Food Fight!

Imaginary Press
In a further escalation of the long-running trade battle between the United States and the European Union, certain exports of American snack foods and treats are being scrutinized by the EU Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. According to Jean-Pierre Retard, Assistant Deputy Undersecretary for Desserts, some of the packaging and branding of American foods is not in “harmony” with European labeling standards. Under EU laws, protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI) and traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) are restricted to regional foods. Thus it is impossible in Europe to buy champagne, burgundy, gruyère or camembert that did not originate in specific regions of France, while they can all be made in the same factory in New Jersey and sold throughout the United States without restriction. Some brands of American “cheese” products, notably those sold in pressurized aerosol cans, can be entirely manufactured from petroleum distillates without the slightest hint of milk from any mammal on the planet. Cheez-Whiz, for example, originated from an experimental version of Silly String, according to a prominent food expert. This looseness of description and labeling is frowned upon in the EU.

The first rumblings of the disagreement stemmed from the efforts of the American company Häagen-Dazs to sell ice cream in Europe. Despite the exotic-sounding name, the brand originated in the Bronx and its name does not mean anything at all in any extant language, although it resembles an obscenity in Etruscan. This was allowed after some debate. More recently, the proposed introduction of the Moon Pie was challenged by European confectioners and bakers on the grounds that the name misrepresented the origin of the product, and besides, it’s not really a pie. While that case was pending before the Directorate, another American company attempted to introduce another American confection also mislabeled as a pie, the Eskimo Pie. This caused an immediate uproar. Protestors from the quiescent dessert industry in France dumped ice, ice cream, and sherbet onto roadways, causing massive traffic jams and multiple-car pileups as drivers skidded in the sweet slush. French members of the European Parliament objected that Eskimo Pies were not only not pies, but they contained no Eskimos or Eskimo by-products, were not made by Eskimos, and in fact, Eskimos did not particularly like them. When the company was sold to a Canadian firm, the outcry was even louder, since Canada has an abundant supply of Eskimos.

While the EU ponders its decision, the makers of the original Whoopie Pie have returned to the laboratory to refine their recipe for the European market. To avoid the problems other American packaged desserts have had, Whoopie engineers are developing a product tailored to European requirements which will emit a rude noise when sat upon.

“White Guilt,” National Self-Confidence and the War

Shelby Steele is insightful about national self-confidence and about how the lack of such confidence seriously weakens a society like ours that is fighting a confident and determined enemy. (See also this post.) However, he paints with a broad brush and I think that his analysis may be improved if we pay more attention to the political dynamics of the various groups within our society.

For example, I’m not sure that “white guilt” is the best way to frame the issue. There are plenty of Jacksonians, white and nonwhite, who have no guilt at all about using overwhelming force to crush our enemies. There are also many Americans who are ambivalent about America and ambivalent or hostile towards the war. Between these two extremes there are many people who are on the fence.

My guess is that Americans are about evenly distributed between these groups. This means that our official policy, which is planned and implemented by realistic people who would like to use overwhelming force against our enemies — so that we can win as quickly as possible and get out — is constrained by the political difficulty, perhaps even impossibility, of doing so at the moment. It also means that the main impediment to our giving Iran and other enemies the same treatment as we gave Japan towards the end of WW2 is the opinions of the uncommitted third of our population.

Lately the war news has been uninspiring if not discouraging, the uncommitteds have become more negative about our involvement and, consequently, the Bush administration has become more hesitant in its prosecution of the war. However, the entire political dynamic of this country would flip in a strongly pro-war direction if something happened to shift uncommitted opinion in the direction of favoring greater aggressiveness towards our enemies. I assume that another major terror attack here could have that effect, but so I think could other events, including events that we can’t easily foresee.

The problem, then, is not ultimately guilt so much as it is the significant political divisions in our society, which for the moment exist in a weak equilibrium. It’s the same political dynamic that has made the last two presidential elections so close. I think that this equilibrium will eventually shift as the country moves decisively in one political direction or the other, but I don’t think we are there yet.

I hope that this shift, when it does happen, will be the result of thoughtful reflection on the part of many citizens rather than of some terrible event like another big attack.

UPDATE: Rethinking this topic in light of what commenters have written, I agree that guilt is an issue. Or perhaps “guilt” is a flavor of lack of self-confidence. But white guilt is a red herring. Americans who lack enough confidence in their country to defend it rhetorically or militarily are members of a distinct class, heirs to an intellectual tradition having nothing to do with race and whose adherents come from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Some of the members of the guilty class believe themselves guilty by virtue of being white; others believe that their guilt comes from being westerners, Christians or people of wealth. It is ultimately leftist ideology that underlies the lack of confidence and that uses race consciousness as but one of a number of tools of mass-manipulation.

UPDATE2: David Foster offers an alternative explanation.

Space Jockey

In Space Jockey, Robert Heinlein showed us a (roughly present-day) world in which commercial rockets routinely brought paying passengers and cargo to the moon, but the machines that plotted the trajectories were much too large to bring on board.

In the real present day, of course, you can plot a trajectory to anyplace you like with a machine that fits in your pocket. What you can’t do is actually go anywhere.

Where did the portable trajectory-plotting machine come from, and what happened to the rocket that was supposed to go with it?

I am firmly convinced that the answer can be found by comparing and contrasting the laws and regulations governing rockets (and high-density energy sources, on which rockets inevitably depend in the absence of wormholes big enough to send real power through) and those governing computers.

Technological stagnation

Donald Pittenger at 2 Blowhards makes a good case that the pace of technological change is slower today than it was several decades ago, and that the “century of maximum change” is actually the period 1825-1925.

I tend to agree. We’re in a period of relative technological stagnation.

What went wrong? And what can be done about it?

And why do so few people seem to think that it’s even a problem?