People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further. Quit eating my ancesters.
His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.
Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.
'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.
However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.'
Pachauri can expect some vociferous responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode, who is about to publish a new book, John Torode's Beef. 'I have a little bit and enjoy it,' said Torode. 'Too much for any person becomes gluttony. But there's a bigger issue here: where [the meat] comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food we'd save a huge amount of carbon emissions.'
Tomorrow, Pachauri will speak at an event hosted by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming, which has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half.
The group has called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020. Campaigners have also pointed out the health benefits of eating less meat. The average person in the UK eats 50g of protein from meat a day, equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop - a relatively low level for rich nations but 25-50 per cent more than World Heath Organisation guidelines.
Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who will also speak at tomorrow's event in London, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'. 'Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there are other things,' Watson said.
However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce those. Some ideas were contradictory, he said - for example, one solution to emissions from livestock was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. 'Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simplistic solutions being proposed,' he said.
Last year a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating by the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University claimed livestock generated 8 per cent of UK emissions - but eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing. It also said vegetarian diets that included lots of milk, butter and cheese would probably not noticeably reduce emissions because dairy cows are a major source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas released through flatulence.
#1
Eat more meat and disband the UN - that will help the world more than anything else.
Just think of all the hot air emissions that would be avoided.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/08/2008 20:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This article was also posted yesterday and, as I noted then, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is a strict vegetarian and Hindu according to his Wikipedia bio. I'll cut back on meat when he gets serious enough to start killing cows.
#7
I'm doing my part to decrease the flatulent cow population. One ribeye at a time.
Posted by: ed ||
09/08/2008 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
These guys can drive you nutz. I took a High Caste Brahman (who worked for me at that time) out to lunch. We didn't have any Hindu specialty restaurants nearby so I took him to a Thai place. He ordered a vegi curry. When it came he wouldn't eat it. I asked what the problem was, "Well what's this white stuff (tofu) and what are these..(mushroom)"
Well, my guru hasn't ruled on tofu but he has ruled that mushrooms are animal.
I said "But mushrooms are in the Fungi Phylum they are not animal or veg". He said. "It doesn't matter. My guru does not accept the western phylum and states that there are only 2 phylum (animal and veg) and mushrooms are most definitely animal. "
So I asked if he could eat bread as it his yeast in it and yeast is a fungi. "The guru has ruled yeast veg."
#12
Here's a question...if put up a giant plastic bubble over the UN building and make sure it's air tight...how much less carbon and other so called greenhouse gasses will be stopped when all inside expire? Think of all the cars, jets and other things they do that destroy the planet. Oh and all those saved trees from all the paper they stop using to write their crap on.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Pirates armed with rocket-propelled grenades attacked three vessels off Somalia's coast but failed to hijack them because of quick action by crew members, a maritime official said Monday. A Chinese cargo ship, a Singaporean liquefied gas carrier and a Thai bulk carrier managed to thwart the pirates in the Gulf of Aden by increasing speed and taking evasive maneuvers, said Noel Choong of the International Maritime Bureau.
Somalia, which has had no functioning government since 1991, is the world's top piracy hotspot. The latest incidents bring to 44 the number of attacks off its coast this year. Most occurred in the Gulf of Aden, Choong said.
"Early detection allowed all three ships to report to IMB and take quick action to escape," said Choong, who heads the IMB's piracy reporting center in Kuala Lumpur. He said the situation was still grave despite increased patrols by warships from a multinational coalition in the area.
The Chinese-owned ship, sailing under the flag of the Caribbean island state of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, was passing through the gulf Friday when crew noticed a blue tug identified by the IMB as a suspected pirate vessel, Choong said. The crew raised the alarm after a speed boat from the tug headed toward the ship, he said. Four pirates armed with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons started firing, but the ship escaped after it increased speed and the crew threw objects at the pirates during the chase, he said.
On Saturday, six pirates armed with rocket-propelled grenades attempted to ambush a Singaporean tanker in the gulf, Choong said. The tanker increased speed and changed course, leaving the attacking boat rolling heavily and four pirates fell into the sea, he said. The pirates later resumed chase and the ship captain contacted the IMB, which sought help from the coalition naval force, he said. The pirates gave up their chase before a coalition warship could reach the scene, he said.
The next day, pirates in two speed boats chased a Thai bulk carrier but it also managed to evade the pirates and headed toward Yemen's coast, Choong said. Nobody on board the ships was injured in the incidents.
#6
You learn something every day at Rantburg U! Q-Ships looks interesting. Equip one with a fast boat with a torpedo launcher and you can even go after and sink the mother ship.
Of course then you have to decide weather survivors are worth picking up or not. Tough call...
Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has challenged President Robert Mugabe to hold a new election if he is not prepared to share his powers. Right. He's sure to go for that.
Mr Tsvangirai said he would withdraw from power-sharing talks if a satisfactory deal could not be reached. There's no intention on Bob's part for a satisfactory deal to be reached. The whole idea is to make MDC withdraw from the talks, thereby leaving Bob in undisturbed power.
Mr Mugabe has said he will form a government without the MDC if they do not agree to a power-sharing deal being mediated by South Africa's president. "The issue that we are facing here is that Mugabe must accept to surrender some of his powers for the power-sharing arrangement to work," Mr Tsvangirai told a Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) rally in Gweru, in central Zimbabwe.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Election Commission's (EC) efforts towards a consensus on registration of political parties before the parliamentary polls seem unlikely to succeed as the BNP-led four-party alliance remains opposed to joining talks with it.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Eight more government servicemen, including two Titas Gas officials and an executive engineer of Bangladesh Inland Water Transportation Authority (BIWTA), yesterday confessed to having ill-gotten wealth worth Tk 2.57 crore before the Truth and Accountability Commission (Tac).
