For more beat-deconstructions visit: Fromdabricks
Shot out to Fromdabricks and Oh Word, great blogs/websites. These guys have unbelievable music knowledge and inspire with their breakdowns and noble outlook on hip-hop. Salut!
~ peace
What?
Hip-Hop y'all, to the top y'all
Hip-Hop check it out
It's like that, and it sounds so nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
We bout to take it to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the check it out
Yo, what? And it sounds so nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
I'm bout to take it to the top, what?
Hip-Hop (hip-hop love)
To the top (to the top) hip-hop, check it out
It's like, word up, and it sounds so nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life (of my life)
[Black Thought]
The anticipation arose as time froze
I stared off the stage with my eyes closed and dove
into the deep cosmos
The impact pushed back, the first five rows
But before the raw live shows
I remember I'se a little snot-nosed
Rockin Gazelle, goggles and Izod clothes
Learnin the ropes of ghetto survival
Peepin out the situation I had to slide through
Had to watch my back my front plus my sides too
When it came to gettin mine I ain't tryin, to argue
Sometimes I wouldn'ta made it if it wasn't for you
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life and that's true
When I was handlin the shit I had to do
It was all for you, from the door for you
Speak through you, gettin paper on tour for you
From the start, Thought was down by law for you
Used to hit up every corner store wall for you
We ripped shit, and kept it hardcore for you
I remember late nights, steady rockin the mic
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
So tell the people like that y'all (that y'all)
And it sounds so nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
We bout to take it to the top..
[Common]
Yo, yo I was speakin, to my guy 'Riq and
How she was desperately seekin to Organize in a Konfusion
Usin, no protection, told H.E.R. on _Resurrection_
Caught in the Hype Williams, and lost H.E.R. direction
Gettin eight/ate in sections where I wouldn't eat H.E.R.
An under the counter love, so _Silent_-ly I _Treat_ H.E.R.
Her Daddy'll beat H.E.R., eyes all Puff-ed
In the mix on tape, niggaz had her in the buff
When we touch, it was more than just a fuck
The Police, in her I found peace (like who?)
Like Malcolm in the East
Seen H.E.R. on the streets of New York, trickin off
Tried to make a hit with H.E.R. but my dick went soft
Movin weight, losin weight, not picky - with who she choose to date
To confuse the hate, with her struggle I relate
Close to thirty, most of the niggaz she know is dirty
Havin more babies than Lauryn, she started showin early
As of late I realized, that this is H.E.R. fate
Or destiny that brings the best of me
It's like God is testin me
In _Retrospect_ I see she brought _Life_ and death to me
Peace to us collectively, live and direct when we perform
It's just coffee shop chicks and white dudes
Over H.E.R. I got into it with that nigga Ice Cube
Now the fight moved to in life, makin the right moves
Besides God and family, you my life's jewel
Like that y'all
Hip-Hop.. [echoes]
[whispered]
Take it to the top, what? Hip-Hop (hip-hip)
To the top, hip-hop (hip-hop) check it out
[Black Thought - louder]
It's like, word up, and it sounds nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life, what?
Bout to take you to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the, yo
Fifth Dynamite, and it sounds so nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
I'm bout to take you to the top love
Hip-Hop, word up, to the top (to the top)
Hip-Hop, check it out
It's like that, what? And it sounds alright
Hey, cause you the love of my life
I'm bout to take you to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the, check it out
What? Yeah, and it sounds so nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
Bout to take you to the top love
Hip-Hop (hip-hop) to the top (to the top) hip-hop (hip-hop)
Fifth Dynamite, and it sounds alright
Hey, cause you the love of my life
I'm bout to take you to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the
To the to the to the to the, check it out, yo
Ye-yeh-yo, yo, and it sounds so nice
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
We bout to take you to the top love, hip-hop (hip-hop)
To the top (to the top) hip-hop (hip-hop)
Check it out, it's like, yeah, and it's sounds alright
Hip-Hop, you the love of my life
We bout, take it to the to the to the
Professor Chris Cavacuiti on how to stay safe on the roads
What do drivers and cyclists need to know to share the road safely?
Dr. Chris Cavacuiti of the department of family and community medicine is a staff physician at St. Michael’s Hospital and an experienced cyclist who commutes on his bicycle and races competitively. He was recovering from a serious cycling accident when he began his research on cycling health and safety.
You were recovering from a cycling accident when you began your research—tell us about this.
In 2006 I was hit by a truck while training for an Ironman race. The collision left me with fractured ribs, a broken collarbone, and a shattered shoulder blade. The driver was charged and convicted for making an unsafe turn. As a physician interested in research, I used my recovery time to review the current research on cycling health and safety. I quickly came to realize that there is powerful evidence that with the proper investment in cycling infrastructure, accidents like mine would happen far less often.
Who causes accidents—cyclists or drivers?
While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.
The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling.
So what can we do to reduce bike-car accidents?
There is a wide variety of effective strategies that can reduce motorist/cyclist collisions. Many European countries have far lower rates of cycling fatalities than we do in Canada, despite having roads that are narrower and more crowded than ours. They have managed this through a combination of rigorous driver education and training as well as strong law enforcement policies that place the burden of responsibility with driver—not cyclists—when it comes to collisions. The Europeans have also done a far better job investing in cycling infrastructure to keep cyclists safe.
What do you mean by improving cycling infrastructure?
