Mock exam participants:  By taking the test you agree to the following:  "I swear on my honor that I have completed the translation and the essay within one continuous period of four hours (three hours for Magister-Zwischenprüfung/Vordiplom Nebenfach), with no aid except a monolingual English dictionary.  I have received no help from anyone.  I have not seen an English translation of the German text, and I have not used any sources (on the Internet or otherwise) to write my essay.  I read the article for the first time, and wrote my essay (400-600 words) about it, and completed the translation, all within a continuous four-hour period.  I understand that the essay should present an argument for or against something mentioned in the article, with a clear thesis and well-developed supporting points.  I will not summarize or quote extensively from the article, but will develop my own argument in my own words.  I understand that both the essay and the translation should be easily comprehensible to an English reader who knows no German and is unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Follow the instructions at www.mdmorrissey.com/mock.

Mock exam, June 11, 2004

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.

Der plötzliche, aber keineswegs überraschende Rücktritt des CIA-Direktors George Tenet ist ein unverkennbares Symptom für die Krise der Regierung Bush, die sich von den führenden Verantwortlichen für das Debakel im Irak trennt. Wenige Stunden nach Tenets Abdankung gab die CIA bekannt, dass auch ihr stellvertretender Leiter für Operationsplanung, der für die Auslandsspionage zuständige James Pavitt, seinen Rücktritt eingereicht hatte. Tenet ernannte Pavitts Stellvertreter, Stephen Kappes, zu seinem Nachfolger.

Präsident Bush gab Tenets Ausscheiden überhastet wenige Minuten vor seiner Abreise nach Europa bekannt, wo er einer Reihe von Feierlichkeiten zum 60. Jahrestag der Landung der Alliierten in der Normandie beiwohnt. Tenet bleibt noch bis zum 11. Juli im Amt.

Tenet und Bush schieden im Streit. Der CIA-Direktor reichte seinen Rücktritt am 2. Juni ein, nachdem es, wie in einigen Berichten geschildert, zu heftigen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen ihm und Bush gekommen war. Am nächsten Morgen informierte der Präsident zunächst seine Mitarbeiter, am Nachmittag die Öffentlichkeit.  (Published  June 7, 2004)

Translatiion	Original
The sudden but not surprising resignation of CIA-Director George Tenet is an obvious symptom for of Bush’s government (being) in a crisis, having now to get rid of those mainly that separates now from its leading politicians, which are responsible for the debacle in Iraq. A few hours after Tenet’s retirementresignation, the CIA published announced that the Deputy Director of Operationsvice leader of operation-planning, James Pavitt, who is was responsible for the department of spying foreign countriesespionage[mdm1] , handed in his resignation as well. Tenet called Pavitt’s vicedeputy, Stephen Kappes, to do take over his job.	The sudden but by no means surprising resignation of CIA Director George Tenet is an unmistakable sign of the intensifying crisis of the Bush administration, which is beginning to shed the leading personnel responsible for the US debacle in Iraq. The resignation of Tenet was followed within hours by the CIA’s public acknowledgement that Director of Operations James Pavitt, who has headed the section of the agency responsible for covert action, was retiring. Tenet named Pavitt’s deputy, Stephen Kappes, to succeed him.
President Bush published announced Tenet’s leaving departure in a hurry a few minutes before his departure to Europe, where he would takes part [mdm2] on in several events in memory of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day, the day when the Allied troops landed in the Normandy. Tenet will remains in his job until the eleventh of July.	Tenet’s own departure was hastily announced by President Bush only minutes before he began a trip to Europe for a long-scheduled series of public events around the 60th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy. The resignation takes effect July 11.
Tenet and Bush separated in quarrelanger. The CIA-D director handed in his resignation on the second of June, after – according to some reports – wild strong disagreements between himself and Bush.  The next morning the president firstly informed the members of his government, and did not inform the public in until the afternoon he informed the public.	There was little disguising the fact that the parting between Tenet and Bush was acrimonious. The CIA director turned in his resignation Wednesday night, June 2, by some accounts after a stormy session with Bush. The president did not inform his own staff until the next morning, then made the resignation public that afternoon.

 

Essay:  Write a letter to the editor agreeing or disagreeing with some point made in ONE of the following texts.  Do not quote or paraphrase extensively from the text.  Use your own words.  Make sure that your thesis refers to a specific point made in one of the texts.

Text 1:

New York Times (editorial), June 7, 2004

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, who died on Saturday after his long battle with Alzheimer's disease, projected an aura of optimism so radiant that it seemed almost a force of nature. Many people who disagreed with his ideology still liked him for his personality, and that was a source of frustration for his political opponents who knew how much the ideology mattered. Looking back now, we can trace some of the flaws of the current Washington mindset — the tax-cut-driven deficits, the slogan-driven foreign policy — to Mr. Reagan's example. But after more than a decade of political mean-spiritedness, we have to admit that collegiality and good manners are beginning to look pretty attractive.

 

President Reagan was, of course, far more than some kind of chief executive turned national greeter. He will almost certainly be ranked among the most important presidents of the 20th century, forever linked with the triumph over Communism abroad and the restoration of faith in free markets at home.

 

He profited from good timing and good luck, coming along when the country was tired of the dour pedantry of the Carter administration, wounded by the Iranian hostage crisis, frustrated by rising unemployment and unyielding inflation. Mr. Reagan's stubborn refusal to accept the permanence of Communism helped end the cold war. He was fortunate to have as his counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev, a Soviet leader ready to acknowledge his society's failings and interested in reducing international tensions.

 

Mr. Reagan's decision to send marines to Lebanon was disastrous, however, and his invasion of Grenada pure melodrama. His most reckless episode involved the scheme to supply weapons to Iran as ransom for Americans who were being held hostage in Lebanon, and to use the proceeds to illegally finance contra insurgents in Nicaragua.

 

Mr. Reagan showed little appetite for power, even less for the messy detail of politics. He joked about his work habits. "It's true hard work never killed anybody," he said in 1987. "But I figure, why take the chance?" His detachment from the day-to-day business of government was seductive for a nation that had tired of watching Mr. Carter micromanage the White House.

 

The nation's 40th president was absent from the public eye for a long time before his death, but his complicated legacy endures. Although Mr. Reagan did reverse course and approve some tax increases in the face of mounting deficits — in stark contrast to President Bush nowadays — he was still responsible for turning the Republican Party away from its fiscally conservative roots. The flawed theory behind the Reagan tax cuts, that the ensuing jolt to the economy would bring in enough money to balance the budget, is still espoused by many of the Republican faithful, including President Bush.

 

One of Mr. Reagan's advisers, David Stockman, later wrote that the real aim of fiscal policy was to create a "strategic deficit" that would slam the door and reduce the size of the federal government. Such thinking is far too prevalent in Washington to this day, and helps explain why plenty of conservatives don't seem all that bothered by the government's inability to balance its books.

 

When Ronald Reagan was elected, the institution of the presidency and the nation itself seemed to be laboring under a large dark cloud. Into the middle of this malaise came a most improbable chief executive — a former baseball announcer, pitchman for General Electric, Hollywood bon vivant and two-term California governor with one uncomplicated message: There was no problem that could not be solved if Americans would only believe in themselves. At the time, it was something the nation needed to hear. Today, we live in an era defined by that particular kind of simplicity, which expresses itself in semi-detached leadership and a black-and-white view of the world. Gray is beginning to look a lot more attractive.

Text 2:

New York Times (editorial), June 11, 2004

 

The Disability Lobby and Voting

 

Two obvious requirements for a fair election are that voters should have complete confidence about their ballots' being counted accurately and that everyone, including the disabled, should have access to the polls. It is hard to imagine advocates for those two goals fighting, but lately that seems to be what's happening.

 

The issue is whether electronic voting machines should provide a "paper trail" — receipts that could be checked by voters and used in recounts. There has been a rising demand around the country for this critical safeguard, but the move to provide paper trails is being fought by a handful of influential advocates for the disabled, who complain that requiring verifiable paper records will slow the adoption of accessible electronic voting machines.

 

The National Federation of the Blind, for instance, has been championing controversial voting machines that do not provide a paper trail. It has attested not only to the machines' accessibility, but also to their security and accuracy — neither of which is within the federation's areas of expertise. What's even more troubling is that the group has accepted a $1 million gift for a new training institute from Diebold, the machines' manufacturer, which put the testimonial on its Web site. The federation stands by its "complete confidence" in Diebold even though several recent studies have raised serious doubts about the company, and California has banned more than 14,000 Diebold machines from being used this November because of doubts about their reliability.

 

Disability-rights groups have had an outsized influence on the debate despite their general lack of background on security issues. The League of Women Voters has been a leading opponent of voter-verifiable paper trails, in part because it has accepted the disability groups' arguments.

 

Last year, the American Association of People With Disabilities gave its Justice for All award to Senator Christopher Dodd, an author of the Help America Vote Act, a post-2000 election reform law. Mr. Dodd, who has actively opposed paper trails, then appointed Jim Dickson, an association official, to the Board of Advisors of the Election Assistance Commission, where he will be in a good position to oppose paper trails at the federal level. In California, a group of disabled voters recently sued to undo the secretary of state's order decertifying the electronic voting machines that his office had found to be unreliable.

 

Some supporters of voter-verifiable paper trails question whether disability-rights groups have gotten too close to voting machine manufacturers. Besides the donation by Diebold to the National Federation of the Blind, there have been other gifts. According to Mr. Dickson, the American Association of People with Disabilities has received $26,000 from voting machine companies this year.

 

The real issue, though, is that disability-rights groups have been clouding the voting machine debate by suggesting that the nation must choose between accessible voting and verifiable voting.

 

It is well within the realm of technology to produce machines that meet both needs. Meanwhile, it would be a grave mistake for election officials to rush to spend millions of dollars on paperless electronic voting machines that may quickly become obsolete.