Posted by: Fred ||
09/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
BNP Senior Joint Secretary General Tarique Rahman, released recently from detention, his wife Zubaida Rahman and daughter Zaima Rahman yesterday submitted visa applications to the British High Commission through a lawyer.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Several Russian ships and 1,000 soldiers will take part in joint naval maneuvers with Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea later this year, exercises likely to increase diplomatic tensions with Washington, a pro-government newspaper reported on Saturday.
Quoting Venezuela's naval intelligence director, Salbarore Cammarata, the newspaper Vea said four Russian boats would visit Venezuelan waters from November 10 to 14.
Plans for the naval operations come at a time of heightened diplomatic tension and Cold War-style rhetoric between Moscow and the United States over the recent war in Georgia and plans for a U.S. missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Cammarata said it would be the first time Russia's navy carried out such exercises in Latin America. He said the Venezuelan air force would also take part.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken critic of Washington, has said in recent weeks that Russian ships and planes are welcome to visit the South American country.
"If the Russian long-distance planes that fly around the world need to land at some Venezuelan landing strip, they are welcome, we have no problems," he said on his weekly television show last week.
Chavez, who buys billions of dollars of weapons from Russia, has criticized this year's reactivation of the U.S. Navy's Fourth Fleet, which will patrol Latin America for the first time in over 50 years.
The socialist Chavez says he fears the United States will invade oil-rich Venezuela and he supports Russia's growing geopolitical presence as a counterbalance to U.S. power.
Chavez has bought fighter jets and submarines from Russia to retool Venezuela's aging weapons and says he is also interested in a missile defense system.
#3
President Hugo Chavez's taunt to the United States:
"Go ahead and squeal, Yankees."
Hmmm, the time for pig poking is coming sooner rather than later.
Posted by: DanNY ||
09/08/2008 7:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
More details.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//nm/20080908/wl_nm/russia_venezuela_navy_dc
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said on Monday that the naval mission to Venezuela would include the nuclear-powered battle cruiser "Peter the Great," one of the world's largest combat battleships.
Moscow's most modern destroyer, the "Admiral Chabanenko," will also steam to the Caribbean, along with other ships, including a fuel tanker, he added.
#8
The problem the Russians have is they are making such a big deal out of this, and the fleet doesn't really sorty out that far that if anything goes wrong it could be a public relations disaster.
#13
FOX NEWS AM > US State Dept = USA reportedly INSULTINGLY "MADE/POKED FUN"? at Russ new International Nav-Air Mil efforts by critiquing how RUSS CAN POSSIB HAVE A FEW SHIPS AND PLANES THAT CAN TRAVEL SO FAR FROM HOME???
Someone at STATE must really want the USSA = USR "BY THAT MUCH, CHIEF!" [Maxwell Smart = GET SMART]. STATE = USA DOESN'T NEED TO INSULT THE NUCLEAR ARMED RUSSIANS - and I emphasize, NUCLEAR ARMED - THIS WAY.
IFF THE FOX ARTIC IS TRUE AND THE BASE INTENT WAS TRULY RIDICULE, SOMEONE AT STATE NEEDS TO BE SERIOUSLY REPRIMANDED IFF NOT FIRED. The USA-NATO/Allies still needs a stable prosperous Russia for Trade + as Geopol "Hedge" in Asia.
This insult serves no important or intrinsic purpose IMO other than PO'ING THE ALREADY ISLAMIST/CHIN-NERVOUS RUSSIANS + GOADING THEM TO DO SOMETHING MIL RASH.
#14
I think we should be sure to station an ELINT capable platform, and a couple of SSN's in the area, as wellas some P3's doign "counter drug" patrols. Just for fun.
#15
Aruba is independent. The Netherland Antilles comprise just Bonaire and Curacao, now. While Curacoa is the site of very busy oil refineries, as I recall, Bonaire has only incredible off-shore scuba diving.
#2
IMO econ struggling RUSSIA is taking a SUPER-RISQUE GEOPOL GAMBLE BY STILL TRYING TO EMPOWER A NUCLEAR IRAN, ETC. AND USE AS HEDGE AGZ THE US-ALLIES, ala the "GREAT GAME".
RADICAL ISLAM > "WAR OUTSIDE OF IRAQ-AFGHANI" = "ATTACKING WHERE THE US-ALLIES ARE NOT" = CONTINUING THEIR JIHAD IN ASIA AND AFRICA.
Someone better tell VLADVEDEV THERE IS LITTLE TO INDIC THE ISLAMIST=JIHADIST SWORD WILL CEASE ITS ASSAULT AGZ RUSSIA + ASIA ONCE IT SUCCEEDS IN GOING NUKULAR. ULtimately, in time it will point back towards the US-WEST BUT IMO NOT UNTIL AFTER RUSSIA + MAINLAND ASIA, etc. IS SUBORNED.
#3
The problem with Russia and the old USSR is that it never really stood on any moral principles. It had a large military but principles never guided its actions. How many countries did they war with and liberate? The US has a long history of waging war with enemies only to liberate those countries after warring with them. Japan, Germany, Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind.