Cycling health and safety isn’t just a matter of saying ‘let’s be safe’ and ‘let’s share the road’—but recognizing that more and better infrastructure investment is essential in keeping cyclists safe. By infrastructure, I mean things like shared or designated roadways and paths, traffic calming measures, increased public education, provision of safe storage facilities and other equipment that makes cycling a safe, convenient travel choice.
Research shows, perhaps not surprisingly, that countries and communities with more investment in cycling infrastructure have higher levels of cycling and lower accident and fatality rates among vulnerable road users—cyclists and pedestrians.
Is this more than a cycling issue?
As a matter of public health, there are many recognized benefits to society as a whole for investment in cycling infrastructure. In fact, the benefits of cycling are estimated to outweigh the risks by as much as 20 to one. Cycling has the potential to be an extremely effective health promotion tool, and it’s unfortunate that it’s not yet part of the public health agenda.
When decisions are made to not to invest in the type of infrastructure that promotes healthy active lifestyles, everyone tends to suffer, especially those with lower socio-economic status, who may not have the extra resources to join a gym, for example, or live where walking or cycling can easily be a part of their daily life.
Those countries that are more committed to active lifestyles via infrastructure tend to have lower rates of childhood obesity. I must add that the studies are not necessarily causal, but there are links.
There is also solid evidence that pollution isn’t just something that makes people cough a little bit. Toronto Public Health estimates some 70,000 days lost from pollution in terms of productivity and functionality with a corresponding dollar value. Pollution also accounts for 200,000 “restricted activity days” per year, including 68,000 asthma days.
What about the bike helmet question?
I wear a helmet while riding. But to be perfectly honest, I wonder how much it actually contributes to my safety. There is a perception that if you’re not wearing a helmet, you’re to blame for your accident—that you don’t take your own personal safety very seriously. The fact is that countries that are the safest in the world for cycling have the lowest rates of helmet use. In the Netherlands, less than one per cent of cyclists wear helmets and cycling is not perceived to be a high-risk activity.
I think the helmet debate takes away from what we could be doing—it’s a distraction with an easy legislative solution. It doesn’t solve the problem of safety while cycling. It might almost be better if wearing a helmet was mandated and then work could move forward with the issues that really matter, like improved infrastructure for safe cycling.
Do you have some tips for new cyclists?
1. Know and follow the rules of the road. Always.
2. Consider taking a course to learn how to share the road as safely as possible with other vehicles. CAN-BIKE courses are offered through the City of Toronto.
3. Find a balance between being a careful rider and being confident enough to claim adequate space on the road within lanes of traffic and around parked cars.
4. Remember that motorists will not necessarily understand what the needs of a cyclist are—so educate yourself. There’s a difference between being assertive and aggressive. Self-preservation should be your primary motivation.
5. If you’re planning to become a regular cycling commuter, there will inevitably be times when you may need to ride in the dark or in the rain, so invest in some lights and some reflective clothing and also buy yourself some good quality rain gear. I ride my bike almost all year round and what I’ve come to realize is that there’s really no such thing as bad weather; there are only bad clothing choices!
Choosing one’s friends is a very weighty endeavor that can yield significant benefits. Some people aim to befriend celebrities because of the exclusive parties and the possibility of landing on Perez Hilton’s blog. Other people aim for politicians because of the connections and first dibs on bumper stickers. Still others aim for musicians because it provides a more legitimate excuse to wear tight jeans and not wash your hair. Recently, a new subset of desirable targets has come on the market: environmentalists.
Traditionally, environmentalists have not been in very high demand as friends. This is in part because they have developed a reputation for being long-winded and angry about the state of things, because they want you to replace all of your belongings with green ones, and because until now, they have been largely inaccessible, living in communal farms in Vermont and in the world’s biggest hippie compound — commonly referred to as the Pacific Northwest. They can seem like a very difficult group to infiltrate and eventually exploit.
Do not let this deter you from entering into what can be a financially and emotionally beneficial alliance. Understanding and talking about the things that environmentalists care about most will be your golden ticket to free lightbulbs, handmade soap and many other perks. In the coming week's I'll be providing a step-by-step guide to befriending environmentalists.
Step One: Bringing numerous talking points to dinner
If an environmentalist invites you over for dinner, do not assume that your host’s primary purpose is to serve you a meal. The goal is education.
You cannot assume your host is vegan or vegetarian either. Doing so could lead to a number of social faux pas that are on par with or worse than calling her a Republican. While many environmentalists are vegan or vegetarian, others can talk for hours about how it is possible to eat meat and still be green. Their requirement of course is that the animal is raised on a small farm and allowed to run around and eat grass. If you are hoping to impress a host in the latter camp, tell a story about how you are raising a few chickens in your backyard. For extra points, use the following terms: free-range, factory farm and antibiotics.
If conversation starts to lull, it’s always a good idea to bring up a paradox that engages the entire table. The most pressing question of our generation is: local or organic? This subject is sure to create a lively distraction while you grab whatever delicious food remains, leaving only the tempeh and brown rice for the other guests.
Once the meal is over, it’s always good manners to insist on doing the dishes. But do not worry about actually having to do them. Simply walk into the kitchen, put the dishes in the sink, turn on the hot water, return to the host, and say, “I’m just waiting for the water to heat up.” They will bolt into the kitchen and shut off the faucet to prevent wasting both water and energy. Feign ignorance. They will finish the job and try to offset the awkwardness of the situation by giving you the leftover local, organic peach cobbler to take home. Environmentalists like to offset things.
