Magic Statistics

Mayday! Valentine’s Day approaching.  A Kashmiri Muslim organisation called Forum Against Social Evils has warned local youth against observing St Valentine’s Day.

"We warn the youth to stay away from Valentine's Day celebrations," the Forum against Social Evils said in a notice published in the English-language Greater Kashmir daily newspaper.

"If they participate in any programme on the occasion of Valentine's Day, we will take action against the same," the group said, adding that Valentine's Day results in "moral degradation and immorality."

Forum Against Social Evils is an umbrella organisation of Islamic groups supporting Kashmir’s independence from India.  One of the forum’s members is the women’s group Dukhtarane Millat (Daughters of the Nation), which views Valentine’s Day as a "deep-rooted conspiracy of the West to involve Muslims in their vulgar culture."

That certainly seems to corroborate Ayatollah Khomeini’s understanding of Islam.

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Still, the heads up regarding Valentine’s Day is rather amusing, I think.

This post seems an appropriate place to park the animated gif you see at right.

h/t: Big News Network.com - Breaking Religious News

Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal’s gaffes and content-free campaign for the French presidency have caught up with her.  The latest polls show her six or seven percentage points behind her main opponent, centre-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who has run a very spirited campaign.

Many of Ms Royal’s potential supporters have apparently deserted her in favour of one or another of five extreme-left candidates, who between them have 15% support.  Another factor is centrist François Bayrou, who is proving so popular that he has been dubbed the Third Man of the French presidential race.

Recent polls show Mr Sarkozy’s support in the low 30s and Ms Royal’s in the high 20s, while Mr Bayrou has gained the backing of 12% of French voters.  Ségo’s poll numbers are so disappointing that she has felt compelled to move sharply to the left.

After months of wooing middle-ground voters with a soft, inclusive vision, Ms Royal depicted herself as a victim of right-wing forces and champion of the workers in the face of a ruthless capitalist class.

She told a packed hall in central Paris: “We are fighting a hard Right, without principles, without virtue, an arrogant Right which . . . never varies on its aim: the defence of its privileges.” The “ruling establishment” had sought to destroy her campaign with dirty tricks and skulduggery, she said.

Ms Royal’s aggressive relaunch is an attempt to appeal to core left-wing voters and galvanise her party after gaffes and vagueness on policy eroded the invincible aura of last year.

On the surface, this doesn’t seem to make sense.  Both Ségo and Sarko have been reaching out to voters in the middle of the political spectrum, as has Mr Bayrou.  How can moving away from the centre with a return to hard-left rhetoric help her chances?

The key to keep in mind is that France has a two-stage presidential election.  The first round of voting, to be held on 22 April, will reduce the field to the two top vote-getters, who will then compete in the second round on 6 May to determine the winner.  Ségo’s strategy is geared to ensuring a second-place finish in round one.

The Times of London Paris correspondent Charles Bremner explains in a video interview:

Her fear is what happened to Lionel Jospin in 2002.  He was prime minister, favourite to win the whole thing. Then, when the first round of the election came, he lost support from the left because a lot of the far left didn’t like him.  They voted frivolously for candidates who had no hope.  He failed to make number two.  Jean-Marie LePen came in from the far right and beat him, humiliated him.

Ségolène Royal is now working to avoid the fate of Lionel Jospin.  She is presently more concerned with not losing out in round one than with winning round two.

Previous related posts:

• Only one French voter in three finds Ségolène more credible
• Ségolène blunders again
• Vive le Canada libre!
• French feeling poor

Earlier this week, some Canadian university students demonstrated on Parliament Hill, whingeing claiming that tuition fees are too high.  No self-interest at work there.

The murky world of government funding must be cleared to give all students access to affordable post-secondary education says a national student body campaigning for sweeping change to the system.

The Canadian Federation of Students says bank balances, and not grades, are determining who has access to a university education.

Inside the House of Commons, Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton castigated the government for allegedly not doing enough to make university affordable for youth from low-income families.

The day after the demonstration made the news, Statistics Canada released an in-depth study into why low-income young people are less likely to attend university.  The study proves that the arguments of the demonstrators and their political supporters are fallacious because based on incorrect assumptions.  I just love it when that happens.

The study found only weak evidence that financial constraints were a direct barrier to attending university.

Instead, it found that the gap is almost entirely associated with differences in academic performance and parental influences. In fact, about 84% of the gap was related to differences in the characteristics of youth from different economic backgrounds, that is, their academic performance, parents' level of education, parental expectations, high school attended, and so on.

In contrast, only 12% of the gap in university attendance was related to the higher incidence of being "financially constrained" among lower-income youth.

The findings indicate that throwing more money at post-secondary education will not significantly increase university attendance by low-income youth.  The largest factor is lower academic achievement among students from low-income families.  On average, youth from middle- and upper-income families simply have higher grades and do better on standardised reading, mathematics, and science tests.

The study also found that parental educational attainment and expectations are highly significant.

Parental education . . . is very strongly associated with university participation. Youth with at least one university-educated parent enjoy a large advantage in university participation over youth with no postsecondary-educated parent, roughly in the range of 15 to 20 percentage points. The same is true for parental expectations: students whose parents expect them to complete a university degree enjoy a 12- to 16-percentage-point advantage in university participation over other students.

The above quote is from page 20 of the full report (pdf).

Therefore, the Canadian Federation of Students has it quite wrong:  When it comes to “determining who has access to a university education”, bank balances are far less important than grades and parental influence.

Sources:

Frenette, Marc, 2007. "Why are youth from lower-income families less likely to attend university? Evidence from academic abilities, parental influences and financial constraints." Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series.  Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11F-0019-MIE.  http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2007295.pdf  (accessed 10 February 2007).

Statistics Canada, 2007.  "Study: Why are youth from lower-income families less likely to attend university?" The Daily, 8 February. http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/070208/d070208a.htm (accessed 10 February 2007).

Previous related post: Jack Layton: Wrong again