Jump to content

SL Xpress

Full Members
  • Posts

    4293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SL Xpress

  1. Why? To establish a two state system that isn't going to work? Your "moderate" stance is pro Palestinian. Period. The Palestinians aren't fundamentally upset about the settler movement in the West Bank and areas around Gaza. They're more upset the Jews control Jerusalem. That's what this conflict is about. People want to pretend if the Jews and Palestinians will just be nice to one another and treat each other with respect and human decency, we can all put this in the rear view mirror. The Jews want their historical homeland. More than that, they have it. The Palestinians want their homeland back that they believe - rightfully - was taken from them by force. That's the crux of it. You'd have the Jews and Palestinians live in one country in perfect harmony somehow, with the Palestinians dominating the government because of having a larger population. I don't understand how you think that's ever going to work in the real world at all. Why in the world would the Israelis allow that to occur? They'd be under immediate threat of legal expulsion the moment something like that occurred. The same way it occurred in all the other Arab countries. The Palestinians want their country back. Not part of their country. The whole country. The Jews are going to make sure they die before they give it back. When the Jews say "Never Again" about the Holocaust, they don't mean there will never be another Jewish genocide. They mean they're not going to go meekly into the cattle cars and gas chambers next time. I feel like you think I'm extolling genocide of the Palestinian people. I am not. I'm simply saying one or the other has to go, one way or another. That's the only way towards lasting peace. Without it, no lasting peace. So if you don't have lasting peace, then you have to pick a side. Saying the Israelis should give up their settlements and quit being so mean to the poor Palestinians who want to be left alone so they can wipe the Israelis off the map somehow, is being pro Palestinian, whether you want to admit it or not. There's no moderate side here. There's no way to halve this baby.
  2. I feel like in the last half of the 20th century the Democratic party has a history of being concerned about escalation, and the Republican party has a history of going all in as much as possible. Currently I feel like the Democratic party is willing to help Ukraine, while there are substantial powerful influences in the Republican party that wants to hand over Crimea and the Donbas to Russia and be done with this thing already. The way the war has been prosecuted by the Democrats feels on par with the civilian oversight in other post WWII conflicts. That's not to say they haven't been right at times. But to me it feels like a consistent approach to conflict. The main thing to me has been artillery. Not the only thing, but the main thing. That blockage for funding left the Ukrainian artillery holding their dicks in their hands, which was the primary contributor to Russian success. That was absolutely a minority of Republicans pretty much entirely responsible for that. I still feel like the previous offensive was experiencing startling success against entrenched positions given the complete lack of airpower, until the funding dried up. It wasn't dramatic success, but there was success. I think the expectations were way out of line in the first place.
  3. I think that is a nice way to think about things. My way of thinking about things is there are always going to be murderous regimes. There were murderous regimes before fossil fuels gained any kind of importance. There are murderous regimes who gain prominence without exporting fossil fuels. If ever the global community finds an energy resource that creates independence from fossil fuels, there will still be murderous regimes. Heck, some people would argue the United States has been a murderous regime. To me history is about my values and way of life versus your's. Plenty of times that conflict has an existential nature. When it doesn't, it can be an eternal strife. The hope is that the strife can be contained to one that doesn't involve trying to eliminate the enemy from the face of the planet. For example, a conflict contained in the economic realm. Or Olympics and the World Cup. Or whatever. But there will always be people who feel a calling towards having power over others. Many of those people end up running countries. We're not going to end those aspirations, nor the success of the people who pursue them, by eliminating or seriously reducing fossil fuel as a source of income. There's nothing that says the United States won't be run by an authoritarian regime someday. I feel like we take our democracy for granted at times, when it's really more fragile than we choose to admit. That said, some cultures are petri dishes seemingly designed for a brutally repressive authoritarian regime to take root. Russia is probably Exhibit A for that. I don't think anything less than being conquered by another nation, a la Japan and Germany, could substantially change the mindset of enough of the Russian people to make a difference. The end of the Cold War certainly did nothing. Right now more than the end of fossil fuels as a substantial revenue source, I'd just like to see the US arm Ukraine to the teeth, allow them to take the kid gloves off in terms of striking into Russia with the weapons being provided, and allow them to win this war. Which they can do. Russia is demoralized, with a terrible infrastructure, a poorly run military, and a place where loyalty and a lack of threat for regime change takes precedence over competence. This is still very winnable if the support is there. My primary concern is and has always been the isolationist tendency for Americans not to actually give a shit for what is going on overseas, and how that plays out in politics. Much more so than the continued value of fossil fuels for Russia and Venezuela. There are plenty of awful exploitative regimes that make money on fossil fuels that the US government supports. That's just how it is. But we have a chance to do the right thing in stark good and evil, black and white contrast. I hope we do more, and no more 6 month blocking of funds because a rabid minority won't allow a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support make it to the floor.
