One Nation, Under 24

“Can an everyman like Jack exist only in this decadent superpower?”

This is an article/review of the first four episodes, which I’m linking to for one reason, because while i’ve been buried under positive reviews of the first four episodes, I hadn’t read one bad one, until now. Troy Patterson of seems from this review to be throughly unimpressed by the first four hours, along with the general premise of the show, as he asks if a character like Jack Bauer could exist in any other countries popular culture but America’s.

Contains heavy plot spoilers for the first four episodes, so don’t read if you don’t want to know what happens. Also don’t read if you can’t stand people ranting about why 24 isn’t as good as we all think it is.

source :

4 thoughts on “One Nation, Under 24”

  1. The review is typical left wing nonsense. The Left is taking aim at 24 for some reason, especially this year. Could it be because it makes people think about terrorism and how they may react if the scenarios playing out this season actually occurred? Many TV commentators in recent seasons whined about Jack torturing terrorists to get info (hmmm, saving hundreds or thousands of innocent lives compared to one man’s possible civil rights?), but this year so far CNN has taken aim at 24, MSNBC and now slate. I find it interesting that the Left is taking on this TV show this year. Anyone else have any thoughts?

  2. To be completely honest these issues are so complex I think it would be sheer lunacy to make even a personal decision about them based on a TV show.

    At best the show is simply airing opinions to encourage sensable and measured debate about these issues, atleast I hope what will come about from the show. I personally believe that any show hoping to inspire debate about an issue should be showing something of both sides – which the show is doing some of – albeit rather unrealistically with the National Security Advisor being one of those putting forward the left’s view on this.

    It should also be noted that the show’s had its fair share of fans from the left over the years – and it’s share of criticism from the right.

    I don’t think CNN and MSNBC have taken aim at ’24’ this year, more used it as an example to get into a discussion on the issues.

  3. Anybody who thinks about a television show this much has something wrong with them.

    It’s entertainment. Not politics.

  4. John, ya wondered why “the left” might be “taking aim” and sadly, among other sur-entertainment objectives having to do with conditioning the population for events (from within more than without), the show also subtley sustains the now archaic left-right, dove-hawk modes of sizing up our troubled times. Gives us an outlet to feed the commercial marketing stir(s) (such as this). So, for starters, it’s sophomoric to think criticisms and concerns about the show are from the old left. That’s gonzo. The criticisms go instead to how much trouble we all are in because there is no left to speak of anymore. Not if you mean main stream Democrat-icism. That half of the mainstream has folded into the right as far as the most informed of them are concerned. 70+% believe something in real life DC is fishy. 10% of them believe terrorism is merely a cover for a more sinister goal of finally clinching GHWBush’s hintro of a very real New World Order. They believe this New World Order will feel more like a Police State than a We Are the World concert. Neighbors calling-in on their neighbors. Implanted monitoring chips to get into grocery megastores. The extinction of small businesses. Banishment of US Constitution, point of no return from new forms of slavery employment. Total corporate espionage. No patenting. No alternative media. Controlled and monitored limited internet. On n on. Very serious stuff. They, the above L/Right, understand why Southwest Boarder Patrols are ordered to ignore influx of unidentifiable foreigners (25+million illegals estimated so far)(Islamists among them???). So, if ’24’ was really on the mark, nay, if it wasn’t hiding (as in distraction) another mark altogether, it would probably be “encouraging measured debate” (ref: Hardy, above) on how that (what?) “harmless”(?) Mexican invasion?; dovetails with all the woopdeeding national sovereignty and security and terror orientation, which the show touts itself as being so cerebral about. [None of which will make any sense to anyone who still buys GWB & Co’s very shakey word on 9/11 perpetration.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.