ARTICLES THAT CONTAIN PASSIVE VOICE

Artikel 1

“ Fresh wave of killings by hunters takes Indonesian orangutan to the brink of extinction ”

Conservationists urge authorities to take action as report finds great ape population of Kalimantan region gravely endangered A Bornean orangutan carries her young. Between 750 and 1,800 orangutan were killed in Kalimantan in the year ending April 2008.Conservationists have called on the Indonesian authorities to take urgent action to save the orangutan after a report warned that the endangered great apes were being hunted at a rate that could bring them to the brink of extinction. Erik Meijaard, who led a team carrying out the first attempt to assess the scale of the problem in Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Borneo, said the results showed that between 750 and 1,800 orangutans were killed as a result of hunting and deforestation in the 12 months to April 2008.
 

SUMBER : www.google.com

The numbers, which were higher than expected, indicated that most orangutan populations in Kalimantan could be in serious danger "within the foreseeable future", said Meijaard, of the Jakarta-based People and Nature Consulting International. "At that rate… you're talking about 10-15 years until pretty much all orangutans [in Kalimantan] are gone."

Home to 90% of the world's orangutans, Indonesia also has one of the highest rates of deforestation – a phenomenon driven by a combination of illegal logging, palm oil plantations and gold mining. Loss of habitat is the main reason behind the steep decline in both the Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) and its critically endangered Sumatran counterpart (Pongo abelii). The Sumatran orangutan population is believed to be less than 7,000 and has featured on the World's 25 Most Endangered Primates list since its inception in 2000. In Borneo, an estimated 54,000 orangutans survive, half the number of 25 years ago.

Habitat loss is compounded by hunting, which, though anecdotally well known as a cause of orangutan decline, has been a neglected issue. While much of the killing documented by Meijaard and his researchers appears to have been motivated by opportunism, with villagers hunting for food, a significant proportion could be related to habitat loss. "There is conflict-related hunting where you've got plantations going in. You've got people expanding their fields and gardens and infringing on orangutan habitat, so they are being squeezed into smaller and smaller pockets of forest and automatically come into contact with people more frequently," Meijaard said.

"If you find an orangutan sitting in your garden or eating the fruit from your fruit tree or pulling up your oil palm, the logical reaction is either to scare it off or to kill it. That's what people do." To tackle the fall in orangutan populations, the Indonesian authorities had to crack down on those responsible for habitat degradation so that the Bornean forests were "better managed", according to Meijaard. Equally important was the need to curb the hunting of orangutans by raising awareness of their endangered status – and enforcing the law when such hunting was found, he said.

"So far in the entire history of orangutan conservation, I think only two people in Indonesia have ended up in jail because of illegal activities related to orangutans," Meijaard said. Only days after his survey was published last week, two Indonesian plantation workers were arrested on suspicion of killing at least 20 orangutans and proboscis monkeys. Police said the men admitted chasing the primates with dogs before shooting, stabbing or hacking them to death, but claimed they were offered money for every kill by the owners of palm oil plantations keen to reduce crop raiding. If found guilty, the workers face up to five years in prison.

Ashley Leiman, of the London-based Orangutan Foundation, agreed that better law enforcement must be the priority in the fight to save the species. "There should be more awareness, there should be more education and definitely… more enforcement," she said, accusing the Indonesian authorities of a "very lax" approach. Leiman believed the current laws were almost impossible to implement. "You almost have to find people in the very act of doing it," she said.

A spokesman for the Indonesian forestry ministry has described the report's findings as "bombastic" and said he doubted they were true. But the hunting issue should not distract from the primary threat of forest degradation, which was the root cause of conflict-related hunting, said Leiman. "When you take the combination of both, the problem is totally compounded. But it goes back to the original problem [of habitat loss]," she said, adding that the Indonesian government needed to create more protected areas if forest loss continued at the present rate.

Scaremongering was counterproductive, she said. "I don't believe orangutans will be extinct. I think as a species they will survive. They may only survive in protected areas, and probably in smaller numbers than now, but I don't think the 'cry wolf' [approach] is going to help."

Artikel 2

“ Illegal Orangutan Trader Prosecuted ”

ScienceDaily (Feb. 23, 2012) — The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Programme (SOCP) has just announced Sumatra's first ever successful sentence of an illegal orangutan owner and trader in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia.The seven-month prison sentence is only the third for Indonesia, despite orangutans being strictly protected under Indonesian law since 1924.

Although there have been over 2,500 confiscations of illegally held orangutans in Indonesia since the early 1970's, the first actual prosecution of an illegal orangutan owner occurred in Borneo in 2010, and now in Sumatra with this case in 2012. The case began with the confiscation of a young male orangutan named Julius last July in Mardinding, Karo District, in the province of North Sumatra. The owner was allegedly trying to sell the orangutan, which was believed to be three years old.