Step Two: Brainwashing children
Since the human population is most responsible for the destruction of the planet, you might be wondering if it is appropriate to suggest that an environmentalist commit suicide as a gift to the earth. The answer is no, mostly because environmentalists have so much work to do before they die and are eventually composted.
But while they are on earth, one of the environmentalists’ top priorities is to raise a child in the most eco-friendly fashion possible. This process begins with natural childbirth and quickly moves to a restricted diet entirely free of processed sugar, bleached flour and all other food items typically enjoyed by children. The ultimate plan is to force kids to acquire a taste for organic broccoli, whole grains and tofu before their young minds can yearn for a Happy Meal.
This is important to know in the event that you are asked to supervise an environmentalist’s child. More than likely there will be a list — a very long list — of things the child cannot do, so it is essential to do everything in your power to avoid getting involved. If for some reason you do get stuck babysitting, you should feed the child Snickers bars and soda. This is also an excellent strategy for quickly exiting a friendship with any environmentalist who can no longer benefit you in any way.
Step Three: Being depressed by statistics
The best way to ensure that you always have something to say around your new friends is to make sure you are getting information from sources they trust. To determine if a news source is acceptable, simply look to see if it is sold at the checkout stand at Whole Foods. If this is the case, study the content for conversation points. Before you know it, you will be conversing fluently about tidal power, offshore drilling and gas taxes.
Although television is broadly recognized as unacceptable, documentaries are seen as an important source of statistics and anecdotes. It is essential that you understand how important it is to be able to recite statistics on demand: percentage of Arctic ice melted, average global temperature, days of drought, number of species endangered, and acres of rainforest destroyed hourly. Fortunately, these numbers change every day, so do not be concerned with accuracy.
Step Four: Knowing which ingredients in your shampoo will kill you
The first thing you will notice about environmentalists is the smell. As it stands, they come in three flavors: lavender, patchouli and natural. This is due to the fact that environmentalists do not use deodorant because it contains aluminum and a number of chemicals that concern them greatly. Instead, environmentalists prefer the scents of nature. The most committed allow their own bodies to dictate their smell identity. More often than not this will lead you to believe that the person you are talking to is an organic onion or garlic farmer. Fortunately, there are no environmentalists who consider it an insult to be mistaken for an organic farmer.
As for the rest of their grooming regimen, a look into the shower stall of an environmentalist will reveal several bottles of natural shampoos that didn’t work but can’t be thrown away, and of course, handmade soap. Once you have confirmed that your new friend has an oddly shaped bar of soap, you should ask them if they make their own. If the answer is yes, you have discovered what you will be receiving for your birthday! If the answer is no, then you know exactly what to get them for nondenominational holidays.
Step Five: Never throwing stuff away
Environmentalists are passionate about bicycling, public transportation, and walking — none of which ever add up to a free ride to the airport. One of the few types of automobiles accepted by environmentalists is a Volvo or Mercedes converted to run on vegetable oil. These are considered valid options because they run on the waste of nonenvironmentalists and they reuse older cars. Environmentalists will go to great lengths to reuse things, even things they didn’t like the first time around.
While this emphasis on reuse will ultimately benefit the earth, you should not overlook the many ways in which it can benefit you! When you are in the home of an environmentalist and see something you covet, start dropping hints. Keep saying, “I suppose I’ll pick one up — I just hate to buy new and use all those resources.” If this does not work, you probably aren’t dealing with a real environmentalist.
Please note: This tactic will not work if the object in question is a Prius. Procuring an environmentalist’s Prius is an advanced procedure that is too complicated and delicate to divulge on these pages.
How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality?
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Sarah Palin really has claimed ? with a straight face ? that Barack Obama wants to kill her baby
Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarised by the comedian Bill Maher: "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital."
The election of Obama – a black man with an anti-conservative message – as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right's view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin.
When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn't compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of "Drill, baby, drill" have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right's world-view – to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation – has swollen. Now it is all they can see.
Since Obama's rise, the US right has been skipping frantically from one fantasy to another, like a person in the throes of a mental breakdown. It started when they claimed he was a secret Muslim, and – at the same time – that he was a member of a black nationalist church that hated white people. Then, once these arguments were rejected and Obama won, they began to argue that he was born in Kenya and secretly smuggled into the United States as a baby, and the Hawaiian authorities conspired to fake his US birth certificate. So he is ineligible to rule and the office of President should pass to... the Republican runner-up, John McCain.
These aren't fringe phenomena: a Research 200 poll found that a majority of Republicans and Southerners say Obama wasn't born in the US, or aren't sure. A steady steam of Republican congressmen have been jabbering that Obama has "questions to answer". No amount of hard evidence – here's his birth certificate, here's a picture of his mother heavily pregnant in Hawaii, here's the announcement of his birth in the local Hawaiian paper – can pierce this conviction.
This trend has reached its apotheosis this summer with the Republican Party now claiming en masse that Obama wants to set up "death panels" to euthanise the old and disabled. Yes: Sarah Palin really has claimed – with a straight face – that Barack Obama wants to kill her baby.
