Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I should say that west of the Appalachians, for the most part, it boils down to the 19th century settlers. I think my previous statement was a bit too sweeping.
Well sure Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa are settled by Northern Europeans (especially Minnesota) who brought their agricultural and food storage customs with them. Hence cheese and beer. Both ideal methods for longer term storage of calories, and they taste good too.
I like some beer, and I'd eat my hand if it was covered in melted cheese. Hand Fondue.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,771,918 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Well sure Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa are settled by Northern Europeans (especially Minnesota) who brought their agricultural and food storage customs with them. Hence cheese and beer. Both ideal methods for longer term storage of calories, and they taste good too.
I like some beer, and I'd eat my hand if it was covered in melted cheese. Hand Fondue.
Distant relatives of my immigrant grandfather were traipsing around Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa for about 50 years before my great grandparents crossed the pond. It was an odd mix, people moving west , Scandinavians, and mostly Catholics from Luxembourg and the Eifel. Michigan had a slightly different mix. More native born people, some of the Catholics from the Eifel, and a lot of Dutch who belonged to the Christian Reform church, but lots and lots of farmers, throughout the region. Then there were the Cornish miners in the Upper peninsula of Michigan
Bologna isn't Parma, but West Bologna can make Parmesan. Coca-Cola is a trademark, that's already protected under IP, as is Gucci. However, if there is an identical T-Shirt to a Gucci T-Shirt, in every aspect, but being made by Gucci, what importance is there in the T-Shirt being Gucci? Only the attraction of the name, like a Parmesan style cheese that is identical in every aspect, but being made in Milwaukee for example not West Bologna.
West bologna is within the traditional Parmesan producing area, that's why it's included. The whole point of the geographical indication protections is to give traditional producers of products of a specific recognisable regional type similar protection for their collective IP that corporate brands get with their trademarks. Often there are distinct features that can't be replicated elsewhere, the flavour in agricultural products comes from the feed used for the animals, the local soil types etc. Its also a quality mark, ensuring that good standards of production have been met without shortcuts to make it cheaper.
If you don't see the difference or don't think it's worth paying extra for that difference then nobody is stopping you buying 'Greek-style salad cheese' rather than genuine feta cheese, just as I can buy Aldi cola rather than Coca-Cola if I want to. But Aldi can't call their cola 'Coca-Cola' because that name is protected, just as the protected origin schemes do for names of traditional products from different regions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Interesting aside, don't you think it's interesting that Newcastle Brown Ale, is still available, when it cannot be brewed in Newcastle, it's actually brewed in the Netherlands, isn't that itself violation of traditional intellectual property and branding? I wonder what would happen if a brewery opened brewing a Brown Ale and called it Newcastle Brown Ale, you think that the law would side with that brewer?
Newcastle Brown Ale as far as I know has always been a product made by one company with the name trademarked by that company. If it had been a traditional style of beers made by various brewers in that region with distinctive characteristics from that region rather than being a brand name for one company then it probably would have qualified. The company that owned the trademark protection sold it to another company that now owns that trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
However it's the principle, one thinks of Vodka as being Polish or Russian, given water means something different in English than Vodka, if you ask for a glass of water in Britain, you're not going to get vodka. The name is little water (feminized), in Slavic or Polish (wodka), voda/wody is actually water (which kind of sounds the same as water). If we were to use the same principle of naming it should be Petite Eau, given it's origin in France, Eau being feminine anyway and the trailing e on petite indicating feminine gender (compare petit garçon).
Language aside it's deceptive, don't you think?
Vodka is a generic description, just like 'wine' is. Anybody can produce wine and call it wine regardless of whether people associate wine with France and Italy etc, they just can't call it Bordeaux, or Chianti, or Port if it isn't those specific styles of regionally distinctive wine. They can make wine and they can sell that wine, but they can't describe it as a type of wine that it isn't, they have to think of another name. Certain specific regional types of vodka do have geographical protection by the way. Similarly anybody can make whisky, but they can't call it 'Scotch Whisky' if it isn't made in Scotland to certain standards, I don't see anything wrong with that myself.
This kind of system is not unique to the EU, although its probably most developed in the EU. In the US for example you can only call a whiskey 'Bourbon' if it meets certain requirements for ingredients and production methods, you can only call it 'Kentucky Bourbon' if it meets those requirements and is also made in Kentucky.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,771,918 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MnM258
West bologna is within the traditional Parmesan producing area, that's why it's included. The whole point of the geographical indication protections is to give traditional producers of products of a specific recognisable regional type similar protection for their collective IP that corporate brands get with their trademarks. Often there are distinct features that can't be replicated elsewhere, the flavour in agricultural products comes from the feed used for the animals, the local soil types etc. Its also a quality mark, ensuring that good standards of production have been met without shortcuts to make it cheaper.
