megalomaniacal living dictators, has ruled over the nation with an iron fist for the past 28 years. Through corruption, nepotism, and general incompetence, he has managed to turn what was once one of Africa’s bright spots into the virtual poster child for the problems facing the continent. In Zimbabwe, the life expectancy is 39.7 years. Nearly 70% of the population lives below the poverty line. And to top it off, the country suffers from the practically unfathomable inflation rate of 2.2 million percent. So, in short, Zimbabwe is not in very good shape. Yet, Mugabe has successfully ensconced himself in power through a series of sham elections throughout the duration of his dark and repressive reign.

But this year, it could have been different. Morgan Tsvangirai, representing the Movement for Democratic Change, stepped up to provide this troubled nation with the first legitimate challenger to Mugabe since he has been in power. On March 29th, an election was held in which Tsvangirai almost certainly came out victorious. Only we were not to find out, officially, of course, as the national electoral commission, controlled by Mugabe, didn’t see fit to release the results. Days turned to weeks, and finally, Mugabe announced that a runoff election would be held, as supposedly the results were too close to call definitively. June 27th rolled around and the election was held, only this time with a little twist. Days before the election took place, Morgan Tsvangirai, the very symbol of hope and change to many in Zimbabwe, took refuge in the Dutch embassy, and dropped out of the race. He cited the countless instances of violence and intimidation inflicted upon his supporters, fellow party members, and activists (not to mention himself) on part of the police and thugs on behalf of the ruling ZANU-PF party, and conceded that there was no point in participating in the sham-to-be of an election. Tsvangirai encouraged his supporters to stay safe, and stay away from the polls.

Thus, Robert Mugabe was once again sworn in as Zimbabwe’s president, and the valiant opposition members were left to cut their losses. But now, it has recently been announced that a certain series of “power-sharing” negotiations will be taking place between Mugabe and Tsvangirai in South Africa. Hmmmmm. How to react to this? Might it not be true that some hypothetical deal could act as a sort of bridge, helping Zimbabwe to slowly but securely transition out of Mugabe’s rule? Perhaps. Yet, what I fear is that in the wake of the Kenyan solution, and in the name of reconciliation and unity, one of the world’s worst despots will be granted tacit legitimacy by the international community, provided he concedes to form one of these euphemistically termed “coalition” governments. As of now it is unclear whether these negotiations will amount to anything in the first place, and even if they do, the makeup and prospective implications would be unclear. Time will tell if such arrangements will eventually lead to successful democratic transitions in the long run. Yet, whatever happens, let us hope that these short-term political solutions are not setting a dangerous precedent for the future of African democracy in the meantime.

-Written by Jordan Allen

Environmentally Friendly Blog

A friend of mine recently asked me why I chose the hideous black background option for my blog. I'll admit that there are several other background template options that are more appealing to the eye; however, I chose the "hideous black background" because it makes a step (albeit tiny) towards saving energy. I got the idea from a Google subsidiary site named Blackle. Blackle is essentially the same thing as Google except for the fact that it has an entirely black background on it's homepage and whenver it returns search results. Their explanation for their background coloring, which is derived from a report prepared for the United States Department of Energy, is as follows:

Blackle saves energy because the screen is predominantly black. "Image displayed is primarily a function of the user's color settings and desktop graphics, as well as the color and size of open application windows; a given monitor requires more power to display a white (or light) screen than a black (or dark) screen."

Of course Blackle is saving a whole lot more energy (738,156.650 watts per hour to be exact) than I am because of the popularity of Google, but I consider my "hideous black background" one very small step in the right direction.

Masked Bigotry

Freedom of speech is a privilege that we, as Americans, should hold in high regard. Despite the fact that we all have differing opinions on a variety of topics, the right to express our opinions (even the offensive ones), however we wish, is one of the founding principles of our nation. It is one of the things that makes our country great. I find it bothering though when people want to express offensive viewpoints and not take credit for those views, or mask those viewpoints as those of others. It is cowardly to express a view but refuse to take responsibility for and stand by that view. There are a few particular instances of such cowardice that relate to Senator Barack Obama and his presidential candidacy.

