Does anyone have statistical data for hungary in electronic form or
addresses from people with such information? I would need this data for
* CERROs statistical information service for Central Europe * (the election
results of Hungary are just available in this service!).
*********************************************************************
*  Guenther Rieder, Interdisciplinary Institute for Urban and       *
*  Regional Studies, University of Economics and Business           *
*  Administration, Vienna, Austria                                  *
*  Tel: 31336/4839                                                  *
*  Fax: 31336/705                                                   *
*  e-mail:                                 *
*********************************************************************

Tony writes and quotes:       (most deleted)

> Jeliko writes:
> >> Vivat Kossuth!  <== closest Ic'n come to joint hero
> >
> >Tony where are you? Th Hungarians are claiming a "Slovak" as a national
> >hero even in relation to the fourth of July.

> Jeliko, Jeliko, wherefrom art thou, Jeliko?  Surely, a more deserving
> personality would probably have been Pavol Orszag, since he contributed
> to the literature of Hungarians and Slovaks alike, whereas Kossuth's
> articles in Pesti Hirlap were really boring. Perhaps some contemporary
> viewpoints from Norwegian and British admirers of Kossuth ought not be
> overlooked? The editor of the Magyar newspaper, "A Hir," seemed
inquisitive
> to know what had caused the great Norwegian author to pass such a severe
> judgment upon the Magyars and the Magyars treatment of the non-Magyar
> nations.  Bjornson Bjornstjerne replied thus:

Tony: I am convinced that Bjornstjerne and Seton-Watson were as impartial
toward the issue as you are.

Regards,Jeliko.

 wrote:
: Bokor Imi comments:

: : >The impartiality of the press, and for that matter, History, is a myth.

: : says Eva Durant. I envy your self-confidence in these matters.

: : Further:

: : >history teaching
: : >and the press in general claims to be neutral in the West, and in fact
: rep-
: : >resents the establishment, the conservative/liberal and anti-change view.

: : This is new to me. I would like to see a few examples of this
: : conservative/liberal, anti-change and pro-establishment journalism in the
: : west. Or history, for that matter. Eva Balogh

: Try the British press in the Boer War or the Great War (WWI) for a start.

: d.A.

: I don't think that mentioning the Boer War or the Great War is appropriate
: here. The press was outright jingoist during the Boer War--in fact, the word
: jingoism comes from that time. (The press has changed a lot since then. Today
: it is difficult to imagine such jingoism of the press.) Also, one must not
: forget that during World War I there was such thing as censorship. In
: addition, modern propaganda machine was also set up, at least in the United
: States. I think the fellow who headed the office of propaganda was called
: George(?) Creel. Imi Bokor didn't mention that there was similar propaganda
: offices set up, on both sides, during World War II. I read quite a few books
: and articles from that period and reporting was anything but objective,
: especially as far as the Soviet Union was concerned. But how can you expect
: objectivity during wartime? So, bringing up the Boer War and World War I is
: simply doesn't speak to the issue. I find on the whole that the press is not
: pro-government, just the opposite, members of the press normally are
: anti-establishment. Eva Balogh

the reason i referred to the english press of the period is that this period
was one of the periods when there was a huge diversity in the english press.
i did not claim that these two periods or exhausted all possible examples.

when i look at current newspapers from the usa, uk and australia at least,
i am struck by how conservative they are, with very few exceptions. there
is little debate of fundamentla issues of societal structure. the division of
the newspapers into sections and the quantity of space devoted to various
groups of issues speaks voluminously for their acceptance and defence of
the status quo. don't get me wrong, i am not arguing that they do not have
their reasons for this, but it is an overwhelming impression. the criticism
of governement policies and/or actions strikes me as being, in general, a
question of detail rather than fundamental principal. it is the questions
of propriety that seem to be at issue rather than fundamental societal
principals. to this extent at least, the press is anything but anti-
establishment, even if many journalists might be.

in any event, being pro-establishment is not to be confuesd with being
pro-government, for in a society like the united kingdom and australia
being in governement is not the same as being in power. real power, especially
economic power is not wielded be the elected members of parliament, but
rather by the members of the boards of directors of a number of large
corporations. you may or may not find that to be a suitable situation,
you may or may not find that comforting, but that is certainly the way
things are in at least tese two countries. the press might criticise john
major's ministers for improper behaviour between the bed-sheets, or even
john major for being an ineffective leader, but they do not criticise
the british establishment as such, at most individual members of it.

the situation is similar in australia, albeit not identical, since there
is no real aristocracy here and there seems to be greater social mobility.

d.a.

Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of

                   Raoul Wallenberg's Arrival in Budapest

                   Commemorative Program and Exhibition

                   Saturday, July 9, 1994, at 2:00 p.m.

          Program and Exhibition Sponsored by the Raoul Wallenberg
                          Commemoratiave Committee
          A coalition of Hungarian, Jewish and Swedish Communities

          Exhibition to be shown from July 9 through October 5, 1994
            Museum Hours: Tuesday-Saturday, 11 to 4; Sunday 1 to 4.

                       HUNGARIAN HERITAGE CENTER MUSEUM
                300 Somerset Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
                               Tel. 908 846-5777

Good afternoom (in Spain is 13:19 ), wherever you was:

I'm student of Journalism at the Basque Country University, Bilbao, Spain...

As supporter of Middle and Eastern Europe countries' political events, I'd
like to know what's about the talks to form the new Hungarian (coalitioned?)
Goverment. Has already been agreement between Horn's Socialist Party and
the SzDSz?

                                                I wait your messages. Thanks.

(P.D.: Sorry for my English :-)

>when i look at current newspapers from the usa, uk and australia at least,
>i am struck by how conservative they are, with very few exceptions. there
>is little debate of fundamentla issues of societal structure.

This, of course, presumes that the role of the newspapers should be to
discuss fundamental issues of societal structure. I think the role of the
press is to report on events while selling newspapers.  A newspaper devoted
to radical (in the sense of "fundamental") critiques of society would have a
tiny readership.

On a less pragmatic level, why radically critique society unless society is
radically wrong?  You'd like Chomsky's "Marginalizing Dissent", in which he
argues that all "debate" in society is the establishment talking to itself.
He's right, and so are you, but the wider point is--so what?  Should society
be forced to deal with every "radical" who comes up with some boneheaded
theory like Communism, Naziism, Ludditism, Fabianism, or whatever?  I don't
think so.  You end up like Germany in the '30s--a democratic body being
packed by anti-democratic parties. Germany has a law now that explicitly
forbids any party (right or left) that advocates the abolition of democracy
from sitting in the Bundestag.  Though it'd never work under the American
Constitution (or in the U.S., in general), I do not see the harm in
protecting democracy by such measures.

>in any event, being pro-establishment is not to be confuesd with being
>pro-government, for in a society like the united kingdom and australia
>being in governement is not the same as being in power. real power,
especially
>economic power is not wielded be the elected members of parliament, but
>rather by the members of the boards of directors of a number of large
>corporations.

I've often heard this "business runs things" theory and gave it some
credibility before I became a management consultant who actually deals with
members of boards of directors of large corporations.  I can state that they
do not.  Certainly, Bill Gates, Lou Gerstner, or any other big-time CEO has
more political clout than, say, me, or at least the money to hire lobbyists
to acquire clout.  However, by and large these people have very little
interest in "power" as such over you, me, or the country.  Generally, they're
consumed with running their companies as well as they can.  They will
generally be interested in those portions of the government that affect their
company (like the tax code, or less directly, Clinton's health care plan--big
companies back it very strongly because it'll provide a minimum level of
insurance that's below what they routinely provide today as a competitive
benefit), but aside from that, their "power" is illusory.

bill

>Incidentally, didn't that USA survey found the majority of those registered,
>rather than the majority of all, to be Democrats?