The raid was conducted by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry's Directorate-General for Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA), working in conjunction with WCS's Wildlife Crime Unit and the veterinarian and staff of the SOCP. The Wildlife Crime Unit, created by WCS in 2003 and funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other donors, provides data and technical advice to law enforcement agencies to support the investigation and prosecution of wildlife crimes.

The SOCP, implemented by the Swiss-based PanEco Foundation, and the Indonesian NGO YEL (Foundation for a Sustainable Ecosystem) have operated the only orangutan rescue center in Sumatra since 2001 and have so far reintroduced over 150 confiscated ex-pet orangutans back to the wild. Julius is now being cared for at the SOCP's orangutan quarantine center near Medan, with just over 50 other orangutans also being prepared for a return to the forest. After spending 30 days in quarantine, Julius is now living in a socialization cage, which allows him to adapt to the presence of other orangutans. Though the road to full rehabilitation might still be a long one, Julius is making excellent progress and is expected to be released back into the wild in the future.

The sentence reflects an increase in activity and action to combat the illegal wildlife trade in Indonesia in recent years. In the last two years there have been more than 20 arrests for illegally possessing or trading protected wildlife, including the critically endangered Sumatran tiger and pangolin. The prosecution is in full compliance with the Indonesian Government's own National Orangutan Conservation Strategy and Action plan, launched in 2007.

The majority of illegal pet orangutans are a byproduct of forest clearance for palm oil plantations and of conflicts between farmers and orangutans that raid crops in converted agricultural areas. In most cases, they are not hunted specifically for food or trade in Sumatra, but are more "refugees" from forests that no longer exist. Conservationists believe Julius's mother was killed at the time of his capture. Relatively few orangutans are actively traded in Sumatra, but the SOCP and PHKA still confiscate around 30 illegal pets each year, whose mothers have been killed.

The Head of Natural Resources Conservancy Agency (BBKSDA) North Sumatra, Arief Tongkagie, said: "Based on the successful completion of this case, our hope is that in the future more people will be willing to report crimes against orangutans." According to Panut, Chairman of the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Forum (FOKUS): "Increased efforts to curb crimes against orangutans will provide a deterrent effect to traders." The Wildlife Conservation Society is actively trying to reduce the damaging impact of the illegal wildlife trade.

"We commend Indonesia's Ministry of Forestry's Directorate-General for Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) for taking a hard stance on wildlife trade, which is threatening to destroy the country's natural resources," said Dr Noviar Andayani, Director of the WCS Indonesia Program. "We are hopeful that this prosecution sends a clear message that illegal wildlife trade will not be tolerated in Indonesia."

Live orangutans sold in Indonesia, or exported illegally to neighboring countries, are kept as pets or in private collections. Other wildlife traded for food, medicines, skins, biomedical research, souvenirs and pets from Indonesia include rhinos, elephants, tigers, birds, bears, orchids, marine and freshwater fish, turtles, fragrant timber, pangolins, corals, snakes, bats, sharks, and rodents.

"Working closely with law enforcement is a key component in the fight against illegal wildlife trade," said Joe Walston, WCS Executive Director for Asia programs. "If governments want to protect their wildlife resources, they need to be serious about enforcement. Clearly Indonesia is taking a lead on this front."

Ian Singleton, Director of Conservation for the PanEco Foundation and the person in charge of the SOCP, said: "It's absolutely fantastic to finally have a prosecution of an illegal orangutan 'owner' in Sumatra, but it's also long overdue. With this sentence, as long as it is widely publicized in the region, anyone considering capturing, killing or keeping an orangutan illegally will certainly think twice about it, and hopefully the numbers being killed and kept in the coming years will begin to decline."

 SUMBER : WWW.GOOGLE.COM

PASSIVE VOICE
Present Tense	·         Habitat loss is compounded by hunting. Hilangnya habitat ini diperparah oleh pemburu ·         They are not hunted specifically for food or trade in Sumatra, but are more "refugees" from forests that no longer exist. Mereka tidak diburu khusus untuk makanan atau perdagangan di Sumatra, tetapi lebih "pengungsi" dari hutan yang tidak ada lagi ·         Relatively few orangutans are actively traded in Sumatra. Orangutan relatif sedikit yang aktif diperdagangkan di Sumatera.
Present Perfect	·         His researchers appears to have been motivated by opportunism. Peneliti-nya tampaknya telah dimotivasi oleh oportunisme. ·         Although there have been over 2,500 confiscations of illegally held orangutans in Indonesia since the early 1970's. meskipun ada lebih dari 2.500 penyitaan orangutan ilegal diselenggarakan di Indonesia sejak awal 1970 ·         The SOCP and PHKA still confiscate around 30 illegal pets each year, whose mothers have been killed. Para SOCP dan PHKA masih menyita sekitar 30 hewan peliharaan ilegal setiap tahun, yang ibunya telah dibunuh
Present Continous	·         They are being squeezed into smaller Mereka sedang diperas menjadi lebih kecil ·         Julius is now being cared for at the SOCP's orangutan quarantine center near Medan Julius sekarang sedang dirawat di pusat karantina orangutan SOCP di dekat Medan
Past Tense	·         They were offered money for every kill by the owners of palm oil plantations keen to reduce crop raiding Mereka ditawarkan uang untuk setiap pembunuhan oleh pemilik perkebunan kelapa sawit untuk mengurangi penyerang tanaman ·         The raid was conducted by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry's Directorate-General for Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA) Serangan itu dilakukan oleh Departemen Kehutanan Republik Indonesia Direktorat Jenderal Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (PHKA)

