I don’t watch “24″.
I watched a few episodes from the first (or second?) season and found that, while it is very well produced, it was too over the top for me.
However, it does seem to be the rage, these days. And, surprisingly enough, fodder for liberal criticism.
Evidently, in this season’s series opener, a nuclear bomb is detonated, by terrorists, in the Los Angeles area. Keith Olberman sees the series as “propaganda” for one political party (gee, which one?) and that the depiction of a nuclear device being used on American soil is a “fear tactic.” CNN, meanwhile, wonders whether or not “24″ is a “neocon sex-fantasy.” Hugh Hewitt responds at ABC.
Propaganda? Fear-tactic?
My question to Keith: If there are people willing to strap on TNT with the specific intention of not only killing themselves, but as many innocent men, women, and children as they can, then why is it not plausible to consider that they would eagerly replace the TNT with a nuclear device?
January 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
What a brain-dead, liberal comment for Olberman to make. Does he seriously think Osama wouldn’t have used nukes on 9/11 if he had them?
January 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
24 is indeed on its way to being over the top for many viewers- you are just ahead of the curve;)
If you look at the two sides ( let’s do that in honor of your blog, here!) the right has found there to be a credibility gap with the media and the left has found it with government. That is the only explanation I can find for the disconnect with reality that feels nuclear devices aren’t on terrorist agendas.
It was a sad day to see what happened in the 911 attack, and will be not only sad, but a tragic matter if we see nuclear detonations on our soil such as depicted in 24. How do we stay in the suspended state of disbelief? Why couldn’t it happen here? Their answer to that would be more telling than their statements that it is propaganda.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Someone tell Keith Olberman that Jack Bauer is a fictional character. You know, like Murphy Brown.
January 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
24 comes from Fox. I don’t know if it is a scare tactic or not. I do know that officially government policy is a scare tactic, and the Americans are tired of that Cheney tactic, and voted out many of the Repubs because they despise the policies of Dick Cheney, who I consider a liar for oil.
No one wants the government to lie down with regard to nukes, but really, there may not much that can be done so why be afraid?
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
My issue is that 5 years since 9/11, our country is not much safer from another terrorist attack. Republicans scoff at inspecting (and/or scanning) all shipping containers coming into the U.S. (for instance for “radiation”). Yet Hong Kong has been doing just this for quite a awhile. Republicans also tell us even if we did, “Where will the money come from to do so?” Well, there’s the rub…How about if we hadn’t spent close to $1 Trillion on Bush’s M.E. war; and instead concentrated on beefing security at our ports, along our borders - and at our chemical and nuclear plants?!
Bottom line: The scenario in 24 could happen, and thanks to Bush, IMHO it is even more a threat. Why? 1) As the Democrats say, not inacting all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission; and 2) Starting a war in the M.E. (and miserably blundered it) - stirring up a hornets nest, and hatred of the U.S. - thereby creating new terrorists by the hundreds, if not thousands. Failed policy both at home and abroad has made us ALL less safer, regardless of your political views. This is a fact. All 16 of U.S. Intelligence Agencies have issued a report saying that the U.S. is at a greater risk today (of further attacks) DUE TO OUR CURRENT FORIEGN POLICY.
It’s just too bad.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 am
Lemme get this straight.
Rusty Lopez at RedBlueChristian apparently goes against the grain and finds 24 a touch “over the top” for his tastes.
Evidently, in this season’s series opener, a nuclear bomb is detonated, by terrorists, in the Los Angeles area. Keith Ol…
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
Paul,
The claim that we are not much safer now, than at 9/11 (or, even worse, that we are at a greater risk), is an interesting claim. Exactly how does one quantify such a claim? The fact is, we haven’t been attacked in the manner of 9/11 since 9/11. As I see it, that would make us, at worst, as vulnerable as we were on 9/11 and, at best, safer than we were on 9/11. Yet, if I were to bet on one of those two options, I would go for the “worst” scenario.
This is not to say that we’ve not wasted resources on the war in Iraq. It’s also not to say that we shouldn’t have been in Iraq at all. Those are posts for another day.