Loading...
From a Bill to a Law
Quiz by J Crissman
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.Legislative Structure: Congress -- two houses: Senate (2 senators from each state, 6 year terms, must be at least 30 years old and have been a citizen for at least nine years) -- Constitution originally allowed state legislatures to choose the two senators but now elected by popular vote House of Representatives (number based on population of state, determined every ten years in a census -- number now set at 435; 2 year terms, must be at least 25 years old and have been a citizen for 7 years) Legislative Powers: Makes the laws -- any senator or representative can propose a bill -- if majority in one house favors it, bill goes to other house for debate -- if approved by both -- goes to the president to be signed into law -- President can veto any proposed law but can then be overruled if there is a two thirds majority in both houses favoring the law Elastic Clause -- can make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its other powers Only the House of Representatives can propose new taxes Only Congress can decide on how to spend the money raised through taxes Power to raise (pay for) an army and navy To declare war Approves treaties and executive appointments -- Senate How was the debate over how the president should be chosen resolved? The Electoral College System -- made up of electors who cast votes to elect the president and vice-president every four years Each state has as many electors in the Electoral College as the number of senators and reps it sends to Congress. The votes cast by electors are called electoral votes. Delegates left the method of choosing electors up to each state. Before 1820, state legislatures chose electors in most states. Today, people choose their state’s electors when they vote in presidential elections. The electors then cast their ballots for president and vice-president on a date chosen by Congress. Today must win at least 270 of the 538 total electoral votesDuring the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers met to develop a government that would take over as soon as the British left. By 1777, they had written the Articles of Confederation, which created the first United States government. Under the Articles, the states joined together in an alliance of separate state powers with a very weak central government. For example, the government could not collect taxes or keep a standing military. After ten years, the Founding Fathers realized the Articles created a government that was too weak to work! They decided it was time for a change. The Founding Fathers wanted a stronger government that had more authority with the states. Representatives from each state gathered in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787 to discuss possible changes. They agreed on a federalist government, where a central power would oversee and share authority with the states. To make sure the federal government did not gain too much power, they created three branches to provide for checks and balances. The legislative branch would make the laws, the judicial branch would interpret the laws, and the executive branch would enforce the laws. This solved many problems, but one large issue remained: how would the states be represented in this new federal government? At first, the bigger states wanted the population of a state to determine the amount of representation. But the smaller states called foul! The bigger states would end up deciding the laws for everyone. The smaller states suggested that each state have an equal number of representatives. But that would end up giving smaller states too much power. Finally delegates from Connecticut submitted a solution: Why not have two houses make up the legislative branch? The Senate would have an equal number of representatives from each state. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on the state’s population. This model is called bicameral representation and helped the delegates find a compromise. Between May and September 1787, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention compromised on many issues in order to unite and build a strong national government. They decided the office of the executive would consist of one person and that the national government would have the power to tax and to create a military. These decisions determined that the new federal government would have more authority than before. Some delegates disagreed with the new system, but many of their concerns would be addressed when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1789. Looking Ahead At the end of the Constitutional Convention, the delegates signed the Constitution. Many saw a bright future ahead for the United States. The document guarantees a government with three branches based on a system of checks and balances. The delegates of the Convention successfully created a government that addressed the needs of small and large states alike, while providing for a federal government that would tie them together. Chapter 7 Study Guide Answers What does the Bill of Rights do? The Bill of Rights lists our basic rights. Who is the person mainly responsible