 

Disabled people have historically faced great obstacles at the polls, and disability-rights groups are right to work zealously for accessible voting. But they should not overlook the fact that the disabled, like all Americans, also have an interest in ensuring that their elections are not stolen.

 

Essay

 

I still remember the American election in 2000, where the world wondered how it could keep a nation like the United States of America several weeks to count and recount the votes. If one bears in mind that even today, four years after the election and only a few months before the next election there are many people in the United States and everywhere else in the world, who doubt the truth and verifiability of that election, you may ask yourself the question: Do the USA have a president, who has not been elected by the majority of the American citizens? If you accept that doubt as being justifiable that would mean more than a scandal. A fair election is in my opinion the basis of democracy!  A nation ruled by a president who has not been elected by the majority of the citizens has moved far away from democracy.

 

But new elections are near and the voters may feel insecure. As the author of the article “The Disability and Voting” mentions, two requirements for a fair election are on the one hand “that the voters should have a complete confidence about their ballots being counted accurately” and on the other hand that everyone “including the disabled, should have access to the polls”. Now there is a disagreement between the supporters of voter-verifiable paper trails, who want to provide the voters a receipt in order to check the verifiability of their vote on the one hand and on the other hand some advocates for the disabled people who think that this method would not be accessible to disabled people. 

 

In my opinion both demands are justifiable. Elections must be secure and verifiable and also accessible for everyone. Both, security of elections and accessibility for everyone is of high importance for a democratic state. A method is needed that meets both needs.

 

But is that as incompatible as it seems to be?

 

The German law concerning elections has got a similar ideal: Elections has to be secure and to be proven objectively on the one hand and accessible for everyone who is allowed to vote on the other hand. Disabled, old or sick people who cannot come to the building where the election takes place have got the opportunity to vote by letter. Another opportunity for e.g. blind people is to allow someone they trust in to help them. But there is a great difference between the American system and the German. The German election is not machine based; the voters put a sign on a piece of paper next to the person’s name they want to vote. Every paper that is not signed correctly does not count. All papers are kept securely for a long period of time. I believe in the German election system. The German example shows us that it must be possible to meet both needs. It must also be possible in the United States of America to have fair and verifiable elections. I personally do not trust in electronic voting machines without a paper trail to prove that I voted the one I wanted to.

 

To avoid another scandal and to stick to democratic election America has to invent secure election methods to keep a state (or to return to a state) with a fairly elected ruler.

 

Essay (corrected)

 

I still remember the American election in 2000, where when the world wondered how it could keep take a nation like the United States of America several weeks to count and recount the votes[mdm3] .  If one bears in mind that even today, four years after the election and only a few months before the next election, there are many people in the United States and everywhere else in the world, who doubt the truth and verifiabilityvalidity of that election, you may ask yourself the question: Does the USA have a president, who has not been elected by the majority of the American citizens? If you accept that doubt as being justifiable, that would mean be more than a scandal. A fair election is in my opinion the basis of democracy!  A nation ruled by a president who has not been elected by the majority of the citizens has moved far away from democracy.

 

But new elections are near and the voters may feel insecure. As the author of the article “The Disability and Voting” mentions, two requirements for a fair election are, on the one hand, “that the voters should have a complete confidence about their ballots being counted accurately” and, on the other hand, that everyone “including the disabled, should have access to the polls”. Now there is a disagreement between the supporters of voter-verifiable paper trails, who want to provide the voters with a receipt in order to check the verifiability of their vote, on the one hand, and on the other hand, some advocates for the disabled people who think that this method would not be accessible advantageous to disabled people[mdm4] . 

 

In my opinion, both demands are justifiable. Elections must be secure and verifiable and also accessible for everyone. Both, security of elections [mdm5] and accessibility for everyone is are of high great importance for a democratic state. A method is needed that meets both needs.

 

But is thatare these two goals as incompatible as it they seems to be[mdm6] ?

 

The German law concerning elections has got a similar ideal: Elections has have to be secure and to be proven objectivelyverifiable?, on the one hand, and accessible for everyone who is allowed to vote, on the other hand. Disabled, old or sick people who cannot come to the building where the election takes place have got the opportunity to vote by letter. Another opportunity for e.g. blind people, for example, is to allow someone they trust in to help them[mdm7] . But there is a great big difference between the American system and the German system. The German election is not machine- based; the voters put a sign mark on a piece of paper next to the person’s name they want to vote for. Every Any paper ballot that is not signed marked correctly does not count. All papers ballots are kept securely for a long period of time. I believe in the German election system. The German example shows us that it must be possible to meet both needs. It must also be possible in the United States of America to have fair and verifiable elections. I personally do not trust in electronic voting machines without a paper trail to prove that I voted for the one person I wanted to vote for.

 

To avoid another scandal and to stick toabide by democratic election principles, America the US has to invent come up with a fair and verifiable voting proceduresecure election methods to keep a state (or to return to a state) with a fairly elected ruler.