  4. I didn't read that as referring specifically to Israel. I read that as a generalization. And I agree with it. People who take extreme positions tend to drive the conversation. Being a moderate doesn't command much of an audience.
  5. Why would the Palestinians yield? What does that even look like? Gaza has been reduced to uninhabitable rubble. Do you think they're ready to go somewhere else? They feel if they leave it just gives Israel the opportunity to occupy more of their land. There's not going to be any yielding. The IDF and Mossad can kill as many Palestinian leaders they want. More will take their place. It's just an endless cycle of horrific violence until either the Palestinians or the Israelis lose most of their cultural identity. I'll put it another way. Does anyone think if Hamas could go back and do it all over again they would choose not to launch their initial attack, or change how it was conducted? Because I don't. It has been and will be celebrated as a great victory. It's like wondering if people who were associated with Al Qaeda would choose not to destroy the World Trade Center. They struck a great victory against an implacable foe, and if they can gather the means to do it again, they'll do so. Put another way, if anyone associated with Hamas/Hezbollah could get their hands on a nuke, get it inside Israel and detonate it, do we think they wouldn't?
  6. Israel isn't going to be anything other than a Jewish homeland. They will ensure it remains an ethno apartheid state because to allow the Palestinians to gain power completely eliminates the whole purpose in founding a Jewish state in the first place. They'll allow minority Palestinian representation but no real legislative power. They're never going to be the bastion of democracy you're wanting them to be. There's no haven possible for both Palestinians and Israelis together. Not for any kind of equal numbers. A small number of Palestinians can live in Israel as long as they're no threat to coming into real power. You can talk about how one group learns to hate and the other group is taught to hate, but the truth is seeing each other as the enemy is practically as natural as breathing for them. The hate started when the Palestinians lived in the place Israelis wanted for their own, and then after they were displaced they wanted it back. I don't know about all the immutable characteristics, but that's a pretty fundamental one. Not sure how you go about halving the baby in that case. I don't know about all the mental gymnastics and blind spots I have to set up for myself. I want Israel to be a nation state. I have a deep respect for Judaism. I find it remarkable they existed for a couple of millenia as a distinct people without having a nation state. Things have been messy since the formation of Israel because people were already living there. Trying to graft some kind of peaceable solution when the dynamics won't allow for it seems quixotic to me. I mean, more power to the people who try to bring a cessation to hostilities, but it's not going to last.
  7. That threshold was crossed when Jews took over Israel and displaced the Palestinians from their previous homeland, and the Palestinians didn't just disappear as a cultural identity. There has never been a legitimate two state solution that would work in the long term. In the end the Palestinians will not be satisfied until the Jews are expelled from Palestine, and shockingly enough, the Jews have no actual interest in leaving. There are plenty of Jews who see the more satisfactory solution being the Palestinians are expelled for the most part from Gaza and the West Bank, with Israeli settlers occupying those lands. Anything resembling an approach to "long term peace" is actually a temporary ceasefire until people are in charge of one group or the other who resume hostilities. People decry this mentality as barbarous. Somehow folks want to believe we've moved beyond this as human beings, but we really haven't. We're inured by military strength and the possession of nuclear weapons that can potentially end all life on earth into thinking we're no longer the genocidal maniacs that have been eliminating competing species and fellow human tribes since the dawn of our existence. The world is full of places where the people in power are forcibly removing a cultural identity from the face of the earth with every means at their disposal. Just like we always have. To me people should pick a side. Either support Palestinians in their efforts to regain Palestine and Jerusalem for their own, and support yet another expulsion of the Jews from Israel. It's been 2000 years. They're probably due. No temple restoration to destroy this time, but you can't have everything. Or support Israel in their right to defend themselves. And since the Palestinians are never going to allow the Jews to peaceably permanently occupy the former Palestinian homelands, that's going to necessitate a broad range of actions that are going to make people very uncomfortable. Blowing up pagers and walkie talkies seems mild to me. I'm pro Israel. I make no bones about it. I can't defend everything the Jews have done or continue to do there, but either I think they should have a homeland of their own after existing as the most successful minority in history for 2000 years, or I don't. Coming out of WWII and the Holocaust, the Western powers supported it, either tacitly or explicitly. It has helped immeasurably that Jews have found some of their greatest successes as a diaspora in the United States, and have formed arguably the most powerful lobbying group in the country. It also helps that there is an evangelical Christian element that supports Israel for their own reasons, in part because they're rooting for the end of the world and they feel like the reestablishment of the Kingdom of Israel is a harbinger. In any case, this feels like it's going to continue to get worse, possibly interspersed by interregnums of a sort where we have something resembling peace in the region, even if it's a temporary mirage.