EXAMPLES OF ARTICLES WHICH CONTAIN MODALS

Global Warming

Reason for Alarm?

BY GABRIEL N. LISCHAK

JULY 10, 2006

REAL TRUTH MAGAZINE

According to some, humanity is sitting on a volatile time bomb—one that could send the entire planet into a tailspin of epic destruction, with detonation not far in the future. But is this a realistic scenario?

The facts are in: The thermohaline ocean current—which moderates temperatures worldwide, preventing Europe from having a climate similar to Alaska—is slowing. Glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, the Himalayas and the Antarctic Peninsula are retreating. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean during summer is disappearing. Permafrost (permanently frozen soil) in Canada, Alaska and Siberia is melting at an alarming rate. Hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more intense, and sea levels are rising.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the average surface temperature of the earth has risen by one degree Fahrenheit (°F) during the past 100 years, with accelerated warming occurring within the past 20 years. NASA climatologists state that 2005 was the warmest year in a century, with 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 next in line. 

Few dispute that the earth is growing warmer and that there are signs identifying this. The debate lies in the seriousness of this warming trend, who or what is to blame, and whether there is a direct connection to hurricane frequency and intensity.

The term “global warming” is at the forefront of many minds, and for several reasons. Should we be concerned?

Greenhouse Gases

The earth’s climate and weather is driven by energy from the sun. This energy heats the planet, which in turn radiates that heat back into space. However, much of this heat is retained by various greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide—and this is a good thing. Without such gases contributing to this natural greenhouse effect, life as we know it would not exist. Temperatures would be similar to our airless moon, ranging wildly from 225°F during the day to negative 243°F at night. Obviously, this would not be an environment conducive for life. But due to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a hospitable 60°F. However, problems arise when the concentration of these gases increase.

Huge amounts of carbon have been captured by plants and buried in the ground in the form of coal, oil and natural gas, called fossil fuels. (In contrast to human beings, plants take in CO2 and expel oxygen.) These fuels have accumulated over the course of perhaps millions of years. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, mankind began extracting and burning earth’s vast reservoirs of these fuels. This released millions of tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere, thus increasing the levels of greenhouse gases beyond what the earth can safely handle. Since then, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen roughly 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of earth’s atmosphere, and will continue to do so for years to come.

Fossil fuels burned to power cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. CO2 emissions, 24% of methane emissions and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions.

 

At risk: On the frozen Beaufort Sea outside the Inupiat village of Kaktovik, Alaska, a polar bear pauses from a meal of whale meat. The 3,800 polar bears along the Alaskan coast face an uncertain future as global warming melts more summer sea ice each year.

Source: KRT

Also contributing a significant share of emissions are increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining. In 1997, the United States discharged roughly one-fifth of the world’s total greenhouse gases.

Estimating how much of these gases will be emitted in the future is difficult,⁽¹⁾ as it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy and institutional developments. Based on differing projections of these principal factors, several scenarios have been developed.

For example, in the absence of emissions control policies, by the year 2100, CO2 concentrations are projected to be 30 to 150% higher than today’s levels. However, even if human beings were to cease emitting heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, ⁽²⁾ the climate still would not stabilize for quite some time, as the gases that are already there will remain for decades, even centuries.

Future Warming Uncertain

It is not easy to decipher to what extent this human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases is responsible for the global warming trend. Other factors—natural climatic variations, changes in the sun’s energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols—affect our planet’s temperature, and understanding in these areas is incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there is a “discernible” human influence on climate. The observed warming trend is “unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.” In another report, the IPCC wrote, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

While scientists estimate that average global temperatures will continue to increase as levels of greenhouse gases rise, how much and how quickly remains uncertain. The IPCC projects that the planet will warm by an additional 2.2 to 10°F in the next 100 years. This large range is due to various uncertainties, such as future greenhouse gas emission rates, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate’s response to changes in the atmosphere.

Even the low end of this warming projection “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years,⁽³⁾ but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability” (ibid.).