for the Bill of Rights? James Madison is the person mainly responsible for the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is part of which document? The Bill of Rights is part of the United States Constitution. Whose job is it to protect our rights listed in the bill of rights? It is the job of the federal courts (judicial branch) to protect our rights. What are the five rights listed in the first amendment? Freedom of speech: includes symbolic speech; does not include speech that could endanger the public safety. Religion: Right to believe whatever you want, but you can’t do whatever you want in the name of religion (can’t break the law). Press: The free flow of information and ideas; can’t print lies or information that could be helpful to an enemy in wartime. Assembly: Use public property for meetings and demonstrations (i.e. parades, protests, political rallies). Must be done legally and peaceably. Right to petition: Means you can appeal to the government if you’re unhappy about something or some policy. Give one example of speech NOT protected under the first amendment. An example of speech not protected under the first amendment would be crying “fire” in a crowded movie theater (anything that could potentially endanger the public safety). What does the second amendment give us the right to? The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. What does the third amendment state we are not legally obligated to do? Under the third amendment, we are not obligated to quarter (or house) soldiers in our homes. What does the fourth amendment protect us from? The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. What is needed in order to search or seize property? A warrant is needed, which must be issued by a judge, in order to search and seize property. What five rights are we guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment? Right to a grand jury: determines whether or not the government has enough evidence to bring someone to trial. Double jeopardy: Once a person has been found not guilty, he cannot be tried again for the same crime. Self incrimination: A person has the right to remain silent; he does not have to testify against himself. Due process: The government must follow a clear set of rules (a process) as it carries out the law and takes your life, liberty, or property. Just compensation: If the government has to take someone’s land, they will offer a fair price. What is the right stated in the “Miranda Warning”? The main right stated in the “Miranda Warning” is the right to remain silent. What are the four rights stated under the sixth amendment? Right to a speedy and public trial, and an impartial jury. Right to a jury of people that live in the defendant’s area (jury of your peers). To hear and question all witnesses Right to an attorney As stated in the seventh amendment, we have the right to which type of trial depending on how much money a person is being sued for? What can a judge NOT do? Under the seventh amendment, we have the right to a jury trial depending on how much money is at stake in a civil trial. A judge cannot overturn a decision made by a jury. What are the four things that are prohibited under the eighth amendment? The four things that are prohibited (or not allowed) under the eighth amendment are: excessive fines, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments, and poor prison conditions. Under the ninth amendment, rights not listed in the Bill of Rights belong to whom? According to the ninth amendment, rights not listed in the Bill of Rights belong to the people. The tenth amendment states that powers not given to the national government are reserved for whom? According to the tenth amendment, powers not specifically given to the national government are reserved for the people and the states. What is meant by the term “double jeopardy”? The term “double Jeopardy” refers to a person being retried for a crime in which he has already been acquitted, or found “not guilty”. What does it mean to be indicted by a grand jury? To be indicted by a grand jury means that a person will be going to trial and will retain all of the rights listed in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments.John Adams the first Vice President and second President of the United States James Armistead black slave who served in the colonial army as a spy General Edward Braddock commander of all British forces in North America during the French and Indian War Nathan Hale "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Patrick Henry Virginian who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" New York City our nation's first capital Battle of Bunker Hill the first major battle in the War for Independence judicial the branch of government that interprets the law executive the branch of government that enforces the law legislative the branch of government that makes the law Articles of Confederation the first plan of government that the United States had agreed upon Bill of Rights lists the rights or freedoms the Constitution gives to Americans; written in the form of ten amendments Constitution of the U.S. plan of government our country still follows today Declaration of Independence document