[/QUOTE]Just the facts, ma'am.
Religion and Politics (no spam)
[quote="Fable]Your statements about the US are news to me. I was under the impression that Arkansas was forced into compliance with national law by the Federal courts; and as far as I know"]
Sorry, I confused Arkansas for Kansas - the issue has been up in both states.
Kansas State Board of Education rejected evolution and the Big Bang theory as scientific principles in 1999. They deleted any mention of evolution and the Big Bang theory from the science curriculum and from the materials used to test graduating students. Kansas was excluded from NAS (National Academy of Sciences) as a consequence of this. The decision was changed 2 years later, and evolution was reinstalled in biology education. However, Kansas school teachers report that little has changed - the teachers who teach evolution as science continue to do so, and the teachers who teach creationism as science continue to do so. Thus, it differs widely from school to school what the kids learn about development life on earth and the origin of man. NAS website has information about this issue, you can also read more here:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/
In 2001, Arkansas voted for a bill that would have required students to prepare lists of "false" scientific information including the origin of life, methods of radioisotope dating, the age of the earth, and the concept that fossils reveal information on how life forms evolved. Books used in schools were to be marked up with notations such as "false evidence" or "theory." In the vote by the entire House, the bill received 45 affirmative votes, 36 negative votes and 19 abstentions. Fifty one votes were required to pass the bill.
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/w032301a.html
"The long-simmering debate over evolution vs. creation now at a full boil in Kansas has also been on the front burner recently with similar efforts in Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Texas. In Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia legislators introduced anti-evolution bills, while Alabama mandated evolution disclaimers for biology textbooks and Louisiana tried but failed to do the same."
ref "75 years after Scopes' conviction, creationism-evolution drama is recreated in Kansas Theatre," PFAW, 2000-JUL-12
"For example, the Ohio Board of Education has adopted a lesson plan requiring a "critical analysis of evolution." Here is an example of the type of "brief challenging simple answers" for a grade-ten lesson: "Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record." While disagreement exists over precise ancestral groups, empirical evidence for many transitional forms is common and well documented in the scientific literature.
Science is also grossly misrepresented in the Ohio lesson plans. Anomalies are presented as "ideas" rather than observations that disagree with theoretical predictions. Theories are called "suppositions" rather than well-established systems of explanations for large numbers of observations. Science education in the U.S. will be severely damaged if this type of bogus "critical thinking".
ref:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2004-06/reality-check.html
You can also check the following websites for information about creationism in public schools:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?year=2001
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm
There seems to be quite many states that has called for reduction of teaching of evolution, I counted to 22 which I think is very worrying ineed even if it was turned down. It points at a massive movement.
However, let's assume that all these websites exaggregate the influence of creationism and that my worries are unnecessary. Chanak posts that he does not know any singe instance in the public school system that "officially" includes creationism in the science curriculum. Excellent if that is correct, but...where on earth do the 47% of Americans who believe god created humans in the last 10000 years or so, come from? The 42% of college graduates who do not look favorable on evolution[/b]? Or the 50% who think both evolution and creation should be taught in school in science classes? God created them in their present form?
Well, sorry for the bad joke, but it is a mystery to me how many millions of people in a country where everybody has access to education, can hold such absurd beliefs.
Will post more later, I haven't addressed all parts of Luis, Fable's and Chanak's posts, but I must get some work done, too.
Sorry, I confused Arkansas for Kansas - the issue has been up in both states.
Kansas State Board of Education rejected evolution and the Big Bang theory as scientific principles in 1999. They deleted any mention of evolution and the Big Bang theory from the science curriculum and from the materials used to test graduating students. Kansas was excluded from NAS (National Academy of Sciences) as a consequence of this. The decision was changed 2 years later, and evolution was reinstalled in biology education. However, Kansas school teachers report that little has changed - the teachers who teach evolution as science continue to do so, and the teachers who teach creationism as science continue to do so. Thus, it differs widely from school to school what the kids learn about development life on earth and the origin of man. NAS website has information about this issue, you can also read more here:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/
In 2001, Arkansas voted for a bill that would have required students to prepare lists of "false" scientific information including the origin of life, methods of radioisotope dating, the age of the earth, and the concept that fossils reveal information on how life forms evolved. Books used in schools were to be marked up with notations such as "false evidence" or "theory." In the vote by the entire House, the bill received 45 affirmative votes, 36 negative votes and 19 abstentions. Fifty one votes were required to pass the bill.
