A Feminism for Our Time

Thursday, May 6, 2010 11:30 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , 1 comments

Sarah Bigler
Staff Writer

            When people think of feminism, they think unshaven legs, unstyled hair, bare faces and a loud, clear female voice, usually condemning a society that celebrates men’s rights at the expense of those of women.  They don’t think of high heels.

But first, an admission of guilt. March was Women’s History Month, and as a self-proclaimed feminist, I feel I should have written this article two months ago. Having dropped the ball, I offer this piece as an apology and an attempt to salvage my dignity as both a journalist and as a woman.

Let’s set the record straight. Feminists don’t hate men. After all, some of us even sleep with them.  Some choose to stay home and raise their children. Some of us do actually shave our legs, and some don’t. Some of us have high-powered jobs, some work down the street at your local grocery store. We enjoy sex, we play with makeup, and yes, we wear both high heels and Birkenstocks, blue jeans and pink dresses.

The face of feminism, like any major movement, has evolved since its inception. Some of the issues have remained the same. Women still don’t make the same wages men do for performing the same job, abortion will always be a point of contention and domestic and sexual abuse against women is an ongoing war being fought across the globe.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony started the “first wave” of feminism in their fight for women’s suffrage. In the late 19th century, they and like-minded men and women started pushing for equal voting rights. They wrote editorials, held protests and rallies, and one woman, the feisty and bold Victoria Woodhull, even ran for President of the United States.

“Let women issue a declaration of independence sexually, and absolutely refuse to cohabit with men until they are acknowledged as equals in everything, and the victory would be won in a single week,” Woodhull said.

The victory wasn’t won in a week, but the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in August, 1920. Anthony, Mott and many of the fighters of their era had long since died and never saw the fruit of their efforts.

These women, and countless nameless others, directly influenced the sexual revolution, or “second wave” feminism of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The names most associated with feminism come from this era, such as Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, and Simone de Beauvoir.

Women were focused on the right to break out of the home and lead independent, fulfilling lives. Steinem, Freidan, Carolyn Maloney and Alice Paul fought hard for the ultimately doomed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have guaranteed that each civil right bestowed upon men would also be valid for women. Federally, the law never passed, but 22 states have it in their books, and various organizations continue to campaign for the ERA.

These ladies led the Women’s Liberation Movement, which fought for “unofficial” rights for women, in contrast to the specific legal and property rights of their predecessors. These rights included safety in the workplace, legal equalities in a wide range of areas, and, most controversially, sexual and reproductive rights.

This was the generation that, according to legend, burned their bras in protest. They eschewed conventional gender roles, shunned makeup and the Miss America pageants. They demanded the right to play sports professionally and in school, and celebrated the sexual liberation that accompanied the invention of the birth control pill.

Since the late 80s, feminism has faced a backlash.  Many women today don’t identify themselves as “feminist,” disliking the tomboyish and sometimes militant connotation. Other critics, especially those of minority backgrounds, felt the movement didn’t include them and needs to embrace a larger population.

The focus of women’s rights in the 80s and 90s tended to be workplace and linguistically related.

Anita Hill’s 1991 testimony against the unprofessional conduct of Clarence Thomas in front of Congress brought the issue of sexual harassment to the forefront of national politics. The issue has been studied and fought in every workplace ever since.

The women of the 1990s also took charge of the way they were portrayed. Reclaiming derogatory words, such as “bitch,” or “whore,” or “slut,” and made them commonplace. Women chose to change the meanings and connotations of these words rather than remove them from the vernacular entirely.

In the world of “Sex and the City,” Lady Gaga’s “LoveGame,” and the epidemic of the celebrity sex tape, Steinem and Freidan are often drowned out. The women of today, instead of denouncing sexual objectivity and aiming for the right of employment, choose to celebrate their sexuality and refuse to let their opinions be silenced.

Steinem herself has come around to this more liberal, more sensual brand of feminism.

“A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job afterward,” she said.

In light of these circumstances, it’s unsurprising some women wonder if feminism is still relevant. They ask questions about whether the movement has failed, or succeeded, or is even still worth the fight.

I spent my adolescence considering myself a truly classic feminist. I was, and still am, pro-choice, pro-ERA, and, frankly, pro-feminist. I became so virulent in my beliefs that simply listening to the other side of an issue put me on the defensive.