#5
See also IRNA > IRAN SUPPORTS THE LIBERATION OF ENTIRE OCCUPIED LANDS [from Zionist Regimes]; + OMAR ABDULLAH: FREEDOM [Azadi, includ Democracy]IS NOT AN OPTION FOR KASHMIR. Abbey believes that while its possib for Kashmir can be given formal sovereign independence, it should NOT be integrated or acceded/merged vv PAKISTAN, CHINA, OR INDIA.
African immigrants have rioted in Spain after a Senegalese man was stabbed to death in the street of a southern town.
Police said the rampage began in the early hours of Sunday, and led to houses and cars being set on fire. After the 28-year-old man was killed in a fight in Roquetas de Mar, an angry gathering "degenerated into violence and public disorder", a statement said.
Police said they did not know what led to the attack, but they were looking for a local man. A witness said the man was killed as he tried to intervene in a dispute between Senegalese and Roma (Gypsy) families in the area, Reuters reported. Rioters set fire to two homes of relatives of the man suspected of the killing, police said. They also said rioters attacked firefighters with stones, and clashed with police.
There are a high proportion of immigrants in Roquetas de Mar, in the province of Almeria, many of whom work in the agricultural sector.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Embrace Diversity. Won't that be fun, when all of european countries, and the USA as well, will be one giant brazil?
#3
He's a die hard Schröderite (contrary to US beliefs Schröder was NOT a leftist when in office). Steinmeier is not liked by the SPD left and with him a coalition with the radical left (ex-Commies) is not likely.
That sounds like a good thing. But what will happen is that the radical left will take the votes of the disgruntled SPD leftists and grow. That means the SPD will shrink. If they get 25% they should consider themselves lucky. Not enough to form anything like a new Grand Coalition, because the larger Commies will block anything else.
The thing is, that it may not work. Either CDU/CSU and FDP will strengthen enough to build a coalition on their own and the SPD is f****
Or the Greens jump ship. Steinmeier may be hoping for a SPD/Green/FDP coalition (Spd and Green only will never get a majority) but that won't work. The FDP has no suicide wishes.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/08/2008 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
contrary to US beliefs Schröder was NOT a leftist when in office
McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points. Something to keep in mind: left-leaning candidates tend to generically do better when the sample includes non-voters. "Registered voters" includes people who are registered but won't vote. "Likely voters" is a subset that is filtered by one method or another (depending on the polling company) to try to weed out the ones who won't vote.
In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/-- 3 points for both samples.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 08:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But do these figures account for the likely military voters whose ballots will be disallowed? And the dead people in Chicago who will vote several times? And the snowbirds who will also vote in Florida?
#8
"Something to keep in mind: left-leaning candidates tend to generically do better when the sample includes non-voters."
They do even better when the sample includes dead voters. And felons.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/08/2008 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Mr Mike N
Take a few math/stat classes before posting. The average deviation of sample respctive to "truth" (ie total population) doesn't depend on size of population (except when sample is equal to total poulation in this case it is zero) but depends on sample size.
The theory is more or less like this: consider the outcome of a randomly selected sample in a population who contains a proption of p, say repulblicans and ( 1-p) republicans. Depending on
"luck" during selection the proportion of republicans in the sample will differ more or less respecvtive to the total population. Repeat the proceess an infinite numlber of times. You will find that the set of samples has same average than total population. You will also find aytht standard deviation for the set of samples varies in an inversely proportional way respective to poulation size ie standard deviation of 2,000 sized samples is half the one for 1,000 sized samples. Finally you will find that teh set of samples follows a Laplace-Gauss law.
OK? Now. In a Laplace-Gauss law there is only an infinitesimal probability to get a sample who deviates more than 3 times the standard deviation. So le's imagine that you have 50% republicans and 50% democrats and that given your sample size the standard deviation is 2. It is highly unlikely (from distant memories it only happens one in a thousand times) that if you select a random sample you will get over 56% republicans or democrats.
(BTW, American poll institutions give amargin of error ie an interval of error that emans that there is 95% or 99% probability depending on institutions tht the real result lies berteeen poll_number - interval and poll_number + interval.
#12
Thus the Bradley effect which had Tom Bradley 10% higher (I think) in polls than he did in the election. People lie to pollsters and conservatives historically are under-represetened because they hang up, or because their answers and inconvenient to the pre-determined outcome. i don't know which.
#13
Of course. It is a well known problem in many fields where statitics are used: people are afrid to tell the truth to the interviewer. That is why polling institutions try to correct the "lying bias". But that has nothing to do with the problem of estimating something in a population of 100 millions basing on the outcome of a sample of 1,000 individuals.
#14
It also depends on how the sample "self-selects" such as "cell phone only" users and those that won't take polls and/or refuse to answer questions as presented.
I happen to represent 2 of 3 of those factors (I have a landline) and I know many that meet all 3. And these are older folks, not the young demographic that is spoken about.
It will be interesting how these polls will compare with the actual results in November.
#18
Tipover, one of the most historic cases of self-selection in a political poll (from the dim mists of my statistics courses) was the Dewey - Truman election, one of the first phone polls. They forgot to take into account that the presence of a phone was strongly correlated to income. In those days poor and working class were unlikely to have phones and as a result the richer Repubs were more heavily sampled.
#19
I can assure you by his reactions, when a pollster stopped me mowing the lawn, he recorded me as "not at home". Kept trying to put his words in my mouth. Yeech.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/08/2008 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I have little faith in polls, regardless of when they are for or against my preferred candidate.
That said, these polls are sponsored by media groups which are generally hostile to my side. If they say my guy is ahead then he probably is.
Anyone else notice that only 959 of the 1022 people sampled were even registered?
FWIW: 54/44 looks like a good bet for the final split on election day.