You have to admire the audacity of the right. Here's what's actually happening. The US is the only major industrialised country that does not provide regular healthcare to all its citizens. Instead, they are required to provide for themselves – and 50 million people can't afford the insurance. As a result, 18,000 US citizens die every year needlessly, because they can't access the care they require. That's equivalent to six 9/11s, every year, year on year. Yet the Republicans have accused the Democrats who are trying to stop all this death by extending healthcare of being "killers" – and they have successfully managed to put them on the defensive.
The Republicans want to defend the existing system, not least because they are given massive sums of money by the private medical firms who benefit from the deadly status quo. But they can't do so honestly: some 70 per cent of Americans say it is "immoral" to retain a medical system that doesn't cover all citizens. So they have to invent lies to make any life-saving extension of healthcare sound depraved.
A few months ago, a recent board member for several private health corporations called Betsy McCaughey reportedly noticed a clause in the proposed healthcare legislation that would pay for old people to see a doctor and write a living will. They could stipulate when (if at all) they would like care to be withdrawn. It's totally voluntary. Many people want it: I know I wouldn't want to be kept alive for a few extra months if I was only going to be in agony and unable to speak. But McCaughey started the rumour that this was a form of euthanasia, where old people would be forced to agree to death. This was then stretched to include the disabled, like Palin's youngest child, who she claimed would have to "justify" his existence. It was flatly untrue – but the right had their talking-point, Palin declared the non-existent proposals "downright evil", and they were off.
It's been amazingly successful. Now, every conversation about healthcare has to begin with a Democrat explaining at great length that, no, they are not in favour of killing the elderly – while Republicans get away with defending a status quo that kills 18,000 people a year. The hypocrisy was startling: when Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska, she encouraged citizens there to take out living wills. Almost all the Republicans leading the charge against "death panels" have voted for living wills in the past. But the lie has done its work: a confetti of distractions has been thrown up, and support is leaking away from the plan that would save lives.
These increasingly frenzied claims have become so detached from reality that they often seem like black comedy. The right-wing magazine US Investors' Daily claimed that if Stephen Hawking had been British, he would have been allowed to die at birth by its "socialist" healthcare system. Hawking responded with a polite cough that he is British, and "I wouldn't be here without the NHS".
This tendency to simply deny inconvenient facts and invent a fantasy world isn't new; it's only becoming more heightened. It ran through the Bush years like a dash of bourbon in water. When it became clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, the US right simply claimed they had been shipped to Syria. When the scientific evidence for man-made global warming became unanswerable, they claimed – as one Republican congressman put it – that it was "the greatest hoax in human history", and that all the world's climatologists were "liars". The American media then presents itself as an umpire between "the rival sides", as if they both had evidence behind them.
It's a shame, because there are some areas in which a conservative philosophy – reminding us of the limits of grand human schemes, and advising caution – could be a useful corrective. But that's not what these so-called "conservatives" are providing: instead, they are pumping up a hysterical fantasy that serves as a thin skin covering some raw economic interests and base prejudices.
For many of the people at the top of the party, this is merely cynical manipulation. One of Bush's former advisers, David Kuo, has said the President and Karl Rove would mock evangelicals as "nuts" as soon as they left the Oval Office. But the ordinary Republican base believe this stuff. They are being tricked into opposing their own interests through false fears and invented demons. Last week, one of the Republicans sent to disrupt a healthcare town hall started a fight and was injured – and then complained he had no health insurance. I didn't laugh; I wanted to weep.
How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have "faith" – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don't have "faith" that Australia exists, or that fire burns: you have evidence. You only need "faith" to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational.
Up to now, Obama has not responded well to this onslaught of unreason. He has had a two-pronged strategy: conciliate the elite economic interests, and joke about the fanatical fringe they are stirring up. He has (shamefully) assured the pharmaceutical companies that an expanded healthcare system will not use the power of government as a purchaser to bargain down drug prices, while wryly saying in public that he "doesn't want to kill Grandma". Rather than challenging these hard interests and bizarre fantasies aggressively, he has tried to flatter and soothe them.
This kind of mania can't be co-opted: it can only be overruled. Sometimes in politics you will have enemies, and they must be democratically defeated. The political system cannot be gummed up by a need to reach out to the maddest people or the greediest constituencies. There is no way to expand healthcare without angering Big Pharma and the Republicaloons. So be it. As Arianna Huffington put it, "It is as though, at the height of the civil rights movement, you thought you had to bring together Martin Luther King and George Wallace and make them agree. It's not how change happens."
However strange it seems, the Republican Party really is spinning off into a bizarre cult who believe Barack Obama is a baby-killer plotting to build death panels for the grannies of America. Their new slogan could be – shrill, baby, shrill.
I’m sure it’s well known, but I’m a pretty big fan of Mr. Bobby Ray. And I think it’s safe to say that 94% of the dopeboyz/girlz that frequent the site are as well. It’s also well known that I despise Atlantic Records. So with that said, I put together a collection of (tagless) joints that have leaked since the time I very first heard dude in hopes that it can spread around the internets and hopefully wake those dinosaurs up. Word is they really like B.o.B but are trying to force him into a 360 deal. And if he doesn’t conform, they are gonna shelve him. I mean, imagine if this was actually his debut album? Sheeiiiit… I vote we call/email/run-up-on Atlantic and tell them to stop fucking around.