The first instance happened back in the first week of June when a controversial artist, Yazmany Arboleda, opened two new exhibits in New York city entitled "The Assassination of Barack Obama" and "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton." Personally, I think these are rather stupid titles for exhibits about presidential candidates who, at the time, were both in a heated and historic battle for the Democratic Party nomination, and who both have aroused their fair shares of hatred simply by virtue of their genetics. It should come as no surprise that within thirty minutes of the opening of the exhibits the Secret Service had detained Arboleda for questioning. The exhibits themselves are very offensive, to say the least. I have no problem with Arboleda creating such offensive art work, or giving his work the titles that he did, as silly as I think it was. He has the right to do so. What I do have a problem with is his explanation for the exhibit. Arboleda claims that the exhibits were meant to display the "character assassination" of the two candidates. He goes on to defend the exhibit saying that his work "is about words and how the media has torn them (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) apart." Arboleda's explanation is either a clever way of alleviating some of the backlash he's received or a genuine reflection of his interpretation of the way the media has portrayed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I initially struggled with trying to understand Arboleda's motives, but after taking a closer look as the exhibits and all of the hoopla surrounding them, I think the "character assassination" argument was a way to get himself out of hot water. Coming from someone who has followed the Democratic and Republican races extensively, what stood out to me most about Arboleda's exhibits is that some of the offensive things thay he displays were never the topics of serious discussion by national media outlets (nor local media, I would suspect). If Arboleda's exhibits were truly about "character assassination," don't you think it would have been a bit more clear that those were his intentions? Don't you think the reasons behind the exhibit have been more explicit, instead of surfacing only after questioning from federal authorities and the downpouring of outrage by New York citizens? Arboleda clearly conjured up an explanation because of the negative attention his exhibits received. If he is bold enough to create such controversial and offensive exhibits, he should be bold enough to stand by them amid the negative attention and outrage, instead of passing the blame on to the media and the American people.

The second and more recent instance, which happened just this week, is still a part of cable new's daily cycle and, frankly, is more disturbing than the first. You've probably heard something about the most recent cover of The New Yorker (see above). The issue, entitled "The Politics of Fear" depicts Barack Obama dressed in traditional Muslim garb, fist-bumping his wife Michelle who is dressed as a Black militant, with an assault rifle slung over her back. In the background of the Oval Office there is a picture of Osama Bin-Laden hanging over the mantel, and an American flag burning in the fireplace. Wow. This surprises me moreso than Yazmany Arboleda's stunt because The New Yorker is actually a widely read and respected publication. The explanations that The New Yorker offered sounded much like the one that Arbodela offered, namely that the magazine cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are." Another statement, issued to the Obama campaign states: "...satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover." Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman issued a statement calling the image "tasteless and offensive." I agree. Furthermore, I think it represents bad journalism. I struggled a bit trying to gauge whether the statement offered by The New Yorker was simply an explanation of genuine motives, or, like Arboleda's statement, a way alleviating the unexpected backlash coming from all sides. My hunch is that it's the latter moreso than the former. Although The New Yorker rightly points out that satire is a part of what they do, it's not very often that the magazine produces content that is this offensive. The only other time The New Yorker generated this much controvery was in 1996 when the magazine published a cover depicting two men sailors kissing, meant to parody Alfred Eisenstaedt's "Times Square Kiss" photograph and highlight issues surrounding gays in the military. The New Yorker, which has been satirizing for over 75 years, knows how to get its point across. I don't think it's a mere accident that The New Yorker published such a controversial image without knowing how offensive it really is, and I don't think their intentions were all genuine. A more plausible explanation, in my humble opinion, is that The New Yorker saw an opportunity, much like Arboleda did, to be very extreme offensive, generate much attention (and consequently revenue), and have a nice sounding, canned explanation ready to be released.

