Ken and John,
Two weeks ago you had a discussion of Karl Popper's philosophy of science. I still do not see the ability to comment.  Why?  That might be a philosophical question.  I wanted to hear a discussion of the realist theory of science - a point of view that neither of you wanted to discuss or apparently were not aware of; why not?  Roy N. Bhasker is a leading proponent; there are others.  Not a very wide-ranging discussion of the philosophy of science - was it?
 
Second, today, as I listen to the "encore performance" in Portland, Oregon, you discussed Security vs. Liberty.  It was absolutely amazing that Ken nor John were able to head off Stephen Holmes, a blowhard from NYU.  Have neither of you heard of Jonathan Turley? How about Colonel Morris Davis - the dissident at the Guantanamo trials - the tials now rushed before the election for US president in November? 
 
Guantanamo Bay torture and imprisonment, the sham trials, the rendition, and the abuse of human dignity were given short shrift. Your listeners asked about the blowback from US foreign policy and Mr. Holmes skated sideways.  Could you not ask him - finally sir have you no decency? Your philosophical positions are not made in mid-air - that they have real consequences for real people on the ground - whether or not they are guilty or innocent?  And - how would you feel as a captive in a prison that accepts what the civilized world agrees is torture, many in foreign prisons populated by the United States?  Stage managed of course to a "US democratic public" to condone the suffering?
 
Many callers called in to point out that the security over liberty argument has been played out ON THE GROUND in the US foreign policy arena; many democratic governments have been overthrown by the US - Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Nicaragua, and so on.  The response of Stephen Holmes did not meet the philosophical or even scientific grounds for argument.
 
I personally wanted to throw-up over Stephen Holmes' response.  I assume that the educated are able to hold most variables constant.  Ah, what a surprise to listen to Holmes deny the democratic impulse, the very part of his so-called informed narrative, the part that can keep governments honest.  His sideways escape route, crap in my opinion, argued that the US people do not discover these ill-informed totalitarian actions until years later.  So much for a universal philosophical argument.  Had it ever occurred to this not very good apologist for US action, that people in other countries might actually have a stake in this discussion? That people under hard fought democratic rule in countries outside of the United States might also like to enjoy liberty?  That their liberty and security might be at stake?  But no - neither one of you - Ken nor John - could hold democracy and personal liberty a constant.
 
Third, the management by US administrations of the media has long been well known.  The manipulation of TV, radio, and every other media is well known.  Despite that fact, the US public has in the past few days have been privy yet again (McClellan - there are so many others before this tome) to the inner workings of the current administration.  I guess neither John nor Ken read much.  Do you know or are you aware of the latest work on the inter-play of media and government?  Perhaps another philosophical question?
 
I am really disappointed in the past two weeks level of discussion, the lack of hard questions, and the lack of challenge.  It is just too easy to shoot fish in a barrel.
 
Karl Shepard
Hillsboro, Oregon
5/29/08