I know it’s inevitable that the tracklist will cause a shit storm in the c-section (”you didn’t include this”, “you should’ve left that off”, etc) but that’s the beauty of having our own opinion. There are also no 2dbz tags on the artwork or filenames as I just want this to spread as much as it can (and I know some of youse get all werid about posting stuff with other URLs on it).
The World Bank ignored its own environmental and social protection standards when it approved nearly $200 million in loan guarantees for palm oil production in Indonesia, a stinging internal audit has found.
The report, detailing five years of funding from the International Finance Corp. (IFC), the private-sector arm of the World Bank, lambastes the agency for allowing commercial pressures to influence four separate loans aimed at developing the industry.
"The IFC was aware for more than 20 years that there were significant environmental and social issues and risks inherent in the oil palm sector in Indonesia," auditors wrote. "Despite awareness of the significant issues facing it, IFC did not develop a strategy for engaging in the oil palm sector. In the absence of a tailored strategy, deal making prevailed."
The report(pdf) from the office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman comes as Indonesia prepares to enter the carbon markets by protecting its tropical forests. Working in partnership with Australia, the Indonesian government currently is working to design a national carbon accounting system. Australia is building a satellite to monitor deforestation in the Southeast Asian country, according to new U.N. submissions.
Indonesia is home to the world's second-largest reserves of natural forests and peat swamps, which naturally trap carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas that causes climate change. But rampant destruction of the forests to make way for palm oil plantations has caused giant releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, making Indonesia the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet.
The audit does not address climate change or how lending for palm oil -- an ingredient in foods and a biofuel added to diesel for cars -- fits into the World Bank's new "strategic framework" for development and climate change. It also does not examine any of the specific charges or environmental accusations lodged against the firm to which the World Bank loaned money.
Rather, the report confines itself to whether the IFC abided by its own standards. On that front, the multilateral bank came up short.
IFC saw burning the trees as having 'no impact'
Specifically, auditors said, when loaning to Wilmar International Ltd. and other firms between 2003 and 2008, the IFC did not check out concerns about the companies' supply chain plantations. The Forest Peoples Programme, a U.K.-based nonprofit group that originally brought the complaint, charged that the companies illegally used fire to clear forestland, cleared primary forests, and seized lands belonging to indigenous people without due process.
The IFC, auditors noted, labeled the initial loan as a "category C" -- a listing signifying that a project has little or no adverse environmental or social impacts, and which is typically given to financial intermediaries. But by failing to examine the subsidiaries that source the raw materials, IFC ignored issues like the absence of publicly available environmental impact assessments for the subsidiary companies.
"For each investment, commercial pressures were allowed to prevail," auditors wrote. "Commercial pressures dominated."
In a written response to auditors, the IFC acknowledged shortcomings in the review process. But the lender also defended investment in palm oil production as a way to alleviate poverty in Indonesia.
"IFC believes that production of palm oil, when carried out in an environmentally and socially sustainable fashion, can provide core support for a strong rural economy, providing employment and improved quality of life for millions of the rural poor in tropical areas," it said.
Hunting for a 'sustainable' strategy
The agency vowed to develop a new strategy to guide its future palm oil investments, to be completed in about three months, and to put "renewed emphasis" on assessing a company's supply chain before lending.
Marcus Colchester, director of the Forest Peoples Programme, called that response "inadequate."
In a letter to World Bank President Robert Zoellick and the board, Colchester and leaders of other nonprofit groups called on the World Bank to freeze palm oil lending, charging that IFC suffers a "systemic problem whereby the pressure to lend and to support business interests overcomes prudence, due diligence and concern for social and environmental outcomes."
They noted that the management response included no actions to address the problem of climate change being exacerbated by planting on peatlands and burning forests, and advised no discipline for staff that failed to comply with standards.
Barbara Bramble, a senior program adviser for international affairs at the National Wildlife Federation, said she believes the World Bank should help the Indonesian government at all levels change incentives for palm oil planting and refuse to invest in any company whose primary plantation is primary rainforest.
She, Colchester and even IMF officials widely agreed that there is in Indonesia an abundant amount of already degraded land that could be used for palm oil productuon. The challenge, Bramble said, is shifting national and local laws to encourage more sustainable production.
Meanwhile, the IFC indicated in a statement to E&E that the agency does not plan to give up palm oil investment anytime soon.
"IFC is aware of the environmental and social concerns associated with the palm oil sector in Indonesia. We also believe that the sector has considerable potential for job creation and economic growth," agency officials wrote. "We believe it is imperative to promote sustainable practices in the sector that will benefit the poor and preserve biodiversity."
If zombies actually existed, an attack by them would lead to the collapse of civilisation unless dealt with quickly and aggressively. That is the conclusion of a mathematical exercise carried out by researchers in Canada. They say only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures.
The scientific paper is published in a book - Infectious Diseases Modelling Research Progress. In books, films, video games and folklore, zombies are undead creatures, able to turn the living into other zombies with a bite. But there is a serious side to the work.
In some respects, a zombie "plague" resembles a lethal, rapidly spreading infection. The researchers say the exercise could help scientists model the spread of unfamiliar diseases through human populations.
“ My understanding of zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever ”
Professor Neil Ferguson
In their study, the researchers from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University (also in Ottawa) posed a question: If there was to be a battle between zombies and the living, who would win?
Professor Robert Smith? (the question mark is part of his surname and not a typographical mistake) and colleagues wrote: "We model a zombie attack using biological assumptions based on popular zombie movies.
