Hey, Europe, do you want some cheese with that whine?

Oh, wait … it’s cheese and wine that you’re whining about.

I had to laugh when I read about a new European gripe: They complain that people elsewhere in the world are freeloading, making money off the names that originated in their neck of the global woods for things like cheese and wine.

For instance, we all know the white cheese with the holes as Swiss. It got that name because it originated in Switzerland. And champagne, a term we generally apply to any kind of sparkling wine, was named after a region in France and originally described only the wine produced there.

Now, some people in Europe want to ask the World Trade Organization for new rules that protect their &uot;right&uot; to these place names that have been associated with kinds of foods for hundreds of years. That would allow only cheese that actually came from Switzerland to be called Swiss, and so forth.

This idea is ridiculous because so many of the names we assign things were originally based on geography but now have become generic. That’s the way language works.

For example, a U.S. opponent to this European foolishness pointed out that Hamburg, Germany doesn’t have exclusive rights to the word &uot;hamburger,&uot; nor does Brussels, Belgium have sole ownership of the term &uot;Brussels sprouts.&uot;

We could take it even further. Should only sandwiches made in Philadelphia be allowed to bear the &uot;Philly sandwich&uot; name? If so, at least one local restaurant is going to have to order new menus (or maybe even change it’s name entirely). Is the &uot;Taste of the Big Apple&uot; pizza shop on Broadway going to have to change its name because its pizza is not actually made in New York? How about the Big New Yorker at Pizza Hut?

We’ve had a lot of controversy over names recently. First was the case of a cable network that used to be called TNN. They wanted to change their name to Spike TV when they reinvented themselves as the &uot;first network for men.&uot;

But film director Spike Lee sued over the name &045; as if he’s the only guy named Spike. He seemed to assume that anybody who uses the word &uot;spike&uot; must be referring to him &045; even though the word, aside from being a name, is also a common noun (a very large nail) and a verb (to add alcohol to a drink, or to drive sharply downward with a hard blow, as with a volleyball). Get real. The TV network eventually settled and went ahead with the Spike name.

Then liberal author Al Franken got into a tussle with Fox News Channel over his new book, which includes the words &uot;Fair and Balanced&uot; in the subtitle &045; an obvious jab at the conservative all-news network. The network said it copyrighted the slogan &uot;Fair and Balanced&uot; and that Franken couldn’t use the phrase in his book’s title.

The book was obviously a work of satire. There’s no doubt that Fox was going to fail to see any humor in it, but that doesn’t mean they can keep a work of literature from using their little phrase. It wasn’t like Franken was starting a rival news channel and trying to steal the slogan.

In all of these cases, people are arguing over words and who has the right to use them. It’s a testament to the power of language. That power should be restricted only when there’s good reason, not just because somebody wants to hoard words for themselves. Words belong to all of us.

&045; &045; &045;

Speaking of the power of language, apparently the Tribune’s coverage of a Playboy model’s homecoming has been questioned by many, as recent letters to the editor have reflected.

I don’t really see the problem with what the newspaper did. We printed one news story in advance, mentioning that the event was happening &045; as we do for dozens of events each week. Playboy paid for an advertisement on a different day. And we covered the event itself because we thought it was newsworthy.

Now, some people seem to be confused about the definition of &uot;newsworthy.&uot; They seem to think that because we covered this event, we’re endorsing it or promoting it. If that was the case, you’d have to say we think murder and fire are great because we cover murders and fires. Our coverage of a model’s visit doesn’t mean we are trying to glamorize Playboy magazine. It means we recognize that when a local person is prominently featured in a magazine with a 4.5 million worldwide circulation, it’s news.

Not everybody was going to like the story or approve of the woman’s choice. Then again, others did. Ultimately, that’s the reader’s decision to make, not ours.

(Dylan Belden is the Tribune’s managing editor. His column appears Sundays. E-mail him at dylan. belden@albertleatribune.com.)