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/w032301a.html
"The long-simmering debate over evolution vs. creation now at a full boil in Kansas has also been on the front burner recently with similar efforts in Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Texas. In Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia legislators introduced anti-evolution bills, while Alabama mandated evolution disclaimers for biology textbooks and Louisiana tried but failed to do the same."
ref "75 years after Scopes' conviction, creationism-evolution drama is recreated in Kansas Theatre," PFAW, 2000-JUL-12
"For example, the Ohio Board of Education has adopted a lesson plan requiring a "critical analysis of evolution." Here is an example of the type of "brief challenging simple answers" for a grade-ten lesson: "Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record." While disagreement exists over precise ancestral groups, empirical evidence for many transitional forms is common and well documented in the scientific literature.
Science is also grossly misrepresented in the Ohio lesson plans. Anomalies are presented as "ideas" rather than observations that disagree with theoretical predictions. Theories are called "suppositions" rather than well-established systems of explanations for large numbers of observations. Science education in the U.S. will be severely damaged if this type of bogus "critical thinking".
ref:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2004-06/reality-check.html
You can also check the following websites for information about creationism in public schools:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?year=2001
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm
There seems to be quite many states that has called for reduction of teaching of evolution, I counted to 22 which I think is very worrying ineed even if it was turned down. It points at a massive movement.
However, let's assume that all these websites exaggregate the influence of creationism and that my worries are unnecessary. Chanak posts that he does not know any singe instance in the public school system that "officially" includes creationism in the science curriculum. Excellent if that is correct, but...where on earth do the 47% of Americans who believe god created humans in the last 10000 years or so, come from? The 42% of college graduates who do not look favorable on evolution[/b]? Or the 50% who think both evolution and creation should be taught in school in science classes? God created them in their present form?
Well, sorry for the bad joke, but it is a mystery to me how many millions of people in a country where everybody has access to education, can hold such absurd beliefs.
Will post more later, I haven't addressed all parts of Luis, Fable's and Chanak's posts, but I must get some work done, too.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Brynn]Well, this is another, very serious matter. It's like saying "there is no point in living with AIDS 'cause you are sure to die anyway" [/QUOTE]
Brynn, in this case its not like a disease that can be cured, is like you are growing a dead child inside yourself, or a child that will die as soon as it get born. Aids is different, cause tomorrow a vaccine may appear, aye?
Bur I wont tell and terminal Aids pacient (one who is sure to die from infections and other disieases, such as the flu) not to suicide. I guess this is a personal choice, and in such case, all things considered, will free the person from unnecessary suffering.
(BTW, do you think we moved that far from the tread?)
Brynn, in this case its not like a disease that can be cured, is like you are growing a dead child inside yourself, or a child that will die as soon as it get born. Aids is different, cause tomorrow a vaccine may appear, aye?
Bur I wont tell and terminal Aids pacient (one who is sure to die from infections and other disieases, such as the flu) not to suicide. I guess this is a personal choice, and in such case, all things considered, will free the person from unnecessary suffering.
(BTW, do you think we moved that far from the tread?)
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
[QUOTE=Chanak]Just the facts, ma'am. [/QUOTE]
To an extent I agree, and it doesn't really deepen the rift as much as give an explanation to the one of the key problems in US - European relations. Besides, stating that the US originally got its worst from Europe is more derrogatory of the US than of Europe. Likewise, the fact that Europe is so quick at picking up the worst from the US is definitely a sign of bad taste from the Europeans. In short, we're exchanging our vices rather than our virtues - and thus are the virtues diminished overall. I guess religious zealots see this as their grand opportunity to claim they stand for virtue, while in reality they bring bigotry and oppression.
[/QUOTE]To an extent I agree, and it doesn't really deepen the rift as much as give an explanation to the one of the key problems in US - European relations. Besides, stating that the US originally got its worst from Europe is more derrogatory of the US than of Europe. Likewise, the fact that Europe is so quick at picking up the worst from the US is definitely a sign of bad taste from the Europeans. In short, we're exchanging our vices rather than our virtues - and thus are the virtues diminished overall. I guess religious zealots see this as their grand opportunity to claim they stand for virtue, while in reality they bring bigotry and oppression.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
@Luis: We should most likely move this to a different thread, since even though related, the abortion issue is a huge topic in itself and bound to cause some ripples. Since it still fits under the rather wide banner of religion and politics, I'll still put it here, though.
