So, CBS is dropping its miniseries on President Reagan because some feel it may be historically inaccurate and cast the Great Communicator (also known as the Teflon President) into a less than flattering light.
This leaves CBS with a need to fill several hours of dead air. Might I suggest that CBS fill that time with readings from Lawrence E. Walsh's book Firewall, a book that recapitulates the events of Iran-Contra and the subsequent investigation.
Walsh, who no one can call a radical, was the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation. Walsh ends his book by condemning Reagan for his "willful disregard of constitutional restraints on his power." [page 531 in the paperback edition]
With lines like that, those who wish to continue to perpetuate the movie land white hat image of Reagan might want to resurrect the plausible deniability of CBS's now canceled fictional portrayal.
It is interesting how Mr. Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher tried to make us believe that government is a bad thing, that governmental powers are best exercised by private actors. One of the progeny of such thinking is ICANN.
ICANN continues the Iran-Contra style of government - "openness" is achieved by circling the wagons to lock out the public, "transparency" is achieved by preventing the public from observing ICANN's decision-making processes except through the most processed of press-releases, and "accountability" is achieved by elimination of responsibility.
There are many who claim that despite its flaws, Iran-Contra was in the interest of the public (I do not agree.) Are there any who are able to make a believable argument that ICANN, despite its ejection of the public, has benefited the public and that the benefits obtained from ICANN by special commercial groups are merely the ancillary aspects of a larger public benefit?Posted by karl at November 6, 2003 1:28 AM