Cam Whitmore
Cam Whitmore Selected No. 20 Overall By Houston Rockets I 2023 NBA Draft
The remaining player on the board is no longer on the board he's in our left wall That's TV jargon uh so cam Whitmore headed to the Houston Rockets 20th overall projected lottery pick but perhaps a slide because of an injury concern missed the first seven games of his collegiate career because of a thumb injury he was the Big East freshman of the Year forward averaged 12 half points five rebounds per game back here on the clock Matt norlander and Adam Finkelstein and and we finally have Cam Whitmore coming off the board he can end this awkward weight in The Green Room why the slide for cam Whitmore multitude of factors and what we have here is really one of the more unprecedented slides we've seen in recent NBA draft history I mean Whitmore East had projected lottery pick Whitmore as as recently as a week ago was heavily in the conversation to be going in the top five and really even entering into draft night there were some NBA teams that were curious to see okay was this talk about Whitmore or sliding real or fake and if he's slick did that mean okay he's going to eight or nine he goes all the way to 20. the biggest reasons are he had a really good pro day but ever since then for whatever reason and there's sometimes there's a variety of factors why this can be the case he just did not seem to have a good string of Team workouts and that includes the interview process and then we will see whether or not this actually means something years down the road but I can report in talking to a multitude of League sources and and some that reiterated this in the course of this draft the concerns over his medical with a couple of issues in his lower extremities clearly had an impact and you know Adam I can't help but think that group think might have also played a part here because if as you well know when you talk to NBA guys sometimes if they're really honest with themselves and there's a player and then one team doesn't take them and then team BC and D don't take them then team e might be like well what are we doing here like do we want to be the team that takes them so this could he might have been a victim of that as well because you're higher on them than I am but we both agree he is nowhere near he should be not slotted anywhere near the number 20 Prospect in this class well let's put it this way a week ago when we were trying to project this draft everybody knew what the top three picks was in conventional wisdom was that Houston was debating between amen Thompson and cam Whitmore for the fourth overall pick in the draft now they got them both yeah so this this is an a for Houston and whether or not it works out or not this is more than worth the risk cam Whitmore conservatively is a top 10 talent in this in this class aggressively he's top three top five talent in this class and now you're going to get get a cam Whitmore who comes in with a chip on his shoulder the overlap of explosiveness and sheer power is off the charts not a great shooter in high school but made significant strides at Villanova now he needs accountability who's he going to he's going to play for emeodoka who is one of the most no-nonsense coaches in the NBA we compared cam Whitmore to Jalen Brown in the pre-draft show who's the coach that brought the best out of Jalen Brown email adoka this the real a here this believe it or not I know this is a long night for cam Whitmore this is a good thing for cam Whitmore in the long run if this is a wake-up call and got him going about what it takes to be a professional on an everyday basis gets him in a situation where he's valued it's a good thing for cam Whitman do you feel like in a few years we're going to be looking back at this 2023 NBA draft we're going to say cam Whitmore went 20th overall what the heck happened I don't know if we I actually don't know if we will be expecting that um I think we'll be looking back and we'll be saying yeah Victor lemonama went one obviously that should have happened there and Scoot should have gone too yeah so I think but with Hughes now Adam's points about udoka are extremely well taken Houston has listen I don't know every NBA roster inside and out but I'm just telling you it feels like they are top three in terms of pure athleticism all around like I'm in Thompson and cam Whitmore could prove to be the two most athletic guys to to jump off the court in this in this particular draft so I I agree this is good motivating fuel we will see how he fits into all the pieces there they have at Houston I still I got to be convinced that they're not going to be in the lottery in 24 and 25 and maybe 26 but maybe getting two players at a time they've got to bring in state I know their their big game hunting and free agency they got to bring in stable vets I don't want to call them the G League ignite but you need like the the imeiodoka needs reinforcements with veteran presence in the locker room because you had a lot of young uh impressionable kids that needed to be guided through this process but sheer talent in those young young ages is is really impressive now in Houston but they have to have a veteran presence in that locker room so we we heard that that maybe James Harden would consider going back to Houston would you want James Harden around this young group and I know that's sort of a loaded question but perhaps you sell the idea to him hey we're going to pay you but this is a mentorship role for you as you finish your career because there's a ton of talent in Houston I I don't know if that is honestly the best thing for the franchise yeah at this juncture to bring in someone like Hardin who's going to command the ball as much as he's going to when you really do want to have the opportunity to have your young Talent really grow into something the hardened situation may stymie that overall but Houston is a franchise with a lot of interesting things on the table we will see if they can actually grow into a playoff team in short order
About the Creator
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Damia day ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.