written by Jefferson declaring the independence of the colonies from England First Amendment gives Americans the following freedoms: religion, speech, press, and assembly Treaty of Paris document signed by England giving up the American colonies and making them officially free and independent Inauguration Day The day the President takes his oath of office Valley Forge Washington's army spent the harsh winter of 1777-1778 Second Continental Congress The decision to organize the Continental Army was made at the ??? in 1775. constitutional republic The form of government in which the people and their elected representatives are limited by a constitution patriots Those who wanted America to be free from Britain's controlBetween 1775 and 1782 (the years of the American Revolution) a smallpox epidemic spread across North America. By 1782, the disease had reached the villages of the Mandans and Hidatsas. The death rate was very high. The Dakotas attacked the weakened Mandan villages including On-a-slant village (today the villiage is in Fort Lincoln State Park) and Double Ditch village. By 1790, the survivors (of both disease and war) left the Heart River area and moved north to establish villages near Painted Woods Creek and at the mouth of the Knife River. The Mandans who had once occupied six large villages now lived in two small villages. There were only two remaining Hidatsa villages and another village where both Mandans and Hidatsas lived. The populations of the two tribes had been reduced by 75 percent. The Mandans and Hidatsas also suffered cultural losses because of the smallpox outbreaks. The Mandan villages had always shared some common cultural traits, but each village had a slightly different language. As the survivors were forced to move together for security, the differences disappeared. There were similar cultural losses for the Hidatsas. The Arikaras who lived farther south along the Missouri River also experienced the smallpox epidemic. By 1790, the Arikaras had been reduced from a large population living in 32 villages to a group that occupied two villages. Only 500 men of military age remained of the 4,000 Arikara warriors who had protected their villages in previous decades. In 1801, smallpox struck the people of the northern Great Plains again. This time, the epidemic killed fewer people. It is possible that the survivors of the 1782 epidemic were still immune to the virus this time. In 1830, the Army identified smallpox as a dangerous disease at Indian agencies on the lower Missouri River (in modern-day Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska). The Secretary of War, L. G. Randolph, authorized Indian agents to hire doctors to vaccinate American Indians living at the agencies. However, these agents were not ordered to vaccinate Indians. Many mothers feared the vaccine. They had seen many babies become sick because doctors did not use sterile procedures (which were unknown at the time). Sometimes vaccine was not effective and the children became sick anyway. For a variety of reasons, the Army’s vaccination campaign did little to stop smallpox epidemics among the Indians of the frontier. Indian agents on the frontier were concerned about smallpox. Non-Indian settlers were approaching the lands where the tribes lived. Disease was spreading and the agents begged the Office of Indian Affairs (part of the War Department) to provide vaccine for Indians. Finally, in 1832, Congress passed the Indian Vaccination Act. The bill appropriated $12,000 to purchase vaccine and hire doctors to vaccinate Indians. Exactly which tribes would be vaccinated was not specified in the bill. Secretary of War Lewis Cass, who administered the program, decided that the vaccination program would be extended to tribes that were friendly to the United States, those with important economic roles, and those tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) that were being forced out of southern states to relocation sites in the West. Cass specifically excluded the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras (along with other tribes living farther up the river) from the vaccination program. Cass believed the fur trade on the Upper Missouri River was no longer economically important. He also stated that the treaties that all three tribes signed in 1825 identified them as hostile towards the U. S. and its citizens. (See Document 1.) Other tribes, including the Teton Sioux (Lakotas) did not have such statements in their treaties. Cass excluded the Upper Missouri tribes from vaccination because he considered them to be far removed (both geographically and socially) from “civilized man.” Not long ago, I grabbed breakfast at a hotel in southern Spain. The only cereal available was a local version of frosted corn flakes, so I readied myself to enjoy a bowl of my childhood favorite. But my sweet indulgence wasn't what I'd expected: The cereal milk was heated — apparently standard in this part of Spain — and my poor frosted flakes immediately turned to mush. Not so grrrrrrreat. Soggy flakes or not, I find breakfast to be a fun part of my travel day, especially because the experience varies so much from one country's breakfast table to the next. The