There is no doubt that there have been some outrageous claims and attacks on Barack Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) character, but I find it hard to believe that Arboleda and The New Yorker were so moved by the way the candidate(s) have been treated by the media and the American people that they just had to speak out and put the "character assassination" on display. Rather, I believe both knew that they could paint almost any picture they wanted, no matter how offensive, and rely on the fact that somewhere out there, some media outlet or some person has uttered something that relates to that painted picture, in other words, this is one of the rare instances where a decent sounding excuse is inherently built in. Again, I don't have a problem with Arboleda or The New Yorker displaying offensive content, although I do believe both examples are tasteless, to say the least. What I do have a problem with is Arboleda and The New Yorker using the media and the American people as a scapegoat for creating such offensive content. When people start to become outraged and the realization comes that your content is a bit too offensive, don't insult my intelligence by issuing a statement that uses others as the reason you created such content. If that were true it would have been more obvious from the beginning, especially in the case of The New Yorker.

Offend to your heart's desire, but don't try to hide the fact that your intention is to offend. The eloquently worded statements, conveniently released after you've generated a boatload of money and over a million internet hits, are just a way of masking bigotry.

Euroleague Precedent?

One of the hottest sports headlines this past week has been the decision of Wildcats' recruit Brandon Jennings, this year's top high school prospect, to opt out of his scholarship to the University of Arizona and play a year overseas before he enters the 2009 NBA Draft. To say that this is a bold move is an understatement, he will be the first player since the NBA's implementation of the age rule to skip college altogether. If Jennings' move proves to be a success (meaning he develops well, stays injury-free and is still a top three pick in the 2009 Draft), he will likely be the first of many players to bypass college altogether to instead play overseas upon graduating from high school. Ultimately, however, Jennings' decision is a bad one, and similar to many other young players, it was probably arrived at by way of bad advice from the wrong people (i.e. AAU coaches, high school coaches, "Uncle Rick" or a variety of other people who already have Jennings' money spent). Here's why Jennings made the wrong decision.

As a disclaimer let me say that I'm a believer in Jennings' ability to make significant contributions as an NBA player. I saw some footage of him on the AAU circuit and got the chance to see him in person at the 2008 McDonalds All-American Game in Milwaukee. The kid can flat out play. Although All-American games come pre-packaged with a whole lot of offense and not much defense, watching Jennings blow by defenders was impressive nonetheless. Even more impressive was his precision passing, on the fast break or in traffic. I found myself cheering for him as it looked as though he might break the McDonald's All-American assist record of 13, set by Jacque Vaughn in 1993. Although he only finished with 9 assists (due in part to several missed lay-ups/dunks by teammates), his performance was still very impressive. Check out some miscellaneous highlights here.

Jennings decision to tread into unmarked territory is filled with a plethora of questions, the foremost being, will he adjust to Euroleague basketball? Despite your opinion on which brand of basketball is better, there's no arguing with the fact that Europeans play a different brand of basketball than Americans. Jennings will need to adapt to playing a different type of basketball than he's used to, and then turn around in a year and switch to playing a style of basketball conducive to being a point guard in the NBA. Impossible? No. Cumbersome? Absolutely.

Say Jennings adjusts beautifully, and beats out the other dozen or so guards that will be competing with him for a contract (which they are staking their careers on and Jennings is just using as filler for a year), the question then becomes, who will see him? Jennings will be subject to much less exposure to NBA scouts, coaches, GM's, sportswriters, etc. ESPN's Fran Fraschilla does a great job of keeping fans up to date on international basketball players, but how many NBA teams do you think will have representatives at his games? How many of his games do you think we'll see on ESPN, or ESPN2, or CBS, or any station for that matter? Come March, Jennings will be an afterthought while the sports world is salivating over the standout players and NBA prospects of the 2009 NCAA Tournament. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Jennings' "draft stock" is going to fall significantly in what is projected to be an already outstanding draft class.

