Telling the time in Spanish

SPANISH STUDENTS 10/22/25 In the sentence 'The author chose to juxtapose the wealthy neighborhood with the impoverished area to highlight social inequality,' what does 'juxtapose' most likely mean based on context clues? * 1 point to separate completely to describe in detail to criticize harshly to place side by side for comparison When reading 'This paradox confused everyone: the more he tried to save time, the less time he seemed to have,' what can you infer about a paradox? * 1 point a mathematical equation a simple solution a type of poem a contradictory statement that reveals truth The passage states: 'The author's use of symbolism was evident when the broken mirror represented the character's shattered dreams.' Based on this context, symbolism involves: * 1 point using objects to represent deeper meanings creating rhyming patterns writing in chronological order using literal descriptions only In the text 'Please elaborate on your answer by providing specific examples and detailed explanations,' the word 'elaborate' suggests the need to: * 1 point use simpler words change the topic add more detail make it shorter The critic wrote: 'The actor's performance captured every nuance of emotion, from subtle sadness to barely contained rage.' What does 'nuance' refer to in this context? * 1 point subtle variations in meaning simple emotions loud expressions obvious differences When the text says 'The implication of her silence was clear to everyone in the room, though she never spoke a word,' what does 'implication' mean? * 1 point a command given a direct statement a question asked a conclusion drawn indirectly The scientist stated: 'Based on our limited observations, our hypothesis suggests that plants grow faster with classical music.' What is a hypothesis? * 1 point a type of experiment a proven fact a final conclusion a possible explanation needing more evidence In 'Three witnesses were able to corroborate the defendant's alibi, strengthening his case significantly,' the word 'corroborate' most likely means: * 1 point to question or doubt to confirm or support to change the story to ignore completely The passage reads: 'The student needed to justify her controversial thesis with solid evidence and logical reasoning.' What does 'justify' mean here? * 1 point to make it longer to make excuses for to avoid explaining to prove something is reasonable When the text states 'The researcher was able to synthesize information from five different studies to create a comprehensive theory,' what does 'synthesize' involve? * 1 point copying one source exactly combining multiple sources to create something new rejecting all previous research focusing on only one idea When a reader encounters 'The symbolism in the novel was complex, with the recurring image of doors representing new opportunities throughout the story,' they should: * 1 point memorize all symbols skip symbolic passages look for deeper representational meanings focus only on the literal meaning If a teacher says 'Your essay needs more elaboration - expand on your main points with examples and analysis,' what critical thinking skill is being requested? * 1 point developing ideas with supporting details summarizing briefly using fewer examples changing the topic entirely In the passage 'The dark clouds gathering on the horizon seemed to foreshadow the troubles that would soon befall the village,' what literary technique is being demonstrated? * 1 point The author is using environmental details to hint at future plot developments The author is focusing on realistic weather descriptions The author is using weather to predict actual meteorological events The author is describing a coincidental weather pattern When analyzing 'Sarah knew the antagonist in her favorite novel wasn't just evil—he represented the fear of change that many people experience,' what deeper understanding about antagonists is revealed? * 1 point Antagonists are always completely evil characters Antagonists can represent abstract concepts or human struggles Antagonists must be human characters Antagonists only exist to create action scenes In the sentence 'The protagonist's journey wasn't just about reaching the destination—it was about discovering who she truly was,' what does this suggest about effective protagonists? * 1 point Protagonists must always succeed in their missions Protagonists should remain unchanged throughout the story Protagonists undergo both external and internal development Protagonists should focus only on external goals When the text states 'The word 'home' carried different connotations for each character—warmth and safety for some, confinement and obligation for others,' what critical reading skill is being highlighted? * 1 point Memorizing dictionary definitions Understanding that words have only one correct meaning Identifying grammatical structures Recognizing that word meanings can vary based on personal experience In 'While the denotation of 'snake' is simply a reptile, the author's use of it to describe the character suggests something far more sinister,' what analytical skill is required? * 1 point Understanding reptile biology Memorizing animal classifications Distinguishing between literal and figurative meanings Identifying sentence structure When examining 'The author's tone shifted from hopeful in the opening chapters to increasingly cynical as the story progressed,' what does this reveal about sophisticated writing? * 1 point Tone is unimportant in storytelling Tone changes reflect the author's developing attitude toward the subject Only the ending tone matters Authors should maintain the same tone throughout In analyzing 'The theme of the novel wasn't stated directly but emerged through the characters' repeated struggles with moral choices,' what does this demonstrate about themes? * 1 point Themes develop through patterns in the narrative Themes are only found in the conclusion Themes should always be explicitly stated Themes must be simple moral lessons When the passage reads 'From the character's nervous glances and hesitant speech, readers can infer that she's hiding something important,' what critical thinking process is being described? * 1 point Following explicit plot statements Memorizing character descriptions Making random guesses about character motivations Using textual evidence to draw logical conclusions In 'The ending was deliberately ambiguous, allowing readers to decide whether the character's actions were heroic or selfish,' what does this suggest about sophisticated literature? * 1 point Good stories always have clear, definitive endings Unclear endings indicate poor writing Ambiguity can enhance reader engagement and interpretation Authors should avoid confusing readers When analyzing 'The controversial decision to ban the book sparked debates about censorship versus protecting young readers,' what critical thinking skill is most important? * 1 point Choosing one side immediately