The computer models used to forecast global climate change are still unable to accurately simulate how things may change at smaller scales.⁽⁴⁾ As a result, scientists generally feel more certain about large-scale projections (global temperature and precipitation change, average sea level rise) than small-scale ones (local temperature and precipitation changes, altered weather patterns, soil moisture changes).

As with perhaps all fields of scientific study, uncertainties associated with the science of global warming exist. Some aspects of this science are based on well-known laws and documented trends, while others range from “near certainty” to “big unknowns.”

Melting Ice

The Arctic, one of the most forbidding environments in the world, is home to the polar bear. During the summer, these animals roam this region on large chunks of floating ice, drifting for hundreds of miles. This is how they find mates and hunt for seals, fattening themselves to prepare for the severe winter. If these palettes of ice did not exist, the polar bear would not survive.

Within the past three decades, more than one million square miles of sea ice—an area the size of Norway, Denmark and Sweden combined—has vanished. Presently, ice at the southern Arctic region of the polar bear’s range is melting about three weeks sooner than has previously been the case. This affords the bears less time to hunt, eat and store fat. Due to this early melting, the Hudson Bay polar bear population has declined by 14% during the past ten years.

Some climate models predict that 50 to 60% of this vital summer sea ice will disappear by the end of this century; others predict that by just 2070, the Arctic will be completely ice-free in the summer. ⁽⁵⁾ If this does indeed occur, the world’s largest bear could become extinct.

Meanwhile, glaciers in Greenland are receding at alarming rates. Within the last five years, those along the eastern and western coasts have receded about 300 miles each. Although a total meltdown is highly unlikely, with more than one-fifth of the population living less than two feet above sea level, not much melting is required to cause significant damage.

Permafrost in the Arctic region is diminishing as well. According to a report in the Geophysical Research Letters, it could shrink by 60 to 90% by 2100. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientist states that this will increase freshwater runoff into the Arctic Ocean by 28%, lead to the release of large quantities of greenhouse gases from the soil, and upset ecosystems within a wide area.

Hurricanes Increasing?

The year 2005 was a record-breaking one for Atlantic hurricanes, with the most named storms, the most hurricanes and the most Category-five hurricanes occurring—with New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast being nearly destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. In terms of barometric pressure, the Atlantic Basin also experienced its most intense hurricane ever that year, Hurricane Wilma.

Some studies reveal that tropical storms around the world are intensifying, with computer models suggesting a shift toward extreme intensity. A big question on many minds is, “Does the warming of the earth have a direct effect on the strength of hurricanes?” Opinions are varied.

Scientists caution that one must consider questions of climate change over decades, ⁽⁶⁾ even centuries. A particularly rough hurricane season or two cannot be blamed on global warming. ⁽⁷⁾

Preliminary evidence suggests that, once hurricanes form, they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer. ⁽⁸⁾ However, much uncertainty exists about whether hurricanes and other storms will become more frequent.

According to the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, which assesses natural climate variability, “The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ⁽⁹⁾ Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions.” This is based upon an anticipated increase of energy from higher sea surface temperatures.

A study published in the Journal of Climate indicates that an 80-year buildup of atmospheric CO2 at 1% per year (compounded) leads to roughly a one-half category increase in potential hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale, and an 18% increase in precipitation near the hurricane’s core. Of course, if emissions of CO2, along with other greenhouse gases, were to be higher, then hurricanes could potentially become even stronger.

However, many other scientists are quick to point out that since the 1940s, there has been an overall decrease in hurricane activity. According to the United Nations Environment Program of the World Meteorological Organization, “Reliable data…since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased” (CNSNews).

In September 2004, in response to some labeling the busy hurricane season a byproduct of global warming, a group of climatologists, scientists, professors and other experts in climate change stated, “Computer simulations suggest that in a warmer world most of the warming would occur in the Polar Regions. Atmospheric circulation, which crucially affects storms, is driven primarily by the temperature difference, or gradient, between the tropics and the poles.

“Warmer polar regions would reduce this gradient and thus lessen the overall intensity or frequency or both of storms—not just tropical storms but mid-latitude winter storms as well (such as blizzards and northeasters).

“Again, longer periods of history bear this out. In the past, warmer periods have seen a decline in the number and severity of storms. This is well-documented in scientific journals for data extending back centuries or even millennia. If the surface temperature of the planet rises further in the future, it is likely that these declines will continue” (ibid.).

Some researchers believe other factors—including La Niña and other big weather systems—will overpower any effect global warming might have on hurricanes.

Certainty Does Exist

Global warming does in fact pose a real danger to mankind. Will human beings be able to find a solution? ⁽¹⁰⁾ Or will it lead to cataclysmic events?

The Bible reveals that in the near future, there is coming a time of great distress upon the earth: “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken” (Luke 21:25-26).