No.  I saw the survey (where, I don't remember).  It was an absolute
majority, somewhere along the lines of 70+%.

bill

DATE=7/7/94
TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
NUMBER=2-161563
TITLE=HUNGARY / AIDS (L-ONLY)
BYLINE=STEFAN BOS
DATELINE=BUDAPEST
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:

INTRO:  EUROPEAN DIPLOMATS IN BUDAPEST ARE UPSET OVER THE
INTRODUCTION OF A NEW LAW IN HUNGARY OBLIGATING FOREIGNERS TO
UNDERGO AN AIDS TEST.  STEFAN BOS HAS MORE IN THIS REPORT, BASED
ON AN INTERVIEW WITH THE DUTCH AMBASSADOR, WHO FILED AN OFFICIAL
PROTEST WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

TEXT:  DUTCH AMBASSADOR HANS SONDAAL TOLD V-O-A HE IS VERY
CONCERNED THAT HUNGARY NOW REQUIRES ALL FOREIGNERS WHO WANT TO
LIVE IN THE COUNTRY TO PASS AN AIDS TEST.

IN HIS VIEW, HUNGARY BETTER SCRAP THE NEW LAW IF THE COUNTRY IS
TO EVER BE ACCEPTED INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

                       /// SONDAAL ACT //

         THE MAIN OBLIGATION AGAINST WHICH WE HAVE OBJECTIONS IS
         THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATORY MEDICAL TEST FOR AIDS.  AS
         FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED THAT RUNS COUNTER TO
         RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND THE
         EUROPEAN UNION.  HUNGARY IS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF
         EUROPE AND WISHES TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN
         UNION.

                          // END ACT //

THE NEW REGULATIONS WENT INTO EFFECT MAY FIRST, BUT WERE  NOT
APPLIED RIGOROUSLY UNTIL A FEW WEEKS AGO.

E-U OFFICIALS CHARGE THAT SINCE THAT TIME, HUNGARY HAS USED THE
LAW TO TARGET VISITORS FROM EASTERN EUROPE, AFRICA AND OTHER
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

SOME FOREIGNERS HAVE COMPLAINED THEY HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO AN
AIDS TEST MORE THAN ONCE AFTER POLICE CLAIM THEIR PAPERS WERE
MISPLACED.  OTHERS HAVE BEEN HELD IN DETENTION CAMPS FOR DAYS
WHILE AWAITING RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATIONS.

HUNGARY JOINS SEVERAL NATIONS REQUIRING THE TESTS OF WOULD-BE
IMMIGRANTS.  IN PROMULGATING THE MEASURE REQUIRING THE AIDS
TESTS, HUNGARIAN OFFICIALS SAY THEY ARE GUARDING THE PUBLIC
HEALTH.

AMBASSADOR SONDAAL AND OTHERS DISAGREE, SAYING THE PROCEDURES
VIOLATE A PERSON'S BASIC RIGHT OF PRIVACY.

                      // SONDAAL 2ND ACT //

         IN THE NETHERLANDS, WE OBLIGE FOREIGNERS WHO WANT TO
         RESIDE IN HOLLAND THAT THEY SHOW THAT THEY DON'T HAVE
         TUBERCULOSIS.  BUT THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN AIDS.
         TUBERCULOSIS IS A GENERALLY INFECTIOUS ILLNESS.  AIDS,
         HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE.  EVEN IF YOU
         DON'T DETERMINE (A PERSON HAS) IT, IT CAN SHOW UP LATER.
         SO, IT IS A VERY OBLIGATORY AND INEFFECTIVE WAY OF
         PROTECTING YOUR PUBLIC HEALTH.  I THINK TO BALANCE THE
         RIGHT OF PRIVACY ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE RIGHT OF
         PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY IS  NOT  THE BEST
         WAY.

                          // END ACT //

AMBASSADOR SONDAAL BELIEVES HUNGARY'S ATTITUDE WILL ULTIMATELY
HURT FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE COUNTRY.  HE SAYS HE'S ALREADY
NOTED AN ANGRY REACTION TO THE NEW LAW BY SOME FOREIGN
BUSINESSMEN.