  8. That was even more disappointing than the Minnesota result. That's two 5 set losses where we weren't even really competitive in the 5th set. This wasn't a 15-7 whitewash, but 15-10 is still pretty one sided. At least the secondary sets from Akana and Halter weren't the disasters they were against the Gophers. Also, floor defense from both Akana and Halter continues to be a team strength. It feels to me like Elliott needs to pick a setter. I don't think he's going to, though. I am thoroughly on Team Swindle, but that's not because I think she's the best of the two. I just have an emotional investment in her after last season, and I really like having her offense and block when she's on the front row. Carlson got abused by Hanson against Minnesota and now she got abused by Lopez. It's a problem. But the offense looks horrid to start the season for the second year in a row. We don't have the ridiculous advantage in the middle we had last year to make up some of the deficiencies, although I like the long term upside of both Singletary and Ames. Singletary in particular looks like a beast at times. On paper this team should be way better than it is right now.
  9. We're not terminal. Just had a really tough time getting points in the last two sets. I find myself constantly having a strong negative reaction to Wenaas as an outside hitter, but she's not the only problem. Skinner needs to remember who she is. The setting needs to get settled. Texas needs to remember who Reagan Rutherford is. It's not as bad as the beginning of last year. But there are issues.
  10. 25-18 Miami. Tied up 2-2. Heading to a 5th set.
  11. This Miami match is not going the way I would prefer. 22-18 Miami. Texas still up 2-1. May be going to a 5th set here after being a match point away from a sweep.
  12. Yeah, both Wenaas and Skinner. We just did a better job of hiding Skinner. She only received 4 serves all match...but two of those were aces.
  13. I will say Indiana is the most aggressive serving team in college volleyball. Pretty much every one of their servers is a jump serve top spin heavy server. They're very much risk reward. Given that there are so few jump servers in college volleyball any more - Kahahawai is the only one who does it regularly on our team - it makes it tough to prepare for. Texas sacrifices velocity and top spin for accuracy and late movement on the ball. And its worked well for us. Not to say you're incorrect, because you're not, but there is some context.
  14. Minnesota is better than that awful mess they trotted out last year. Maybe a lot better. And they won't have Landfair to receive serve 54 times in a match the way they did last year. I still shake my head at that. Why put her through that? It was practically abuse.
  15. I predict they improve throughout the year, come in second in the Big 10, and end up in the top 5-8 spots "2nd seed line" for the tournament. They have a lot of work to do, but I bet they get there. They do have issues with the second OH position, that's for sure. And Smrek is not consistently great. She's 6'9, but she's not exactly a gazelle out there. They really needed Landfair, and thought they had her, then Nebraska swooped in with their NIL and it was all over. Not even Texas can beat Nebraska at the NIL game in volleyball. Wisconsin had no chance. But I don't see a lot of great teams out there. Pittsburgh for sure, but to me there's a talent gap between them and Nebraska/Texas. Louisville, but I don't think Louisville is as talented as Pitt. Nobody in the SEC other than Texas is a contender for regional host. Kentucky is the 2nd most talented, and they're just not there. Florida has gaps, and without Stucky they're not the same kind of squad. Who knows when she comes back from reconstructive knee surgery or what she looks like. There's Penn State and Purdue, and maybe Oregon? But I don't think any of those teams are as talented as Wisconsin overall, even if they're more cohesive. Particularly Penn State. I just think this season is going to be about the inevitable showdown between Nebraska and Texas in a national championship rematch, and everyone else is playing for the bronze medal.
  16. Emily Ehman is the main voice for the Big 10. She's the color commentator for every big match. She does their panels. Everything. She did a top 20 players in the Big 10 for the coming season and Sarah Franklin was her #1. She will talk about Texas at various times, but she's paid to promote the Big 10 as her main gig, so that's what she's going to do. It's a Fox broadcast, too, which is in partnership with the Big 10 through their linear channels and is also a majority owner in the BTN with the Big 10 conference. It's a national telecast, so that's cool.
  17. She didn't even arrive in early summer. She didn't show up to campus until right before fall camp. Shades of Ashley Shook.
  18. Thank you. So many people excited about Notre Dame going catholic priest on the A&M altar boys, when I badly want both programs to lose. Any day the domers lose is a good day, although any day the Aggies win doesn't exactly thrill me.
  19. Isn't the question how many?
  20. Sark looking to celebrate this win with a coed after the big win.
  21. Always use your powers for good.
  22. Now do they do that fuck the football celebration again? That's a fucking amazing catch.
  23. Their backups are going to score on our backups and I'm going to be pissed.
  24. She's dead. I don't think she cares any more.
  25. Score a touchdown and go for two.
×
×
  • Create New...