SL Xpress

I feel like it's inherent in my fundamental view of this specific dynamic, and moreso, my fundamental view of humanity. I think it's fair to say I believe at heart we're a species of genocidal maniacs, always have been, always will be in default mode, and only through a significant amount of various types of repression, assimilation, and ultimately interbreeding does that get alleviated. I know people like to think we've evolved past all that, but we really haven't. It's still there always waiting for another generation to reboot. To me it's instinctual on the same level flying south for the winter is for birds. Not necessarily directly, but all the mechanisms that make us fundamentally human also ultimately compel us to seek the extermination and subjugation of our others, whoever that happens to be. If I felt like there was a decent possibility Palestinians and Israelis would intermarry, assimilate, someday to the point where they're indistinguishable from one another that to me is the best path forward. But I don't think that's a decent possibility. In any case, I just read a really good article about Ta-Nehisi's new book. He wrote a famous essay in The Atlantic called "The Case for Reparations" and a memoir "Between the World and Me." HIs next book is called "The Message." It's apparently about 3 different visits. One to Dakar, Senegal, where he experiences a deep sympathy for the oppressed from colonialism from his own perspective; Chapin, South Carolina, where a teacher has been pressured to stop teaching his book Between the World and Me because it was making some student feel ashamed to be Caucasian. But the lion's share of the article is about Ta-Nehisi visiting the West Bank, and how he returned transformed by the injustice of what he saw there. It was very powerful and evocative, especially where the article channels Ta-Nehisi's passion for the subject. I think you'd enjoy reading it. I did, even if I remain unpersuaded to his view. I'll try to read The Message and see how I feel after that. The Return of Ta-Nehisi Coates - Longreads

I guess we have different definitions of the shit hitting the fan. There isn't a single country in the world under the same kind of existential threat Israel is, outside of the use of nuclear weapons, which is its own level of existential threat. That's been true since they became a nation. To me the shit is always hitting the fan. I do not feel like we are as powerful as people like to assume we are. I feel like we were very powerful coming out of WWII. Economically we were as dominant as any society has ever been through the 60s. Since then we have lost our manufacturing base. We keep up our standard of living by exporting our debt to create our current account balance, and the rest of the world funds it because we're all in a codependent relationship economically speaking. The rest of the world funds our consumption so they can keep selling us stuff. Which works until it doesn't, and the fall whenever it happens won't be some kind of soft landing. In the meantime we keep this Ponzi scheme of sorts going by having the world's most competent projection of power and using it to keep the global trade going, and using the dollar as the reserve currency. We're less united as a society than we've been since before the Civil War. We have no real vision for what our future is supposed to be, or what or how we're going to get there. Our military strength is less now than it was, especially the Navy, which is the chief tool for the projection of power. We have less collective trust in our institutions than we ever have. In any case, I'm not sure how material that is because overall if anything supporting Israel is an albatross to economic growth. Not a boon. As far as the buying of elected officials, there is an element of conviction involved. The most vociferous supporters of Israel don't do so because they're bought and paid for. They're supported because they support Israel. That's how the different representatives lost their primary this go around after going against Israel. AIPAC and affiliated PACs found candidates who were supportive of Israel and could win the election. Israel wasn't even brought up on the campaign trail even though everyone knew where a huge source of the money was coming from. But that funding is coming from American citizens on Israel's behalf. Not from Israel itself. Whatever Netanyahu knew or didn't know, whatever he's guilty of regarding Hamas, he is not the one who ordered that attack. And that attack doesn't happen without some complicity from the people of Gaza. Nor did Netanyahu encourage all the celebrations after the attack from pro Palestinian circles - a celebration that still occurs to some extent as representative of a mighty blow to the implacable foe. Hamas is just as guilty in many ways of knowing exactly what the Israeli response would be and purposefully triggering it. Well, now they have it. I do not believe Israel acts with impunity. Their actions have consequences consistently. They do, however, act with conviction. If not for the support of the US I feel certain they would be much more isolated than they are now, and even with US support they often are very isolated. It goes back to what I've said all along. I believe a side has to be picked. The US has picked Israel since its existence and continues to do so. That's a stance I'm supportive of. I don't think there's any such thing as a neutral stance. I guess indifference maybe? That would be a neutral stance of a sort. But anything that resembles a neutral stance to me is actually a pro Palestinian stance. I realize you find that offensive, but that's not my intention.

I would agree the American taxpayers don't need to be involved. I'm in favor of them being involved. You are not. I get that. But the US not being involved is not a moderate stance. It's an isolationist stance that favors the Palestinian cause. I don't understand what you mean by, "It was not lost on me the shift in your prior response from 'US-led rules-based international order' to 'US led international order'. And it is not lost on the rest of the world either." The rest of the world knows good and well the US will either craft rules that work in their favor, or they'll create exceptions in the rules when it's to their benefit. I don't think that's some kind of secret.