If you don't see the difference or don't think it's worth paying extra for that difference then nobody is stopping you buying 'Greek-style salad cheese' rather than genuine feta cheese, just as I can buy Aldi cola rather than Coca-Cola if I want to. But Aldi can't call their cola 'Coca-Cola' because that name is protected, just as the protected origin schemes do for names of traditional products from different regions.
Newcastle Brown Ale as far as I know has always been a product made by one company with the name trademarked by that company. If it had been a traditional style of beers made by various brewers in that region with distinctive characteristics from that region rather than being a brand name for one company then it probably would have qualified. The company that owned the trademark protection sold it to another company that now owns that trademark.
Vodka is a generic description, just like 'wine' is. Anybody can produce wine and call it wine regardless of whether people associate wine with France and Italy etc, they just can't call it Bordeaux, or Chianti, or Port if it isn't those specific styles of regionally distinctive wine. They can make wine and they can sell that wine, but they can't describe it as a type of wine that it isn't, they have to think of another name. Certain specific regional types of vodka do have geographical protection by the way. Similarly anybody can make whisky, but they can't call it 'Scotch Whisky' if it isn't made in Scotland to certain standards, I don't see anything wrong with that myself.
This kind of system is not unique to the EU, although its probably most developed in the EU. In the US for example you can only call a whiskey 'Bourbon' if it meets certain requirements for ingredients and production methods, you can only call it 'Kentucky Bourbon' if it meets those requirements and is also made in Kentucky.
Then there's bologna/baloney. Lebanon bologna is a product made in or near Lebanon, Pennsylvania, in Lancaster County. It's a different product than the Italian stuff.the best known group of people in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania are the Amish.
In the US, in the 50s and 60s I don't remember ever seeing bologna.it was always baloney. Now I see both spellings and both pronunciations are used.
I'm sorry but do you have any evidence at all on this? Any? You accuse me of using language 'mass produced by various self interests'. At the end of the day its about Democracy, if (and its a VERY BIG if) Farage came to power and decided to sell out the NHS (which simply ain't happening) then at least the electorate would get the final say. Democracy is THE most important thing for any country on this planet, our ancestors fought for it and the EU is simply NOT Democratic - come back to me when Europe is governed by one central power and when its the people of Europe that vote on that one central power.
Is the Westminster System democratic? Does each vote have equal sway or representation? What about the lies told by anti EU politicians like Boris? Should such straight out lying that influenced so many be taken seriously? I think it is not about democracy in the slightest. If it was allow the people true democracy. Think Switzerland. How will people be actually better off with the loosening of labour laws as one example hence conditions. Britain already has some of the poorest conditions at least in Western Europe and falling welfare conditions. Did your ancestors fight for the social division in society that had improved in the seventies but now exists through many decades of government mismanagement resulting in falling living standards and all issues around that?
Rather unfair to blame EU, which has spent money in run down UK areas . I know. A friend of mine benefited living in the Rhonda Valley.
What do you know about Farage? He has formulated little policy but is doing well financially but being an anti, but not expressing the look after.
In fact, what has been shown, is Britain in government but especially the people are clueless to what a Post EU Britain will look like but sold some tale , rather past looking ,than having much idea of the reality to where and what the future will look.
Bologna isn't Parma, but West Bologna can make Parmesan. Coca-Cola is a trademark, that's already protected under IP, as is Gucci. However, if there is an identical T-Shirt to a Gucci T-Shirt, in every aspect, but being made by Gucci, what importance is there in the T-Shirt being Gucci? Only the attraction of the name, like a Parmesan style cheese that is identical in every aspect, but being made in Milwaukee for example not West Bologna.
Interesting aside, don't you think it's interesting that Newcastle Brown Ale, is still available, when it cannot be brewed in Newcastle, it's actually brewed in the Netherlands, isn't that itself violation of traditional intellectual property and branding? I wonder what would happen if a brewery opened brewing a Brown Ale and called it Newcastle Brown Ale, you think that the law would side with that brewer?
However it's the principle, one thinks of Vodka as being Polish or Russian, given water means something different in English than Vodka, if you ask for a glass of water in Britain, you're not going to get vodka. The name is little water (feminized), in Slavic or Polish (wodka), voda/wody is actually water (which kind of sounds the same as water). If we were to use the same principle of naming it should be Petite Eau, given it's origin in France, Eau being feminine anyway and the trailing e on petite indicating feminine gender (compare petit garçon).
Language aside it's deceptive, don't you think?
And you don't see similarities between the UK and EU as the UK and Scotland?
Where've you been looking, have you heard about this whole, Scottish Independence movement?