In the book of Matthew, Jesus Christ reveals more, stating that this time will be unlike any other in history ⁽¹¹⁾ :  “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved [meaning mankind would become extinct]” (24:21-22).

This time of epic destruction—worse than any other in the history of mankind—is certain to come. Undoubtedly, the effects of global warming will play a role in these events; to what degree remains to be seen.

But beyond the bad news lies the good news—global warming will not result in the extinction of mankind. Human beings will continue to exist, although the earth as we know it will be entirely different! ⁽¹²⁾ Find out how in our book Tomorrow’s Wonderful World – An Inside View!

AUXILIARY	USES
1) Will	100% certainty	Estimating how much of these gases will be emitted in the future is difficult
2) be to	Strong expectation	However, even if human beings were to cease emitting heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere
3) would	Preference	Even the low end of this warming projection “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years
4) used to	Reapeated action in the past	The computer models used to forecast global climate change are still unable to accurately simulate how things may change at smaller scales.
5)  will	100% certainty	the Arctic will be completely ice-free in the summer.
6) must	Strong necessity	Scientists caution that one must consider questions of climate change over decades
7)  can	Impossibility (negative only)	A particularly rough hurricane season or two cannot be blamed on global warming
8) will	100% certainty	they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer.
9)  may	Less than 50% certainty	The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
10)  will	Polite request	Will human beings be able to find a solution?
11)  will	100% certainty	stating that this time will be unlike any other in history
12) will	100% certainty	Human beings will continue to exist, although the earth as we know it will be entirely different!

ARTIKEL YANG MENGANDUNG SINGULAR ADJECTIVES

Sumber : Dissent magazine

Neither Revolution Nor Reform: A New Strategy for the Left

By Gar Alperovitz

For over a century, liberals and radicals have seen the possibility of change in capitalist systems from one of two perspectives: the reform tradition assumes that corporate institutions remain central to the system but believes that regulatory policies can contain, modify, and control corporations and their political allies. The revolutionary tradition assumes that change can come about only if corporate institutions are eliminated or transcended during an acute crisis, usually but not always by violence.

But what happens if a system neither reforms nor collapses in crisis?

Quietly, a different kind of progressive change is emerging, one that involves a transformation in institutional structures and power, a process one could call “evolutionary reconstruction.” At the height of the financial crisis in early 2009, some kind of nationalization of the banks seemed possible. “The public hates bankers right now,” the Brookings Institution’s Douglas Elliot observed. “Truthfully, you would find considerable support for hanging a number of bankers…” It was a moment, Barack Obama told banking CEOs, when his administration was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” But the president opted for a soft bailout engineered by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers. Whereas Franklin Roosevelt attacked the “economic royalists” and built and mobilized his political base, Obama entered office with an already organized base and largely ignored it.

When the next financial crisis occurs, and it will, a different political opportunity may be possible. One option has already been put on the table: in 2010, thirty-three senators voted to break up large Wall Street investment banks that were “too big to fail.” Such a policy would not only reduce financial vulnerability; it would alter the structure of institutional power.

Still, breaking up banks, even if successful, isn’t the end of the process. The modern history of the financial industry, to say nothing of anti-trust strategies in general, suggests that the big banks would ultimately regroup and reconcentrate and restore their domination of the system. So what can be done when “breaking them up” fails?

The potentially explosive power of public anger at financial institutions surfaced in May 2010 when the Senate voted by a 96-0 margin to audit the Federal Reserve’s lending (a provision included ultimately in the Dodd-Frank legislation, which was designed to protect American taxpayers and consumers from financial corruption and to make the financial system more accountable)—something that had never been done before. Traditional reforms have aimed at improved regulation, higher reserve requirements, and the channeling of credit to key sectors. But future crises may feature a spectrum of sophisticated proposals for more radical change offered by figures on both the left and right. For instance, a “Limited Purpose Banking” strategy put forward by conservative economist Laurence Kolticoff would impose a 100-percent reserve requirement on banks. Because banks typically provide loans in amounts many times their reserves, this would transform them into modest institutions with little or no capacity to finance speculation. It would also nationalize the creation of all new money as federal authorities, rather than the banks, would directly control system-wide financial flows. A variety of respected liberal as well as conservative economists have welcomed this strategy—including five Nobel laureates in economics.

On the left, the economist Fred Moseley has proposed that for banks deemed too big to fail “permanent nationalization with bonds-to-stocks swaps for bondholders is the most equitable solution…” Nationally owned banks, he argues, would provide a basis for “a more stable and public-oriented banking system in the future.” Most striking is the argument of Willem Buiter, the chief economist of Citigroup no less, that if the public underwrites the costs of bailouts, “banks should be in public ownership…” In fact, had the taxpayer funds used to bail out major financial institutions in 2007–2010 been provided on condition that voting stock be issued in return for the investment, one or more major banks would, in fact, have become essentially publicly controlled banks.