"We introduce a basic model for zombie infection and illustrate the outcome with numerical solutions."
On his university web page, the mathematics professor at Ottawa University says the question mark distinguishes him from Robert Smith, lead singer of rock band The Cure.
To give the living a fighting chance, the researchers chose "classic" slow-moving zombies as our opponents rather than the nimble, intelligent creatures portrayed in some recent films.
"While we are trying to be as broad as possible in modelling zombies - especially as there are many variables - we have decided not to consider these individuals," the researchers said.
Back for good?
Even so, their analysis revealed that a strategy of capturing or curing the zombies would only put off the inevitable.
In their scientific paper, the authors conclude that humanity's only hope is to "hit them [the undead] hard and hit them often".
They added: "It's imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly or else... we are all in a great deal of trouble."
According to the researchers, the key difference between the zombies and the spread of real infections is that "zombies can come back to life".
Professor Neil Ferguson, who is one of the UK government's chief advisors on controlling the spread of swine flu, said the study did have parallels with some infectious diseases.
"None of them actually cause large-scale death or disease, but certainly there are some fungal infections which are difficult to eradicate," said Professor Ferguson, from Imperial College London.
"There are some viral infections - simple diseases like chicken pox have survived in very small communities. If you get it when you are very young, the virus stays with you and can re-occur as shingles, triggering a new chicken pox epidemic."
Professor Smith? told BBC News: "When you try to model an unfamiliar disease, you try to find out what's happening, try to approximate it. You then refine it, go back and try again."
"We refined the model again and again to say... here's how you would tackle an unfamiliar disease."
Professor Ferguson joked: "The paper considers something that many of us have worried about - particularly in our younger days - of what would be a feasible way of tackling an outbreak of a rapidly spreading zombie infection.
"My understanding of zombie biology is that if you manage to decapitate a zombie then it's dead forever. So perhaps they are being a little over-pessimistic when they conclude that zombies might take over a city in three or four days," he said.
Renewable energy and clean-burning natural gas are the basis of a new strategy the world needs to create a cleaner and more secure future. And the global transformation to a clean-energy economy may be the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century. According to the authoritative Potential Gas Committee (administered by the Colorado School of Mines), the U.S. sits on top of massive reservoirs of natural gas—an estimated 2,000 trillion cubic feet—that contain more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia.
Harnessing this large supply—plus developing wind, solar and biofuel energy sources—is essential to achieve three strategic national priorities:
• Energy security: The internal combustion engine makes us dependent on oil that's concentrated in a handful of countries in some of the world's most volatile regions. In June, we imported 374 million barrels of oil, nearly two-thirds of what we used, at a cost of $24.7 billion. With 70% of imported oil going into cars and trucks, our transportation system is perilously at risk to shaky oil markets and even shakier regimes.
• Economic security: Last year more than $155 billion was invested in clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and China and India plan to invest hundreds of billions in renewable energy sources. The annual market for clean energy may escalate in the next decade to between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. The race is on.
• Climate security: Likewise, the clock is ticking on potentially devastating climate changes. We already are witnessing the disintegration of polar ice, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and altered weather patterns. But if we act now, we can prevent catastrophic human and economic impacts.
Long-term economic and environmental interests compel us to put a priority on energy independence and a price on carbon pollution. Natural gas and renewable energy are obvious sources for cheap, clean and reliable electric power and transportation fuels.
In the electricity sector, natural gas is already cheap, available and ready to meet the nation's power needs while improving climate security. It emits about half the carbon dioxide per British thermal unit of energy, and far fewer of the heavy metals than does coal.
Adopting a "cash-for-clunkers" program in the utility sector can save money and reduce emissions right away by retiring the oldest, least efficient and most polluting power plants in exchange for modern gas-powered plants. New coal plants should be required to combine natural gas with the coal they burn, resulting in cleaner emissions, and every power plant should meet strict carbon-emissions standards.
We should also adopt a strong national standard requiring that electrical generation include a growing percentage of renewable fuels to help bring down costs over time, and ensure America's place in the burgeoning global competition for innovative renewable and efficiency technologies. Numerous state initiatives have already demonstrated the feasibility of these standards on a smaller scale.
In the transportation sector, renewable energy and natural gas can also be deployed immediately. For a quarter century, natural-gas vehicle technology has been available but stymied by lack of leadership. Of the 10 million natural gas vehicles in the world, fewer than 150,000 are in the U.S.
We can begin transitioning the nation's fleet of 6.5 million 18-wheelers that run regular routes. It would take just 20 refueling stations along a single highway to get trucks from one coast to the other. Centrally fueled urban business and government fleets also can quickly move to natural gas. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are in the process of buying new natural gas vehicles for their fleets, and many municipalities are harnessing the economic and environmental benefits of natural gas-powered buses.
Renewable biofuels should also be part of a new energy strategy. Advanced biofuels produced from cellulosic material, such as forest residues, municipal waste or even algae, can play a key role in reducing the vulnerabilities, emissions and costs associated with imported oil, while also providing new economic opportunities for America's farm communities.
The economic, environmental, and national security imperatives of America's energy posture are clear, as is the proven potential of domestic natural resources like gas, wind and solar power. Coupled with energy efficiency, these resources have the potential to help jump-start the economy, drive prosperity and reduce emissions well into the 21st century. The keys are in our hands. All we have to do is unlock the door and start the engine.