Examining multiple perspectives before forming an opinion Avoiding difficult topics entirely Following popular opinion In 'Each character's perspective on the same event revealed how personal experiences shape our understanding of truth,' what deeper concept is being explored? * 1 point All perspectives are equally valid Perspective is unimportant in understanding events There is only one correct way to view any situation Personal background influences how we interpret events When the text states 'The community proved resilient, rebuilding not just their homes but their hope after the disaster,' what does this reveal about the concept of resilience? * 1 point Resilience encompasses both practical and emotional recovery Resilience is an innate trait that cannot be developed Resilience means avoiding all difficulties Resilience only involves physical recovery In analyzing 'The author's portrayal of the character's empathy—her ability to understand her enemy's pain even while fighting him—added complexity to the conflict,' what does this suggest about empathy? * 1 point Empathy means agreeing with everyone Empathy makes people weak in conflicts Empathy should be avoided in difficult situations Empathy can coexist with opposition and create moral complexity When examining 'The character's integrity was tested when telling the truth would hurt people she loved,' what does this reveal about integrity? * 1 point Integrity means always following rules regardless of consequences Integrity means never causing any harm to others Integrity is only important in public situations Integrity involves making difficult moral choices even when costly In 'The student learned to advocate for her ideas by presenting evidence rather than just stating opinions,' what critical skill is being developed? * 1 point Supporting positions with logical reasoning and evidence Avoiding controversial topics entirely Learning to argue loudly and persistently Always agreeing with authority figures If you rewrote a scene from 'The Birchbark House' from Omakayas's grandmother's first-person perspective instead of Omakayas's, how would this most likely change the reader's understanding? * 1 point Nothing would change since they're both female characters The language would become more formal and difficult The story would become less interesting because adults are boring Readers would gain wisdom from experience but lose the innocence of childhood discovery In a plot diagram, the rising action serves which critical purpose beyond simply building toward the climax? * 1 point To provide background information about the setting To confuse readers so the ending is surprising To develop character relationships and establish stakes that make the climax meaningful To make the story longer and more detailed When analyzing the falling action in 'The Birchbark House,' which element would be most important to consider when writing an alternate version? * 1 point Whether the consequences of the climax align with the new direction you want the story to take Making sure it's shorter than the rising action Including a moral lesson for readers How quickly the conflicts get resolved In the exposition of a story, conflict serves which essential function that many readers don't realize? * 1 point To immediately grab attention with action scenes To provide comic relief before serious events To show off the author's writing skills To establish what the characters characterization/personality, which determines what they' must learn to overcome as they face more problems

ECHT! 4.1 (S.76 -77): Telling the time in German/school timetable

Alright, Isti — here’s a longer and more detailed English version of the Isaac Newton text, still written at a level that’s accessible for Grade 4 students, but rich enough in information to meet PISA literacy expectations and EF A2-level vocabulary. I’ve kept sentences short, clear, and with explanations for new concepts so it’s easier for young learners to follow, while still including both famous facts and lesser-known stories. ⸻ Isaac Newton: The Man Who Changed the Way We See the World A Boy from a Small Village Isaac Newton was born on January 4, 1643, in Woolsthorpe, a small village in England. His life was not easy. His father died before he was born. When he was just a few months old, his mother remarried and left him to live with his grandmother. Isaac missed his parents, but he kept himself busy by making things and exploring the world around him. As a child, Isaac liked to build models and machines. He made a small windmill that could turn with the wind. He built a water clock that told the time by dripping water into a container. He even made a sundial — a clock that tells the time by using the shadow of the sun. 💡 Did you know? The sundial marks that Isaac carved as a boy can still be seen today on the wall of his old house. ⸻ School and Curiosity When Newton first went to school, he was not the top student. At first, he did not pay much attention in class. But one day, another boy teased him for not being smart. Newton decided to study hard to prove him wrong. Soon, he became the best in his class. Isaac loved asking questions. He wanted to know how and why things happened. He enjoyed watching the stars at night and thinking about how the world worked. ⸻ The Falling Apple and Gravity One of the most famous stories about Newton is the falling apple. One afternoon, Isaac sat in his mother’s garden and saw an apple drop from a tree. This made him think: “Why does the apple fall straight down? Why doesn’t it fly up into the sky?” From this question, Newton began to think about gravity — an invisible force that pulls objects toward each other. Gravity is what keeps our feet on the ground. It’s also what keeps the Moon moving around the Earth and the planets moving around the Sun. 💡 Fun fact: The apple did not hit Newton’s head. That’s just a story people made up later to make the tale more exciting. ⸻ Newton’s Three Laws of Motion Newton studied movement and wrote three important rules: 1. Objects stay still or keep moving unless something makes them change. • Example: A ball will not roll unless you push it. 2. The bigger the push, the bigger the movement. • Example: If you kick a ball harder, it will go faster and farther. 3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. • Example: When you jump off a boat, the boat moves backward as you move forward. These three laws are still used today to understand how cars, rockets, and even roller coasters work. ⸻ Discoveries in Light and Color Newton also studied light. He found that white light is not just one color — it is made of many colors. He used a glass prism to split sunlight into a rainbow. This helped scientists understand how colors work. ⸻ Inventions and New Ideas Newton made a special telescope that used mirrors instead of lenses. This type of telescope made images of planets and stars much clearer. It is still called the Newtonian telescope today. He also worked in mathematics and helped create a new type of math called calculus, which is used to study changes and movement. ⸻ Strange Experiments Newton was so curious that he sometimes tested ideas on himself. Once, he put a thin needle, called a bodkin, beside his eye to see how it would change his vision. It was very dangerous, but luckily he did not go blind. 