#22
AlanC, that was the famous Landon-FDR Gallup poll in 1936. Telephones were better-distributed by 1948.
The annoying thing about the "grr, my vote's between me and my God" attitude is it makes it damned hard to accurately poll the conservatively-minded.
I'm campaigning for McCain in Pennsylvania, and I keep running into these idiots. How much weight will your opinions have if you keep hiding them from the general public outside of the election proper, people? Have you ever heard of the "herd effect"?
How about influencing your representatives? If Joe Clockpuncher (Lubbock-R) gets elected from an electorate which is actually anti-illegal-immigration, but shows moderately pro-illegal-immigration in the polls because all of the nativist yahoos refuse to answer survey questions, then by golly, Clockpuncher is gonna listen to the will of the people and moderate his natural tendency to stomp around and make noise about the illegal immigration issue.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/08/2008 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#23
JFM, with all due respect, open your eyes, Good Sir.
These polls are wrong far more often than they are right. Fancy math aside, there's no accounting for dumb luck. One thousand out of 50 million is too small. People hide their true feelings on any number of matters. People are especially devious about politics. Sure, they got groups of people on both sides telling then something else, but there's no way they can say for sure that there weren't donks, telling them the were voting trunk than the other way around.
Poll 10 times more people and get better numbers.
If they were taking a sample that related to something that didn't have minds of their own, it would be a different story. The human brain isn't a math problen.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/08/2008 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Mike, look up a good article on Statistics and margin of error. For a large random population, for all purposes, the margin of error is dependent only on the size of the sample, not the size of the population. Formulas give a margin of error of 3% (w/ 95% confidence or 2 standard deviations) for a sample size of 1000. For 10,000 the margin of error decreses to 1% with 95% confidence.
The math behind it is proven. When human behaviors are included, then bias can creep in. But that is separate from the mathematics of statistics and random processes.
Posted by: ed ||
09/08/2008 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Re statistical sampling.
Everybody's got good points.
The real issue in using any sample of any size to predict the "real" status of a population is randomization and representativeness. First and foremost, it is critical that the sample is pulled randomly from the total population -- that is the only way to remove hidden variables that would otherwise contaminate the sample (e.g., it's just people with phones, or it's all of my neighbors, or . . .). Secondly, the sample must be representative of the population as a whole (e.g., same percentages in income class, race, religion, etc.). Of course, a truly random selection from the population as a whole should result in a representative sample, but checking for representativeness is a good check on the process.
If the job's been done right to get a proper sample, then the size of the sample is not that important unless the effect being studied is very small (think: does cell phone use increase cancer). To study small effects, the sample size needs to be increased to increase statistical power. However, when the effect is large (think: 55% to 45%) not much statistical power is needed. Increased power will give you a tighter confidence interval, but with a 10 point difference, +/- 3 is just about as good as +/- 2.
Finally, the issue of reliability comes into play as well. Are the questions posed to the sample the same as what will be posed to the voter on election day? The closer the questions are, the more reliable the results from polling the sample.
#26
Mike N., I once -- for a few years -- worked for a Fortune 500 consumer products company. When we wanted to know whether or not a product we were developing would sell, we used a sample size of 1000. When we wanted to know which flavour would sell the best for that product, we used a sample size of 10,000. Every once in a while the product was a bust anyway, because the right question hadn't been asked, or we hadn't understood the answer properly. For a quickie poll, which is what this is, a sample size of 1,000 is correct.
These polls are indicative at best. In the last several elections they've generally been slanted toward the Democratic candidate, which has a good deal to do with the Stolen Election meme out there. Given that, a 54% to 44% result is certainly interesting, and a very, very nice Convention Bounce for the Republicans. But as Swamp Blondie says, the only poll that matters is the election.
I hate statistics. Back when studying such things seemed like a good idea, I asked my Stats professor how we knew the formulae were true. "Well, it seems to work so far," was his answer. I've worked very hard to forgive all the statisticians I meet, ever since, realizing they just can't help it. I 'm still working on forgiving Mr. Wife, who took the same course the next semester. He'd always known the world worked like that, he just hadn't had those lovely formulas to describe it with.
Forgive me for being harsh, since you touched a point of trhe job I was trained for (even if I never worked in it) I went ballistic.
Now what I have done is explain the mathematical theory about surveys, anykind of surveys be them of opinion or quality control (eg when you evaluate quality of one use flash bulbs by taking a small sample of them).
Now I could tell you a lot of resons to take political polls with a grain of salt from dubious methodology (eg phone calls: some categories of people are not at home so poll is oly valid if you have the budget to insist and insist until the guy answers), to people lying (1) or the fact that people can change vote in the last days or hours
or hours (eg when Bush came close in 2000 due to a DUI decades before). Anyway statisticians tend to think poorly about political pollsters. But I couldn't allow you to remain unchallenged about the assertion "you can't tell how is a population
by looking at a sample one tenth of thousand of its size". That is mathematically wrong. You can.
(1) In France, many Communists voters told they voted socialist because they were ashamed to tell it in front of the pollster. So pollsters had a rule of thumb to get the Communist vote right. But when Communist vote crumbled only hardcore communists remained. These had no qualms telling how they would vote, so raw results were very close from the poll to actual numbers. But, out of habit pollsters applied their old formulas so they grossly overrated the communist vote. Also many communists shifted to fascist Front National but since this was very politically uncorrect they told pollters they voted communist. As you can see political polling is not an easy job, that is why they have a lot of soft scoence clowns political science majors in their staff.
