Today's Letter from the Domain Registry of America:

In today's mail:

As a courtesy to domain name holders, we are sending you this notification of the domain name registration that is due to expire in the next few months. When you switch today to the Domain Registry of America, you can take advantage of our great savings. Your registration for peteristhewolf.com will expire on May 15, 2007. Act today!

<td> Domain Name: peteristhewolf.com
Reply Requested By: January 19, 2007 </td>

You must renew your domain name to retain exclusive rights to it on the Web, and now is the time to transfer and renew your name from your current Registrar to the Domain Registry of America. Failure to renew your domain name by the expiration date may result in a loss of your online identity making it difficult for your customers and friends to locate you on the Web.

Privatization of Domain Registrations and Renewals now allows the consumer the choice of Registrars when initially registering and also when renewing a domain name. Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name with their current Registrar or with the Domain Registry of America. Review our prices and decide for yourself. You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below, unless you accept this offer. This notice is not a bill, it is rather an easy means of payment should you decide to switch your domain name registration to the Domain Registry of America.

What followed was a series of prices, starting at $30 per year. My web host, Dreamhost, gives me a $10 annual rate and one free domain registry with my current account.

Now, by the above, you would think this sales pitch merely obnoxious rather than actively dishonest... but you haven't seen the actual letter. Said letter was folded with the bottom of the page visible first upon opening the envelope...

... and it's made up to appear not merely as a bill, but as if the domain involved is about to expire immediately.

Yeah, NOTHING dishonest about THAT, now is there?

The letter also has printing on the back, but forgive me for not trying to type two point legalese for your reading pleasure...

Today's Letter from the Domain Registry of America:

In today's mail:

As a courtesy to domain name holders, we are sending you this notification of the domain name registration that is due to expire in the next few months. When you switch today to the Domain Registry of America, you can take advantage of our great savings. Your registration for peteristhewolf.com will expire on May 15, 2007. Act today!

<td> Domain Name: peteristhewolf.com
Reply Requested By: January 19, 2007 </td>

You must renew your domain name to retain exclusive rights to it on the Web, and now is the time to transfer and renew your name from your current Registrar to the Domain Registry of America. Failure to renew your domain name by the expiration date may result in a loss of your online identity making it difficult for your customers and friends to locate you on the Web.

Privatization of Domain Registrations and Renewals now allows the consumer the choice of Registrars when initially registering and also when renewing a domain name. Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name with their current Registrar or with the Domain Registry of America. Review our prices and decide for yourself. You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below, unless you accept this offer. This notice is not a bill, it is rather an easy means of payment should you decide to switch your domain name registration to the Domain Registry of America.

What followed was a series of prices, starting at $30 per year. My web host, Dreamhost, gives me a $10 annual rate and one free domain registry with my current account.

Now, by the above, you would think this sales pitch merely obnoxious rather than actively dishonest... but you haven't seen the actual letter. Said letter was folded with the bottom of the page visible first upon opening the envelope...

... and it's made up to appear not merely as a bill, but as if the domain involved is about to expire immediately.

Yeah, NOTHING dishonest about THAT, now is there?

The letter also has printing on the back, but forgive me for not trying to type two point legalese for your reading pleasure...

So the report is out at last...

... and contrary to the New York Times' pre-release "leak", it's not an endorsement of stay-the-course.

It's boiled down into three points:

(1) Change US military strategy from security to training- make the Iraqi army and police solely responsible for stopping the insurgency / civil war.

PROBLEM #1: A large portion, perhaps the greater portion, of the Iraqi armed forces are also members of the same sectarian militias which seek to establish national dominance through terror and murder.

PROBLEM #2: The Iraqi constitution limits the powers of the central government, making it difficult for the central government to exercise police powers within the various districts at the best of times.

(2) Make it crystal clear to the Iraqi government that, if they do not do what is necessary to pacify the country- rebuild infrastructure, establish law, keep the peace- that the United States will withdraw support for that government.

PROBLEM #3: The Iraqi government, in large part, is composed of the leaders of the militia forces which are the main CAUSE of the violence, and as such have no interest in the government being successful unless said government is under the control of their particular faction.

PROBLEM #4: Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that, should the US pull out of Iraq, it will immediately invade to establish stability itself.

(3) Scrap current diplomatic policies (which are essentially the total lack of diplomacy) and call together Iraq's neighbors and convince them to aid in the stabilization of Iraq.

PROBLEM #5: The two leading players in such a situation here would be Syria and Iran, neither of which want a stable Iraq.

PROBLEM #6: Talking to Syria and Iran would require concessions on the part of the United States. This would essentially involve giving up a democratic Lebanon in favor of a Hezbollah regime and abandoning efforts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability.

PROBLEM #7: The Iraqi government has stated that it will not accept the interference of any of its neighbors in its internal affairs, nor will it support a multi-nation conference on Iraq.

From where I sit, these proposals have no hope whatever.

Not that it matters- Bush will reject or ignore them as much as he can. He won't budge on demarche to Syria and Iran; he won't withdraw troops; and he won't hold the Iraqi government accountable.

(Incidentally, sometime soon I'm going to begin a specific and separate politics blog, so most posts like this one won't appear on my LJ anymore. Just thought you'd be relieved to know.)

So the report is out at last...

... and contrary to the New York Times' pre-release "leak", it's not an endorsement of stay-the-course.

It's boiled down into three points:

(1) Change US military strategy from security to training- make the Iraqi army and police solely responsible for stopping the insurgency / civil war.

PROBLEM #1: A large portion, perhaps the greater portion, of the Iraqi armed forces are also members of the same sectarian militias which seek to establish national dominance through terror and murder.

PROBLEM #2: The Iraqi constitution limits the powers of the central government, making it difficult for the central government to exercise police powers within the various districts at the best of times.

(2) Make it crystal clear to the Iraqi government that, if they do not do what is necessary to pacify the country- rebuild infrastructure, establish law, keep the peace- that the United States will withdraw support for that government.

PROBLEM #3: The Iraqi government, in large part, is composed of the leaders of the militia forces which are the main CAUSE of the violence, and as such have no interest in the government being successful unless said government is under the control of their particular faction.

PROBLEM #4: Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that, should the US pull out of Iraq, it will immediately invade to establish stability itself.

(3) Scrap current diplomatic policies (which are essentially the total lack of diplomacy) and call together Iraq's neighbors and convince them to aid in the stabilization of Iraq.

PROBLEM #5: The two leading players in such a situation here would be Syria and Iran, neither of which want a stable Iraq.

PROBLEM #6: Talking to Syria and Iran would require concessions on the part of the United States. This would essentially involve giving up a democratic Lebanon in favor of a Hezbollah regime and abandoning efforts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability.

PROBLEM #7: The Iraqi government has stated that it will not accept the interference of any of its neighbors in its internal affairs, nor will it support a multi-nation conference on Iraq.

From where I sit, these proposals have no hope whatever.

Not that it matters- Bush will reject or ignore them as much as he can. He won't budge on demarche to Syria and Iran; he won't withdraw troops; and he won't hold the Iraqi government accountable.

(Incidentally, sometime soon I'm going to begin a specific and separate politics blog, so most posts like this one won't appear on my LJ anymore. Just thought you'd be relieved to know.)