A successful job hunt needs a compelling marketing campaign for a great product: you. Although this is your area of personal expertise, it is not always easy to pitch it right. Here are some tips from candidates and marketing experts:
Product definition
It's hard to put yourself in the frame of mind to sell yourself, even if selling is your job. Think of yourself as a product and tailor your application with benefits and special features that would make a potential employer want to buy.
Don't be shy
If you separate the skills and capability from the individual, it will help you be less bashful when you promote yourself to prospective employers. It's a problem for lots of Brits. "We're not good at self-promotion," says Peter Appleby, managing director of career consultants, Appleby Associates.
Pick your audience
Build a hit-list of employers who will be interested in your particular skills and experience. Don't forget to contact professional institutions and regional bodies. They will have useful intelligence on local employers and be less guarded than a company's HR department.
Get personal
Clara, a marketing manager looking for her next move up the ladder, decided to meet marketing directors in the flesh. A little flattery goes a long way and when Clara called she asked for advice, not a job. "A surprising number agreed to meet me and a personal recommendation led to a job".
Be forward but not arrogant
You need to sell your wares, but choose your words and tone carefully. It's important "to avoid sounding boastful when reflecting your strengths", says Mike Warren, director of Proteus Consultancy. For example, you could say: "I have a reputation for writing outstanding code" rather than "I am the best programmer in my team".
Network at home
Networking is as effective for raw graduates as for mature jobseekers, but, again, you need to be choosy. "Think rifle shot, rather than scatter gun," says Linda Whittern, director of Careers Partnership. Start off with family and friends who will work hard on your behalf and stick to a list of 15. You need to be able to keep on top of communication.
Use your budget well
Every marketing campaign has a budget and job hunting is no exception. But your resource is likely to be time. It's easy to be "busy" looking for jobs, but is your activity yielding any worthwhile results? When replying to job ads, stay focused and apply only to those companies that offer the right "fit".
Email etiquette
Email is unavoidable in the modern job hunt and highly effective if used well. "People scan emails, they don't read them," advises Paul Crabtree, marketing director of Adestra, an email direct marketing agency. His golden rules of email marketing are:
The FRAY - Heartless from IE HAGY on Vimeo.
NAIROBI (Reuters) - Kenya said on Wednesday it would plant 7.6 billion trees over the next 20 years to redress decades of chopping down forest cover, the effect of which is now being felt in acute water and power shortages.
Just 3 percent of land in the agriculture-based east African economy is covered by forests that are protected by the authorities, compared with a government target of 10 percent.
"We will have to plant 4.1 million hectares in order to make a percentage that is internationally acceptable," Environment Minister John Michuki told reporters.
"You are talking about 7.6 billion trees," he said. "In my estimation, it is going to cost us $20 billion over 20 years."
That amount is nearly twice the government's annual spending, which will be about $11 billion in fiscal 2009/10.
By comparison, the authorities in Nairobi expect to spend just over $650 million this year on the country's crumbling roads, and around $400 million on energy projects.
The impact of forest destruction is being felt by Kenyans, with rivers drying up and hydro-electric power generation, farm production and tourism all suffering as a result.
Kenya's biggest forest, the Mau, has lost a quarter of its 400,000 hectares in recent years to unchecked human settlement, illegal logging and the burning of charcoal.
A report released by Prime Minister Raila Odinga last month showed that politicians had been allocated large parcels of Mau land by corrupt officials, mostly during the 1990s.
Michuki was speaking at the launch of a solar-charged mobile phone handset costing just 2,999 shilling ($39) by Safaricom, the nation's leading mobile operator.
There are some 18 million active SIM cards in Kenya. But only about 18 percent of its 36 million people have electricity in their homes. Mobile users in rural areas not linked to the national grid often have problems charging their phones.
(Reporting by Helen Nyambura-Mwaura; Editing by Daniel Wallis)
($1=76.65 Kenyan Shilling)
“I am in this race because I don’t want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don’t want to pit Blue America against Red America; I want to lead a United States of America.” So declared Barack Obama in November 2007, making the case that Democrats should nominate him, rather than one of his rivals, because he could free the nation from the bitter partisanship of the past.
Some of us were skeptical. A couple of months after Mr. Obama gave that speech, I warned that his vision of a “different kind of politics” was a vain hope, that any Democrat who made it to the White House would face “an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false.”
So, how’s it going?
Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.
This opposition cannot be appeased. Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing.
Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.
And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill.
Yet the smear continues to spread. And as the example of Mr. Gingrich shows, it’s not a fringe phenomenon: Senior G.O.P. figures, including so-called moderates, have endorsed the lie.
Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is one of these supposed moderates. I’m not sure where his centrist reputation comes from — he did, after all, compare critics of the Bush tax cuts to Hitler. But in any case, his role in the health care debate has been flat-out despicable.
Last week, Mr. Grassley claimed that his colleague Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor wouldn’t have been treated properly in other countries because they prefer to “spend money on people who can contribute more to the economy.” This week, he told an audience that “you have every right to fear,” that we “should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
Again, that’s what a supposedly centrist Republican, a member of the Gang of Six trying to devise a bipartisan health plan, sounds like.
So much, then, for Mr. Obama’s dream of moving beyond divisive politics. The truth is that the factors that made politics so ugly in the Clinton years — the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia — are as strong as ever. In fact, the situation may be even worse than it was in the 1990s because the collapse of the Bush administration has left the G.O.P. with no real leaders other than Rush Limbaugh.
