Comments Posted By Doug Purdie
Displaying 31 To 34 Of 34 Comments
The solution to Jack's problem was so obvious, I'm surprised the writers didn't see it. Jack needs the recording to expose Logan.
Do what Audry suggested, but couldn't do herself. Kill Henderson. Henderson kept the recording to protect himself from Logan. His instruction to the holder of the recording must have been, "Keep this safe. If anything happens to me, release it."
Bad guy Henderson is dead so Jack doesn't have to jeopardize Chloe's career any more to track him. The holder releases the recording on the assumption that Loagn had Henderson killed. Bad guy Logan is exposed, which is Jack's primary goal.
The only problem is that it leaves three unfilled hours for the remaining episodes of the season.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 25.04.2006 @ 15:07
J'ACCUSE: BERNSTEIN MAKES A SERIOUS CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT
Boy, this thing about how the world was with after 9/11 until Bush botched it, is tiring. As long as we are #1 in the world (in prosperity, liberty and military strength), the world is against us much the same way the baseball world is against the Yankees. The world was only with us after 9/11 because we were knocked on our ass. As soon as we got up and started hitting back, the world was against us again. If people like Mr. Bernstein want the world to love us, they must admit that we will have to deliberately weaken ourselves.
Hey, isn't that the direction the opposition party's policies would send us?
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 19.04.2006 @ 10:57
Audrey/Jack!
My rule of thumb: Do the opposite of whatever President Jellyfish decides.
But seriously, as Audry said, the death of the mall goers was a certainty. Victims of the other 19 canisters was only speculation.
BTW, in the previous episode, did anyone else refuse to suspend disbelief when the Attorny General granted an immunity request that included letting the criminal keep custody of an underage sex slave?
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 14.02.2006 @ 13:42
Per Michael Critton, in his novel, "State of Fear", the debate about humans causing increasing green house gases ended a while ago. He and other scientists never argued about the increasing levels but about how that phenomena affects the climate. Does a massive increase in CO2 or CO4 cause a slight change in climate, a massive change or no change at all? Would the cost to prevent a greenhouse gas increase eclipse the possible downside of not acting?
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 30.11.2005 @ 15:24