Unknown to most Americans, there have been a large number of small and medium-sized public banking institutions for some time now. They have financed small businesses, renewable energy, co-ops, housing, infrastructure, and other specifically targeted areas. There are also 7,500 community-based credit unions. Further precedents for public banking range from Small Business Administration loans to the activities of the U.S.-dominated World Bank. In fact, the federal government already operates 140 banks and quasi-banks that provide loans and loan guarantees for an extraordinary range of domestic and international economic activities. Through its various farm, housing, electricity, cooperative and other loans, the Department of Agriculture alone operates the equivalent of the seventh largest bank in America.

The economic crisis has also produced widespread interest in the Bank of North Dakota, a highly successful state-owned bank founded in 1919 when the state was governed by legislators belonging to the left-populist Nonpartisan League. Over the past fourteen years, the bank has returned $340 million in profits to the state and has broad support in the business community as well as among progressive activists. Legislative proposals to establish banks patterned in whole or in part on the North Dakota model have been put forward by activists and legislators in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Maine, and Massachusetts. In Oregon, with strong support from a coalition of farmers, small-business owners, and community bankers, and backed by State Treasurer Ted Wheeler, a variation on the theme, “a virtual state bank” (that is, one that has no storefronts but channels state-backed capital to support other banks) is likely to be formed in the near future. How far the various strategies may develop is likely to depend on the intensity of future financial crises, the degree of social and economic pain and political anger in general, and the capacity of a new politics to focus citizen anger in support of major institutional reconstruction and democratization.

That a long era of social and economic austerity and failing reform might paradoxically open the way to more populist or radical institutional change—including various forms of public ownership—is also suggested by emerging developments in health care. Here the next stage of change is already under way. At first, it is likely to be harmful. Republican efforts to cut back the mostly unrealized benefits of the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, provide one example of this. The first stages, however, are not likely to be the last. Polls show overwhelming distrust of and deep hostility toward insurance companies. We can also expect public outrage to be fueled by stories like that of fifty-nine-year-old James Verone who attempted to rob a bank in Gastonia, North Carolina this year—but only, he made clear, for one dollar. The reason: unemployed and without health insurance, Verone simply saw no way other than going to jail to get health care for a growth on his chest, foot difficulties, and back problems.

Cost pressures are building in ways that will also continue to undermine corporations facing global competitors, forcing them to seek new solutions. A recent report from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“National Health Expenditure Projections, 2009–2019”) projects health care costs to rise from the 2010 level of 17.5 percent of GDP to 19.6 percent in 2019. It has long been clear that the central question is to what extent, and at what pace, underlying cost pressures ultimately force development of some form of single-payer system—the only serious way to deal with the underlying problem.

A NEW national solution is ultimately likely to come either in response to a burst of pain-driven public outrage or more slowly through a state by state build up to a national system. Massachusetts, of course, already has a near universal plan, with 99.8 percent of children covered and 98.1 percent of adults. In Hawaii, health coverage (provided mostly by nonprofit insurers) reaches 91.8 percent of adults in large part because of a 1970s law mandating low cost insurance for anyone working twenty hours or more a week. In Vermont, Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation in May 2011 creating “Green Mountain Care,” a broad effort that would ultimately allow state residents to move into a publicly funded insurance pool—in essence a form of single-payer insurance. Universal coverage, dependent on a federal waiver, would begin in 2017 and possibly as early as 2014. In Connecticut, legislation approved in June 2011 created a “SustiNet” Health Care Cabinet directed to produce a business plan for a nonprofit public health insurance program by 2012, with the goal of offering such a plan beginning in 2014. In California, there is a good chance a universal “Medicare for all” bill may be on the governor’s desk for signature by mid-2012. (Similar legislation passed by both the House and the Senate was vetoed by then-Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006 and 2008.) In all, nearly twenty states will soon consider bills to create one or another form of universal health care.

One can also observe a developing institutional dynamic in the central neighborhoods of some of the nation’s larger cities, places that have consistently suffered high levels of unemployment and underemployment, with poverty commonly above 25 percent. In such neighborhoods, democratizing development has also gone forward, again paradoxically, precisely because traditional policies—in this case involving large expenditures for jobs, housing and other necessities—have been politically impossible. “Social enterprises” that undertake businesses in order to support specific social missions now increasingly make up what is sometimes called “a fourth sector” (different from the government, business, and nonprofit sectors). Roughly 4,500 not-for-profit community development corporations are largely devoted to housing development. There are now also more than eleven thousand businesses owned in whole or part by their employees; five million more individuals are involved in these enterprises than are members of private-sector unions. Another 130 million Americans are members of various urban, agricultural, and credit union cooperatives. In many cities, important new “land trust” developments are underway using an institutional form of nonprofit or municipal ownership that develops and maintains low- and moderate-income housing.