💡 Did you know? Newton also studied alchemy — an old kind of science where people tried to turn metal into gold. He never succeeded, but it showed how wide his interests were. ⸻ Later Life and Work At the age of 27, Newton became a professor at Cambridge University. He later worked for the Royal Mint, making sure coins were made safely and stopping people from making fake money. He was very strict, and some criminals were sent to prison because of his work. Newton never married. He spent most of his life reading, writing, and doing experiments. ⸻ The End of His Life Isaac Newton died in 1727 at the age of 84. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, a famous place in London where great people of Britain are honored. His work changed the world forever. Even today, scientists, engineers, and students still use Newton’s laws and ideas. 💬 Newton once said: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” This means we can make new discoveries by learning from the work of others who came before us. give 10 questions to each passage with PISA literacy standard for kid 10 years, 1. Nikola Tesla: The Man Who Dreamed of Lightning Born: July 10, 1856 Died: January 7, 1943 When Nikola Tesla was a boy in Croatia, he saw a flash of lightning and asked his mother, “Can we catch the light?” That question never left him. As he grew older, Tesla became a brilliant inventor, especially fascinated by electricity. He believed in a future where energy could be sent wirelessly through the air—like music through the radio! Tesla invented the alternating current (AC) system, which became the foundation of modern electricity. At the time, Thomas Edison promoted direct current (DC), and the two men had a fierce competition. Many laughed at Tesla's bold ideas, but he never gave up. He dreamed of wireless communication, flying machines, and even free energy for everyone. Though he died alone and poor, today the world honors his vision. Think About It: Why do you think people didn’t believe Tesla at first? What can we learn from Tesla’s courage to dream big? 2. Charles Darwin: The Man Who Studied the World’s Weirdest Creatures Born: February 12, 1809 Died: April 19, 1882 When young Charles Darwin got on a ship called HMS Beagle, he didn’t know he would change science forever. He sailed around the world for five years, collecting plants, animals, and fossils. On the Galápagos Islands, he noticed something curious: finches had different beaks depending on their island. Why? Darwin’s observations led him to write the theory of evolution by natural selection. It explained how animals adapt and survive. But his ideas shocked many people because they seemed to challenge religious beliefs. Despite the controversy, Darwin continued his work. His book On the Origin of Species changed how we see life on Earth. Think About It: Should scientists share their ideas even if they go against what others believe? How did traveling help Darwin make new discoveries? 3. Marie Curie: The Woman Who Glowed in the Dark Born: November 7, 1867 Died: July 4, 1934 Marie Curie was born in Poland at a time when girls were not allowed to study science. But that didn’t stop her. She moved to France, worked day and night, and discovered radioactivity, a powerful energy hidden inside atoms. She and her husband, Pierre Curie, found two new elements: polonium and radium. She became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, and the only person to win in two different sciences: physics and chemistry. Even when Pierre died in an accident, Marie continued their work. Her discoveries helped doctors treat cancer—but working with radioactive materials also harmed her health. She died from radiation exposure, but her legacy lives on. Think About It: What challenges did Marie Curie face as a woman in science? Why is it important to balance discovery with safety? 4. Galileo Galilei: The Star Watcher Who Defied the Church Born: February 15, 1564 Died: January 8, 1642 Galileo loved looking at the stars. He built one of the first powerful telescopes and made stunning discoveries: mountains on the Moon, moons around Jupiter, and that the Earth orbits the Sun—not the other way around. This idea, called heliocentrism, went against the teachings of the Church. He was put on trial and forced to say he was wrong. But he wasn’t. He spent his last years under house arrest, quietly writing. Today, Galileo is called the father of modern science for daring to question what others blindly believed. Think About It: Why do you think Galileo was punished for telling the truth? Should science always follow evidence, even if it goes against powerful beliefs? 5. Isaac Newton: The Man Who Asked “Why?” When an Apple Fell Born: January 4, 1643 Died: March 31, 1727 One day, an apple fell from a tree, and Isaac Newton began to wonder: Why did it fall down, not sideways or up? This simple question led to his theory of gravity. Newton also invented calculus, described the laws of motion, and changed physics forever. But Newton wasn’t just a genius—he was curious, quiet, and often worked alone. He believed everything in nature followed rules, and it was our job to discover them. Thanks to him, we understand how planets move, how rockets launch, and why you fall when you trip. Think About It: How did Newton’s curiosity lead to great discoveries? Do you think working alone helped or hurt Newton? 6. Ada Lovelace: The First Computer Programmer Before Computers Existed Born: December 10, 1815 Died: November 27, 1852 Ada Lovelace was the daughter of the famous poet Lord Byron, but she didn’t love poetry—she loved numbers! At a time when girls were expected to sew, Ada studied mathematics. She met Charles Babbage, who designed an early computer called the Analytical Engine. Ada imagined the machine could do more than just math—it could create music, art, and even write! She wrote what is now considered the first computer program, long before real computers were built. Think About It: How did Ada imagine something that didn’t exist yet? Why do we call her a pioneer in technology? 