The problem with this way of thinking is the complete and utter extremity it brought to my personality. This is a characteristic I was horrified to discover about myself, and a trait I generally malign in other people.

 While I still hold most, if not all, of my same beliefs, I like to think my attitude has changed and I’ve mellowed out, at least a little. These days, I’m ready for debate, not dogma.

I’m one of a generation of women navigating their way through the conflicting and ultimately personal views that occur in an era of political correctness and veiled sexism. And sexism still does play a part in America, especially in the political arena.

The election of 2008 showed this to be true. Despite a woman, former Sen. Hillary Clinton, running for president and making to the primaries, and another woman, former Gov. Sarah Palin running for vice president, neither woman could make a move without at least one political commentator mentioning that she was a woman.

Both candidates claimed they had been treated unfairly in their campaign on the basis of their sex. True or not, no one can deny that it’s still a hot button topic.

Feminism is an ongoing and important component of our society. Its effects are all too apparent. According to the U.S. Department of Labor in 2008, women made up around 47 percent of the workforce in America, but still, after 50 years of effort, made only 77 cents to the average man’s dollar for performing the same job.

The numbers are even worse for minorities. Black women make 64 cents to the dollar of a white male. Hispanic women only make about 52 cents to the dollar.

Paradoxically, the more education a woman has, the higher the disparity there is in wages. This is despite making up 51 percent of upper level and higher paying jobs in management and business. Women’s Media, an organization for working women, found that women in high-level professional positions make 72 percent of what men in the same position make.

Domestic and sexual abuse are still, unfortunately, key issues. The American Institute on Domestic Violence estimates half a million women are stalked by a former or current partner per year, and 1,232 women are killed every year in an abusive relationship.

The same organization reports a shocking one in four women will experience domestic abuse or violence in their lifetime. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, and costs $5.8 billion in physical and mental health bills in the United States each year.

These are just a couple of the many issues plaguing American women today. The National Organization for Women, or NOW, also includes lesbian rights, and diversity and race sensitivity training among the ongoing issues of abortion and economic discrimination.

So are we living in a “postfeminist” world? I hope not.  I certainly hope there hasn’t been a substantial drop in the number of activists working to right the wrongs still ailing America and her women.

Today’s feminists look a lot less like hippies and a lot more like the general population, male and female, black, white and everything in between. We still have a long and bumpy journey ahead of us. But true equality for women cannot just be a pipe dream, something we strive for, but feel we might never reach.

Former first lady and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has spoken often about feminism and the role it has played in her life and in today’s world.

“There cannot be true democracy unless women's voices are heard,” she said in 1997.

“There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country.”

The irrational path to death

11:26 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , 4 comments

Dave Balson

Opinion Editor 

I’m amazed how often I hear this laissez-faire defense of irrationality: “If people want to believe in fairy tales, what’s the harm?”

Sometimes, it is a fair argument. On Sunday, my horoscope read: “Your taste in art and appreciation in general are heightened. Perhaps this is a good time to select furnishings, colors, and so on--the finer things of life.”

It is irrational to believe such a statement could apply to one-twelfths of the world’s population, and quite offensive to those Aries living in abject poverty in the Third World. For some of them, a more accurate horoscope might read: “You will travel many miles in search of clean drinking water and hope your sister doesn’t die of cholera while you’re away.” But horoscopes don’t directly endanger lives.

Other irrational beliefs do have quantifiable, fatal consequences. In many cases, such as the Catholic Church’s insistence that god does not want people in AIDS-ridden nations to use condoms, the path to death is direct and easy to understand. Whenever the Vatican doles out such deadly decree, the civilized world is quick to condemn them.

For whatever reason, Americans seem less inclined to condemn irrational beliefs like medical quackery and climate-change denial, despite the lethal consequences those beliefs have on their communities.

Homeopathy is a perfect example of our irrational beliefs, why we hold them and the effect they have on our lives.

Millions of people and several first world governments spend billions of dollars annually on homeopathic medicine. Homeopathy is based on a premise its practitioners swear is not satire: The more you dilute a substance, the more potent it becomes. Therefore, the 2 ounce bottle of belladonna you bought at Whole Foods is potent precisely because it’s been diluted to 10 -60.