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Brynn, in this case its not like a disease that can be cured, is like you are growing a dead child inside yourself, or a child that will die as soon as it get born. Aids is different, cause tomorrow a vaccine may appear, aye?[/QUOTE]
I think this line of argument is fundamentally flawed, since the comparison is irrelevant and inconsequential. If someone contract AIDS it is within their rights to go hop of a bridge if they want to (well, not everywhere... suicide is illegal in a number of countries ). A seriously braindamaged foetus or any other foetus for that matter is not a conscious, thinking individual, and in case of the disabled foetus it will never live a good and fullfilling life by non-disabled standards no matter how much society adapts itself to disabled people. All the stupid propaganda that disabilities are just a difference in lifestyle is a load of ... pushed by misguided non-disabled people "meaning well".
I agree to calling a foetus a child as soon as it can exist independent of its host. Before that, it is like any other part of the female anatomy and under the control of the owner to that body, ie the to-be mother. It is her body, thus first, last and always her choice. Even if she wants to have her own brain surgically removed, I have no issue. The father is entitled to an opinion, but until he truly shares in the nine months of nausea, bulging lower abdomen (beer belly don't count), mood swings, etc, it is not really his choice, sorry. The limit on how early a foetus can be saved is constantly moving downwards, but is this something we should strive for? There is plenty of research showing that children born early have an overrepresentation of all kinds of disabilities. By my standards, an unwanted child is as disabled as one born with half a brain, since nothing good can come of forcing someone to raise a child they didnt want, and to expect them to do a good job of it is even less likely. The thing to hope for is of course that they later in life get convicted of murder, so you can kill them when they have become a sentient, self aware living being.
The entire debate is so skewed, its absurd. To add to the insult, some of the same people opposing abortions are also opposing gun control, promoting the death penalty and killing abortion-doctors in the streets. Whats wrong with these people? Can't somene find something productive for them to do with their seemingly endless persistence?
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]Brynn, in this case its not like a disease that can be cured, is like you are growing a dead child inside yourself, or a child that will die as soon as it get born. Aids is different, cause tomorrow a vaccine may appear, aye?[/QUOTE]
I think this line of argument is fundamentally flawed, since the comparison is irrelevant and inconsequential. If someone contract AIDS it is within their rights to go hop of a bridge if they want to (well, not everywhere... suicide is illegal in a number of countries
). A seriously braindamaged foetus or any other foetus for that matter is not a conscious, thinking individual, and in case of the disabled foetus it will never live a good and fullfilling life by non-disabled standards no matter how much society adapts itself to disabled people. All the stupid propaganda that disabilities are just a difference in lifestyle is a load of ... pushed by misguided non-disabled people "meaning well".I agree to calling a foetus a child as soon as it can exist independent of its host. Before that, it is like any other part of the female anatomy and under the control of the owner to that body, ie the to-be mother. It is her body, thus first, last and always her choice. Even if she wants to have her own brain surgically removed, I have no issue. The father is entitled to an opinion, but until he truly shares in the nine months of nausea, bulging lower abdomen (beer belly don't count), mood swings, etc, it is not really his choice, sorry. The limit on how early a foetus can be saved is constantly moving downwards, but is this something we should strive for? There is plenty of research showing that children born early have an overrepresentation of all kinds of disabilities. By my standards, an unwanted child is as disabled as one born with half a brain, since nothing good can come of forcing someone to raise a child they didnt want, and to expect them to do a good job of it is even less likely. The thing to hope for is of course that they later in life get convicted of murder, so you can kill them when they have become a sentient, self aware living being.
The entire debate is so skewed, its absurd. To add to the insult, some of the same people opposing abortions are also opposing gun control, promoting the death penalty and killing abortion-doctors in the streets. Whats wrong with these people? Can't somene find something productive for them to do with their seemingly endless persistence?
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
Silur, I guess I havent been specific. My point is that some foetus are, in lack of better terms, dead inside the woumb. Cause when they go out, theyr brain wont work, and their frail bodies will cease to exist as soon as they are "born".
I am completely against abort under other circumstances, even on raping cases. Thats for sure. And I'm completely sure that abortion is not a good thing. My point is that in specific, very specific cases, the risks, both psicological, sociological and phisical can be reduced. Pregnancy, wether you like it or not, is a risk to the pregnant woman. And to spend nine months knowing that when your child come, the only thing you'll have is a dead kid?
And here comes back to politics and religion: Why is my decision not mine? Why is my body not mine? Cause the fate, so important to religion is fate and faith, has been decided. No miracle will give those childs a brain.
Suicide is another matter, that I should not have pushed...
(BTW, good to see another point of view)
I am completely against abort under other circumstances, even on raping cases. Thats for sure. And I'm completely sure that abortion is not a good thing. My point is that in specific, very specific cases, the risks, both psicological, sociological and phisical can be reduced. Pregnancy, wether you like it or not, is a risk to the pregnant woman. And to spend nine months knowing that when your child come, the only thing you'll have is a dead kid?