7. Albert Einstein: The Man Who Brought Time and Space Together Born: March 14, 1879 Died: April 18, 1955 Albert Einstein wasn’t always a good student. In fact, his teachers thought he was slow. But Einstein thought deeply. He asked big questions like, “What if you could ride a beam of light?” His theories of relativity changed how we see space, time, and gravity. He also warned the world about the dangers of nuclear weapons, even though his ideas helped create them. Einstein believed science should help people, not harm them. With his messy hair, kind smile, and brilliant mind, he remains a symbol of genius. Think About It: Can someone be bad in school but still be brilliant? Should scientists be responsible for how their inventions are used? 8. Pythagoras: The Musician Who Loved Math Born: Around 570 BC Died: Around 495 BC Long ago in ancient Greece, Pythagoras believed the universe followed numbers. He discovered the Pythagorean Theorem, a rule about triangles that helps us build houses, design computers, and navigate space. He also believed that music had math inside it—that certain notes made perfect harmony because of mathematical ratios. Pythagoras started a secret school and taught his students to search for truth through numbers, shapes, and sound. Think About It: Why do you think Pythagoras saw math in everything? How does music relate to math? 9. Rosalind Franklin: The Woman Behind the DNA Discovery Born: July 25, 1920 Died: April 16, 1958 Rosalind Franklin loved looking closely at things. She used a special machine called X-ray crystallography to photograph molecules. One of her greatest photos, called Photo 51, showed the shape of DNA, the molecule that carries life’s instructions. But her work was taken without credit. Two men, Watson and Crick, used her photo to build their famous model of DNA and won the Nobel Prize. Rosalind died young and never knew how important her work became. Think About It: Why is it important to give credit in science? What can we learn from Rosalind’s quiet strength? 10. Carl Linnaeus: The Man Who Gave Names to Everything Born: May 23, 1707 Died: January 10, 1778 Have you ever wondered why a tiger is called Panthera tigris? That’s thanks to Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish scientist who created a way to name and organize every living thing. His system is still used today in biology. Linnaeus loved nature and spent his life collecting plants, animals, and even rocks. He believed that by organizing life, we could better understand it. Thanks to him, we now have a global “dictionary of nature.” Think About It: Why is it important to name and organize living things? How does order help us understand the world?

Make a quiz for Mathematics grade 2 about telling time in the hour, half hour, and quarter

She went by the name of Belisa Crepusculario, not because she had been baptized with that name or given it by her mother, but because she herself had searched until she found the poetry of "beauty" and "twilight" and cloaked herself in it. She made her living selling words. She journeyed through the country from the high cold mountains to the burning coasts, stopping at fairs and in markets where she set up four poles covered by a canvas awning under which she took refuge from the sun and rain to minister to her customers. She did not have to peddle her merchandise because from having wandered far and near, everyone knew who she was. Some people waited for her from one year to the next, and when she appeared in the village with her bundle beneath her arm, they would form a line in front of her stall. Her prices were fair. For five centavos she delivered verses from memory, for seven she improved the quality of dreams, for nine she wrote love letters, for twelve she invented insults for irreconcilable enemies. She also sold stories, not fantasies but long, true stories she recited at one telling, never skipping a word. This is how she carried news from one town to another. People paid her to add a line or two: our son was born, so-and-so died, our children got married, the crops burned in the field. Wherever she went a small crowd gathered around to listen as she began to speak, and that was how they learned about each others' doings, about distant relatives, about what was going on in the civil war. To anyone who paid her fifty centavos in trade, she gave the gift of a secret word to drive away melancholy. It was not the same word for everyone, naturally, because that would have been collective dece it. Each person received his or her own word, with the assurance that no one else would use it that way in this universe or the Beyond. Belisa Crepusculario had been born into a family so poor they did not even have names to give their children. She came into the world and grew up in an inhospitable land where some years the rains became avalanches of water that bore everything away before them and others when not a drop fell from the sky and the sun swelled to fill the horizon and the world became a desert. Until she was twelve, Belisa had no occupation or virtue other than having withstood hunger and the exhaustion of centuries. During one interminable drought, it fell to her to bury four younger brothers and sisters, when she realized that her turn was next, she decided to set out across the 2 plains in the direction of the sea, in hopes that she might trick death along the way. The land was eroded, split with deep cracks, strewn with rocks, fossils of trees and thorny bushes, and skeletons of animals bleached by the sun. From time to time she ran into families who, like her, were heading south, following the mirage of water. Some had begun the march carrying their belongings on their back or in small carts, but they could barely move their own bones, and after a while they had to abandon their possessions. They dragged themselves along painfully, their skin turned to lizard hide and their eyes burned by the reverberating glare. Belisa greeted them with a wave as she passed, but she did not stop, because she had no strength to waste in acts of compassion. Many people fell by the wayside, but she was so stubborn that she survived to cross through that hell and at long last reach the first trickles of water, fine, almost invisible threads that fed spindly vegetation and farther down widened into small streams and marshes. Belisa Crepusculario saved her life and in the process accidentally discovered writing. In a village near the coast, the wind blew a page of newspaper at her feet. She picked up the brittle yellow paper and stood a long while looking at it, unable to determine its purpose, until curiosity overcame her shyness. She walked over to a man who was washing his horse in the muddy pool where she had quenched her thirst. "What is this?" she asked. "The sports page of the newspaper," the man replied, concealing his surprise at her ignorance. The answer astounded the girl, but she did not want to seem rude, so she merely inquired about the significance of the fly tracks scattered across the page. "Those are words, child. Here it says that Fulgencio Barba knocked out El Negro Tiznao in the third round." That was the day Belisa Crepusculario found out that words make their way in the world without a master, and that anyone with a little cleverness can appropriate them and do business with them. She made a quick assessment of her situation and concluded that aside from becoming a prostitute or working as a servant in the kitchens of the