an article you may both hate. or like.

argument and evidence, while recognizing that their advocates (like most of the intellectual world in the case of secular
dogma) are people who we should be responding to but without ridiculing them. It may be hard sometimes. For
example, when the icon and founding father of sober non-sentimental Realism in International Affairs informs us that
the US, unlike other countries, has a “transcendental purpose,” and the fact that it constantly acts in contradiction to
its purpose doesn’t matter because the facts are just “abuse of history” while real history is “the evidence of history as
our minds reflect it,” then it’s hard to avoid ridicule. But we should. There’s no point ridiculing virtually the entire IR
profession and the major journals, even though such extraordinary irrationality leads to major human disasters.

On Davis, | frankly think that’s a non-issue. If she decides she cannot do her job as the conditions of employment
require (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job. As in any other such case.

Noam

hope all is well.

Lawrence

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists