Recopied from” www.times.com

Every presidency is the subject of competing caricatures. But almost a year into his first term, there’s something particularly elusive about Barack Obama’s political identity. He’s a bipartisan bridge-builder — unless he’s a polarizing ideologue. He’s a crypto-Marxist radical — except when he’s a pawn of corporate interests. He’s a post-American utopian

The press has churned out a new theory every week, comparing Obama to John F. Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, to George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter — to every 20th-century chief executive, it often seems, save poor, dull Gerald Ford. But none of the analogies have stuck. We’re well into the Obama era, but neither his allies nor his enemies can quite get a fix on exactly what our 44th president really represents.

Obama baffles observers, I suspect, because he’s an ideologue and a pragmatist all at once. He’s a doctrinaire liberal who’s always willing to cut a deal and grab for half the loaf. He has the policy preferences of a progressive blogger, but the governing style of a seasoned Beltway wheeler-dealer.

This is a puzzling combination, for many, because we expect our politicians’ principles to align more neatly with their approach to governing. Our deal-making Machiavels are supposed to be self-conscious “centrists” (think Ben Nelson or Arlen Specter). Our ideological liberals and conservatives are supposed to be more concerned with being right than with being ruthlessly effective.

It’s also puzzling because Obama promised exactly the opposite approach while running for the presidency. He campaigned as a postpartisan healer who would change the cynical ways of Washington — as a foe of both back-room deals and ideology-as-usual. But he’s governed as a conventional liberal who believes in the existing system, knows how to work it and accepts the limitations it imposes on him.

In hindsight, the most prescient sentence penned during the presidential campaign belongs to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker. “Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama,” he wrote in July 2008, “is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them.”

Both right and left have had trouble processing Obama’s institutionalism. Conservatives have exaggerated his liberal instincts into radicalism, ignoring the fact that a president who takes advice from Lawrence Summers and Robert Gates probably isn’t a closet Marxist-Leninist. The left has been frustrated, again and again, by the gulf between Obama’s professed principles and the compromises that he’s willing to accept, and some liberals have become convinced that he isn’t one of them at all.

They’re wrong. Absent political constraints, Obama would probably side with the liberal line on almost every issue. It’s just that he’s more acutely conscious of the limits of his powers and less willing to start fights that he might lose than many supporters would prefer. In this regard, he most resembles Ronald Reagan and Edward Kennedy. Both were highly ideological politicians who trained themselves to work within the system. Both preferred cutting deals to walking away from the negotiating table.

The upside of this approach is obvious: It gets things done. Between the stimulus package, the pending health care bill and a new raft of financial regulations, Obama will soon be able to claim more major legislative accomplishments than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson.

The downside, though, is that sometimes what gets done isn’t worth doing. The assumption that a compromised victory is better than no victory at all can produce phony achievements — like last week’s “global agreement” on climate change — and bloated, ugly legislation. And using cynical means to progressive ends (think of the pork-laden stimulus bill or the frantic vote-buying that preceded this week’s Senate health care votes) tends to confirm independent voters’ worst fears about liberal government: that it’s a racket rigged to benefit privileged insiders and a corrupt marketplace floated by our tax dollars.

At the same time, Obama doesn’t enjoy the kind of deep credibility with his base that both Reagan and Kennedy spent decades building. When Kennedy told liberals that a given compromise was the best they could get, they believed him. Whether the issue is health care or Afghanistan, Obama’s word doesn’t carry the same weight.

This leaves him walking a fine line. If Obama’s presidency succeeds, it will be a testament to what ideology tempered by institutionalism can accomplish. But his political approach leaves him in constant danger of losing center and left alike — of being dismissed by independents as another tax-and-spender, and disdained by liberals as a sellout.

Present Conditionals
Present Real Conditional
FORM

[If / When ... Simple Present ..., ... Simple Present ...]

[... Simple Present ... if / when ... Simple Present ...]
USE

The Present Real Conditional is used to talk about what you normally do in real-life situations.

Examples:

* If I go to a friend’s house for dinner, I usually take a bottle of wine or some flowers.
* When I have a day off from work, I often go to the beach.
* If the weather is nice, she walks to work.
* Jerry helps me with my homework when he has time.
* I read if there is nothing on TV.
* A: What do you do when it rains?
B: I stay at home.
* A: Where do you stay if you go to Sydney?
B: I stay with my friends near the harbor.

IMPORTANT If / When

Both “if” and “when” are used in the Present Real Conditional. Using “if” suggests that something happens less frequently. Using “when” suggests that something happens regularly.

Examples:

* When I have a day off from work, I usually go to the beach.
I regularly have days off from work.
* If I have a day off from work, I usually go to the beach.
I rarely have days off from work.

Present Unreal Conditional
FORM

[If ... Simple Past ..., ... would + verb ...]

[... would + verb ... if ... Simple Past ...]
USE

The Present Unreal Conditional is used to talk about what you would generally do in imaginary situations.

Examples:

* If I owned a car, I would drive to work. But I don’t own a car.
* She would travel around the world if she had more money. But she doesn’t have much money.
* I would read more if I didn’t watch so much TV.
* Mary would move to Japan if she spoke Japanese.
* If they worked harder, they would earn more money.
* A: What would you do if you won the lottery?
B: I would buy a house.
* A: Where would you live if you moved to the U.S.?
B: I would live in Seattle.

EXCEPTION If I were …

In the Present Unreal Conditional, the form “was” is not considered grammatically correct. In written English or in testing situations, you should always use “were.” However, in everyday conversation, “was” is often used.

Examples:

* If he were French, he would live in Paris.
* If she were rich, she would buy a yacht.
* I would play basketball if I were taller.
* I would buy that computer if it were cheaper.
* I would buy that computer if it was cheaper. Not Correct (But often said in conversation.)

IMPORTANT Only use “If”
Only the word “if” is used with the Present Unreal Conditional because you are discussing imaginary situations. “When” cannot be used.

Examples:

* I would buy that computer when it were cheaper. Not Correct
* I would buy that computer if it were cheaper. Correct

EXCEPTION Conditional with Modal Verbs

There are some special conditional forms for modal verbs in English:

would + can = could

would + shall = should

would + may = might

The words “can,” “shall” and “may” cannot be used with “would.” Instead, they must be used in these special forms.

Examples:

* If I went to Egypt, I would can learn Arabic. Not Correct
* If I went to Egypt, I could learn Arabic. Correct

* If she had time, she would may go to the party. Not Correct
* If she had time, she might go to the party. Correct

The words “could,” should,” “might” and “ought to” include conditional, so you cannot combine them with “would.”

Examples:

* If I had more time, I would could exercise after work. Not Correct
* If I had more time, I could exercise after work. Correct

* If he invited you, you really would should go. Not Correct
* If he invited you, you really should go. Correc

BELAJAR CINTA DARI SANG CICAK

Tidak terasa lembar demi lembar buku motivasi elektronik aku baca dan selami, kini aku telah berada di penghujung halaman buku itu. Tak terasa pula sudah ratusan cerita aku baca dan aku pahami. Ribuan kali hikmah menyumbul ke kosongan jiwa ini hingga sampailah pada sebuah cerita yang sungguh membukakan mata hati kita tentang kebesaran cinta.
Dari seekor cicak kita belajar bagaimana cinta itu tidak mengenal ruang dan waktu.Karena kesetiaan dan cinta pula seekor cicak mampu bertahan hidup selama 10 tahun dalam ruang yang tidak mungkin baginya mendapat makanan.

Kisah sang cicak tersebut muncul saat sebuah rumah di jepang dipugar dan dirobohkan. Sudah lazim di Jepang setiap rumah memiliki sekat diantara temboknya yang terbuat dari kayu. Dan ketika sekat itu dibongkar, sangat terkejutlah si tuan rumah mendapati seekor cicak terperangkat di dalam sebuah surat.
Saat itu yang ada dibenaknya adalah rasa penasaran sekaligus ibah melihat sang cicak. Ternyata surat dimana cicak terperangkat sudah ada disitu sejak 10 tahun yang lalu. Sang tuan rumah semakin penasaran, bagaimana seekor cicak mampu bertahan hidup 10 tahun tanpa makan dan minum di ruang gelap.Disisi lain, kakinya melekat pada surat itu.
Ketika rasa penasarannya belum terjawab, dia dikejutkan oleh sebuah kejadian luar biasa lainnya yang menimpa sang cicak. Sebuah kejadiaan yang tidak akan bisa dijelaskan dengan hukum fisika bahkan kimia. Karena ilmu itu terlalu sempit untuk menjelaskan universalitas cinta sang cicak.Ahli biologi tak akan mampu menjelaskan bagaimana mekanisme tubuh cicak mampu bertahan dalam alam di luar habitatnya. Namun cinta telah berkata lain: membalikkan yang tak mungkin menjadi suaaaaangat mungkin.
Dan Ternyata kejadian itu pulalah yang telah menyebabkan sang cicak mampu bertahan hidup selama 10 tahun.10 tahun bukan waktu yang sedikit. Dalam masa sepuluh tahun tersebut hidup cicak ternyata disambung oleh cicak lain yang dengan setianya menyuapi sang cicak yang malang dengan makanan di mulutnya. Ternyata ada cicak lain yang terus memberikan perhatiaan dan rasa cinta tulusnya pada sang cicak malang tadi.
Sungguh ini sebuah cinta, cinta yang indah. Apa yang dapat dilakukan oleh cinta adalah sebuah keajaiban, sebuah kemustahilan.Cicak itu tidak pernah meyerah, dia terus memperhatikan dan memperdulikan pasangannya. Mari kita renungkan bagaimana hewan yang kecil tersebut memiliki karunia yang begitu mengagungkan.Keagungan itu ada karena Sang Khalik yang maha mencintai semua ciptaanyya memberi mereka dengan universalitas cinta. Haruskah manusia yang memiliki derajat tertinggi diantara ciptaanNya mengingkari kepedulian dan perhatian atas sesamanya?
Haruskah manusia sebagai ciptaan paling sempurna sang Raja Manusia menjadikan cinta suci hanya kedok untuk merengkuh kenikmatan dunia.Haruskah jutaan manusia terkecewakan oleh tipu muslihat atas nama cinta.Tidakkah cicak tadi mampu menghadirkan pembelajaran yang ruaaaaar biasa bagi kita dalam memaknai kesetiaan cinta.Cinta ah cinta sejati…………dimana kau berada…………..

Scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (LAPAN) have linked climate change to the gradually diminishing areas of rainfall in a number of regions across West Java over the last 100 years.
LAPAN’s Atmosphere and Climate Applied Science Center head Thomas Djamaluddin said scientists had compared data in the first 30 years of the 20th century (1900-1930) and the last 30 years of the 20th century (1973-2002).
Based on the data, heavy annual rainfall of about 3,200 millimeters was occurring regularly in West Java in the early part of the 20th century in Bogor and its surrounding areas, including southern parts of Garut and Tasikmalaya, and spreading as far east as Ciamis, which borders Central Java.
However, data on the intensity of rainfall in the last 30 years of the century showed that the only area in the province that experienced regular intense rainfall was Bogor.
“Residents in West Java should respond by adapting to the new phenomenon because water supplies during the rainy season have gradually reduced,” Thomas told The Jakarta Post in Bandung.
Average annual rainfall across West Java has also dropped from 2,500 ml in the early 20th century to 2,000 ml today.
Thomas said the significant drop in rainfall could also take place in other areas in Indonesia.
“We have to analyze how much rainfall has decreased in other areas, so as to determine steps to be taken in accordance with conditions in respective areas,” said Thomas, the 11th LAPAN professor.
LAPAN researchers have also been investigating the effects of climate change on instances of acid rain in 12 cities in Java, Kalimantan and East Nusa Tenggara.
Acid rain occurs when the acidity, or pH level, of rainwater is below 5.6 points.
Thomas suspected there may be a correlation between the rising sea level, which contributed to chlorine elements of up to 50 percent, and the occurrence of acid rain.
The dominant factor leading to acid rain is the presence of huge levels of chlorine, as well as nitrate and sulphate from vehicle gas emissions.
The rising sea level is also believed to have contributed to the phenomenon, evident from a number of cities where air pollution levels are low but where acid rain is present. “Such as Padang in West Sumatra, Kupang

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) discovered on Friday indications of several violations in the Bank Century bailout

KPK spokesman Johan Budi said a meeting between leaders of the two institutions found four breaches of law in the Century case, which evolves around the government’s decision to inject Rp 6.76 trillion in bailout funds to the ailing bank last year.

“There were indications of banking crimes, money laundering, corruption and administrative violations,” Johan said as quoted by Antara.

The meeting was held to discuss nine findings resulting from an investigative audit conducted by the BPK into the bailout funds.

Johan said KPK would hold talks with the Financial Transactions Report and Analysis Center (PPATK), the Deposit Insurance Corporation (LPS) and the Ministry of Finance to follow up the alleged violations.

KPK has also arranged a meeting with the BPK, National Police and the Attorney General’s Office concerning the Century case on Monday.

Dua orang nenek yang lagi ambil daging qurban di SMA Negeri Glenmore, Uenak mbah di sate ben engkok mbah lanang aok,he he he

Indonesians are becoming even more confused over President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speech, during which he was expected to provide a concrete resolution to the scandal involving the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the police and the Attorney General’s Office.

A political analyst and activist from the Indonesian Civilized Circle (Lima), Ray Rangkuti, said on Monday that the speech did not resolve any problems regarding the fiasco.

“He talked for around 35 minutes. The first 29-minutes contained no clear points on how to resolve the case. The last five-minutes of the speech did not provide any resolution to the conflict either,” he told The Jakarta Post.

“The President didn’t make any decisions at all. He did not tell the police to drop the commission’s case. He didn’t state any possible punishments for police and AGO officials involved in the case,” he said.

Rangkuti said the speech did nothing but arouse more public curiosity into whether the President seriously intended to combat corruption.

Yudhoyono won a landslide victory during the presidential election last July with more than 60 percent of the votes, which took him to the second term of administration.

During his campaign, Yudhyono promised to combat corruption if he was re-elected.

The police accused two KPK deputies, Bibit Samad Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah, of bribery, power abuse and extortion.

The fact-finding team established by the President to provide recommendations on the case concluded that all charges lacked evidence and had many unresolved missing links.

The team had earlier recommended that Yudhoyono punish high-ranking officials in the National Police and the AGO for criminalizing the deputies.

The team also told the President to drop the charges against Bibit and Chandra, take action against those involved in the wiretapped conversation with businessman Anggodo Widjojo and reform the National Police and the AGO.

A wiretapped conversations involving police and AGO officials were recently played for the public at the Constitutional Court.

Anggodo allegedly gave bribes to middleman Ari Muladi, who later denied passing on the money to Bibit and Chandra.

Meanwhile, anti-corruption activists, such as Danang Widoyoko from the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), expressed their apparent disappointment in the President’s cryptic statements by demanding he be replaced.

“His statements were definitely unclear. That is why we call to fight and replace him,” a political communication expert, Effendi Gazali, said as quoted by detik.com news portal.

Vice chairman of the Institute for Democracy and Peace (Setara) Bonar Tigor Naipospos also said he was disappointed with the speech, as it did nothing to resolve the conflict between the KPK, the police and the AGO.

“The speech has risked the government’s legitimacy in its intention to eradicate corruption from the country,” he said.

“The President will not follow the recommendations of the fact-finding team. This will *have* also created confusion among officials from the KPK, the police and the AGO,” he added. (nia

Modal Verb Tutorial
Modals are special verbs which behave very irregularly in English. Englishpage.com has created one of the most in-depth modal tutorials in print or online. Study the modal explanations and complete the associated exercises and take another step toward English fluency. If you want to use the Modal Verb Tutorial as a reference only and do not want to complete the tutorial Click Here .

The tutorial should be completed as follows:
1. Read this introduction page including the section below titled “What are Modal Verbs?”

2. Complete the exercises below. After each exercise, we have listed the modals covered. Just click on the modal link to learn more about its use.

EXERCISES TOPICS COVERED
Modal Exercise 1 Can , Could , Have to , Must , Might and Should
Modal Exercise 2 Have to and Must
Modal Exercise 3 Might , Must and Should . Afterwards, you can repeat the exercise using Could , Have to and Ought to
Modal Exercise 4 Couldn’t and Might not
Modal Exercise 5 Have got to , Had Better , May and Shall
Modal Exercise 6 Could , Might , Should and Would
Modal Exercise 7 Modal Verbs Forms
Modal Final Test Cumulative Modal Test

What are Modal Verbs?
Modal verbs are special verbs which behave very differently from normal verbs. Here are some important differences:

1. Modal verbs do not take “-s” in the third person.

Examples:

He can speak Chinese.
She should be here by 9:00.
2. You use “not” to make modal verbs negative, even in Simple Present and Simple Past.

Examples:

He should not be late.
They might not come to the party.
3. Many modal verbs cannot be used in the past tenses or the future tenses.

Examples:

He will can go with us. Not Correct
She musted study very hard. Not Correct
Common Modal Verbs
Can
Could
May
Might
Must Ought to
Shall
Should
Will
Would

For the purposes of this tutorial, we have included some expressions which are not modal verbs including had better, have to, and have got to. These expressions are closely related to modals in meaning and are often interchanged with them

The Indonesian Teachers Association (PGRI) has told its members to do away with conventional teaching methods and develop new teaching paradigms allowing for more active student participation.

PGRI’s representative for international affairs, Unifah Rosyidi, told The Jakarta Post on the sidelines of an international seminar in Jakarta on Monday that it was high time Indonesia’s teachers answered to the new demands and challenges of developments in education.

“Education in the old days placed teachers in the center, but today, the learners, or students, are the center. Today, education is not just a matter of transfering knowledge, rather it is more about facilitating the students to get better, and to actualize themselves,” she said.