THE AMBASSADOR SAYS HE HOPES THE NEW SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT, WHICH
IS EXPECTED TO TAKE OFFICE THIS MONTH, WILL CONSIDER THE
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LAW, AND WILL GET RID OF THE REGULATIONS
SOON. (SIGNED)

NEB/SB/SKH

07-Jul-94 7:03 AM EDT (1103 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America

> ---------------------------------------------------------
Use of the NEB Wire

The contents of the NEB wire are not copyrighted.  However, if you publish or
rebroadcast any of these reports, please be certain to use the latest version
that was available at the time of publication or rebroadcast. VOA news
materials that are published or rebroadcast should be used in their entirety.
Please credit the Voice of America as the source in any subsequent
dissemination.

>
> This, of course, presumes that the role of the newspapers should be to
> discuss fundamental issues of societal structure. I think the role of the
> press is to report on events while selling newspapers.  A newspaper devoted
> to radical (in the sense of "fundamental") critiques of society would have a
> tiny readership.
>
> On a less pragmatic level, why radically critique society unless society is
> radically wrong?  You'd like Chomsky's "Marginalizing Dissent", in which he
> argues that all "debate" in society is the establishment talking to itself.
> He's right, and so are you, but the wider point is--so what?  Should society
> be forced to deal with every "radical" who comes up with some boneheaded
> theory like Communism, Naziism, Ludditism, Fabianism, or whatever?  I don't
> think so.  You end up like Germany in the '30s--a democratic body being
> packed by anti-democratic parties. Germany has a law now that explicitly
> forbids any party (right or left) that advocates the abolition of democracy
> from sitting in the Bundestag.  Though it'd never work under the American
> Constitution (or in the U.S., in general), I do not see the harm in
> protecting democracy by such measures.

This paragraph seems to suggest, that all "radical" ideas are anti-
democratic by definition, and that further progress in the way things
are run (in the US?) is totally superfluous as it is perfect (??)

>
> I've often heard this "business runs things" theory and gave it some
> credibility before I became a management consultant who actually deals with
> members of boards of directors of large corporations.  I can state that they
> do not.  Certainly, Bill Gates, Lou Gerstner, or any other big-time CEO has
> more political clout than, say, me, or at least the money to hire lobbyists
> to acquire clout.  However, by and large these people have very little
> interest in "power" as such over you, me, or the country.  Generally, they're
> consumed with running their companies as well as they can.  They will
> generally be interested in those portions of the government that affect their
> company (like the tax code, or less directly, Clinton's health care plan--big
> companies back it very strongly because it'll provide a minimum level of
> insurance that's below what they routinely provide today as a competitive
> benefit), but aside from that, their "power" is illusory.
>
> bill
All I can see from my perspective, that things happen that are good for
"big business", but not good for the majority of the population, such as
the largest % products of industry (please supply data) are arms and cars,
socially distructive I hope you agree. Cuts in education and health
suppose to be good for us, etc, etc. Individual politicians could
have theoretically good intentions, but they are rarely allowed to do
what they promised to do. It's either the chaos of the market, or
the dark powers of the faceless multinationals... What is certain,
that none of it is "trickling down" to us (sorry, me) underclass
(a la Thatcher). And I like to have a chance to be fed up, strictly
through the democratic channels. Eva Durant

P.s. to Jeliko: just because you are able to buy beer when unemployed,
doesn't mean that you have the same opportunities and satisfaction in
life - perhaps the beer is allowed, so that you can take it: the
continuous psychological pressure, that you are too stupid to afford
the stuff advertised on the telly. Or, you are restricted in your
options/choices - is that what you call freedom?
(OK you need a bit of incoherence at times IMHO)

Andras Kornai writes:
> JELIKO writes:
> > The liberals think that they have an obligation to talk you into giving
it
> > away.
> Yes.

> > Unfortunately, after it is given away, they all think that it was
generated
> > by exploitation only,
> No.

> > and when they do not generate any wealth by exploitation alone, they are
all
> > surprised and want to give it back, so they can start all over again.
> What do you mean by "generating wealth by exploitation alone"?
> I was talking
> about taking away by means of taxation, and that clearly applies to
> wage-earners who have exploited nobody (except perhaps themselves).      >
Seems
> to me you are again attributing socialist views to liberals, and then
> happily proceed to attack the straw-man.