rich there were few occupations she was qualified for. It seemed to her that selling words would be an honorable alternative. From that moment on, she worked at that profession, and was never tempted by any other. At the beginning, she offered her merchandise unaware that words could be written outside of newspapers. When she learned otherwise, she calculated the infinite possibilities of her trade and with her savings paid a priest twenty pesos to teach her to read and write, with her three 3 remaining coins she bought a dictionary. She poured over it from A to Z and then threw it into the sea, because it was not her intention to defraud her customers with packaged words. One August morning several years later, Belisa Crepusculario was sitting in her tent in the middle of a plaza, surrounded by the uproar of market day, selling legal arguments to an old man who had been trying for sixteen years to get his pension. Suddenly she heard yelling and thudding hoofbeats. She looked up from her writing and saw, first, a cloud of dust, and then a band of horsemen come galloping into the plaza. They were the Colonel's men, sent under orders of El Mulato, a giant known throughout the land for the speed of his knife and his loyalty to his chief. Both the Colonel and El Mulato had spent their lives fighting in the civil war, and their names were ineradicably linked to devastation and calamity. The rebels swept into town like a stampeding herd, wrapped in noise, bathed in sweat, and leaving a hurricane of fear in their trail. Chickens took wing, dogs ran for their lives, women and children scurried out of sight, until the only living soul left in the market was Belisa Crepusculario. She had never seen El Mulato and was surprised to see him walking toward her. "I'm looking for you," he shouted, pointing his coiled whip at her, even before the words were out, two men rushed her -- knocking over her canopy and shattering her inkwell -- bound her hand and foot, and threw her like a sea bag across the rump of El Mulato's mount. Then they thundered off toward the hills. Hours later, just as Belisa Crepusculario was near death, her heart ground to sand by the pounding of the horse, they stopped, and four strong hands set her down. She tried to stand on her feet and hold her head high, but her strength failed her and she slumped to the ground, sinking into a confused dream. She awakened several hours later to the murmur of night in the camp, but before she had time to sort out the sounds, she opened her eyes and found herself staring into the impatient glare of El Mulato, kneeling beside her. "Well, woman, at last you've come to," he said. To speed her to her senses, he tipped his canteen and offered her a sip of liquor laced with gunpowder. She demanded to know the reason for such rough treatment, and El Mulato explained that the Colonel needed her services. He allowed her to splash water on her face, and then led her to the far end of the camp where the most feared man in all the land was lazing in a hammock strung between two trees. She could not see his face, because he lay in the deceptive shadow of the leaves and the indelible shadow of all his years as a bandit, but she imagined from the way his 4 gigantic aide addressed him with such humility that he must have a very menacing expression. She was surprised by the Colonel's voice, as soft and well-modulated as a professor's. "Are you the woman who sells words?" he asked. "At your service," she stammered, peering into the dark and trying to see him better. The Colonel stood up, and turned straight toward her. She saw dark skin and the eyes of a ferocious puma, and she knew immediately that she was standing before the loneliest man in the world. "I want to be President," he announced. The Colonel was weary of riding across that godforsaken land, waging useless wars and suffering defeats that no subterfuge could transform into victories. For years he had been sleeping in the open air, bitten by mosquitoes, eating iguanas and snake soup, but those minor inconveniences were not why he wanted to change his destiny. What truly troubled him was the terror he saw in people's eyes. He longed to ride into a town beneath a triumphal arch with bright flags and flowers everywhere, he wanted to be cheered, and be given newly laid eggs and freshly baked bread. Men fled at the sight of him, children trembled, and women miscarried from fright, he had had enough, and so he had decided to become President. El Mulato had suggested that they ride to the capital, gallop up to the Palace, and take over the government, the way they had taken so many other things without anyone's permission. The Colonel, however, did not want to be just another tyrant, there had been enough of those before him and, besides, if he did that, he would never win people's hearts. It was his aspiration to win the popular vote in the December elections. "To do that, I have to talk like a candidate. Can you sell me the words for a speech?" the Colonel asked Belisa Crepusculario. She had accepted many assignments, but none like this. She did not dare refuse, fearing that El Mulato would shoot her between the eyes, or worse still, that the Colonel would burst into tears. There was more to it than that, however, she felt the urge to help him because she felt a throbbing warmth beneath her skin, a powerful desire to touch that man, to fondle him, to clasp him in her arms. All night and a good part of the following day, Belisa Crepusculario searched her repertory for words adequate for a presidential speech, closely watched by El Mulato, who could not take his eyes from her firm wanderer's legs and virginal breasts. She discarded harsh, cold words, words 5 that were too flowery, words worn from abuse, words that offered improbable promises, untruthful and confusing words, until all she had left were words sure to touch the minds of men and women's intuition. Calling upon the knowledge she had purchased from the priest for twenty pesos, she wrote the speech on a sheet of paper and then signaled El Mulato to untie the rope that bound her ankles to a tree. He led her once more to the Colonel, and again she felt the throbbing anxiety that had seized her when she first saw him. She handed him the paper and waited while he looked at it, holding it gingerly between thumbs and fingertips. "What the shit does this say," he asked finally. "Don't you know how to read?" "War's what I know," he replied. She read the speech aloud. She read it three times, so her client could engrave it on his memory. When she finished, she saw the emotion in the faces of the soldiers who had gathered round to listen, and saw that the Colonel's eyes glittered with enthusiasm, convinced that with those words the presidential chair would be his. "If after they've heard it three times, the boys are still standing there with their mouths hanging open, it must mean the thing's damn good, Colonel" was El Mulato's approval. "All right, woman. How