#28
All this assumes that you are trying to get the right answer when you poll, but we all know some polls are intentionally skewed toward a particular result.
#30
Mitch - I hear you when it comes to the herd effect. However, I can't help but wonder why we should help the democrats obtain a good estimate of how many dead they need to turn out to vote.
#33
Every time a poll call comes in (I don't care if it is toothpaste or what) I say "I don't do polls".
When I go to a left blog or site and they have a poll attempting to rag on a pub or the USA ... I take the online poll in such a way that the outcome will upset them...
#35
This week US Today show a significant upward move for McCain-*-Palin.
But next week, they will probably trumpet the "significant drop" in M-*-P support. Just the RNC bounce, folks, Palin's over, nothing to see here, move along back to your regular Obama programming.
(Some of the internal number show huge changes. When asked "Who would do a better job with the ecomomy?" McCain went from 39% last week to 58% this week. This in a week when McCain never mentioned the economy. Except he did. If most people polled equate the economy directly with the price of gas, then bringing on an Alaskan pro-drill governor as VP had an effect.)
#36
#32 - Not usually an issue, as in the corrupt precincts they wait until the results are in to start the vote manufacturing and enhancement process.
#37
#32 - Not usually an issue, as in the corrupt precincts they wait until the results are in to start the vote manufacturing and enhancement process.
#38
Liek I have said before, wait until you have 3 consecutive weekday polls to track. Then look mainoy to likely voters (LV) not registered voters (RV). And look at the crosstabs to see how they "normalize" for party identification, age, etc.
The biggest problem is that there is likely an undersampling of 18-25 year olds due to them being unavailble because of cell-only use, and approximating or normalizing is difficult to do accurately with such a large subsample group. Fortunately this group also tends to turn out at a lower percentage than any other. The flip side is there may be a "youth surge" for Obama because the youth are esaily duped by hype, appearance and the MSM's featherweight fluffing.
Anyway, national polls suck. Find me a good one that's representative of LV, is a large sample, completely neutral and random inn its questioning, and normalized -- and there needs to be one of each of these for each of the states. And I want to be able to see the crosstabs including demographics and so on.
Calculate the electoral vote, and THEN you'll have me talking.
#39
If I wanted to know about how many Americans like cookies or about how many people would tune in to watch CSI: Upper Amazon Basin, a thousand person sample would work just fine.
When it comes to politics, a thousand aint enough. That's why two different polls taken on the same race at the same time can have different results. Often outside one anothers margin of error. Too many variables invloved here (emotions, bias etc.) Forget accurately adjusting for them. I would sa its safe to assume that the vast majority of pollster have never even bother to make an attempt to to mathematically find any sort of correlation between polling results and election results.
Like the often mention theory that conservations keep to themselves during polls. Right there we have what many believe to be the causal portion, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has even thought about doing an actual r squared to see if there's correlation.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/08/2008 20:37 Comments ||
Top||
#40
I don't do telephone polls because I don't want to be profiled or push-polled by some unknown political group -- and it's a lot easier to say "no, thanks" and hang up. That suggests to me that those polled may be naive and/or anxious to spout off to total strangers. Not exactly a scientific sampling.
#41
Apparently the Las Vegas bookies have done the R-squared calculations, Mike N. You might want to check there for something undoubtedly more accurate than the pollsters. I'm sure you're quite right that the pollsters have never actually tested their results against reality -- otherwise they would have successfully called the last few elections.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 08:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
good, but he's gotta be reminded that sticking his finger in the republican eye on base issues (see: "illegal immigration amnesty") isn't gonna win this election. Frame it as "battling corruption" and he can win.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2008 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I watched McCain on Face the Nation yesterday.   It was pointed out that demographic shifts apart from illegal immigration mean that the R party had better start attracting hispanics and blacks if it wants any chance to govern over the next few decades.
I think Mac knows there are problems w/ illegal immigration and the borders. But I also think he's looking long term and trying not to totally alienate that growing hispanic population who are naturals for the R message of social conservatism, hard work, family and military service.
I'm watching things in PA in that light as I mentioned y'day.  Forget about abortion as a wedge issue - Palin and Mac don't scare most moderate women on that. But hit hard on illegal immigration and there's a good chance the Rs will lose hispanics not only this election but for a generation. It's a tough balance to pull off which is why he doesn't want to go there IMO.
#3
It would have been one thing if he'd been trying to "walk a fine line on immigration" back in '07. But that wasn't what he was doing - he flat out climbed into bed with the creator of the mess we find ourselves in today. I agree with lotp's analysis near term, but I'm still afraid that the only real winners in this election will be the open-borders lobby.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
09/08/2008 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I respectfully disagree w. LOTP. The theory you propound is based on the conventional "inside washington" knowledge that all hispanic/latino voters are in favor of illegal immigration. This proposition, while attractive to those who adopt the "tribal" view of the world on which the Democrat strategy has always been based Simply stated: loyalty to one's minority group identity will always trump loyalty to the ideals on which the U.S. was founded. There's simply no empirical research (or other research) to support the proposed phenomenon.
I think it's insulting to over-simplify the debate over illegal immigration as one between the "brown's" and the "white nativists"; which is what one does when he accepts the Democrat/inside the beltway terms on that issue. I know many latinos who have immigrated LEGALLY and who wish the interlopers who have come here ILLEGALLY would be forced to face the consequences of their crime.