farther north you go in Europe, the heartier the breakfasts. The heaviest is the traditional British "fry." Also known as a "Plate of Cardiac Arrest," the fry is a fundamental part of the bed-and-breakfast experience, and is generally included in your room price. A standard fry comes with cereal or porridge, a fried egg, Canadian-style bacon or sausage (and sometimes mackerel or haggis), a grilled tomato, sautéed mushrooms, baked beans, and fried bread or toast. This protein-stuffed meal can tide me over until dinner. You'll quickly figure out which parts of the fry you like. Your host will likely ask you up front which breakfast items you actually like, rather than serve you the whole shebang and risk having to throw out uneaten food. The Scandinavian breakfasts buffet is the perennial favorite for the "most food on the table" award. It pays to take advantage of breakfast smorgasbords when you can. For about $20 (a cheap meal in these parts), you can dig into an all-you-can-eat extravaganza of fresh bread, cheeses, yogurt, cereal, boiled eggs, herring, cold cuts, and coffee or tea. In place of cereal and milk, Scandinavians like to pour thick yogurt over their granola. Throughout the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and most points east of there, expect a more modest buffet — but still plenty of options (rolls, bread, jam, cold cuts, cheeses, fruit, yogurt, and cereal). In these countries, there's a good chance of finding hard-boiled eggs, but scrambled or fried eggs are relatively rare. In Poland, track down jajecznica, the local wake-up call of eggs scrambled with kielbasa sausage, served with a side of potato pancakes. The breakfast of choice in Russia is oladi, pancakes perfectly fried to be crisp on the outside but soft in the middle, then topped with sour cream, honey, or berries. Germans have an endearing habit of greeting others in the breakfast room with a slow and dour "Morgen" ("Morning" — short for "good morning"), though they have plenty to be happy about. Breakfast is usually included, and offers hearty fuel for the day: ham, eggs, cheese, bread, rolls, and pots of coffee. In Switzerland, don't miss an opportunity to try Bircher Muesli, a healthful mix of oats, nuts, yogurt, and fruit that tastes far more delicious than it looks. If breakfast is optional, take a walk to the nearest bakery — every German, Austrian, and Swiss town has at least a few bakeries offering a world of enticing varieties of bread and pastries, baked fresh every morning. As you move south and west (France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal), skimpier "continental" breakfasts are the norm. You'll mostly likely get a roll with marmalade or jam, occasionally a slice of ham or cheese, and coffee or tea. The good news? These little breakfasts compel you to sample regional favorites: In Spain, look for chocolate con churros (fritters served with a thick, warm chocolate drink), pan con tomate (a toasted baguette rubbed with fresh garlic and ripe tomato), or a tortilla española (a hearty slice of potato omelet). Italian breakfasts are particularly tiny, but the delicious red orange juice you get is made from Sicilian blood oranges. And you can buy a delightful toasted sandwich from a corner bar anywhere, anytime in Italy to make up for the minuscule breakfast. In France, locals just grab a warm croissant and coffee on the way to work. Queue up with the French and consider the yummy options: croissants studded with raisins, packed with crushed almonds, or filled with chocolate or cream. If you expect breakfast to be too sparse, plan ahead to supplement it with a piece of fruit and a wrapped chunk of cheese from a local market. Being a juice man, I keep a liter box of OJ in my room for a morning eye-opener. Coffee drinkers know that breakfast is the only cheap time to caffeinate yourself. Some hotels will serve you a bottomless cup of a rich brew only with breakfast. After that, the cups acquire bottoms and refills will cost you. Juice is generally available at breakfast, but in Mediterranean countries, you have to ask…and you'll probably be charged. In many countries, breakfast is included in your hotel bill, though if you make prior arrangements with the hotelier, you may be able to skip breakfast and pay a lower price for the room. If breakfast costs extra, it's often optional, and you can usually save money and gain atmosphere by buying coffee and a roll or croissant at the café down the street or by brunching picnic-style in the park. When deciding whether to request breakfast, consider your timing; if you need to get an early start, skip the breakfast — few hotel breakfasts are worth waiting around for. Come to the European breakfast table with an adventurous spirit. I'm a big-breakfast traditionalist at home, but when I feel the urge for an American breakfast in Europe, I beat it to death with a hard roll. Can you make 5 questions based on the textCreate questions based on the following text Not long ago, I grabbed breakfast at a hotel in southern Spain. The only cereal available was a local version of frosted corn flakes, so I readied myself to enjoy a bowl of my childhood favorite. But my sweet indulgence wasn't what I'd