much do I owe you?" the leader asked. "One peso, Colonel." "That's not much," he said, opening the pouch he wore at his belt, heavy with proceeds from the last foray. "The peso entitles you to a bonus. I'm going to give you two secret words," said Belisa Crepusculario. "What for?" She explained that for every fifty centavos a client paid, she gave him the gift of a word for his exclusive use. The Colonel shrugged. He had no interest at all in her offer, but he did not want to be impolite to someone who had served him so well. She walked slowly to the leather stool where he was sitting, and bent down to give him her gift. The man smelled the scent of a mountain cat issuing from the woman, a fiery heat radiating from her hips, he heard the terrible whisper of her hair, and a breath of sweetmint murmured into his ear the two secret words that were his alone. "They are yours, Colonel," she said as she stepped back. "You may use them as much as you 6 please." El Mulato accompanied Belisa to the roadside, his eyes as entreating as a stray dog's, but when he reached out to touch her, he was stopped by an avalanche of words he had never heard before; believing them to be an irrevocable curse, the flame of his desire was extinguished. During the months of September, October, and November the Colonel delivered his speech so many times that had it not been crafted from glowing and durable words it would have turned to ash as he spoke. He travelled up and down and across the country, riding into cities with a triumphal air, stopping in even the most forgotten villages where only the dump heap betrayed a human presence, to convince his fellow citizens to vote for him. While he spoke from a platform erected in the middle of the plaza, El Mulato and his men handed out sweets and painted his name on all the walls in gold frost. No one paid the least attention to those advertising ploys; they were dazzled by the clarity of the Colonel's proposals and the poetic lucidity of his arguments, infected by his powerful wish to right the wrongs of history, happy for the first time in their lives. When the Candidate had finished his speech, his soldiers would fire their pistols into the air and set off firecrackers, and when finally they rode off, they left behind a wake of hope that lingered for days on the air, like the splendid memory of a comet's tail. Soon the Colonel was the favorite. No one had ever witnessed such a phenomenon: a man who surfaced from the civil war, covered with scars and speaking like a professor, a man whose fame spread to every corner of the land and captured the nation's heart. The press focused their attention on him. Newspapermen came from far away to interview him and repeat his phrases, and the number of his followers and enemies continued to grow. "We're doing great, Colonel," said El Mulato, after twelve successful weeks of campaigning. But the Candidate did not hear. He was repeating his secret words, as he did more and more obsessively. He said them when he was mellow with nostalgia; he murmured them in his sleep; he carried them with him on horseback; he thought them before delivering his famous speech; and he caught himself savoring them in his leisure time. And every time he thought of those two words, he thought of Belisa Crepusculario, and his senses were inflamed with the memory of her feral scent, her fiery heat, the whisper of her hair, and her sweetmint breath in his ear, until he began to go around like a sleepwalker, and his men realized that he might die before he ever sat in the presidential chair. "What's got hold of you, Colonel," El Mulato asked so often that finally one day his chief broke 7 down and told him the source of his befuddlement: those two words that were buried like two daggers in his gut. "Tell me what they are and maybe they'll lose their magic," his faithful aide suggested. "I can't tell them, they're for me alone," the Colonel replied. Saddened by watching his chief decline like a man with a death sentence on his head, El Mulato slung his rifle over his shoulder and set out to find Belisa Crepusculario. He followed her trail through all that vast country, until he found her in a village in the far south, sitting under her tent reciting her rosary of news. He planted himself, spraddle-legged, before her, weapon in hand. "You! You're coming with me," he ordered. She had been waiting. She picked up her inkwell, folded the canvas of her small stall, arranged her shawl around her shoulders, and without a word took her place behind El Mulato's saddle. They did not exchange so much as a word in all the trip; El Mulato's desire for her had turned into rage, and only his fear of her tongue prevented his cutting her to shreds with his whip. Nor was he inclined to tell her that the Colonel was in a fog, and that a spell whispered into his ear had done what years of battle had not been able to do. Three days later they arrived at the encampment, and immediately, in view of all the troops, El Mulato led his prisoner before the Candidate. "I brought this witch here so you can give her back her words, Colonel," El Mulato said, pointing the barrel of his rifle at the woman's head. "And then she can give you back your manhood." The Colonel and Belisa Crepusculario stared at each other, measuring one another from a distance. The men knew then that their leader would never undo the witchcraft of those accursed words, because the whole world could see the voracious-puma eyes soften as the woman walked to him and took his hand in hers. Copyright © 1989 by Isabel Allende From The Stories of Eva Luna, Translated by Margaret Sayers Peden

MYTH The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine. FACT Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to force the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million. The British limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine when, in 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some thirty-five thousand square miles—to create a new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sharif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan’s emir. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine. By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This contradicted Article 6 of the Mandate which stated that “the Administration of Palestine…shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency…close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”2 Ultimately, the British admitted that the argument about the country’s absorptive capacity was specious. The Peel Commission said, “The heavy immigration in the years 1933–36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3 MYTH The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled. FACT The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British restricted Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country’s “absorptive capacity.” During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease, and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 83,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated. In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washington’s imposition of restrictive quotas.5 The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6 The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within ten years and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95% of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. Jewish Immigration to Palestine7 1919 1,806 1931 4,075 1920 8,223 1932 12,533 1921 8,294 1933 37,337 1922 8,685 1934 45,267 1923 8,175 1935 66,472 1924 13,892 1936 29,595 1925 34,386 1937 10,629 1926 13,855 1938 14,675 1927 3,034 1939 31,195 1928 2,178 1940 10,643 1929 5,249 1941 4,592 1930 4,944 By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.8 The British governor of the Sinai from 1922 to 1936 observed, “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”9 The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is…due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10 MYTH The British changed their policy to allow Holocaust survivors to settle in Palestine. FACT The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution.” After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain’s foreign minister Ernest Bevin replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”11 Some Jews reached Palestine, many smuggled in on dilapidated ships organized by the Haganah. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, sixty-five “illegal” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps on Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, and 28,000 remained imprisoned when Israel declared independence.12 MYTH As the Jewish population grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened. FACT In July 1921, Hasan Shukri, the mayor of Haifa and president of the Muslim National Associations, sent a telegram to the British government in reaction to a delegation of Palestinians that went to London to try to stop the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. Shukri wrote: We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development of our country as may be judged from the fact that the towns inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre, and Nazareth where no Jews reside are steadily declining.13 The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.14 The permanent Arab population increased by 120% between 1922 and 1947.15 This rapid growth of the Arab population was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states—constituting 37% of the total immigration to pre-state Israel—by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.16 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945, and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.17 The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922–1947, the non-Jewish population increased by 290% in Haifa, 131% in Jerusalem, and 158% in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42% in Nablus, 78% in Jenin, and 37% in Bethlehem.18 MYTH Jews stole Arab land. FACT Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut. About 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads, and Bedouins.19 Jews went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap, and—most important—without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” He insisted that “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” Instead, he advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”20 Jews only began to purchase cultivated land after buying all the uncultivated territory. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.21 When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed, “They [the Jews] paid high prices for the land and, in addition, they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”22 In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80% were ruled invalid by the government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the government land offer.23 In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by local Palestinian leaders who were later joined by Arab volunteers led by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al-Qawuqji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.24 The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.”25 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living, and ample employment opportunities.26 It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original). —Transjordan’s king Abdullah27 Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938 (which began in April 1936 with the murder of two Jews by Arabs and the subsequent murder of two Arab workers by members of the Jewish underground28), the British high commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.29 The Jews paid exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.”30 By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 were acquired from the mandatory government, 30,000 were bought from various churches, and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73% of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.31 Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, and the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and s sold land to the Jews. As’ad el-Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews.32 MYTH The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews. FACT In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize fedayeen (“one who sacrifices himself”) to terrorize Jews. El-Husseini hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country.33 Arab radicals gained influence because the British administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they began a revolt against British rule. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later chief political officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.” The British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor (financial adviser to the military administration in Palestine 1919–23) met with el-Husseini in 1920, a few days before Easter, and told him that “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world…that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine administration but in Whitehall.” He added that “if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General [Louis] Bols [chief administrator in Palestine, 1919–20] and General [Edmund] Allenby [commander of the Egyptian force, 1917–19, then high commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.”34 El-Husseini took the colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops. Because of el-Husseini’s overt role in instigating the pogrom, the British decided to arrest him. He escaped, however, and was sentenced to ten years in absentia. A year later, some British Arabists convinced High Commissioner Herbert Samuel to pardon el-Husseini and to appoint him Mufti (a cleric in charge of