Prior to the treaties and terms that were drawn up at the conclusion of the World Wars, the German state of Saarland had no cohesive identity and did not exist as an administrative division, until after WWI, French forces governed the area as a protectorate, the resource-rich region having historic connections to both countries and, like neighbouring Alsace, dominated by each power at different times over the centuries. The goal of long term occupation was that France could recover from the industrial ravages of the Great War and prevent Germany's rearmament through the coal and mineral deposits in this land. With the end of the following war, Saarland once again became a French protectorate with the surrender and when German territory was divided amongst the Allied Forces, which was not reunited with the rest of Western Germany until 1957 with what is referred to as die Kleine Wiedervereinigung. The French also had designs on another region, to the north, the heavily industrial and more resource-rich lands of the Ruhr Valley (Ruhrgebiet) of North-Rhine Westphalia.
French negotiators felt that the Ruhrgebiet should either be managed like the Saar Protectorate or be created as a separate condominium state—like the singular case of Andorra, ruled by two co-princes, the president of France and the Spanish bishop of Urgell, or the strange compromise reached a century earlier in the sliver of land called Neutral Moresnet (Esperanto was also the official language of this tiny country), which was a shared responsibility between the Kingdoms of Prussia and Belgium. A zinc mine, the region's only significant source, was located here and the committee that redrew the map after the last spate of warring wanted to ensure that no one country could monopolise the supply. American and British representatives, however, felt that France's demands went too far and taking away the country's industrial-base would make rebuilding the war-torn land impossible. Concessions were arrived at, however, and in exchange for being able to re-establish itself as an independent federal republic, West Germany agreed to pool its coal and steel resources with the rest of Europe and impose quotas on how much it could use domestically.
Saturday, 12 April 2014
saargebiet oder neutral moresnet
Friday, 11 April 2014
pelagic or teuthology

Thursday, 10 April 2014
every good boy does fine or eisenhower, diesel
A clever little article from Mentalfloss begs how “i before e, except after c” could ever have been considered a useful or valid guide, mnemonic device for spelling or pronunciation for the English language. I suppose the exception makes the rule, what with so many words borrowed and the legacy of origins. Maybe that was the point for Champion Charlie Brown. There are no answers, really, but the chance to think about etymology and its heritage harvest in the imparting and continuation is nonetheless interesting.
greystoke or bungle in the jungle
There is certainly an echo-chamber for disinformation and hyperbole in the press sounding Russian and NATO posture and it is difficult to know what to believe and which exaggerations will become exasperations. Foreign Minister Lavarov, warning that the nation of Ukraine runs the risk of sliding into civil war if elements in Kyiv aligned to the Kremlin are forcibly removed, provocatively adding that about one hundred fifty mercenaries (in other words, enemy combatants, "party to the conflict") are present in the area and disguised as members of the elite Ukrainian Falcon Unit (which may or may not be a crew of stunt pilots).
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
sammelw(m)ut
The European Union High Court ruled yesterday that individual and infra-state mandates for telecommunication companies to retain customer data, in anticipation of—for the eventuality of surrendering that intelligence to authorities to combat the spectre of terrorism or organised crime are illegal. The court opined that such broad directives, previously installed after the mass-transit bombings in London and Madrid and challenged by freedom groups in Austria and Ireland, infringed disproportionately on individuals’ right to privacy and ownership, integrity of their personal information and kept the populace under the same menacing aegis of dragnet surveillance that needs no competition or shadow.
Acknowledging that such omnipresence and onus has no place within the framework of European law (the public is better protected and served in perception and reality by professional and targeted investigations and not this theatre of pre-crime) is certainly a positive development, raking in some of the expansive and virtually unchecked inkpads of human activity—however, not only governments are possessed with a collecting mania (Sammelwut). Even if the justices of the High Court are willing to diminish the jurisdiction of the state in such matters and demand that more precise language be in place to govern the retention and release of records, the demographics of marketers and buccaneers are divergently becoming something more and more specific and impugning. Private individuals may be at the mercy of government agencies when it comes to the disposition of their data—however, someone is ultimately accountable; with industry, on the other hand, though profits and potential customers (or victims) drive research and stockpiling, the information that business has on people—both amalgamated and detailed, is given to those businesses voluntarily. The authorities may have no claims of custody over such information, and no longer in a position to petition the public, progress may be forthcoming, but seem better custodians than business—retailers and providers alike, which politicians are reluctant to reign in. In response, governments that tailored individual guidelines for telecommunications companies may want to also shirk their follow-on responsibilities to precisely define what warrants scrutiny and archiving.