A moral dilemna

Elizabeth is a freshman, and she takes a Philosophy class taught by Professor Berkowitz.

She has been assured by her room mate Alicia, who took the class the previous semester, that the class is easy, and that Professor Berkowitz, only requires three take home essay tests, and class discussion, and that he has not changed his curriculum in years.

Professor Berkowitz passes out the syllabus the first day, explaining that the class is graded on student participation and the three take home essay tests, as well as his standard class policies, informing them that any quotation of other sources should be properly footnoted and referenced, and that plagiarism or cheating will result in immediate failure in this class.

After the second test is turned in, Professor Berkowitz notices that Elizabeth's assignment, is far better than her class discussion to date, and much better than her first essay test. Something in the paper reminds him of something, so he pulls out the papers from some of his previous classes, and notices it is very close to a paper Alicia turned in the year before. He gives the papers to one of his colleagues, Professor Jones to review, as an impartial third party.

Professor Jones, reviews the papers, and concludes that not only was it plagiarized from Alicia, but that Alicia had copied it from an article in Humanist Magazine. He informs Professor Berkowitz of this fact.

Professor Berkowitz, fails Elizabeth, and goes to the Dean of Students, petitioning to have Alicia's grade reduced from the previous year from a B to an F.

The girls find out, and are incensed. They go to the Dean and file a complaint against Professor Berkowitz, stating that they were unaware they had done anything wrong, and that the Professor should change his curriculum more often. They also argue it is unfair for the Professor to retroactively change Alicia's grades from a B to an F.

Now, I realize none of these people is particularly sympathetic, but in order, please list, with a short explanation, who you feel the sorriest for, from most to least. Elizabeth, Alicia, Professor Jones and Professor Berkowitz.

You can e-mail me the results at: sommiel@yahoo.com. Please include your gender, and your age. When I get the results, I will return an e-mail explaining what this test is for, and what the order should be, and why.

Thanks for taking my short quiz, I am compiling these statistics for a psychology paper, and any assitance I can get is very much appreciated.

Dawn

Politics as usual

I saw an article on CNN's website that made me curious about how accurate the concept of approval ratings are, as an indicator of the job a president is doing.

Let me begin by saying, I am not a big Bush fan. I don't like his stances on open borders, nor do I care for his crony promotion. I don't recall really liking a president since Reagan, and I voted for Anderson. Reagan just had a way of making you feel good for being an American. As a Libertarian, I have little interest in partisan bickering, and I don't see anything particularly admirable in either party.

So, I am wondering how much of this is press driven... I can't recall since the day he was elected, hearing anything nice about him from the press, am I being colored by what I hear? Am I losing my ability to judge aside from the media? Gosh, I sure hope not.

This is what tickled my imagination:

-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952

-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

-Kennedy: 56% mid-September, 1963

-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968

-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974

-Ford: 37% early January, 1975, and late March, 1975

-Carter: 28% late June, 1979

-Reagan: 35% late January, 1983

-George H.W. Bush: 29% late July, 1992

-Clinton: 37% early June, 1993

-George W. Bush: 37%* mid-November, 2005

* to date

Source: Gallup polls, 1952-1991; CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls, 1992-present.

Truman? Mr. "The buck stops here?" A president universally lauded as being great had at one time in his presidency, a 22% approval rating. I guess that sort of explains Adlai Stevenson's bid with the endorsement of Truman. How much did this disapproval have to do with his firing of Douglas MacArthur over strategic disagreements? How much of it was to do with McCarthy's accusations? With his ending segregation in the military? I sure don't know, I wasn't there.

I guess what these ratings to show, is that you just don't know how what you are doing as president, is going to look, 20, 40, 60 years from now.

No agenda here. Just asking the question.

Cindy Sheehan and her flock of doves

I keep seeing posters around the college supporting Cindy Sheehan, and it made me think seriously about her crusade.

Outside of the fact, that I find it incredibly nervy to request a one on one meeting with the president, unless you are a member of his staff, related to him, or another head of state, I find what she is doing odious on one particular level.

Her son volunteered for the military. He was doing something he believed in, and after one tour of duty in Iraq, he volunteered to go back. He obviously was doing something he felt strongly about. That to me would be a source of immense pride. I cannot imagine that she could deny her son's sacrifice for political motives.

We all make choices in our lives, and her son made his, and rather than to respect it, she chose to make a mockery of it. I understand grief. I understand loss. I don't understand using someone's memory to mock them. Whether or not she agrees with the war, her son obviously did. How exactly can she make the memory of him so ridiculous? How can a mother do that? We are supposed to raise our kids to become what they want to be, and not what we want them to be. Our success as parents, means that our children become individuals who see clearly the path that they want their lives to take, and take it and are willing to face the challenges that it brings with courage and morality.

There are a lot of mothers who have lost sons defending our country in some war or another. There are other mothers who have lost their children to terrorism, or other aspects of war. Mothers who lose their children to diseases or violence? I don't see them being paraded around for poltical gains.

There is always going to be someone who seeks to overthrow someone weaker, to gain power over someone powerless, the dove theory will never succeed in this world. I have tried to reserve my opinion on the war, I do not particularly like the idea of war, but sometimes, it is necessary. I do not always agree with the policies of our government. No one will ever agree 100% with anyone else. This does not make one view 100% right or 100% wrong. It never will.

While on it's face, the dove philosophy seems so right, so high minded. But it is never going to be reality. Not in this world, not now, and if history is any indicator, not ever.