I don't know for sure, but I don't think your Hoosier-baiting will attract too much attention...
This IS the internet, after all, and -- as a form of communication heavily dependent on 'Lectricity and other magical stuff -- it is consequently incomprehensible to most Indianians.Comment Posted By Wrymouth On 4.02.2007 @ 13:42
I was looking forward to this season being about the day Jack escaped from the Chinese, or some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" plot, but the writers are now caught wih a Huge Success on their hands, and seem to only have a triumvirate of Eeevil Acute Events to play with: nukes, bioweapons and nerve agents.
In that sense, Season 1 was outstanding, by concentrating more on smaller crises.
Love the "ancient themes" hunt you are doing in 24. It adds a level of meaning to a show the missus and I find alternately riveting and awful. In brief, we usually love the arc of the plot, and cringe at whole sections of dialogue... and any sub-plot involving the "Kim" character.
(The "Kim" character does not necessarily need to be played by "Kim," but only by an unnecessarily dim and selfish person.)
Best Actor So Far: President Charles Logan, er, Richard Nixon, played (we thought) unbelieveably well by Gregory Itzin.
Next time, I hope we can have something other than nukes, because at this rate America's going to be covered in radiation in about 3 more Days.
Nanotech terrorism, anyone? Internet attacks? Mole presidential candidates (not just turncoats like Logan)? C'mon, people!Comment Posted By wrymouth On 3.02.2007 @ 13:22
Judging from the scripting of the White House personnel, I am guessing they're letting David Kelly (Boston Legal) guest-write. But dialogue's never been 24's strongest asset anyhoo. The missus and I are watching "live" for the first time this year, and having to wait a week between installments is deliciously infuriating. We are split on the Curtis-is-really-dead question. Morris is no Edgar, but he's grown on us quickly. We wish Chloe would go back to her mousier self, but nothing's perfect.Comment Posted By wrymouth On 17.01.2007 @ 00:50
"This administration has used 9/11 as an excuse to destroy the rule of law more than any administration in my lifetime."
Somehow, I find that statement irrefutable.
Oh! I am parsing the sentence incorrectly.
Got it. That would explain why FDR isn't on Bob's list.
When all is said and done, however, I concur with most correspondents here in at least one aspect: either care about All Presidents and All Their Illegal Surveillance, or don't.
I actually don't care, as I have never seen a president (in my lifetime) even begin to rise to the level of tyrant. And I go back to Kennedy. If this came up during Clinton's presidency, I wouldn't have cared, either. Or during John Anderson's, either. ;o) I have always figured the president and his staff have tricks up their sleeve that I know nothing about. It doesn't worry me. This is America.
But, I will sincerely give kudoes to those who DO care, as long as they will care when the next guy does it, as well (be he Democrat, Republican or Other).Comment Posted By wrymouth On 1.12.2006 @ 01:22
Dean's posted an amusing little blurb on Rumsfield's resignation at te Democratic website. I wonder if he meant it to be funny.Comment Posted By wrymouth On 14.11.2006 @ 01:38
Rush Limbaugh, wrong??
We have only to think back to: Donovan McNabb. I think everytime he excels in a game, Ruch Limbaugh gets torn a new one.
I am sure Fox and Limbaugh are grown-ups, though, and if I were to say something like, "HEY!! .... RRRRR-UUUUSSSHHH!!... WHAAA-AT ARRRE YEE-OUUUUU???!!!!! ... DEAF OR SOMETHING??!!" he could take it. I hope Fox can, too. It's that whole public figure thing.Comment Posted By wrymouth On 25.10.2006 @ 20:26
My missus is a forensic psychologist. Reading posts from "Shrinkwrapped" only serves to emphasize, to me, the difference between shrinks and psychs. That said, SW is a fine writer. But -- oy! -- the psychoanalysis makes my head hurt.Comment Posted By wrymouth On 21.10.2006 @ 16:03
Pages (1) :