The various institutional efforts have also begun to develop innovative strategies that suggest broader possibilities for change. Consider the Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland, Ohio, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities. The cooperatives include a solar installation company, an industrial scale (and ecologically advanced) laundry, and soon a greenhouse capable of producing more than five million heads of lettuce a year. The Cleveland effort, which is partly modeled on the nearly 100,000 person Mondragón cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain, is on track to create new businesses, year by year, as time goes on. However, its goal is not simply worker ownership, but the democratization of wealth and community-building in general in the low-income Greater University Circle area of what was once a thriving industrial city. Linked by a nonprofit corporation and a revolving fund, the companies cannot be sold outside the network; they also return 10 percent of profits to help develop additional worker-owned firms in the area. (Full disclosure: The Democracy Collaborative, which I co-founded, has played an important role in helping develop the Cleveland effort. See www.Community-Wealth.org for further information on this and many other local and state efforts.)

Another innovative enterprise is Market Creek Plaza in San Diego. There a comprehensive, community-owned project links individual and collective wealth-building through a $23.5-million commercial and cultural complex anchored by a shopping center. The complex has developed a range of social and economic projects that have resulted in the employment of more than 1,700 people. Its multicultural emphasis on the arts has helped create several venues for common activity among the local Asian, Hispanic, and black communities.

Significantly, these collectively owned businesses are commonly supported by unusual local alliances, including not only progressives; labor unions; and nonprofit and religious leaders; but also, in many cases, the backing of local businesses and bankers. The efforts have also attracted surprising political support. In Indiana, for example, Republican State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has established a state linked deposit program to provide state financing support for employee ownership. At this writing, Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown has plans to introduce model legislation to support the development of an initial group of Evergreen-style efforts in diverse parts of the country. Environmental concerns are also involved; many of the enterprises are “green” by design, increasingly so as time goes on. Cleveland’s Evergreen laundry, which uses less than a third the amount of water used by comparable commercial firms, is one of the most ecologically advanced in the Midwest. In Washington state, Coastal Community Action (CCA) operates a portfolio of housing, food, health, and employment programs for low-income residents that uses development and ownership of a fourteen million dollar wind turbine to generate income to support its social service programs.

Yet another sphere of institutional growth centers on land development. By maintaining direct ownership of areas surrounding transit station exits, public agencies in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and other cities earn millions capturing the increased land values their transit investments create. The town of Riverview, Michigan, has been a national leader in trapping methane from its landfills and using it to fuel electricity generation, thereby providing both revenues and jobs. There are roughly five hundred similar projects nationwide. Many cities have established municipally owned hotels. There are also over two thousand publicly owned utilities that provide power (and, increasingly, broadband services) to more than forty-five million Americans, in the process generating $50 billion in annual revenue. Significant public institutions are also common at the state level. CalPERS, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local community development needs; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each citizen with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development (including employee-owned firms).

ALTHOUGH PUBLIC ownership is surprisingly widespread, it can also be vulnerable to challenge. The fiscal crisis, and conservative resistance to raising taxes, has led some mayors and governors to sell off public assets. In Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels sold the Indiana Toll Road to Spanish and Australian investors. In Chicago, then-Mayor Richard Daley privatized parking meters and toll collection on the Chicago Skyway and even proposed selling off recycling collection, equipment maintenance, and the annual “Taste of Chicago” festival. How far continuing financial and political pressures may lead other officials to attempt to secure revenues by selling off public assets is an open question. Public resistance to such strategies, although less widely publicized, has been surprisingly strong in many areas. Toll road sales have been held up in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and newly elected Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently voiced his opposition to an attempt to privatize Midway Airport as previously attempted by Daley. An effort to transfer city-owned parking garages to private ownership in Los Angeles also failed when residents and business leaders realized parking rates would spike if the deal went through.

One thing is certain: traditional liberalism, dependent on expensive federal policies and strong labor unions, is moribund. The government no longer has much capacity to use progressive taxation to achieve the goal of equity or to regulate corporations effectively. Congressional deadlocks on such matters are the rule, not the exception. At the same time, ongoing economic stagnation or mild upturns followed by further decay, and “real” unemployment rates in the 15 percent to 16 percent range appear more likely than a return to booming economic times.

IRONICALLY, THIS grim new order may open the way for the kinds of “evolutionary reconstructive” institutional change described here. Since the Great Depression, liberal activists and policy makers have implicitly assumed they were providing one or another form of “countervailing power” against large corporations. But institutional reconstruction aims either to weaken or displace corporate power. Strategies like anti-trust or efforts to “break up” big banks aim to weaken. Public banking, municipal utilities, and single-payer health plans attempt to displace privately owned companies. At the same time, community-based enterprises offer public officials alternatives to paying large tax-incentive bribes to big corporations.

