It's always disappointing to read nonsense from someone who actually should know better. This article is a prime example.

For one, alternative roots are nothing new. Since the days we first heard the ICANN acronym there alays have been idiots, snake oil salemsen and missionaries of various causes running around having their own DNS roots and selling domains in them. The only thing new is that Paul Vixie is peripherally involved in one of those groups to make a political statement. (a correct one, btw). The danger is neither greater nor smaller than in the past. Death of the net predicted; film at 11.

Secondly, the "DNS" and "Internet" are neither synonymous nor interchangeable nor sufficiently related to claim that one of them fractures when the other does. So claims of "new internets" are just completely ludicrous in thios context. Even if the Chinese break away their own DNS that does still neither imply nor mean that they also start their own net.

What will happen, though, at some point there will be need for a world DNS authority. And if ICANN doesn't adequately fill that post, someone else will. With the ITU there is already a strong contender.

I have to admit I am puzzled. Why would call anyone this an acceptable outcome ?

The man would erect a strict islamic regime, thus denying human rights to the whole population, and excessively so to its female half, is a sworn enemy of both Israel and the United States, has more blood on his hands than he could ever hope to wash away, and has every power he owns seized through strictly illegal means.

This is the type of person that any sensible governement would immediately arrest and execute in due course of law.

As for Irqi unity, well, he may be best buddies with those sunni murderers who daily drench the soil with the blood of their fellow countrymen, who have resorted to political murder of opponents and frequent kidapping for ransom, and who therefore would be fitting companions should Muqtada ever find his well deserved way to the gallows, but on the other hand he a firece enemey of the Kurds, I venture to guess, are likely to return that sentimemt. So, while Muqtade could hold celebartions of victory with his Sunni buddies over the pile of corpses they together are responsible for, he will have anew bloody conflict with the North on his hands. Only, this times, it is Americas strongest and most trustworthy ally in Iraq who is threatened, so I have more than some doubt over the mentioned "honourableness" of this outcome.

To put it bluntly, such an disgusting outcome would be a horrible shame for the US and a spit on the grave of any Soldier who died there, and would leave the US without any shred of honour.

For obvious reasons I will refrain from calling Mr Rosen an antisemite, but it seems to me really bad for Israel's right to exist to put another militant and violent sworn enemy of Israel in charge of an oil rich middle eastern nation. What the hell is he thinking ?

And, lastly, what became of democracy, secular ideals, and human rights ? Ever heard of that, Mr Rosen ? The only acceptable outcome for this conflict is the establishment of a strong, working, democratic secular state guaranteeing human rights (including full freedom of religion) to all his citizens.

Rosen's solution is claimed in the article to "allow America to get out of Iraq without the roof caving in after them". This is only correct in one sense - the roof will already have been dismantled by the Americans themselves.

So, instead of cowardly whining and seeking barely face-saving "exit strategies", Americans should get serious about the responsibilities they have willingly taken over when invading that place. And, may I dare to suggest, this effort might start by firing that imcompetent bunch of idiots (called "the Bush administration") that currently run both that war and their own country and replace them with people who know how to fight and win a war - and how to find an honourable peace.

It is always a bit embarassing when puportedly liberal and enlighetened Salon jumps on the bandwaggon of American puritanism and pruderie.

So a few guys hired a stripper. Why should we care ?(And I am talking to the remarkable subset of posters actually considered this faulty, "not ok", or reason for disciplinary action.). Well, folks, get a life. If you had a more relaxed attitude about sex and a less relaxed one on violence, your country would, right now, perhaps be the champion of peace - and not the champion of torture. And really, the world would have rather learned the American concept of "impeachment" on the example of a president engaging in torture and illegal surveillance, instead of one getting a blow job.

Why don't you, instead of playing the enraged victorian prudes, make the point that private parties are not the university's business. Yes, that's something called privacy, and it's really the same concept that mandates the state to keep its nose out of your abortion decisions, among others. And, as we all noticed, there's room for improvement on that front.

Next thing. The police is investigating these men. That means they have a guaranteed constitutional right not to support this investiigation in any way. Thats not obstruction of justice. Accusing someone because he uses his constitutional rights and even demanding his punishment (as some posters did) is dangerously close to the torturer's mindset as well. Maybe Mr Bush's despicable ideas have more impact on you than you might think.

As for the rape allegation - well, there is some DNA testing going on. If that is finished, according to the results found I'd suggest heeding Alan Dershowitz's advice from a few years ago (just ran across his article): He or she who testified falsely shall be punished. Harshly.

... who is going to play former Salon columnist Asra Nomani ?