Amazing what you learn from the news...

[alexpgp]

Interesting words from Pavel Felgenhauser, writing for The Moscow Times:

I lived for almost 40 years under a totalitarian regime, and I know from first-hand experience what life without freedom means. Anti-war protesters in Western Europe and America do not know and could not care less.

Only by military means can millions of Iraqis be released from total servitude, and Hussein destroyed along with his Baath party that has ruled Iraq since 1958. If there ever existed such a thing as a "just war" then the coming U.S.-led invasion of Iraq could be the most righteous of them all.

Later on in the piece, Felgenhauser notes the following and comes to a conclusion that seems to appear more and more often, albeit not in the mainstream press (with rare exceptions)::

In April 1975, Hussein visited Moscow to ask for Soviet help to build a full reactor to make nuclear weapons. Although Russia agreed to supply Iraq with staggering amounts of conventional weapons, it balked at helping Baghdad go nuclear. In September 1975, Hussein went to Paris to meet politicians with far fewer scruples than Soviet Communists. The French prime minister at the time, Jacques Chirac, signed an agreement to sell Hussein a reactor and arms-grade uranium.

If Chirac and other French politicians had had their way, Hussein could have made tens of nuclear bombs by 1990. The war to liberate Kuwait would never have taken place or would have turned into an all-out nuclear confrontation between Iraq, Israel and the United States. The tragedy was avoided when in 1979 Israeli agents near Toulon destroyed two French-built reactors en route to Iraq. In 1981, the Israelis bombed to debris the French replacement reactor in Iraq before it could be made operational.

Maybe France and Germany are so loyally trying to save Hussein because they want to cover up their long-time cooperation in helping to build weapons of mass destruction? Is the treachery of the past feeding more treachery today?

A lot of people (including your diffident spectator) have been wondering the same thing.

* * *A ringing cell phone or beeping pager may now cost you a $50 fine in New York, if you happen to be attending the theater or a movie house. If this is not the epitome of nanny government, I don't know what is.

Next on the agenda: fines for talking in movies or failing to dress appropriately for theaters.

I'm kidding.

Or am I?

* * *Today's Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on the front page of section B. It turns out that the Europeans are working through the World Trade Organization trying to "take back" the names of a variety of products, from cheddar cheese (UK), to pilsner beer (Czech), to balsamic vinegar (Italy).

I breezed through the article, so I probably missed a lot of juicy details, but I did glean the following: the Europeans are not going to be satisfied with calling something, say, "imitation mozzarella" or "balsamic-style vinegar." The way I read the article, these products are going to have to be completely renamed (I missed out on whether you could license the use of the name). Besides this, the article mentioned a desire, on the part of the Italians, to check out more than 60,000 "Italian" restaurants around the world, to make sure they are up to snuff and are using Italian-made products.

Looks like protectionism coming back with a vengeance, I'd say.

Opponents offer up a number of objections, the very least of which is the idea that, if you want to protect a name, you should trademark it (as is the case with, I believe, Roquefort cheese).

In any event, should the Europeans somehow succeed in this attempt to corner the market on behalf of their local products (that is, convince everyone else in the world to change the names of stuff they've been selling for years, which I don't think is realistic; I think the WTO will go down the tubes first, if push comes to shove), I predict a horrendous subsequent collapse of the European market in such goods, as everyone else in the world gets used to new product names and ceases to buy what will become niche goods with esoteric names (and prices).

* * *In the neverending quest to improve my language skills, I am informed (via the Telegraph) that the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" - a term describing the French, made famous by the character of Groundskeeper Willie from The Simpsons - translates as: les primates capitulards toujours en quête de fromage, at least in the Telegraph.

Although my French skills are weak, I believe the phrase, as rendered, back-translates as: "surrendering monkeys always searching for cheese." If I had to stake what little reputation I have expressing myself in French (i.e., none), I'd have tried with: "les primates capitulards qui mangent de fromage."

But what do I know?

Cheers...

Comments

[egofood.livejournal.com]

Good link from the Moscow Times.

[brenk.livejournal.com]

I'd go for 'singes' (monkeys) rather than primates, which is a little too broad. And agree with the 'mangeurs de fromage'. However, I'd go further and say 'ces mangeurs de fromage et singes capitulards.'

As for agreeing with it, we won't go into that. Not a word about the Europeans calling the USA 'warmongers' and a few other rather interesting epithets will cross my lips.

Ooops. *g*.

No, seriously, I won't get into this. Not after spending a week where I just did. Without the media hype, many things can look very different. Joe Public doesn't always hear it like it is, believe me. Or not...!

Another interesting tidbit that *does* irritate me about the French, I have to admit. There's a small village near us, called Champagne. Sure, it has the same name as the large French winegrowing area, but it's been called that for a good few centuries. For at least a century, they've also been renowned for making a special sort of breadstick known in Switzerland as 'flûtes' and - logicically enough - call 'em 'flûtes de Champagne'. Which also happens to be a translation of 'champagne glasses.' And they were *not* impressed when the French protested and said 'change it'. And didn't. Heh.

Basically, though, protectionism is OK until it goes too far (like the 'Italian restaurants') but where to draw the line will no doubt keep a lot of civil servants happy for a long, long time, not to mention those who will have to seek out the 'cheats' for centuries to come. I personally do like 'real' Parmesan and not copies but that does have a trademark (Parmigiano Reggiano, I believe - think you're right about Roquefort and a lot of other French cheeses are also trademarked for that matter) and I think that's the only way to go. More fool the makers of balsamico or other stuff that didn't. Bet the guy who patented a certain blend of caffeine and other stuff to make a dark brown, fizzy drink is rather glad *he* did.

As for Cheddar, for instance, what's wrong with saying 'Canadian Cheddar' if it does, indeed, constitute the same thing and Mr-Inventor-of-Cheddar didn't say "and any other qualifiers such as 'Canadian' are prohibited'? Another thing to keep bureaucrats happy, although again, I like Cheddar to *be* Chedder and not some soapy, orange, bland imitation that I've stumbled on in - er - certain countries *whistles*.

Hm.

Huge issue, and I need to unpack and go write about world strife...

Last interesting (maybe) ramble. On French trains, you're asked to use mobile phones in the corridors, not in the actual carriages. They use rather cute signs showing a mobile sleeping, versus a mobile smiling. People actually respect it, too. Not sure if they'd fine you if they didn't but it's actually rather pleasant compared to Swiss and UK trains where constantly ringing cellphones drive me nuts. I do know you can be fined for smoking in the streets in Singapore...

GO AND WORK WOMAN

Cheer