The question now is how Mr. Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream.
So far, at least, the Obama administration’s response to the outpouring of hate on the right has had a deer-in-the-headlights quality. It’s as if officials still can’t wrap their minds around the fact that things like this can happen to people who aren’t named Clinton, as if they keep expecting the nonsense to just go away.
What, then, should Mr. Obama do? It would certainly help if he gave clearer and more concise explanations of his health care plan. To be fair, he’s gotten much better at that over the past couple of weeks.
What’s still missing, however, is a sense of passion and outrage — passion for the goal of ensuring that every American gets the health care he or she needs, outrage at the lies and fear-mongering that are being used to block that goal.
So can Mr. Obama, who can be so eloquent when delivering a message of uplift, rise to the challenge of unreasoning, unappeasable opposition? Only time will tell.
In Washington, it's a popular climate conundrum everyone talks about: Even if the U.S. lowers its greenhouse gas emissions, China and India are on track to dwarf the entire Western World's as they build enormous coal-fired power plants. Politicians of all stripes regularly say we must get China and India to use less coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels, to power their emerging economies.
But who do you think is financing all these new coal plants in the developing world?
Try the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other international public financial institutions supported by the world's wealthiest nations.
That's right. While the industrialized world is struggling to cut its emissions, and is gearing up to negotiate a new international climate treaty in Copenhagen this December, it is simultaneously bankrolling the construction of thousands upon thousands of megawatts of new coal-fired power in developing countries.
A new study by Bruce Rich, formerly of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), shows that international public financial institutions have provided $37 billion to finance the construction of at least 88 new coal plants in the developing world since 1994. What's more, that $37 billion in direct financing secured another $60 billion or so from private and local sources, bringing total investment in new coal plants in developing nations to over $100 billion.
Even worse, the World Bank classifies these coal plants as "low carbon" financing projects if they are the so-called supercritical type with marginally better CO2 emissions rates.
Collectively those 88 coal plants will pump out 792 million tons of CO2 a year -- essentially negating pollution reductions the Waxman-Markey climate bill hopes to achieve over the next decade. The bill was approved last month in the House and is now up for debate in the Senate.
Bear in mind that 88 is a minimum number because most export credit agencies do not release detailed information on transactions and only plants for which the financing could be verified were included in EDF's study.
If you're wondering why 1994 is the baseline, it's the year the United Nations Convention on Climate Change took effect, committing industrialized nations to provide funds and technology to mitigate climate change in poorer nations. But instead, the wealthier nations have been locking into place a carbon-intensive energy infrastructure, one that will endure for decades since coal plants typically operate for 40 to 50 years.
Sure, these public international lenders have committed $6 billion over the past 15 years to help the world's most vulnerable citizens adapt to a warming planet -- but it's a fraction of the $100 billion spent on new coal plants.
Some would call that shooting yourself in the foot.
And it's not as though the World Bank is unaware of the dangers of continued reliance on coal. It commissioned a three-year independent study on the future role of the World Bank Group in supporting coal, oil and gas. But when that study recommended decisive action away from fossil fuel lending, the World Bank refused to endorse its findings -- even at the urging
of six Nobel Peace Laureates and the European Parliament.
The World Bank also gets it that the poorest countries will suffer the worst effects of global warming. In 2003 it published Poverty and Climate Change: Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation, which stated "climate change is a serious risk to poverty reduction and threatens to undo decades of development efforts."
Why then does it finance coal? Here's what the World Bank's Chief Economist has to say: "Because coal is often cheap and abundant, and the need for electricity is so great, coal plants are going to be built with or without our support. Without our support, it is the cheaper, dirtier type of coal plants that will proliferate."
Not true says the Center for Global Development. It says most new coal plants that are built without World Bank funds, at least in India, ARE the cleaner, so-called "supercritical" type because the operating and fuel costs of the supercritical coal plants are cheaper.
More to the point, supercritical coal plants are only slightly cleaner, producing about 15 percent less C02 than traditional coal plants, according to EDF. They are still not as clean as even a natural gas-fired plant.
Which leads me to alternatives. Clearly, bringing electricity to the world's poor is a goal we can all get behind, but there's a better way to do it: Renewables, energy efficiency and grid modernization. International financial institutions should be scaling up their support for these rather than financing coal.
Today the Bank spends twice as much on fossil fuel projects as new renewable energy and energy efficiency projects combined and five times as much as new renewables alone.
That's a missed opportunity when large-scale renewables are so feasible in the developing world. Take Gujarat State in India, where a monstrous 4,000-megawatt coal-fired plant, the Tata Mundra, is being built with World Bank support. More than 7,000 megawatts of renewable energy are also in the works there -- with no help from international development banks. AES, a US based energy company, is constructing a $1.2 billion 1,000 megawatt solar thermal array as part of that plan.
Think how many more renewable energy projects could be built if public international financial institutions changed their lending priorities.
Equally important, international financial institutions must also tighten the definition of "low carbon." Supercritical coal plants now meet that feeble standard, which gives the World Bank's claim that 40 percent of its energy lending is "low carbon" a hollow ring.
These reforms are imperative, for if we do not slow the rise of CO2 emissions from coal in the developing world, no amount of emissions cuts in industrialized nations will make a difference.