You are getting on thin ice about the indicated difference between your
"liberal" and "socialist" definitions. Which IMHO gets that way when one
starts scratching the surface. The only difference then is that socialists
want to take away the production means also and liberals want to take away
only the product, i.e. taxation. A liberal (not neccesserily a socialist,
although more often than not) does not have the money for his percieved
"do gooding" and therefore has to take this money from those who know how to
make it. Then by creating an additional layer or two of bureaucracy (one
collecting and one disseminating the funds, plus the advisory boards, study
groups, think tanks. etc. all of them otherwise totally unnecessary)
disseminates a portion of the collected wealth solely to those who are for
whatever reason are not generating those funds. The actual input decision as
to how the funds are being spent has only a minimal connection with what was
originally promised and the cost of this redistribution is always kept quiet.

So the USDA disseminates funds to the Polo club from its soil conservation
program, the university student grants (Pell grants) go to prison inmates,
the fourth generation welfare recepients are maintained in their lifestyle.
Under the programs childbearing for teenagers becomes profitable, the farmers
get paid not to grow products while other products (sugarbeets) become so
highly profitable due to subsidies, that growers are buying up land to
produce more and get further subsidies and so on. Prisons are better
maintained than rest homes for those who were paying taxes while productive
and regulatory agencies that are unaccountable to the taxpayers multiply. The
retirement benefits of those living on taxpayer funds greatly excceds that
the taxpayers can themselves afford and the new class is created owing its
allegience to the tax and spend "liberal" establishment.

IMHO, any welfare program and most others, can be and should be properly
maintained on a local level. If it was so, then the actual need for
assistance can be judged by those who know whether it is needed or not. But
when "grant writing" becomes a formal profession, to squeeze even more funds
for some (always at the expense of others) then the results of liberalism are
well demonstrated.

I could go on with the specific examples but there is not enough time and
space to list them all. And it is a never ending situation, like the
collection of luxury tax on telephones to fund the Spanish American war,
which is still on. Or the tax on private planes and boats which killed the
industry and put far more workers out of jobs then the extra tax collected
pays unemployment benefits to.

Why do you think you can spend my money better than I do?
What right do you have to tell me how I should spend my money?
Why do you think that I would have less compassion to help my fellow man than
you think you do?
I have American Indians, Yugoslavs, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russians, Eritreans
Hungarians, among others working for me. Do you know why? Because they are
all hard workers, not because their is an EEOC. But I have to pay to maintain
the EEOC bureaucracy.
We had a medical, dental, pregnancy leave, and long term sickness benefit
program long before the government even talked about it. But I will be paying
for the new bureaucracy to be set up.
We export about 40% of our products, without any government assistance, but
we are paying for the bureaucrats "promoting" exports.
We have a fully funded retirement program, but we have to pay from it an
"insurance" for a government agency to monitor those that are unfunded.
We have a profit sharing plan, a 401k plan to help everybody to save money
and improve their productivity on top of matching everybody;s Social Security
contribution.
I do not need your or anybody else's ideas on how to run a business or my
life.
When you have achieved the same thing, I will be willing to listen to your
ideas about how you propose to spend your money, but please do not try to
legislate your ideas on me.

While, the above related mainly to the economic issues, I want you to be
aware that I am proud of my actions without being a "liberal". In Oct 22
1956, I was willing to change the words of "Farkas Mihaly es bandaja" to
"Rakosi Matyas es bandaja" (Muegyetem kozgyulese). I have fought in 56 at the
Radio not just with words but with gun in hand, because it was for a cause I
believed in. I am equally proud of preventing any lynching at the Radio and
personally turning the surrendered AVH over to arriving Hungarian Army units
because that was what I belived in. That does not mean that I agree that
there should be forgivness to those who committed atrocities on either side,
but justice does not come at the end of a rope without trial or a trial as
conducted by the ex-regime.

I do not know what credentials you claim for liberality in your life, but I
am pretty satisfied that what I did and what I am doing was and is OK. And I
certainly do not feel obligated to agree that your ideas for the world are
any better than mine.

> > I never met a liberal, who called himself that, and was one.
> How did the liberals you met call themselves? Or could it be you never met
a
> genuine liberal, only people who called themselves liberal?