A more accurate distinction, and one which more closely identifies conservatives and Republicans than does the "tribal" view is the division between those who respect the law and those who do not respect the law. The legal latino immigrants mentioned above are the former; they are potential Republican/conservative voters and they would vote for immigration enforcement. The illegal immigrants are the latter, and are not potential Republican/conservative voters anyway. How does "losing" those who would not vote for the Republican party ANYWAY represent a loss to the party?
On the contrary, there are a great many conservative republicans whose vote was nearly permanently lost due to the "comprehensive immigration reform" by the GOP. I attribute the GOP's new populism to Karl Rove's desire to establish a "permanent GOP majority". The problem with his theory was the idea that so long as Repubs remain slightly to the right of the Dems, they can slide to the left far enough to capture most of the middle. That's just not the case. I and many other conservatives (including latinos) would rather stay true to our principles and lose the Republican majority; than support a Republican party that abandons all conservative principles. After all, what good is a Republican majority if it represents a Democrat-lite socialism?
#5
A lot of legal Mexicans are unhappy with Illegal immigration. YOu just need to frame the debate properly. I would suggest three points: (1) Cutting in line is unfair when others had to wait and go through a bunch of hurdles. So we need to clear out some hurdles but we also need to stop the line-jumping. it's just not right. (2) We believe in minimum wage and health and safety in the workplace laws. Those that hire illegals do so to avoid those laws. I do not believe that someone should be put at risk or mistreated because of their race. Either we need to rethink these minimum wage and health and safety laws or we need to stop those who exploit them. (3) Mexico refuses to reform and become the great nation she could be. Because of that her bravest and boldest risk everything to come to the US. The US is not here to allow the Mexican elites to abuse their citizens.
The security and drug issues don't need to even be said. They are known well enough already and can easily be painted as racist. On the other hand it becomes very hard to argue against my three points above without leaving yourself open to charges of racism.
#6
"Two Kinds of Mexicans," by Carlos Mencia, a VERY funny man, is spot on.
Hispanics are NOT a monolithic block.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/08/2008 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Agreed, all.  Hispanics are no more a monolithic block than women. ;-)
That said - my small sample of actual hispanic friends and relatives by marriage, here legally, get very very nervous when they hear someone campaign on getting tough re: immigration. They know the destructive effects of illegal immigration but also feel real compassion for the conditions from which those illegals fled.  In many cases they have church or even family ties to them, too.
So, given that the R brand is currently declining as a % of the total population, I gently suggest it does not make sense in this highly contested, tight race to push those people away by taking a stand which the President will be in no position to push through Congress anyway (unless there is a huge shift in congressional races over the next 7 weeks).Â
#8
The money has already been appropriated to build the "fence". It is being built slowly. I expect McCain, once in office, to get it built quickly. And once that starts happening, I expect him to start the debate on what to do about illegals here and laborers who want to enter for seasonal work. Signing the legislation to be contingent on finishing the border security system.
#10
Instead of mavericks, I want them to come out strongly in favor of party discipline. If Republicans work together as a team, reward loyalty and punish disloyalty and misbehavior, then they will win.
No more kids in a candy store behavior if they get the majority on congress again. Discipline must be strict, rewards and punishments must be certain.
#11
CNN + FOX > Pundits in both are in rough consensus that MCCAIN-PALIN = GOP is potentially making a major campaign mistake by seemingly making MINOR TO NO ADS TARGETING OR APPEALING TO THE US HISPANIC VOTE AT THIS TIME VEE BLACKS AND WHITE-BLACK WOMEN.
SAME > CONVENTIONAL WISDOM = MCCAIN-PALIN/GOP WILL LOSE 2008 IFF THEY LOSE THE HISPANIC VOTE + BULK OF MINORITY VOTE???
#1
That has always been a key tenet of social gospel theology: that individual salvation cannot occur unless we are also fighting for social justice. I don't think it necessarily means he sees himself as a savior in any unique sense (although he certainly has that tone to him). But this sort of reasoning was deployed against upwardly mobile black professionals. Like the Rev. Wright, Obama clearly is saying in this audio that blacks should reject "middle classism".
#4
So ... back in the early 80s a good friend of mine, a black guy, was doing his theology dissertation in liberation theology.  He finally ditched it and did a very different dissertation, but not until after a long and very emotional process.
He had a solid Christian identity going into that process and eventually rejected liberation theology because it didn't ring true to him. Obama probably never had that kind of identity against which to measure the claims of Wright etc. - certainly not in his childhood or through college and where would he have gotten it otherwise, given that he converted at Wright's church?
I think Obama's a bright and somewhat empty young man whose arrogance grows more and more brittle and bitter as he finds it harder and harder to hide from himself.
#5
think Obama's a bright and somewhat empty young man whose arrogance grows more and more brittle and bitter as he finds it harder and harder to hide from himself.
#6
From Sarah's speech (I think she fully understand Mr. Zero)...
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
#8
I'm beginning to think it's important for whoever the President is to have at least one failed at something. Gone out of business, been shot down, gone through adversity... unfortunately, it seems we as a society have developed a filtering mechanism to reject anyone who's ever tried to do anything significant.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/08/2008 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Obama should have stopped this Messiah cult of personality thing at the start, because it has some truly grotesque side effects.
As the saying goes: "First you get disciples, and then they crucify you."
In practice, it's easy to fool yourself into thinking you have to be perfect, and set the bar too high for yourself.
Think Jimmy Swaggart, whose followers demanded that he be so sinless that it warped his mind, and he ended up finding the ugliest prostitute he could find, just to get grossed out and stimulated at the same time.
In Obama's case, he can't just propose policy changes, they have to be miracles. So he is promising trillion dollar everything to everyone and cutting taxes at the same time, and making the sun stop in the sky.