Monday’s seminar on developing a child-friendly school invited hundreds of teachers and lecturers from schools and universities from all over the country. Teachers from countries such as China, Egypt and Zambia also attended the event to share their experiences.

Unifah said efforts to disseminate information on students’ rights and conducive learning environments had been made over the years through seminars and training workshops.

“Changing teachers’ teaching paradigm is a long process. We need to continuously sensitize our teachers to how education has developed and how it brings new demands and challenges,” she added.

Lund University of Sweden and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency have been training teachers from various countries in developing child-friendly schools.

Bodil Rasmusson from the university said during the seminar that such schools were the ones encouraging students’ participation.

An example of students’ participation, he said, was the establishment of child rights clubs where children had the opportunities to express themselves in many different ways – through poems, drawings, or festivals that involve the whole school and community.

“There are also examples of children being involved in the creation of new school rules. We have also seen many examples of improved relationships between students and teachers in the classroom,” he said.

Unifah said to improve students’ participation in the classroom, teachers needed to establish a teaching method that was meaningful, fun, creative and inspiring for the students.

“Also, they need to design the curriculum so that it could be flexible enough to allow creativity in the teaching process,” she told the Post.

Rasmusson said developing a child-friendly school also required a provision of children’s rights.

“We also have examples *of the provisions of child’s rights* in opportunities provided to pregnant teenagers to return to school after delivery,” he said.

Unifah highlighted that it was important to establish inclusive education in the country. “It is the right of every child to get quality education without being discriminated *against*,” she said. (adh)

Present Real Conditional
FORM
[If / When ... Simple Present ..., ... Simple Present ...]

[... Simple Present ... if / when ... Simple Present ...]

USE
The Present Real Conditional is used to talk about what you normally do in real-life situations.

Examples:

If I go to a friend’s house for dinner, I usually take a bottle of wine or some flowers.
When I have a day off from work, I often go to the beach.
If the weather is nice, she walks to work.
Jerry helps me with my homework when he has time.
I read if there is nothing on TV.
A: What do you do when it rains?
B: I stay at home.
A: Where do you stay if you go to Sydney?
B: I stay with my friends near the harbor.

IMPORTANT If / When
Both “if” and “when” are used in the Present Real Conditional. Using “if” suggests that something happens less frequently. Using “when” suggests that something happens regularly.

Examples:

When I have a day off from work, I usually go to the beach.
I regularly have days off from work.
If I have a day off from work, I usually go to the beach.
I rarely have days off from work.
Present Unreal Conditional
FORM
[If ... Simple Past ..., ... would + verb ...]

[... would + verb ... if ... Simple Past ...]

USE
The Present Unreal Conditional is used to talk about what you would generally do in imaginary situations.

Examples:

If I owned a car, I would drive to work. But I don’t own a car.
She would travel around the world if she had more money. But she doesn’t have much money.
I would read more if I didn’t watch so much TV.
Mary would move to Japan if she spoke Japanese.
If they worked harder, they would earn more money.
A: What would you do if you won the lottery?
B: I would buy a house.
A: Where would you live if you moved to the U.S.?
B: I would live in Seattle.

EXCEPTION If I were …
In the Present Unreal Conditional, the form “was” is not considered grammatically correct. In written English or in testing situations, you should always use “were.” However, in everyday conversation, “was” is often used.

Examples:

If he were French, he would live in Paris.
If she were rich, she would buy a yacht.
I would play basketball if I were taller.
I would buy that computer if it were cheaper.
I would buy that computer if it was cheaper. Not Correct (But often said in conversation.)
IMPORTANT Only use “If”
Only the word “if” is used with the Present Unreal Conditional because you are discussing imaginary situations. “When” cannot be used.
Examples:

I would buy that computer when it were cheaper. Not Correct
I would buy that computer if it were cheaper. Correct
EXCEPTION Conditional with Modal Verbs
There are some special conditional forms for modal verbs in English:

would + can = could

would + shall = should

would + may = might

The words “can,” “shall” and “may” cannot be used with “would.” Instead, they must be used in these special forms.

Examples:

If I went to Egypt, I would can learn Arabic. Not Correct
If I went to Egypt, I could learn Arabic. Correct
If she had time, she would may go to the party. Not Correct
If she had time, she might go to the party. Correct
The words “could,” should,” “might” and “ought to” include conditional, so you cannot combine them with “would.”

Examples:

If I had more time, I would could exercise after work. Not Correct
If I had more time, I could exercise after work. Correct
If he invited you, you really would should go. Not Correct
If he invited you, you really should go. Correct