Of course, “evolutionary reconstruction” might fail, as have most kinds of top-down national reform. The era of stalemate and decay might continue and worsen. Like ancient Rome, the United States could simply decline and fall, unable to address its social ills.

However, even during a sustained era of stalemate and decay, it may be possible to develop a coherent long-term progressive strategic direction. Such a direction would build upon the remaining energies of traditional liberal reform, animated over time by new populist anger and movements aimed at confronting corporate power, the extreme concentration of income, failing public services, the ecological crisis, and military adventurism. And it would explicitly advocate the construction of new institutions run by people committed to developing an expansively democratic polity, thereby giving political voice to the new constituencies emerging alongside the new developments at the same time it helps to begin altering underlying institutional power balances.

In connection with environmental issues, at least, some “capitalists” also seem willing to sign onto this vision. New organizations like the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) and the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) have been quietly developing momentum in recent years. BALLE, which has more than 22,000 small business members, works to promote sustainable local community development. ASBC (which includes BALLE as a member) is an advocacy and lobbying effort that involves more than 150,000 business professionals and 30 separate business organizations committed to sustainability. Leading White House figures and such Cabinet-level officials as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis have welcomed the organization as a counter to the national Chamber of Commerce. (Jeffrey Hollender, chair of ASBC’s Business Leadership Council and former CEO of Seventh Generation, has denounced the Chamber for “fighting democracy and destroying America’s economic future” because of its opposition to climate change legislation and its support for the Citizens United decision.) Gus Speth, a member of ASBC’s Advisory Board (and former environmental adviser to Presidents Carter and Clinton) offers a more far-reaching general perspective: “For the most part, we have worked within this current system of political economy, but working within the system will not succeed in the end when what is needed is transformative change in the system itself.”

AT THE heart of the spectrum of emerging institutional change is the traditional radical principle that the ownership of capital should be subject to democratic control. In a nation where 1 percent of the population owns nearly as much wealth as the entire bottom half of the nation, this principle may be particularly appealing to the young—the people who will shape the next political era. In 2009, even as Republicans assailed President Obama and his liberal allies as immoral “socialists,” a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under thirty were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.” Even if many were unsure about what “socialism” is, they were clearly open to something new, whatever it might be called. A non-statist, community-building, institution-changing, democratizing strategy might well capture their imagination and channel their desire to heal the world. It is surely a positive direction to pursue. Just possibly, it could open the way to an era of true progressive renewal, even one day perhaps step-by-step systemic change or the kind of unexpected, explosive, movement-building power evidenced in the “Arab Spring” and, historically, in our own civil rights, feminist, and other great movements. (SUMBER : http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=4056)

1) neither … nor	·         Neither Revolution Nor Reform: A New Strategy for the Left (Tidak revolusi maupun reformasi: Strategi baru untuk   menggantikan yang lama) ·          But what happens if a system neither reforms nor collapses in crisis? (tetapi apa yang terjadi jika sebuah system tidak reformasi maupun gagal saat krisis?)
2) either … or	·      But institutional reconstruction aims either to weaken or displace corporate power. (Tapi kelembagaan rekonstruksi bertujuan baik untuk melemahkan atau menggantikan kekuasaan korporasi) ·      A NEW national solution is ultimately likely to come either in response to a burst of pain-driven public outrage or more slowly through a state by state build up to a national system. (Sebuah solusi nasional baru yang akan datang baik dalam menanggapi ledakan pain-driven kemarahan publik atau lebih lambat negara oleh negara melalui membangun sistem nasional)
3) both … and	·         But future crises may feature a spectrum of sophisticated proposals for more radical change offered by figures on both the left and right (Tapi teriakan masa depan mungkin fitur spektrum dari proposal yang hebat untuk perubahan radikal yang ditawarkan oleh penggambaran diantara kiri dan kanan) ·         The town of Riverview, Michigan, has been a national leader in trapping methane from its landfills and using it to fuel electricity generation, thereby providing both revenues and jobs (Kota Riverview, Michigan, telah menjadi pemimpin nasional dalam mengolah metana dari tempat pembuangan sampah dan menggunakannya untuk bahan bakar pembangkit listrik, sehingga memberikan pendapatan dan pekerjaan)
4) not only … but also	Significantly, these collectively owned businesses are commonly supported by unusual local alliances, including not only progressives; labor unions; and nonprofit and religious leaders; but also, in many cases, the backing of local businesses and bankers (Secara signifikan, ini secara kolektif dimiliki pebisnis yang umumnya didukung oleh aliansi lokal yang tidak biasa, termasuk tidak hanya yang berkembang; buruh; dan nirlaba dan pemimpin religius; tapi juga, dalam banyak kasus, dukungan dari pebisnis lokal dan bankir)