Only cynical con artists, like JFK and Bill Clinton, can get away with such nonsense, because they don't believe in it for a second. But Obama has set himself up to take a McGovern sized FAIL.
Interestingly, in retrospect, his followers will blame it on America, for being racist, and his critics will blame it on his being an ultra-leftist. But in truth, it will be because he got fooled into believing his own hype.
#2
I don't read this as them losing the Anchor Seat.
Somebody help me out here.
I read a new contract for a lunatic O-man etc..
All I see is they do not anchor debates or election night. Big deal.
To allow such lowlife to host a show on a national venue states lot about the lack of character of the management, investors, and viewers of this here abomination of a show.
Sensationalism is not news.
msnbc, you are a worthless network and you will not survive.
#6
David Gregory - another smirky little piece of shit - will take over for them. Slight (very slight) improvement. No sale, NBC or GE. I expect KO's "contract extension" talks to last a while, say....past the election? Regardless, it's a wonderful career bitchslap for Tingles Matthews and Edward R Olbermann
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2008 5:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
So... they still have someone who is a member of the propaganda arm of the dhimocrats. So what exactly changed at MSNBC?
#10
David Gregory - another smirky little piece of shit - will take over for them.
Don't tell that to the true believers over at Democratic Underground. According to them, David Gregory is "a shill" for KKKarl Rove, and this affair is another example of creeping fascism, "just the first step...the first step in getting Keith off the air altogether."
I love seeing the unhinged Olbermann's unhinged minions unhinging like this.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Just get him off the NFL pregame and I'll be happy.
#12
The anchor on cable news is small potatos. It's the opinion broadcasts that get the ratings. Did they take Hardball away (they shouldn't)? If not they've done nothing but spin.
Perhaps the news world isn't big enough for MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and CNN Headline News plus PBS, NBC, ABC, and CBS news on the left side of the spectrum. Maybe CNN should buy CBS news and shut down Headline news. Maybe NBC should shut down CNBC and NBC news and consolidate with MSNBC. Perhaps ABC news should just go away.
#2
And, Obama's campaign has no doubt put out the word to stop shooting themselves so thoroughly in the foot. Be interesting to see if the crazies pull back. NYT is on board, but I suspect Andy Sullivan just won't be able to help himself.
#4
Obama's nutroots campaign was backfiring badly. It only served to make Palin more of a likeable superstar. Legitimate political issues were drowning in the noise.
So on to Plan B. At least try to re-make Sarah as a normal type person.
India has assured the US that it would protect the interests of American companies and not strike bilateral trade deals with other members of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group until the US Congress approves the 123 Agreement.
The assurance came in the wake of apprehension expressed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that other NSG members might corner the bulk of nuclear contracts should the 123 Agreement not get through the current Congress. Rice's statement also reflects concern in the Bush Administration that the ratification of the 123 Agreement many not be a smooth process.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that India would "actually enter" into the trade with supplying countries through bilateral agreements after the ``ratification (of the 123 agreement) of the US Congress.''
The promptness with which India acceded to the US demand on nuclear commerce adds substance to the charges made by the BJP and the Left that the 123 Agreement suited the American interest and that India was being turned into a big nuclear bazaar .
Mukherjee stated that "approval by the board of governors of IAEA for the India-specific safeguards agreement and the NSG waiver are the passports to enter into international nuclear trade".
He said the US Congress requires two documents - the India-specific safeguards agreement approved by the IAEA board of governors and amendment to NSG guidelines by providing waiver to India after which they can ratify the 123 Agreement. India would be able to enter bilateral agreements with other countries after these procedures are completed, the Minister said.
Earlier, Rice said the US had "talked to the Indian Government about not disadvantaging American companies and I think they recognise and appreciate American leadership on this issue. But obviously, the best thing would be to get it through Congress".
Terming the waiver granted to India by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) a "huge step" in bilateral ties, Rice also complimented the role played by the Indian Government at the NSG meeting in Vienna.
"It is an important step forward. I have to say that India showed a lot of leadership," she said. "We got lot of help from the Indian Government to make this possible, but also from a number of delegations who worked very closely with us. And I think that it is a really very big step forward for the non-proliferation framework," she was quoted as saying by transcript released by the State Department.
Rice said there was widespread support for the India-US nuclear deal in the environmental community. ``Even within some of the opposition I think you find support for this," she said, noting, "India has a lot at stake in this agreement."
"I don't think that Indians would have sought this agreement if they did not see that their principal goal now... their principal incentive is to seek peaceful uses of nuclear materials, to be able to build civil nuclear facilities and to do that with the best technology from around the world," Rice said.
"And so, once it is done - and I do want to emphasise we still have to go back to Congress - I think you will see that there is really a basis for a very different kind of relationship for India with the rest of the world on these issues," she said.
Asked why the administration was pressing for quick passage for implementing the 123 Agreement when a similar agreement had been languishing in the US Congress for months, Rice said the two were different as Russia was already a member of the non-proliferation regime.
"I think they're different, for one very important reason," Rice said. As Russia is already a member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the NSG, that agreement "will eventually improve the prospects for US cooperation with Russia on nuclear issues and nuclear technology".
"But the India deal is a landmark," she said. "It's no secret that India has been outside the non-proliferation regime for the entire history of its programme. So, in that sense, it is more significant, from the point of view of the historic nature of the agreement," Rice said.
Posted by: john frum ||
09/08/2008 15:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
Israeli police on Sunday recommended indicting beleaguered Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with corruption charges in two different cases, but the premier's lawyers dismissed the move as irrelevant.