> Andra1s Kornai

Maybe we need a "liberal" scale that would determine if we are dealing with
genuine or otherwise liberals.

Regards,Jeliko.

In reply to your message of "Wed, 06 Jul 94 16: 44:01 PDT."
             >
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 08:02:19 -0700
From: 

I write:
> If we start with VOA:
Sorry, make that RFE/RL.

--Greg

Part of the problem in this thread (I think) is that there are two
conflicting definitions of liberalism flying around--one the traditional
(European) usage, like the Freie Demokratische Partei in Germany (laissez
faire economics, somewhat libertarian on social issues); and the American
usage, which is basically social-democratic to socialist, in European terms
(i.e., interventionist economics and social programs).

bill

Just a reminder: the TEJFAs are suspected of unlawful acts, those
fired were not.

-- Zoli

Joe (Pannon) wrote:
<*> =======================================================
<*> Felado : Pannon Jozsef
<*> E-mail : 
<*> Temakor: Re: Digest ( 11 sor )
<*> Idopont: Wed Jul  6 15:53:52 EDT 1994 HUNGARY #7
<*> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<*>
<*> Eva wrote:
<*>
<*> > Andras mentioned the new HIX service of HUNGARY in digest form.
<*>
<*> Oh, I noticed, too, the rather arbitrary editing in that HIX digest form
<*> where I found the Hungarian version of my christian name in the heading
<*> though I never use it that way in my posts to the list.
<*>
<*> I guess it's an inheritence from the Hungarian language HIX service.
<*>
<*> Joe Pannon

I quote the full article to demonstrate the format of the HIX HUNGARY digest.
There is no any change in the text, however, additional header fields are
contructed for easy browsing:
Felado (Sender)    - is your registered name with HIX (you can register a name
                     by sending your name to , then following the
                     instructions)
E-mail             - is your mail address (if you didn't register a name, the
                     mail address will be put in your Felado field)
Temakor (Subject)  - is the Subject of your mail
                     the length of your article is also printed (sor = line)
Idopont (Date/Time)- shows the time when your article reached HIX, and the
                     issue it will be in

Digests include a content listing at the beginning, which consists of
the Felado and Temakor fields.

Jozsef /HIX/

On Sun, 3 Jul 1994  wrote:

> I didn't remember the passage although I read some of these autobiographies
> (Vas, Marosan and Nagy). But even if these gentlemen mention it in their
> autobiographies, it is still nice to see it confirm in a contemporary
> document. Eva Balogh

You are right.

                                                        Attila

>From Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2nd Ed.:

                                ***

jocose, jocular, etc.  These and several other words--arch, facetious,
flippant, jesting, merry, and waggish--are difficult to separate from each
other; the dictionaries establish no very clear or serviceable distinctions,
tending to explain each by a selection of the rest.  They are marked off from
funny, droll, and others, by the fact that in the latter the effect, but in
these the intent, is the main point; that is funny etc. which amuses, but
that is jocular etc. which is meant (or, if a person, means) to amuse.  In
the following remarks no definition of the whole meaning of any word is
attempted; attention is drawn merely to the points of difference between the
one in question and some or all of the others.  All of them are usable in
contrast with serious, but for most a more appropriate opposite may be found
for the present purpose, and that word is given in brackets.

arch (opp. staid) implies the imputation of mischief or roguishness of some
sort; the imputation is ironical, or the offence is to be condoned; the meaning
is conveyed chiefly by look, tone, or expression.  An arch look, girl,
insinuation.

facetious (opp. solemn) implies a desire to be amusing; formerly a laudatory
word, but now suggesting ill-timed levity or intrusiveness or the wish to
shine.  A facetious remark, fellow, interruption.

flippant (opp. earnest) implies mockery of what should be taken seriously,
and want of consideration for others' feelings.  A flippant suggestion,
young man; f. treatment.

jesting (opp. serious) differs from the rest in having perhaps no distinctive
implication.  A jesting mood, j. Pilate, a j. proposal.

jocose (opp. grave) implies something ponderous, as of Adam and Eve's elephant
wreathing his little proboscis to make them mirth.  A jocose manner, old boy,
description.

jocular (opp. prosaic) very commonly implies the evasion of an issue by a joke,
or the flying of a kite to test the chances.  A jocular reply, writer, offer.

merry (opp. melancholy) implies good spirits and the disposition to take things
lightly.  A merry laugh, child, tale.

waggish (opp. sedate) implies on the one hand willingness to make a fool of
oneself and on the other fondness for making fools of others.  A waggish trick,
schoolboy, disposition.