If you missed class the day your math teacher taught exponents, let me fill you in on how ridiculous a number that is. If you bought enough of the 10 -60 dilution to fill the world’s oceans, it would be extremely unlikely to contain a single molecule of the original belladonna.

The medical system established in modern first-world countries, while imperfect, works incredibly well. Modern medicine has given us longer, more comfortable, productive lives.

Homeopathy is an “alternative medicine,” which is medicine that has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Otherwise we just call it “medicine.”

Unlike actual medicine, homeopathic remedies are not backed by scientific studies and are completely unregulated by the FDA, which is fair, since they’re only selling tiny bottles of water.

If it’s just water, it can’t hurt people. In fact, some people will enjoy the same benefits they would from a placebo. What’s the harm?

Homeopathy does affect the health of people who come to believe the fairy tale. The money they waste on this hyped-up H2O is money they could and should have spent on real medical advice and treatment from real doctors.

According to Reuters, Americans spend about $34 billion annually on homeopathic remedies. Some of that money comes from people with chronic illnesses.  This isn’t harmless, new-age nonsense. It’s a nefarious hustle.

People with terminal cancer are as susceptible mark as a con artist can hope for. Their doctor tells them they are going to die soon, but treatments could give them a bit more time with a bit less pain. Desperate, the patient looks for a third way—a cure.

The homeopath hustles the patient. The cancer worsens. The patient returns to the medically licensed doctor but can no longer afford the treatments that would have given him or her more time and less pain.

The patient’s motives are easy to understand, but the terminal patient’s irrational beliefs aren’t really the problem. The real problem lies in the other part of that $34 billion.

The people who reject medicine in favor of snake oil based on a conviction founded in neither fact nor reason legitimize quackery enough for it to appeal to vulnerable victims like our patient. Their motives truly do the damage.

Why would a person want to believe something that isn’t true, if that belief is bad for them?

It gives them a sense of control.

Science and medicine are confusing. Pills can regulate anything from your bowel movements to your dopamine levels. Surgeons can remove a tumor from your brain and put an artificial heart in your chest. It all seems so unnatural.

It is unnatural, of course. It is the nature of our bodies to fail and die. The whole idea of medicine is fend off that natural process.

But isn’t it nicer to believe that the whole medical industry is a scam? Life is simpler if I can go into my local Whole Foods and pick up a bottle of belladonna dilution, or ragweed or milk thistle, any time I get sick, rather than trusting arrogant doctors and scientists who think they know everything.

Homeopathy provides the delusion that life isn’t as fragile; that our bodies aren’t as complex, and sickness and death aren’t as random as they actually are.

It’s not just homeopathy. Some of our most harmful beliefs are based in the comforting delusion of control.

An ocean of evidence says climate change is real and caused by people. As that vast pool of evidence grows, it becomes ever more apparent that some of the dramatic effects of climate change—smaller ice caps, stronger storms, longer droughts, more acidic oceans—have arrived.

And yet, a large group of loud people believe climate change science is a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians who seek absolute control over the world economy. That irrational belief has spread throughout the American public, 67 percent of whom do not believe climate change is a “serious threat,” according to a March 12 Gallup poll.

I wish they were right. We can defend ourselves against the lies of powerful men and women much more easily than rising sea levels. If people really are causing climate change, then I have very little control. Even if I live a green, carbon-free life, I can’t make the guy next door trade in his Hummer for a SmartCar.

If we allow ourselves the delusion that there is no problem, we have an excuse not to address it. As any 12-stepper could tell you, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Irrationality isn’t about stupidity or ignorance. It’s about refusing to face reality. Schools can teach critical thinking skills (CLC does a wonderful job at this). But at some point there is a larger lesson one must learn on one’s own.

Life can be complicated. Sickness and death can strike without reason. The ecosystem is buckling. But life is also full of wonder, in part because we work together to make it so.

When we refuse to accept how much of life we can’t control, we give up what control we do have. Humanity now faces unprecedented challenges. Unless we are willing to summon up the courage to see the world as it actually is, we cannot hope to make the future what we want it to be.

