Le cumul des mandats explained

Marc explains the news from France.

The cumul des mandats means elected officials holding multiple offices. It's shocking for Americans, but common in France. Here, you can run for office while already holding another office. The public say they oppose it, and recent laws have limited it, but when those members of the public enter the voting booth, they seem to have no problems with their full-time mayor also being a full-time member of a regional council and a full-time member of the national and European parliaments. Part of it is habit, part of it is status, part of it is financial calculation: having your mayor as a minister can bring pork to town, and having your mayor as an MP can be handy for getting a traffic ticket canceled.

What prompts my rant of the day is this story from 20 Minutes, in which I learn that one limitation on the cumul des mandats isn't really one. You see, there is a limit on the total compensation an elected official can earn from his offices. He can hold multiple offices, but he can only collect a limited amount of cash for doing it (he still keeps all his other benefits, office expenses, travel expenses, etc.). But according to the article, he can transfer any excess compensation over his limit to another elected official! Huh? The compensation is for doing his job, not money owed to him that he can give away to others. This is such BS. Vive la France!


http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_votre_service/elections/les_elections_en_france/cumul-mandats

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumul_des_mandats

Marry-Fuck-Kill/Hannity-O'Reilly-Beck

I am trying to find a flaw in Jacob's reasoning, but I can't.

The thing is I was trying to play Marry-Fuck-Kill with Fox News and I decided that I would eff Hannity, obvs, and kill O'Reilly, and marry Glenn Beck. And I sort of defied everybody to come up with a better set of choices, and they couldn't. I've always wanted to marry Glenn Beck, because I believe he would be a fantastic husband. Brilliant, manipulative, into marketing, willing to whore out for a buck. The kind of guy who will be mean to the landscapers if I don't have it in me. A team player. Just what I'm looking for, like, a slightly broken Buddy Garrity-type high school Vice Principal who thinks that cars matter. The kind of guy that wants a boat so bad he dreams about it. This is my West Texas upbringing talking: I want a man who's happy to suck barbecue sauce off his fingers even in front of the Queen of England, just to give me something to bitch about on the ride home. And everybody's all, "But he would cry! He would cry and stomp his feet and make strange meaningless graphs!" To which I say, "Let him try that shit at home."

Salon.com approves antisemitism, calls for murder, hate speech, terrorism, genocide

Surprised?

The following comments from one person have been on Salon.com for several days. Despite an alert on Sunday, they remain present. Conclusion: Salon.com approves thinks this is acceptable speech on their website.

http://letters.salon.com/d51b89eb2a561c96fdbb8064d827bfe1/author/index1.html

More on stupid French football fans

When they're not beating each other to death or vandalizing public property or looting stores, French football fans do need something to keep them busy. Thanks to the Olympique de Marseille, fans of Paris St Germain now have a new hobby: planning the destruction of the team merchandise (crap) shop OM plans to open near Châtelet.

Story HERE.

Le Parisien recherche journalistes

Qui parlent français :
De son propre chef, le père Stephen Kiesle avait demandé à être défroqué alors que ces tendances pédophiles étaient clairement établies.
"ces" N'EST PAS "ses"

A novel form of police brutality...

Marc explains the news from France...

Read the story HERE.

Although I do post a bit on the reflex of the French "youth" to riot and loot whenever a complete stranger who happens also to be a youth happens to kill himself while running away from the cops (typically without a helmet or license on a speeding stolen off-road motorbike operating on the street), I strongly feel that the revolt against the police is largely motivated by the abuse of police power in France, where a cop can beat up a guy coming out of the police station and get as punishment a simple 6-month unpaid leave.

But the case linked to above takes the cake. After the case of the young woman arrested in her bedroom and taken handcuffed to the police station in her PJs because she may have witnessed an assault in front of her lycée, we have the case of three young men from Marseille who, during a cigarette break in front of the school, got into an argument with a schoolmate in which some foul language and insults were used.

Girl calls mom, who happens to be a police officer in another city. Mom arrives with a group of twelve cops in three vehicles, forces her way into the lycée, and arrests the three guys. They're taken to her police station, which has no jurisdiction for this lycée, are entered in the national crime registry, fingerprinted, photographed, and have a DNA sample taken.

This is nuts... but will be even nuttier will be the consequences. I'm betting that there will be almost none.

DP April 1 One-by-one

Letter Writer 1 is a college girl whose vagina hurts when penetrated. Doctors tell her all sorts of stuff, including "meet a guy and get comfy first". But LW claims her college runs on a sex-first-only basis. Prudie says get a fortieth medical opinion. And rethink the hook-up plan.
My take: What Prudie said as far as the medical stuff goes. And what Prudie says about "hook ups". I can't believe that it's just a given that sex has replaced having a coffee together as the first step of a relationship. What Prudie misses is that vaginal sex is not the only kind of sex around. The kidz seem to think that things like "anal sex acts" and "oral sex acts" are not sex (even though "sex" is their middle name). If LW must engage in these sad "hook-ups", and until she figures out what's going on with her vagina, there's plenty of sex she can be having.

Video LW is a yakker who makes sweet talk to her honey non stop. Her friends are sick of it and tell her that all too soon, she won't think her sweetheart's so sweet. How should she respond? Prudie thinks she may be overdoing the verbal PDAs.
My take: Just why do you care? You may be making too many intimate calls in their presence, which is a manners issue. But as to their comments on your loveydoveyness, in one ear and out the other is the best policy, IMO.

LW2's father has had a debilitating stroke and she doesn't know how to be able to spend time with him. Prudie says to spend time with him.
My take: What Prudie said. Which is better? Having your father remember better days that show how much he has meant to you, or having him think you don't care about him now?

LW3 is a fat gay college student who's got the hots for a fellow student. But object of lust is out of his league lookswise. Prudie gives a strategy for approaching the hottie, but tells LW that he'll probably have to settle for other fat guys.
My take: Based on personal experience, I would ask Prudie to step back from her notion that the only guys a fat guy can get are other fat guys. And why should LW not be under the same influence as the others? It's not just gay culture that tells us that beautiful people are more attractive, or that fit people are more beautiful than unfit people. And it's not just the effect of some media conspiracy. I'm willing to bet that just about any person we find exceptionally beautiful today would have been considered at least quite attractive at any other time in history. But I guess Prudie's ultimate advice does work: get a great job, get rich, and you can have all the pretty boys you want.

LW4 is friends with a woman who she thinks is stealing from her employer. Prudie says to give friend a warning to cut out the stealing.
My take: I guess Prudie's advice is OK as far as it goes. But if you're convinced she's stealing (duh), then why would you want to be friends with her? If she steals from her employer "because everyone's doing it", she'll be happy to find a rationalization for stealing from you (like maybe your husband, if it suits her). I don't think there's any need to warn her about the risks of stealing. I'm gonna assume she knows that it's morally and legally wrong.