What puzzled me the most is that Jennings opted out of spending a year at Arizona, of all schools. We know that he didn't choose the Wildcats over basically every other major program because of the stellar education he would have received, however he chose his program wisely. Arizona is no Duke, Carolina, or UCLA, but it does rank up there with the heavyweights, as does Hall of Fame coach Lute Olsen. More importantly, Arizona is the place to be if you're looking to be a great point guard. As evidenced by his signing, Jennings, or someone close to him, saw the benefit in him attending "Point Guard U," as Coach Olsen and his staff are known for producing excellent guards. Had Jennings chosen to spend a year at Arizona, he would have joined the likes of guards such as Steve Kerr, Damon Stoudamire, Mike Bibby, Jason Terry, Gilbert Arenas, and most recently Jerryd Bayless, along with other standout NBA players such as Sean Elliot and Richard Jefferson. Missing out on the tried and true methods of Arizona basketball (or college basketball in general) might put him behind the curve, so to speak, in his development as an NBA guard. Aside from the fact that Jennings skipped out on the best preparation a guard could ask for in playing under the tutelage of Lute Olsen, the fact that he skipped college in general means that he also skips the NCAA Tournament. We've all heard about the plight of college basketball players, all the problems associated with the process, etc. Sure he would have been broke for another year, like many college students, but the fact of the matter is that playing college basketball at a good school (i.e. Arizona), in a good conference (i.e. the Pac-10), and having the opportunity to play on the NCAA's biggest state (which Arizona would have had no problem making it to), can significantly alter a player's career. Look back no further than this past tournament and Memphis Tigers standout Derrick Rose for evidence of this. We knew Rose would eventually be an NBA player, but prior to this season tell me one person who suggested that he might be the #1 pick in the draft? In fact, mose were even unsure if he would even come out after his freshman season. A stellar performance in the tournament catapulted Rose to the top spot in the draft, ahead of even the best player (by far) in the draft, Michael Beasley. The history of the NCAA tournament is flooded with other examples.

So why such a definitive decision, and why so early? Surely Jennings took into consideration the fact that his stock will fall, he will have a difficult time adjusting, and that a year at Arizona is most likely the best route to take. Hopefully the decision wasn't about money as the roughly $300,000 he will make for a year overseas pales in comparison to what he'll make as a first round draft pick. In fact, with his stock likely to fall he might actually lose more than $300,000. Hopefully the decision wasn't about getting better experience because the experience he will gain, albeit against professionals, is arguably the wrong type of experience. So what does that leave? Grades. One of the reasons that Jennings wasn't a lock for Arizona despite his signing a letter of intent is because he's awaiting his most recent SAT scores which will determine if he qualifies academically to attend Arizona. Maybe his decision to commit to playing overseas is a foresight into the fact that he might not get the necessary score (in which case I would still suggest attending another institution).

I admire Jennings' confidence, which is part of why he's a great player. He's not afraid of being creative, disliked, or the first to make such a bold move. We don't have to look much further than his retro hairstyle to see that he's not a follower; however, being original doesn't have to mean reinventing the wheel. I'll be watching intently this next season, as will many other high school prospects with bad grades. If Jennings is successful in his venture he might significantly alter the whole landscape of college basketball, as many others will follow in his foot steps. My guess is he'll regret the move. Think about this, how many times has an NBA team drafted a player from overseas with the expectation of that player becoming the centerpiece of the franchise?

Blogosphere Beginnings

Greetings!

After much thought and pressure from Facebook buddies, I decided to start a blog. I'm still not entirely convinced that people will be inclined to read what I have to say, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway. While I can say with certainty that I will not post every day, I will guarantee that I will post often enough to make my blog worth the click. My thoughts here will most likely revolve around politically or sporting based topics, however I will post on a variety of other topics as well.

Please read, comment, criticize, spread, etc.

Stay tuned...