Student discusses reactions after coming out

11:22 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , 0 comments

Meghan Gray
Staff Writer 

Jake Sanchez of Beach Park, Ill. doesn’t claim his sexuality as a defining attribute. Instead, he describes himself as “energetic, classy and determined.”

Sanchez has attended CLC for three semesters studying business administration. His ultimate vocational objective is to operate his own small business. He has been an employee at Best Buy in Gurnee for over three and a half years and is a member of View Point. Sanchez has received several promotions throughout his employment and is a valued team member.

Things haven’t always been smooth sailing when it comes to the workplace though. While he explains that his coworkers are tolerant, others have not been. He described an incident where a customer harassed him using a pejorative term and was eventually removed from the store. This sort of blind repugnance is what Sanchez and many other gay and lesbian people experience.

“Freshman year when I first came out, I got phone calls to my house, death threats, letters slipped in my locker, and hateful messages on Myspace,” Sanchez said.

Sanchez has identified with being gay since middle school, but has been romantically involved with women in the past.

“I had a couple of girlfriends when I was younger and knew something was wrong,” he said.

Sanchez was sexually abused as a child and explains that this experience led to confusion. It didn’t turn him gay but it raised questions about his sexuality. He explained that, sexually, it’s more appealing. His belief is that one is born gay; it is not a decision.

One might think relations between heterosexual and homosexual couples are different, however, Sanchez explains otherwise.

“Relationship dynamics are the same,” Sanchez said. “You give yourself to someone and hope they give themselves back.”

Sanchez is biracial and claims that the Hispanic community is not as liberal. His religious affiliation growing up was Lutheran but he is Agnostic. He added he believes society stereotypes because of religion.

“You have religious influence that says homosexuality is wrong and impure,” Sanchez said. “If you remove religion from the equation, the world would be a lot more accepting.”

The greatest misconception of the gay community, he added, is that everyone has AIDS and sleeps around with one another. In the end, everyone makes their own choice, regardless of sexual orientation, Sanchez said.

He outlined another false impression about homosexual couples.

“Gay men can’t have a successful relationship because we’re men, we’re dogs by nature,” he said. “I’ve seen couples that have been together for a long time.”

While he has never been in love, Sanchez said he would enjoy seeing Proposition 8 revoked. The law states that marriage between a man and a woman is the only union California recognizes. Sanchez wants to marry someday and hopes society is more accommodating by then.

When questioned about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Sanchez said he understands the reasoning behind it, but it’s unfair, adding that, if one is willing to serve their country, we should let them. DADT is the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to reveal gay, lesbian, and bisexual armed members or applicants and bars them from serving.

Pushing past stereotypes, Sanchez said he is a successful individual who intends to make a difference in the community through government and education.

“I would like to help our government realize they need to stop cutting spending on public education,” he said.

Sanchez said he finds college to be tolerant and considers CLC an unprejudiced environment. Like many other openly gay individuals, he has experienced flack for his decision, yet added his family and friends are an amazing support system.

“You feel more comfortable with yourself after coming out,” Sanchez said. “You don’t have to put on a show. You’re no longer masquerading.”

Sanchez said others ought to be more open minded, hoping that people will get to know someone by who they are rather than their orientation.

Student reactions: Texting while driving

11:19 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , 0 comments

Ali Marks
Staff Writer 

            Eight of 10 CLC students said Thursday they are for the law which prohibits texting while driving. The students were asked if they were for or against the law, if they text while driving and why they are for or against the law.

            Although most students were for the law prohibiting texting, nine of the 10 students said they text while driving. The responses come after the law was approved and put into effect Jan. 1.

            While many of the students said they were for the law, they could see both advantages and disadvantages for being able to text while driving. Gracie Graham, CLC student for the law prohibiting texting is one of those students.

            “The main reason is because of car accidents,” Graham said. “But it’s a very controversial subject. For an experienced driver it could be okay, but then again it’s still distracting which is a huge safety hazard. I can understand people needing to text in emergencies and I think that should be allowed.”

            Students Jennifer Cardenan and Eric Breitbach don’t think the police will be able to enforce the law.

            “I don’t think it’s going to work,” Cardenan said. “How will they know? It’s not like a cop is in your car. It’s really easy to hide the fact that you’re texting.”
Breitbach simply said it won’t work.

