French politician Rachida Dati criticizes investment funds for "looking for returns of 20 or 25%, at a time when fellatio is almost non-existent."

That's translated from French, in which the key word is "fellation," which she supposedly confused with "inflation."

Miss Dati was a love rival of Mr Sarkozy’s third wife, Carla Bruni, for many months as both battled for a place in the Elysee Palace bed chamber. 

Now, why is that relevant? 

"French nationality is earned, and one must prove oneself worthy of it."

"When you open fire on an agent of the forces of order, you’re no longer worthy of being French."

Said Sarkozy, getting tough.

He vowed to deny automatic citizenship at 18 to French-born children of foreigners if they are juvenile delinquents. He said he would also strip foreign-born citizens of French citizenship if they had been convicted of threatening or harming a police officer, or of crimes like polygamy and female circumcision, which are widespread in North Africa.

"Classic and romantic, wise and iconoclastic, light and serious, sentimental and moralistic..."

"... he created the ‘Rohmer’ style, which will outlive him," said Nicolas Sarkozy, on the occasion of the death, at age 89, of the film director Eric Rohmer.

“My Night at Maud’s” was the third title in his “Six Moral Tales,” a series of films that Mr. Rohmer began in 1963, though for economic reasons it was the fourth to be filmed. In each of the six films, a man who is married or committed to a woman finds himself tempted to stray but is ultimately able to resist. His films are as much about what does not happen between his characters as what does, a tendency that enchanted critics as often as it drove audience members to distraction.

I sat through "My Night at Maud's" and other Rohmer films back in the 1970s. I can't say that I enjoyed myself very much, but it was the sort of thing one did back then and does not do today.

"This post does a great job of parodying Althouse’s own obsession with irrelevant minutae."

"... That *is* what it’s doing, isn’t it?"

Ha ha ha. That's the 8:57 comment (from Bitchphd) on this obsessive and humorless post about the Obama-Sarkozy ass-gawk and my description of it.

IN THE COMMENTS: Rick Lee says:

Well... I AM an expert in photography and this guy's analysis is stupid. You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.

Indeed!

"She is dedicated to helping the poor, not to seducing world leaders. This is the wrong image of my daughter."

So said Eduardo Tavares, father of Mayara Rodrigues Tavares, the 17-year-old woman famously apparently ogled by Presidents Obama and Sarkozy.

Her mom added, "She is really skinny and only ever wears pants. Mayara is timid and ashamed of her body. This was the first time in her life that she wore a dress, and it was borrowed from a friend in the shantytown because she doesn't own one."

The high school sophomore, who hails from one of Rio de Janeiro's slums known as favelas, had been picked by UNICEF to join the counterpart Junior 8 forum of teenagers because she stood out as a community volunteer. She shares a single room with her parents and two younger brothers and can't afford the bus fare to attend a good high school.

"Why are they looking at her like that? This is a girl who is articulate and intelligent and just wants to do the right thing," the father said. "Instead, they are forcing her into a negative light."

2 world leaders demonstrate the 2 ways of conspicuously gawking at a woman's ass.

I see a distinct difference between these 2 stances. Yes, there are similarities. Both are blatant and hilarious. But the Sarkozy ass-gawking stance says: I admire but I must not act. And Obama is caught at the moment of as-yet-unconstrained pursuit.

Sarkozy holds his arms against his chest in a closed — but not tightly closed — position. The head is turned but upright. He is smiling, but the index finger lying against his lip blocks the edge of the smile from the point of view of anyone standing in front of him, though if the woman were to turn around, she would see it easily. His hand is tipped upward at a jaunty — one is tempted to say phallic — angle. The foot closest to the woman is planted firmly on the ground in the don't-go-that-way position, yet the other foot angles toward the object of desire. Still, the angled foot remains flat on the floor, and, at a shoulder's distance from the other foot, it the whole figure of the man a solid immobility.

Now, swivel your eyes over to Obama's feet. The foot closest to the woman, like Sarkozy's, is planted and aimed forward, but the other steps off in the direction of the woman, bending the knee upward into a bit of a crotch-squeeze and forming the base of a dramatic tilt of the entire body into a flexible S-shape that leans toward the woman. Obama's arms hang free, emphasizing the tilt, and either gravity or will causes the left arm to hang inches away from the torso. See how much lower the right hand is than the left? His neck is craned out and around so that the line of sight is directly at the ass. His mouth is open as if to say: That's what I want.

AND: Yes, I have seen the video, and I stand by my analysis of the still photograph.

"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue; it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity."

"The burqa is not a religious sign; it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.

Is it not a religious sign because a sign of the subjugation? If that is what Nicolas Sarkozy means then he is implicitly asserting that whatever subjugates women is not religion. But it is not the role of government to say what constitutes religion.

Nevertheless, both government and religious may try to occupy the same niche. When it does, let government boldly assert that its policies trump religious practices and then let's have a debate about the scope of the rights of religious freedom. Don't say it's not religion. It is. And religion ought to have to take responsibility for the repression it imposes. Don't let it off the hook!

Mr. Sarkozy noted that “in the republic, the Muslim religion must be respected like other religions.” But he declared that “the burqa is not welcome in France.”

“We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind bars, cut off from social life, deprived of identity,” he said. “That is not our idea of maintaining the dignity of women.”

I can't tell what he's proposing. Is there to be a ban on burqas or is he just encouraging people to feel/express hostility to the women who adopt this form of dress? Why does denying women this choice enhance their dignity? Presumably, some/most/all of the women who wear a burqa do so because they are forced or pressured into it, and that's the indignity that the government wants to remedy. It may be that it's too hard to detect and regulate the coercion and therefore the thing that is so often coerced should be banned, even at the cost of depriving some women of their free choice.

It's paternalism attacking paternalism.

"I am interested in Nicolas Sarkozy’s bottom. No, really."

"I would like to compare its height, firmness and bounciness with the bottom of Crown Prince Felipe of Spain. Is it 'impossibly round and high,' for instance, or disappointingly flat?"

Does Obama not know who's president of France? Or is he intentionally insulting Sarkozy?

"'I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world."

Written to Jacques Chirac.