And here comes back to politics and religion: Why is my decision not mine? Why is my body not mine? Cause the fate, so important to religion is fate and faith, has been decided. No miracle will give those childs a brain.
Suicide is another matter, that I should not have pushed...
(BTW, good to see another point of view)
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]And here comes back to politics and religion: Why is my decision not mine? Why is my body not mine? Cause the fate, so important to religion is fate and faith, has been decided. No miracle will give those childs a brain.[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly the point. Why should I have to abide by rules set up by a religion that I do not believe in? I have no problem with the RCC or any other religious organisation from prohibiting its members from having an abortion (well actually I do have issues with this as well, but less and its a different discussion), but I cannot see with what right they impose this on others. Abortion is just one example. To me, it is a violation of the UN charter on human rights to impose restrictions on the rights of people based on faith. Its precisely in line with me wanting to abolish religion (which I do, btw) which goes against the same charter. Given that all countries that impose restrictions on abortion,etc don't pay much attention to parts of the UN declarations they dont agree with, its hardly a surprise they violate the rights of their citizens on these accounts.
If religious people focused more on having themselves fullfill the ideals of their faith instead of forcing their values upon others, I would perhaps back down on wanting to nuke the lot of them.
Which is exactly the point. Why should I have to abide by rules set up by a religion that I do not believe in? I have no problem with the RCC or any other religious organisation from prohibiting its members from having an abortion (well actually I do have issues with this as well, but less and its a different discussion), but I cannot see with what right they impose this on others. Abortion is just one example. To me, it is a violation of the UN charter on human rights to impose restrictions on the rights of people based on faith. Its precisely in line with me wanting to abolish religion (which I do, btw) which goes against the same charter. Given that all countries that impose restrictions on abortion,etc don't pay much attention to parts of the UN declarations they dont agree with, its hardly a surprise they violate the rights of their citizens on these accounts.
If religious people focused more on having themselves fullfill the ideals of their faith instead of forcing their values upon others, I would perhaps back down on wanting to nuke the lot of them.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
[QUOTE=Brynn]OK, I just brought up this example to present another desperate, hopeless situation.[/QUOTE]
I still dont quite see how they compare. Having an abortion is hardly a hopeless, desperate measure unless your using a rusty nail and strong coffee to do it.
We're murdering cows and pigs to eat, and they are more self-aware than a 6 month baby. Pigs are intelligent, social animals and they tend to realize when their time is up (and they tend to protest loudly). Plants are also living beings and deserve to live just as much as anything else. If life is so precious, cant these fanatics just eat gravel? Would make the planet a better place in say 6 - 8 weeks.
Edit: By fanatics in the above clause, I only include those anti-abortionists that feel that killing doctors or equally insane behaviour is an ok way of protesting against abortion, not ordinary people who opose abortion for some reason or other.
I still dont quite see how they compare. Having an abortion is hardly a hopeless, desperate measure unless your using a rusty nail and strong coffee to do it.
We're murdering cows and pigs to eat, and they are more self-aware than a 6 month baby. Pigs are intelligent, social animals and they tend to realize when their time is up (and they tend to protest loudly). Plants are also living beings and deserve to live just as much as anything else. If life is so precious, cant these fanatics just eat gravel? Would make the planet a better place in say 6 - 8 weeks.
Edit: By fanatics in the above clause, I only include those anti-abortionists that feel that killing doctors or equally insane behaviour is an ok way of protesting against abortion, not ordinary people who opose abortion for some reason or other.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
@Luis: It's interesting that one one hand you oppose the religious involvement in politics, but on the other hand you accept religious dogma as absolute truth. What is bad about abortion? Give me an argument that is not based on the religion you so strongly object to being involved in your nations politics.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=C Elegans]However, let's assume that all these websites exaggregate the influence of creationism and that my worries are unnecessary. Chanak posts that he does not know any singe instance in the public school system that "officially" includes creationism in the science curriculum. Excellent if that is correct, but...where on earth do the 47% of Americans who believe god created humans in the last 10000 years or so, come from? The 42% of college graduates who do not look favorable on evolution[/b]? Or the 50% who think both evolution and creation should be taught in school in science classes? God created them in their present form?[/QUOTE]
But we've been over this, before. It's not at all surprising, given the large, rural (farms, low-level agri-industrial and range) belt of the US, that they should have the same extremely conservative political and religious views of European nations, always allowing for national variances (ie, you wouldn't expect parish priests to rule the moral roost in US towns, as they do in France: you'd expect ministers). They reflect the interests and opinions of the world wide agri-culture, as we've already discussed. And I'm inclined to believe that, as their European counterpartts are organized over the coming years into a powerful conservative force through television and computers, you'll begin to see the same evangelical swing to the right, the same distortion of scientific views, and the same ignorance spread. It is happening now, after all, but it's only starting.