            Kelsey Durce is among many of the other interviewees who watched the Oprah special on texting while driving. Durce said texting while driving is distracting in many ways. She said the Oprah special changed her views on the topic. Other students such as Richard Medlicott are for the law simply because it’s not safe.

            Some students are merely for it because they do it and haven’t gotten in any serious trouble. CLC student Justin Shea is against the law prohibiting texting while driving.  Shea said he’ll still text and drive because he hasn’t heard of anyone getting into an accident.

            Student Katherine Wardlow needs the law to force her to not text while drive.

            “I’m for the law because it’s dangerous. I need a law that prohibits texting while driving so I don’t do it. I need the paranoia that I might get caught in order to stop me [from texting while driving],” Wardlow said.

            Student Sean Patterson said texting while driving is stupid. He doesn’t believe people should do it because it’s really easy to have some close calls and he wouldn’t want to learn his lesson the hard way.

            Masciel Flores has a first-hand experience of the dangers of texting while driving.

            “I myself hit the curb and broke off a part of the wheel because I was texting and driving. I don’t think people understand the full consequences of doing it [texting while driving]. I know I didn’t,” Flores said.
                                                            

Bulls season ended, offseason hoopla begins

11:16 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , , 0 comments

Salvador Galvan
Staff Writer 

          The Chicago Bulls 2009-2010 regular and off-season have officially come to a close.

The Bulls made the playoffs for the second straight year since drafting Derrick Rose, and hoped to make another great impression on the league and by defeating the NBA’s best, the Cleveland Cavaliers.

The last time the Bulls and Cavaliers met in the playoffs, Michael Jordan was playing for Chicago. Jordan hit a game winning shot in 1993, similar to 1989.

This time the Cavaliers have a number 23 set to take the Cavaliers where they have never been before.

            The Cavaliers had the best record in the NBA, 61-21, and were ready to take on the eighth seeded Chicago Bulls, who finished the year with 41wins, 41 loses.

The last time the Bulls and Cavaliers met, it was the regular season and LeBron James was out and resting for the playoffs. The Bulls won the game.

This time, King James and his squad were back to full strength and with new faces including Shaquille O’Neal, and Antwan Jamison, to help them on their quest to the NBA Championship. Both Shaq and Jamison could take some of the load off of James.

In game one of the Eastern Conference quarterfinals, the Cavs played very well. LeBron had 24 points, along with three other players who scored in double figures. The Bulls weren’t getting it done on the boards and were out rebounded by the Cavs 50-38. They were dominated in the paint and were out scored 42-26.

In the third quarter the Bulls found themselves down by 22 points and it seemed as if the Cavs would cruise to a 1-0 series lead.

But the Bulls didn’t stop fighting. They eventually brought it back within seven points, but that was as close as they would get to the lead. James took over and helped put the Cavs ahead for good, winning the game 83-96. The Bulls saw Derrick Rose blossom again in the playoffs. He finished with a double-double, 28 points and 10 assists.

            Game two was more competitive and personal for the Cavaliers and the city of Cleveland.

Joakim Noah had some choice words for the city of Cleveland. He isn’t fond of the nightlife and expressed his dislike publicly. Adding fuel to the fire and trash talking while still in Cleveland probably wasn’t the smartest move, but it is the playoffs and anything goes.

The Cavs came out strong and were determined to take a two game lead into Chicago and inch closer to the NBA Finals. Noah was booed every time he got the ball, which was expected, but he did end up with a great night. He finished with 25 points and 13 rebounds to lead the Bulls, but was no match for James who scored 40 points, 15 coming in the final quarter. The final score was 112-102. The wins weren’t blow outs, which many people expected from the Cavs. The Bulls needed to come home and get some wins in order to keep the series going.

            With a few days off to prepare for the Cavs at the United Center, the Bulls knew it was a must win game if they had any chance to get back into the series. The Bulls came out strong on both sides of the court.

            They played well on defense, despite some foul trouble, and were magnificent on the offensive side thanks to Rose’s 31 points, Kirk Hinrich’s 27 points, and Loul Deng’s 20 points. Noah once again had a double-double with 10 points and 15 rebounds.