Police said they had gathered enough evidence to indict Olmert on charges of accepting bribes and breaching public trust over suspicions he had unlawfully accepted cash-stuffed envelopes from a US businessman. Police also recommended that Olmert be indicted over suspicions he had billed the same overseas trips several times over, allegedly using the ill-gotten gains to pay for private trips for himself and his family.
The two allegations cover the 13 years before he took office, when he served as mayor of Jerusalem and as trade and industry minister.
The police advice will be submitted to state prosecutors who will review the evidence and make their own recommendation. While police and state prosecutors can recommend a prosecution, the formal decision to indict a prime minister lies with Attorney General Menahem Mazuz, who is expected to make a decision within the coming weeks.
Olmert has been dogged by multiple corruption investigations for months and on July 30 announced he would step down after his centrist Kadima party selects a new leader in an election among party members on September 17.
Olmert's attorneys said in response that the police recommendation has no meaning. "The only person authorized by the law to decide whether to indict a prime minister is the attorney general. He has the authority and he bears the responsibility over the issue," his lawyers said in a statement. "The police recommendations are meaningless. It would have been appropriate for the police to completely avoid expressing its views on issues that are not under its jurisdiction and its authority."
They keep sending signals, and Olmert keep ignoring them ...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President BushÂ’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
Those would be the same "irresponsible" tax cuts which "cost the nation over $2.3 trillion" and are so bitterly condemned on Obama's campaign website, would they not?
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 10:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Liar. Suck-up. Tell me again why you can't campaign as the hardcore liberal you are?
Posted by: Chris W. ||
09/08/2008 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Google "Antonio Gramsci".
THAT'S why.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/08/2008 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hope and Change? Obama still HOPES that the voters won't notice that his positions continually CHANGE.
#7
We may not technically be in recession, Oldcat. But that doesn't change the fact that inflation is increasing and jobs are being lost. Obama's previous support of raising taxes would be a stake in the heart to a trouble economy.
MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign.
David Gregory, the NBC newsman and White House correspondent who also hosts a program on MSNBC, will take over during such events as this fall's presidential and vice presidential debates and election night.
The move, confirmed by spokesmen for both networks, follows increasingly loud complaints about Olbermann's anchor role at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Olbermann, who regularly assails President Bush and GOP nominee John McCain on his "Countdown" program, was effusive in praising the acceptance speech of Democratic nominee Barack Obama. He drew flak Thursday when the Republicans played a video that included a tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that if the networks had done that, "we would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize."
Matthews, who has criticized politicians in both parties, drew less criticism for his convention role but became a divisive figure during the primaries when he described how he was inspired by Obama's speeches and made disparaging remarks about Hillary Clinton, for which he later apologized.
In May, MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in an interview that during live events Olbermann and Matthews "put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem."
But NBC News journalists, who often appear on the cable channel, did see a problem, arguing behind the scenes that MSNBC's move to the left -- which includes a new show, debuting tonight, for Air America radio host Rachel Maddow -- was tarnishing their reputation for fairness. Tom Brokaw, the interim host of "Meet the Press," said that at times Olbermann and Matthews went too far.
Olbermann and Matthews will remain as analysts during major political events, and officials at both networks, who declined to be identified discussing personnel moves, said Olbermann had initiated the discussions to clarify his role. They said Olbermann's influence at MSNBC would in no way be diminished and that the shift would enable him and Matthews to offer more candid analysis during live coverage. Olbermann confirmed yesterday he had initiated the discussions.
"Phil and I have debated this set-up since late winter/early spring (with me saying, 'Are you sure this flies?' and him saying, 'Yes, but let's judge it event by event') and I think we both reached the same point during the RNC," Olbermann said by e-mail.
Olbermann was involved in several on-air incidents during the conventions that drew unwanted attention. He told morning host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, to "get a shovel" as Scarborough was defending the McCain campaign. And when GOP strategist Mike Murphy was debating Matthews, Olbermann could be heard saying, "Let's wrap him up."
These and other clashes fueled a sense that conservative voices are less than welcome at MSNBC as it has tried to position itself as a left-wing alternative to Fox News Channel. Olbermann disputes this view, calling the incidents "overblown." Still, the network canceled Tucker Carlson's show in March and has diminished his role. And Dan Abrams, the veteran NBC legal analyst and former MSNBC general manager, had his program dropped last month to make room for Maddow, an Olbermann protege.
MSNBC's more liberal outlook has boosted its ratings, though it remains the third-place cable news channel. But both parties began castigating its coverage last spring. Steve Schmidt, McCain's top strategist, called the network "an organ of the Democratic National Committee," and Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Matthews was "in the tank" for Obama.
#1
I thought dropping Olbermann and Matthews was a good move by MSNBC until I realized they were moving to further to the far left. ...The Air America chatter joins the MSNBC lineup. I'm surprised they didn't recruit some MoveOn.org leftie or some KOS kid.
#2
Wonder if Chrissy Mathews felt a warm tingle going down his leg...not up... when he got this little nugget of info? That would be piss escaping his diaper once again and filling his shoe.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer
Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has challenged President Robert Mugabe to hold a new election if he is not prepared to share his powers. 
Several Russian ships and 1,000 soldiers will take part in joint naval maneuvers with Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea later this year, exercises likely to increase diplomatic tensions with Washington, a pro-government newspaper reported on Saturday.
Israeli police on Sunday recommended indicting beleaguered Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with corruption charges in two different cases, but the premier's lawyers dismissed the move as irrelevant.