                                ***


--Greg

In reply to your message of "Thu, 07 Jul 94 09: 34:26 +0800."
             >
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 11:47:51 -0700
From: 

Bill Walsh writes:
> Should society
> be forced to deal with every "radical" who comes up with some boneheaded
> theory like Communism, Naziism, Ludditism, Fabianism, or whatever?
No.  Crucify him.


> Germany has a law now that explicitly
> forbids any party...that advocates the abolition of democracy
> from sitting in the Bundestag.  Though it'd never work under the American
> Constitution (or in the U.S., in general), I do not see the harm in
> protecting democracy by such measures.
Something like destroying the village, in order to save it, eh?


--Greg

H. Jozsi writes:

> Felado (Sender)    - is your registered name with HIX (you can register a nam
e
>                      by sending your name to , then following the
>                      instructions)

The problem is that when I registered my name with HIX it was with the
understanding I was registering it for Hungarian language forums.
The Hungary list is not one of them and was added later.

Joe Pannon

>On Wed, 6 Jul 1994, Walsh Bill wrote:

>> All of this discussion reminds me of the incident that embarrassed PBS on
>> their election night coverage--when Clinton went over the top, all the
>> staffers on the floor cheered.
>> Nihil novus sub solum est,
>> bill


>if they weren't socialists, then it's o.k.

>Istvan Kertesz
>fan of the true professionalism displayed by Pesti Hirlap.

No, it is not O.K. even if they were not socialists. It is not O.K. period!
It is not O.K. on PBS and it is not O.K. at the MSZP's press conference. And
it wouldn't be O.K. at the MDF's victory celebration either. Eva Balogh

> From Eva, at least, I'd expect something more on the objective side.
>What magic resource Germany had to win a war of attrition on two
>fronts, with Britain having the USA as a non-belligerent ally if not
>more?

Before the entry of the United States into the war and before Stalingrad,
Germany looked pretty invincible. The Hungarian government which had
deposited some money abroad for the establishment of a government in exile,
shelved the project in the spring of 1941 because German victory looked
inevitable. Eva Balogh

Hello, I am being lazy today and staying home and not answering the phone.
I got your message. We are 9 hours apart.  You are ahead 9 hours.  We have
4 time zones in America.  Eastern Standard time goes from east coast to
approximately 1/4 of US , like to Michigan.  Central standard time is from
there to the middle of North Dakota.  After that is Mountain Standard
time through most of Montana and then our time is Pacific Standard time.
We change to daylight savings much the same as you do there.
Our computer is an IBM compatible.  We have many companies that make
computers compatible to IBM that are often better and less expensive than
IBM.  The computer uses a Sound Blaster card but that is just a sound
card.  The software package is the Personal Dictate software that has
built in voice recognition for up to 60,000 words so that she does not
have to type to word process.  Recently several companies have offered
these software packages. I use this computer to write to you.  I am logged
on to a university here in Spokane,  Speaking of universities.  After my
son finishes his next year he bgins his university program which can go
from 5 to 6 years for a beginning degree.  Advanced degrees take up to 5
years.  In order to get my Law degree I had to finish my first 12, then 4
university, then 4 more at the law school.  In between there I got an
advanced degree in Counseling(psychology related) I can change the format
of the video to European very easy here.  The video store will do it with
little problem.  You may want to tell your sister in the US.  I will send
it soon. Szervusz(is that a correct finish?) Susan

Zoli:

> So the question still is: how is that
>alleged all-infecting partiality in reporting manifested, and how a
>problem like a few journalist cheering is significant?

O.K. let's use another word which might be more accurate: symptomatic.

Zoli:

>Incidentally, didn't
>that USA survey found the majority of those registered, rather than the
>majority of all, to be Democrats?