            They would take the lead into halftime and going into the third quarter, the Bulls clicked and pulled ahead by 21 points. Over the course of the third and fourth quarter the Bulls slowly saw the lead diminish to a one point deficit near the end of the game.

            The Bulls depended on free throw shooting to win the game for them, but they missed many. The Cavs would hit some big time three’s to cut a seven point deficit to a one point lead with less than five seconds remaining in regulation.

            Loul Deng took a pair of free throws and only made one, with three seconds left, giving the Cavs one last shot to pull off the impressive comeback.

            The Cavs’ Anthony Parker would launch a half court shot only to have it hit the side of the rim and give the Bulls the 108-106 win over the Cavs.

            The Bulls evened up the series, after escaping a game three loss, to give fans another memorable playoff series, as they did last year against the Celtics.

            LeBron’s 39 point effort wouldn’t be enough to defeat the Bulls this time around, but he would be back.

            Spirits up and positive attitudes, the Bulls looked to even up the series at two games when they hosted the Cavs on Sunday. However, James had no intentions of letting it happen.

             The Bulls were outplayed and dropped game four by a score of 121-98. Though history was made, thanks to Joakim Noah’s 21 points and 20 rebounds, making him the first Chicago Bull in history to ever record a 20 point, 20 rebound game, the Cavs would steal the show.

            Rose also added 21 points, but he could only watch James get a triple-double with 37 points, 11 assist, and 12 rebounds. Mo Williams scored 19, and Jamison 24.

            Halfway through the second quarter, the Bulls had a small four-point lead, but it was erased quickly and stayed that way.

            As the third quarter came to a close, James dribbled the ball up court to shoot a half court shot over Derrick Rose, just as time expired and drained it. Cleveland hit their shots and contained the Bulls the way they had been expected to.

            The Cavs looked to put away the Bulls in Cleveland for game five with a 3-1 series lead over the Bulls, and get ready to face the Boston Celtics, who already advanced by beating the Miami Heat in five games.

            It was win or go home for the Bulls and they did everything they could to keep the series alive. The Bulls were in foul trouble throughout the game, though some calls were questionable. Both Brad Miller and Taj Gibson fouled out and Noah had five.

            LeBron and Shaq were dominant the whole game and having them both drive into the lane, they would get fouled. James used it to his advantage and had a couple of add-on plays to pile on more points.

            LeBron finished with 19 points, 10 rebounds, and 9 assists. He would have one of the most decisive plays down the stretch. Rose had just hit a tear drop over O’Neal and appeared to have been fouled but wasn’t called, LeBron then ran it back the other way and scooped  it in with a foul being called giving him the 3-point play.

            The Bulls were close until the final minutes, only trailing by four, but eventually lost by two points, 96-94.

            The most important story of game five was LeBron’s right arm, which appeared to have been injured on an earlier play. It was evident in his last three throw attempts, he shot the first one right handed and hit the shot to put the Cavs up by four, making it a two possession game with four seconds left.

            The second one he planted his left foot on the line and shot it lefty but held his right elbow after releasing the shot. The Bulls would get the miss and call a timeout, and James walked off the court with a look of discomfort on his face, holding his elbow. When asked whether he would be ready to play the Celtics, he assured everyone he would be fine and ready to go.

            Now that the Bulls season is over many questions remain: Will Vinny Del Negro still be the Bulls head coach next year? His job status has been questioned since reports leaked that he was involved in an altercation between himself and Bulls president of operations John Paxson.

            Who will the Bulls pick up in the 2010 free agency? Could it be hometown native Dwyane Wade? Reining MVP LeBron James? Chris Bosh?  Joe Johnson? Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, or Amare Stoudemire if they chose to opt-out of their final year under contract? Or even take a gamble and sign Tracy McGrady? No one is sure, but the list goes on for All-Stars who will hit the free agency this summer and the Bulls will be a much stronger team with the addition of another All-Star to join Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah.

            The Bulls have the third most spending money this year. If money is what the top free agents want, then you could see a Wade, Rose, and Noah line up or a James, Rose, Noah line up, either one would instantly make the Bulls a legitimate contender. With a few players to help out on the bench, Chicago could very well have a seventh NBA Championship banner hanging in the United Center. 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    Search
Powered by Blogger