UK Councils just enact the domestic policies of Westminster, they receive a budget and manage that budget. More similar to the EU is the US, with State Governments and the Federal Government, but take one look at the SCOTUS schedule and you'll see a majority of lawsuits sitting that are jurisdictional in nature, does the State have the right to do this, or has the Federal Government? That's with a clear separation of powers in its founding documents, and one civil war of secession, there is no such separation of powers in the EU documentation,
nor has there been a secessionist civil war. That's part of what I'm discussing right here, because of the transfer of powers to the EU piecemeal, governments don't quite know where they stand, electors (us) don't really know who's responsible, do we blame the EU for immigration policies or Tony Blair? Kind of both don't you agree? See the issue?
I think you don't understand the concept of Separation of Powers. The EU has more SoP than the UK. EU is similar to the US, and arguably has more, with the Council of Ministers, and Heads of Government decision making. Governors in the US have no similar collective power.
Parliamentary democracies including the UK, don't have similar separation of powers. Cabinet Ministers, i.e executives, vote in Parliament on legislation they propose. Duh!
My interpretation of Trump's comments about a phenom trade deal that could double or even treble the existing $1T, and that Healthcare needs to be part of the package, is that it signals a demand for a de facto NHS privatization, even if it's de jure called something else. Better hope he loses 2020.
The yanks may have noticed that if the UK has no deal with the EU, US, China, and Japan, then it is on unfavorable, i.e. WTO terms with over 66% of the global economy. The remaining 33% is both more difficult and of less interest due to a mismatch in what the UK primarily buys and sells, with other countries. The 66% probably represent 80% or more of UK trade, and now is the time to play hardball. Kick the Brits when they're down so to speak.
In reality most of Africa can't afford to import what the UK wants to sell, and the UK doesn't want to import what Africa wants to sell. So now you're down to ANZAC, India and South America. Good luck with that.
Politically, I'm a centrist, which probably puts me well to the right of Troubadour, but I agree with analysis.
Trump's interpretation of 'everything on the table' including NHS, then back tracking somewhat a bit later, is quite worrying. It means that side shouldn't be trusted and any deal will need to be scrutinised by outside independent experts, to ensure the UK government is not selling its people out by failing to disclose or simply not stating the reality of what they actually, in the event of doing so, actually signed up to.
As the poster above re in states, there are limited opportunities outside of EU for Britain to enter agreement with . Talk of an Anglo sphere agreement will hardly deliver very much. ANZAC has too small a market and too little to exchange. Remember Britain forfeited those close links when joining the Community all those years ago, leaving the New Zealand diary market in something of a shambles. A prime reason one suspects Australia at least in the beginning became so inter wound with the Asian Region. Of course there's China ever marching forward and increasingly calling the shots favourable to themselves and whose influence is enveloping the Asia/Pacific region and increasingly beyond. I believe China is the largest exporter (emigrants)of people to UK in country terms over recent years.
Just what agreement could come with Korea or India I cannot think. Anything that would not already be in place by means of conventional world trade between nations.
I still wait to read concrete proposals of how the benefits will rain down on Britain post EU or indeed what those benefits will be. There are a lot of operatives on the Conservative front and Far Right (mostly for own populist benefit) broadcasting emotive signals that seems to stir a number of the citizens but little real idea of how things might be.
I think you don't understand the concept of Separation of Powers. The EU has more SoP than the UK. EU is similar to the US, and arguably has more, with the Council of Ministers, and Heads of Government decision making. Governors in the US have no similar collective power.
Parliamentary democracies including the UK, don't have similar separation of powers. Cabinet Ministers, i.e executives, vote in Parliament on legislation they propose. Duh!
I think you don't understand what I mean by separation of powers on this context.
What precisely can the EU determine, what precisely can it enforce, what is explicitly excluded? This is what it owns, and nothing else.
The same should also exist for member governments, what they can determine what they can enforce, what is explicitly excluded. This is what it owns (but may include anything not explicitly stated elsewhere).
However that doesn't exist from what I can tell, it's a kludge. The EU has broad regulatory powers covering multiple areas that once approved apply to all member states and carry weight of law. The question is what areas are verboten? If you look at the 22 committees and use them as a starting point, there's really nothing the EU cannot do in regards to member governance. Then there are directives that equally have weight of law that can be applied to one or more member states, to achieve certain stated goals, and apply as long as the goals are not achieved.
Now that above being apparent, what is a member state government responsible for (except acting to enable EU regulations and directives).
Now sure the EU does not run every government of its members, however, I can see nothing that prevents it. This is what raises questions of sovereignty, who is de facto and de jure sovereign in a conflict between a member government and the EU, and in which areas if governance?
That's what I mean by separation of powers, not the separation of powers between the EU, EP, and ECJ.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