Jerusalem’s Islamic holy places). By contrast, Vladimir Jabotinsky and several followers, who had formed a Jewish defense organization during the unrest, were sentenced to 15 years. They were released a few months later.35 Samuel met with el-Husseini on April 11, 1921, and was assured “that the influences of his family and himself would be devoted to tranquility.” Three weeks later, riots in Jaffa and elsewhere left forty-three Jews dead.36 El-Husseini consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools, and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute that “no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin.”37 The Mufti’s henchmen also ensured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians who discussed cooperation with the Jews from rival clans. As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, el-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.38 The Arabs found rioting an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves but made little effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: The Arabs feared being displaced by the Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs learned they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging riots. This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: “The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy.”39 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration. The Arab fear of being “displaced” or “dominated” was an excuse for their attacks on Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor—nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords—they were motivated by economics, the radical Islamic views of the Mufti, and misunderstanding. In 1929, Arab provocateurs convinced the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today to incite violence). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews, which spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron. Again, the British administration made no effort to prevent the violence, and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, most of Hebron’s Jews had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms.40 After the riots, the British ordered an investigation, resulting in the Passfield White Paper. It said the “immigration, land purchase and settlement policies of the Zionist Organization were already or were likely to become, prejudicial to Arab interests. It understood the mandatory government’s obligation to the non-Jewish community to mean that Palestine’s resources must be primarily reserved for the growing Arab economy.”41 This meant it was necessary to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. MYTH The Mufti was not a Nazi collaborator. FACT In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. The Mufti sent Hitler fifteen drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. He also asked the Axis powers to “accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the interest of the Arabs, and by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”42 In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.” He added, “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely…the Jews.” Hitler told the Mufti he opposed the creation of a Jewish state and that Germany’s objective was destroying the Jewish element in the Arab sphere.43 In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting twenty thousand Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut where he died in 1974. MYTH The bombing of the King David Hotel was part of a deliberate terror campaign against civilians. FACT British troops seized the Jewish Agency compound on June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were arrested. A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain’s restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death. In response to the British provocations, and a desire to demonstrate that the Jews’ spirit could not be broken, the United Resistance Movement planned to bomb the King David Hotel, which housed the British military command and the Criminal Investigation Division in addition to hotel guests. The Haganah pulled out of the plot and left it up to the Irgun. Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties and the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up. Three telephone calls were placed on July 22, 1946, one to the hotel, another to the French Consulate, and a third to the Palestine Post warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated. The call to the hotel was received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying, “We don’t take orders from the Jews.”44 As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the main part of the hotel were injured.45 For decades, the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament provided the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.46 In contrast to Arab attacks against Jews, which Arab leaders hailed as heroic actions, the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.47 1 Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), p. 172

“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.

Time-Telling Quiz: Half Past the Hour Name: ______________________ Date: ______________ What does "half past" specifically mean on an analog clock? A) 15 minutes have passed B) 30 minutes have passed C) 45 minutes have passed D) The hour has just begun When the minute hand points to 6, what position represents "half past"? A) The start of the hour B) Exactly halfway through the hour C) The end of the hour D) A quarter of the way through the hour If the hour hand is between 4 and 5, and the minute hand is on 6, what time is it? A) 4:15 B) 4:45 C) 4:30 D) 5:00 Which statement best describes how the hour hand moves? A) It moves quickly between numbers B) It moves slowly between numbers C) It stays in one place all the time D) It moves only at the top of each hour How many minutes are in a complete circle on a clock? A) 12 minutes B) 24 minutes C) 60 minutes D) 30 minutes When reading an analog clock for "half past", which hand should you look at first? A) The hour hand B) The second hand C) The minute hand D) The decorative hand What is the most important position of the minute hand when identifying "half past"? A) Pointing to 3 B) Pointing to 12 C) Pointing to 6 D) Pointing to 9 If a clock shows half past 7, how would this be written numerically? A) 7:15 B) 7:45 C) 7:30 D) 8:00 Which of the following is TRUE about clock hands? A) The shorter hand always shows minutes B) The longer hand always shows hours C) The longer hand shows minutes, the shorter hand shows hours D) Both hands move at exactly the same speed What is the primary challenge when learning to read "half past" times? A) Remembering the minute hand must be on 6 B) Counting all the numbers on the clock C) Understanding what an hour is D) Knowing the difference between AM and PM Answer Key: B B C B C C C C C A

Related quizzes

Related quizzes