I share your frustration, but I really don't deal with that culture. I've lived in more than half-a-dozen US locations over the years, but always in some aspect of diversified urban cultures; so I've never had to deal with this on a regular basis. Just as well: the last time I came in contact with it was at my wife's grandfather's funeral. As I remarked on these boards at the time, he was a Pentacostal. They turned the funeral into an immensely long, very frightening commercial for their brand of universal ignorance and intolerance, driven by a knowledge that if you didn't get religion their way, you were doomed to everlasting torment in hell. Their distortions of their holy book were nearly as remarkable as their distortions of scientific fact.
And I'll tell you frankly, I never want to live in a community, US, Dutch, Swedish, British or otherwise, that holds such evangelical views in the majority or near it. That would actually be hell.
But we've been over this, before. It's not at all surprising, given the large, rural (farms, low-level agri-industrial and range) belt of the US, that they should have the same extremely conservative political and religious views of European nations, always allowing for national variances (ie, you wouldn't expect parish priests to rule the moral roost in US towns, as they do in France: you'd expect ministers). They reflect the interests and opinions of the world wide agri-culture, as we've already discussed. And I'm inclined to believe that, as their European counterpartts are organized over the coming years into a powerful conservative force through television and computers, you'll begin to see the same evangelical swing to the right, the same distortion of scientific views, and the same ignorance spread. It is happening now, after all, but it's only starting.
I share your frustration, but I really don't deal with that culture. I've lived in more than half-a-dozen US locations over the years, but always in some aspect of diversified urban cultures; so I've never had to deal with this on a regular basis. Just as well: the last time I came in contact with it was at my wife's grandfather's funeral. As I remarked on these boards at the time, he was a Pentacostal. They turned the funeral into an immensely long, very frightening commercial for their brand of universal ignorance and intolerance, driven by a knowledge that if you didn't get religion their way, you were doomed to everlasting torment in hell. Their distortions of their holy book were nearly as remarkable as their distortions of scientific fact.
And I'll tell you frankly, I never want to live in a community, US, Dutch, Swedish, British or otherwise, that holds such evangelical views in the majority or near it. That would actually be hell.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Sure thing, but if it is both private and not based on religion, I may find it even more incomprehensible. This is not really a private issue in my view, its a central part of ones humanitarian values. If you had stated that the risk of not being able to have another pregnancy after an abortion are unacceptably high (I think 0.05% or something), it would have been a valid argument but I believe it to still be the individuals personal choice, as long as they are made aware of the risk beforehand.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
[QUOTE=fable]But we've been over this, before. It's not at all surprising, given the large, rural (farms, low-level agri-industrial and range) belt of the US, that they should have the same extremely conservative political and religious views of European nations, always allowing for national variances (ie, you wouldn't expect parish priests to rule the moral roost in US towns, as they do in France: you'd expect ministers). They reflect the interests and opinions of the world wide agri-culture, as we've already discussed. [/QUOTE]
No, I still don't understand. Rural, agricultural population are not stupid populations. Rural conservatism maintains traditional values - it doesn't create totally new values. That's why I ask where does it come from? Young Earth creationism is not a traditional value that goes together with the globally existing xenophobia and sticking to old custums. Values are not created in a vacuum, so if the educations system does not play a role in this, the ideas must still come from somewhere. Young earth creationism is not a European heritage and not traditional to the US either.
No, I still don't understand. Rural, agricultural population are not stupid populations. Rural conservatism maintains traditional values - it doesn't create totally new values. That's why I ask where does it come from? Young Earth creationism is not a traditional value that goes together with the globally existing xenophobia and sticking to old custums. Values are not created in a vacuum, so if the educations system does not play a role in this, the ideas must still come from somewhere. Young earth creationism is not a European heritage and not traditional to the US either.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Regarding Creationism, there's a long article in the current issue of Wired detailing exactly the key points of this discussion. Personally Im in transition between atheist and fundamentalistic anti-religious extremist Since I'm not muslim, I should be fairly safe from the goon-squad...
Since I'm not muslim, I should be fairly safe from the goon-squad...The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman