You know, it just occured to me. Just how arrogant is the Little Chimprince, anyway? Because I don’t know too many company email addresses with the CEO’s name before the “.com” part. GWB43.com…is that like Louis-DieudonnéXIV.sunking? Really, more than anything else, it tells me what I need to know about this whole operation. The King must be made to look good, and L’etat, c’est moi! Everything, and it seems to be just everything, is about servicing the pretzeldent’s ego. What a tiny and impotent penis he must have.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Front page
Sadly, it's not unusual.
Too many names are the same, so if you’re Bob Smith, you can’t really get “smith.org” or “smith.name” so you could be “bob@smith.name”. “gwb43.com” was probably their 15th or 20th choice because all the others got snapped up, like “whitehouse.com” was a pr0n site for a while. And we are talking about personality stuff here, not CEO-type stuff. (If a high-powered CEO doesn’t claim his or her own name as a domain name, a squatter usually will and put ads up there. Try “stevejobs.com” or “larryellison.com” for two instructive examples.)
Despite the ongoing brouhaha about having more/fewer top-level domains, the simple truth is that “.com” is still the default for everything. If you type (naked, no other letters) “correntewire” into most browsers’ address fields, they won’t find it, but the next thing they’ll try is “www.correntewire.com”. Not .org, not .net, not .info - .com.
I run a few Web sites for individuals that are their names plus “.com” because it’s the best way to find them. I do not, however, that “georgewbush.com” is just an alias for “gop.com”. If you want to analyze the domain choices, why would they all pick “gwb43” instead of “rnchq” to do political work? Was it more about the party or about the Leader?
—Matt
MattD, did you not see the original list?
For the full 1,124 domain names managed by SmartTech.com (transfered to them from a site interestingly named “trespassers-w.com” not that the letter “W” has any special meaning to these people) you may consult this post at the invaluable ePluribusMedia.org site.
Just up in the “A” section of this immense list (most of which admittedly have nothing to do with politics whatever, viz. “153-fish.net” and
“1stpresbyterian.com”) we find the following:
Can you say “thorough”? I thought you could. All, let me note again, held and managed by our friends at SmartTech.com, providers of “gwb43.com”, “rnchq.com” and several others of current legal interest. I checked a huge number of these sites one very long night a couple of weeks ago and many of them have no apparent website attached, they’re just placeholder domain names. Whether email can be sent through such an address is a matter beyond my technical expertise.
Crap, I just can’t resist noting a few more of these:
ANY, or all, of which could be The Smoking Gun as far as the actual email link they were sending the real dirty shit through, not just stuff they genuinely felt entitled to do like sell off the assets of the Interior Department to cronies of Jack Abramoff, or hijack the US Department of Justice to further the intersts of the Republican Party rather than the law of the land.
Which is why I have come to see that you are entirely correct that we (by which I mean not just us at Corrente and ePluribusMedia but Senate and House investigators as well) dare not become too focused on just the “gwb43.com” and “rnchq.com” addresses. There may be no choice but to look at those first since they are the ones we already have on-the-record documentation that they exist and were misused, but subpoenas and (please FSM!) other investigative documents must be phrased to include ALL the RNC domain names held by GovTech, SmartTech and Coptix.
(Oh, and just as a side note of course there’s also
but I’m sure, just like “1stpresbyterian.com” these are just innocent commercial sites of no political interest whatever.)
LFLS
“What a tiny and impotent penis he must have.”
Like Father, Like Son.
What a tiny and impotent penis he must have.
One might almost be tempted to call it The Rubber Roll of Dimes of Chastisement. The Mini-Slinky of Forward Deployment.
And, as we know from the Bush Doctrine, we must address this threat before it fully emerges.
Long list of domains...
…but since the RNCHQ one is actually “mailscan1.smartechcorp.net” (weighted equally with “mailscan2” so that E-mail will use one of the two redundant servers at random), it’s likely that the others are all aliases that go through the same mail server as well. If that’s the case (and you can find out with the simple command-line “host -t mx rnchq.org”, replacing “rnchq.org” with the domain you’re after each time), then securing just that one set of redundant servers covers all the domains.
See? This one’s actually even easier than it might have been. :-)
—Matt
They're probably not even "aliases"
They’re probably just parked.
Though that’s an interesting tip on
host -t. Why don’t you run it and post the results?No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.