That's not going to bring about peace. The underlying issues will still be there, and the next generation will step in. But it will give a respite because of the loss of institutional knowledge. Nothing that is being done right now changes the fundamental calculus. It simply changes the ability for one side to strike at the other. And while this has been very one sided on the battlefield, I'd say the Palestinian cause has been very successful in the public relations department. Which was part of the goal of Hamas in the first place. Provoke a reaction from Israel so extreme that it generates a sympathetic response. I have been very impressed with how well the Palestinian cause has successfully aligned themselves with groups who on the face of it wouldn't be natural allies even a little bit. And how active everyone has been. I don't know if that does anything in the long run, but it certainly seems like a sea change to me.

I can say I've never purposefully misrepresented your position, but I can admit I possibly did. Thank you for taking the time to type that out. I didn't mean to suggest that the Palestinians are a-okay with the settlers or their behavior. My point is that there is anger that is even more fundamental that underlies every interaction that isn't going away when Israel stops expanding the settlements. I think it's admirable you're not a defeatist. I do believe Israel will be an apartheid/ethno state for as long as the Israelis have any kind of power over the situation. I don't know what you mean by the term "work." It will be constant conflict with a lot of murder and barbarous behavior on both sides, until one or the other are displaced. I guess there's the option of assimilation. Either one side or the other take on the cultural values and identity of the other, through conversion or intermarriage or a combination, but that seems extremely farfetched to me. I don't think it matters what the majority of people really want. You know what the majority of people really want? They pretty much want their basic needs met plus a little more than what they have right now. It's a moving goalpost because that's how we're built. But societies aren't driven by the mainstream. That's not what the mainstream does. It doesn't drive society anywhere. Societies are driven by the extremes. If there's not a compelling voice this generation to move a society in one direction or another, there will be in the next generation. Not necessarily in a good direction, either. Possibly to that society's ruin. But maybe not. Maybe to greater heights. That's how it works. The biggest glue we have in our tribes is the identification of an other. We do it as children. We do it as teenagers. We do it as adults. It's inherent in our humanity. Palestinians and Israelis are not going to be able to peacefully live side by side unless one side is so utterly dominant the other is not seen as a threat. The Jews were successful minorities for two millennia because they never took overt power and they made themselves useful. Even then they were constantly persecuted and expelled from nation after nation. And they were one of the most successful diasporas ever. The most successful, I'd argue. The Arabs who are citizens in Israel are able to do so because they're not a threat to power. They take part in no government sharing responsibilities. They've had one Arab cabinet member in the history of Israel. As long as the Arab citizens are okay with that, or at least pretend to be okay with that, no problem. Of course they're not completely okay, but what are they going to do? I know I come from a place of conviction and that can be very offputting, and I apologize for that. I certainly believe there's room to agree to disagree. I find your stance hopeful, and mine more fatalistic. But I do feel I have the right of it. And from a policy making standpoint I don't see the purpose changing the overall US foreign policy stance towards Israel. They're in a continual fight for their existence and will be for the rest of my lifetime at a bare minimum. Really, for much longer than that. Could be the same issues are extant a century or more from now. If they aren't, again, it means one side or the other lost their cultural identity for the most part. What's going on currently and why we have this thread is that Hamas performed a successful military occupation that killed 1200 people and took 250 hostages, and in a show of unity, Hezbollah has fired off rockets continuously for as long as the military action in Gaza has continued. Fundamentally both organizations want Israel to cease to exist. I guess if the Arabs would just be happy with their second class citizenship and quit pining for the land the Jews took from them, sure, we'd have a real chance for some lasting peace. What are the odds of that? Especially when it serves one foreign actor or another to fund them to disrupt Israel as much as possible. And even when there's some pretense of peace, Hamas is going about preparing for conflict, like they did for a decade or more before the recent operation while Israel seemingly focused on the West Bank. And as you've noted, the Israelis are expanding their settlements, especially in the West Bank, and making day to day life miserable for the Palestinians just wanting to live their lives with some aspirations that still live there. I just believe any peace is a mirage preparing for the next stage of the conflict, and to pretend otherwise is dangerous in the same sense of Chamberlain's peace in our lifetime speech.

Here are the two divergent viewpoints, written from a pro Palestinian perspective and then an Israeli perspective, within the last 24 hours. Opinion: Israel's growing war with Hezbollah is traumatizing Lebanon. There's only one path to peace (msn.com) This person writes the only path to peace is a cease fire in Gaza, whatever that takes, including the US withholding support until it's done. According to the author, Hezbollah has been circumspect in their daily rocket attacks into Israel, but now all bets are off. Compared to the Times of Israel: Israel keeps moving up the escalation ladder, hoping Nasrallah will jump off (msn.com) That basically concludes Hezbollah needs to back off their commitment to support Hamas in Gaza, and quit firing rockets into northern Israel. If they don't, Israel is making plans to invade to make them stop. Where's the middle ground between these two perspectives? To me both of these solutions look very much like capitulation, for one side or the other.