expected: The cereal milk was heated — apparently standard in this part of Spain — and my poor frosted flakes immediately turned to mush. Not so grrrrrrreat. Soggy flakes or not, I find breakfast to be a fun part of my travel day, especially because the experience varies so much from one country's breakfast table to the next. The farther north you go in Europe, the heartier the breakfasts. The heaviest is the traditional British "fry." Also known as a "Plate of Cardiac Arrest," the fry is a fundamental part of the bed-and-breakfast experience, and is generally included in your room price. A standard fry comes with cereal or porridge, a fried egg, Canadian-style bacon or sausage (and sometimes mackerel or haggis), a grilled tomato, sautéed mushrooms, baked beans, and fried bread or toast. This protein-stuffed meal can tide me over until dinner. You'll quickly figure out which parts of the fry you like. Your host will likely ask you up front which breakfast items you actually like, rather than serve you the whole shebang and risk having to throw out uneaten food. The Scandinavian breakfasts buffet is the perennial favorite for the "most food on the table" award. It pays to take advantage of breakfast smorgasbords when you can. For about $20 (a cheap meal in these parts), you can dig into an all-you-can-eat extravaganza of fresh bread, cheeses, yogurt, cereal, boiled eggs, herring, cold cuts, and coffee or tea. In place of cereal and milk, Scandinavians like to pour thick yogurt over their granola. Throughout the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and most points east of there, expect a more modest buffet — but still plenty of options (rolls, bread, jam, cold cuts, cheeses, fruit, yogurt, and cereal). In these countries, there's a good chance of finding hard-boiled eggs, but scrambled or fried eggs are relatively rare. In Poland, track down jajecznica, the local wake-up call of eggs scrambled with kielbasa sausage, served with a side of potato pancakes. The breakfast of choice in Russia is oladi, pancakes perfectly fried to be crisp on the outside but soft in the middle, then topped with sour cream, honey, or berries. Germans have an endearing habit of greeting others in the breakfast room with a slow and dour "Morgen" ("Morning" — short for "good morning"), though they have plenty to be happy about. Breakfast is usually included, and offers hearty fuel for the day: ham, eggs, cheese, bread, rolls, and pots of coffee. In Switzerland, don't miss an opportunity to try Bircher Muesli, a healthful mix of oats, nuts, yogurt, and fruit that tastes far more delicious than it looks. If breakfast is optional, take a walk to the nearest bakery — every German, Austrian, and Swiss town has at least a few bakeries offering a world of enticing varieties of bread and pastries, baked fresh every morning. As you move south and west (France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal), skimpier "continental" breakfasts are the norm. You'll mostly likely get a roll with marmalade or jam, occasionally a slice of ham or cheese, and coffee or tea. The good news? These little breakfasts compel you to sample regional favorites: In Spain, look for chocolate con churros (fritters served with a thick, warm chocolate drink), pan con tomate (a toasted baguette rubbed with fresh garlic and ripe tomato), or a tortilla española (a hearty slice of potato omelet). Italian breakfasts are particularly tiny, but the delicious red orange juice you get is made from Sicilian blood oranges. And you can buy a delightful toasted sandwich from a corner bar anywhere, anytime in Italy to make up for the minuscule breakfast. In France, locals just grab a warm croissant and coffee on the way to work. Queue up with the French and consider the yummy options: croissants studded with raisins, packed with crushed almonds, or filled with chocolate or cream. If you expect breakfast to be too sparse, plan ahead to supplement it with a piece of fruit and a wrapped chunk of cheese from a local market. Being a juice man, I keep a liter box of OJ in my room for a morning eye-opener. Coffee drinkers know that breakfast is the only cheap time to caffeinate yourself. Some hotels will serve you a bottomless cup of a rich brew only with breakfast. After that, the cups acquire bottoms and refills will cost you. Juice is generally available at breakfast, but in Mediterranean countries, you have to ask…and you'll probably be charged. In many countries, breakfast is included in your hotel bill, though if you make prior arrangements with the hotelier, you may be able to skip breakfast and pay a lower price for the room. If breakfast costs extra, it's often optional, and you can usually save money and gain atmosphere by buying coffee and a roll or croissant at the café down the street or by brunching picnic-style in the park. When deciding whether to request breakfast, consider your timing; if you need to get an early start, skip the breakfast — few hotel breakfasts are worth waiting around for. Come to the European breakfast table with an adventurous spirit. I'm a big-breakfast traditionalist at home, but when I feel the urge for an American breakfast in Europe, I beat it to death with a hard roll.