Which doesn't really change much regarding the narrative. I don't really care. But the idea that the US subverted the selection of a leader to serve their interests is the main point. The tertiary point is that it's one of the most cited examples of the US historically exerting influence over the region. All I'm saying is that appealing to the US's role as this do gooder in this international rules based order is fine and dandy right up to the point it goes against our interests in some compelling way. Which is why appealing to the US in terms of abiding by an international rules based system when it comes to Israel doesn't have the appeal to me it might to someone else.

Over the top in what way? When Jimmy Carter came to power one of his big priorities was to make human rights the center piece of his foreign policy. The US had brought the Shah to power in 1953 by supporting a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Mohaamed Mosaddegh. It's a pivotal event in the area - not just in Iran, but in the Middle East overall - because it was even more flagrant than usual with the CIA changing the government - ostensibly for anti communist purposes, and maybe that's true, but even more so because it was against both the US and UK's interests in the country's oil. Then first under Kennedy/Johnson, and especially later under Kissinger/Nixon, Iran became the flagship recipient of US largesse along with Israel. Iran was going to be the linchpin of US Middle East interests. The Shah built up his military, beefed up his internal security, went after any potential political enemies - including Khomeni who ended up exiled to Iraq, Turkey, and then temporarily in France. He also introduced a number of powerful reforms in the early 60s intended to Westernize the Persians. Carter felt like he could work with Khomeni because the two were both deeply religious. The final piece is that the Carter administration helped bring Khomeni back to Iran, and put a stop to an intended coup from the Army to keep the revolution from occurring. Under Carter the Shah felt like the rug had been pulled from under him, especially after the massive support he enjoyed with Kissinger as the Secretary of State. Does all of that sound over the top?

It's still peculiarly American. There are understandable reasons for it, but the average American is grossly ignorant of what goes on in the world - and not really that curious about it. It's particularly peculiar when the United States has been the dominant player in world affairs at least since post WWII. Alexis de Toqueville commented on it in the 1830s. This isn't new. Social media has been a factor, but for the most part it simply creates echo chambers that tell people what they want to hear anyway. What a whole lot of people want to hear about at their core is that Americans are taking care of Americans first. Why in the world are we even getting involved in all this other stuff?

I would say the American people have always been isolationist. The political leaders not so much. But it's virtually always been a good political position for the voting public to keep us out of foreign conflicts. It's rarely been a good policy to advocate for war. Not even for WWII, and that should have been an easy one. No one has been elected for advocating getting involved in foreign conflicts.

I don't think any of my posts should be used as the basis for foreign policy. I'm simply pointing out how useless any attempts at a long term peace are. Just because it's useless doesn't mean it's not the best of a lot of bad options. It's clear from the beginning where the US foreign policy interests have been ever since the US was the first country to recognize Isreal as a nation in 1947. The alliance has been fraught with difficulties throughout the decades since. The 1973 oil crisis was precipitated by US support for Israel, for example. There's the US Liberty "incident." There's the problem with being supportive of a government actively repressing a population under its control ever since they took over the territories through military victory. On the other side the chief advocates fighting for the Palestinian cause are all labeled as terrorist organizations. I don't think it gets more one sided than that. To me, calling for the US led based international order to be something other than a way for the US to operate in a way that is to its benefit is a little silly. That mentality is how we ended up helping to pave the way for the Ayatollah to take over in Iran, because of all of the human rights violations under the Shah - who was put in power by the US in the first place. There are repressive regimes we've supported as a nation all over the place. Some really famous ones include Pinochet in Chile, two dictatorships in South Korea, Marcos in the Philippines, dictatorships in any number of oil producing countries in Africa and the Middle East. Then there's the vaunted Arab Spring pushed with substantial US backing to create a more democratic environment in the Middle East. How did that turn out? A few substantially failed states, the end of Mubarak, a key ally in the region, only to eventually see another coup - thank goodness - otherwise it would have been a real disaster in the region. This idea that the US should pull support for Israel because what they're doing is wrong is warm and fuzzy, but it's not compelling to me. The fight Israel is in is for their existence. Maybe the US shouldn't support Israel. I do, and I think it makes sense on any number of levels to do so, but maybe I'm wrong on that account. There are very legitimate reasons to support the Palestinian cause. I just don't believe anyone who claims to be a moderate on this issue as anything other than being self serving for the Palestinian cause or genuinely naive. Don't forget, the current state of the conflict started with Hamas using a wide spread attack to kill 1200 people and to take 250 hostages. It's not like it was unprecipitated. The current campaign against Hezbollah came after months of near daily rocket attacks. I read an article in the LA Times today that the only solution is a cease fire in Gaza. How about not launch rocket attacks? I get that's a no go, but let's admit that it's a no go in the first place that Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks before we put all the blame on Israel.

I am not saying you have to be okay with anything. Just don't pretend you're not pro Palestinian when you are. I don't think Jews have to be exterminated for the Palestinian side to win. They just need to be removed from Palestine. That's why people like to say they're not anti semitic, they're simply anti Zionist. And then people who are pro Israel try to conflate the two. Decolonization is not a metaphor. But Israelis aren't going anywhere. Ergo the impasse.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

25-18 Miami. Tied up 2-2. Heading to a 5th set.

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.

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.

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.