I don't remember but it is fairly unlikely that journalists don't even bother
to register and hence don't bother to vote! A certain percentage (again I
don't remember the exact figures) registered as independent.

Zoli:

>In Hungary, it seems that most
>journalists (the known ones at least) are not party members.

To register as a Democrat or a Republican doesn't mean the same as being a
party member in Hungary. Moreover, party affiliation is really
immaterial--political views are the ones which matter and if I recall
properly journalists held views further to the left than the population as a
whole. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case in Hungary as well.

Zoli:

>I find the home press sounding less bland,
>perhaps more sincere then the West, as a rule, but that may be just me...

I, on the other hand, find it most irritating. A lot of bluster, long,
unreadable sentences, phoney intellectualism, melodrama, self-pity, leading
questions, four-letter words, and so on and so forth. Give me some bladness
at any time.

Zoli:

> That you put it this way shows the principial difference between us in
>looking at the situation, for I was saying there's nothing necesseraly
>wrong for *some* jornalist to have some feelings for one party or
>another. You on the other hand treat *the media* as consisting of
>uniform pieces

As usual, Zoli, you are splitting hair here. Who in his right mind would
include every journalist whose ID card says that he or she is a journalist. I
am talking about a certain segment of journalists--an influential segment,
the size of which is estimated as 80-90 percent, but it is only an estimate.
It would be a good idea to do a survey on journalistic attitudes--such a
survey might shed some light on whether the former government's complaints
about the media were justified at all or not.

Zoli:

>Sharply enough if seen from your corner, far enough from places where
>innocent conscript "kiskatonak" were killed if happened to have the
>wrong color shoes etc.

No one denies that some entirely innocent people perished in the revolution
but, on the whole, the October events could boast about a remarkable degree
of humanity, given the circumstances. Sure, some "kiskatona" [recruits] might
have died, but let's face it, most of them were sent home. As we all know the
army pretty well remained neutral in the conflict. But these "kiskatona1k"
were not killed because they had the wrong color shoes on! They may have been
killed because their officers ordered fire on the revolutionaries--like
during the first few days at the Kilian barracks.

Zoli:

>What I read seems rather blurred in many places,
>what with Kadar first welcoming the glorious revolution of our people
>and so one. I do not imagine the lines getting much clearer after the
>fight was over, when Horn joined.

Well, I don't know what you read, but it was pretty clear to me, especially
after the Russians returned. For weeks actually, Kadar and his comrades
couldn't really find enough people to keep order either inside the country or
at the borders. All had to be done by the Russians. They were the ones who
came in the middle of night and searched the rooms, patrolled the streets,
stopped us on the street and searched for weapons, and so on and so forth. I,
for one, never encountered a Hungarian paramilitary group at least not until
mid-December, at the time of my departure. I don't even know how the
dyehearts recruited those who later were to be called "pufajka1s." At the
time, the name "pufajka1s" meant nothing to us, except, course, we all knew
what "pufajka" meant. It is very unlikely that they were "drafted" as I heard
someone talking about Horn's participation. Only very "reliable" people were
approached, I am certain.

> What I meant was that just because the militia became infamous for the
>Stalinist crackdown on the remnants of the revolution, it was not at
>all necessery for everyone to have this in mind when joining. After
>all, some public order had to be restored as well.

You are wrong. They were supposed to support the Soviet troops, intimidate
people back to work, and restore the old order. You had to be blind, deaf,
and brainless not to know what these groups were supposed to do. I will put
it into the starkest terms possible: There was a successful uprising, and a
legitimate government was formed. This legitimate government was overthrown
by foreign troops with the help (one way or the other) of a few natives who
were ready to cooperate with the foreign power. It is this group of people
Gyula Horn joined in December 1956 against his own.

Finally,

>> Just as I get misty eyed talking about those days I am sure Horn does
>> too, but from another perspective, mourning for his dead brother, who,
> I assume, fought on the other side.
> It's nice to be so sure about someone else's assumed perspective. You
>are implying that he was, and in heart remained a hard-line
>Rakosist/Munnichist/Kadarist.

You are putting words into my mouth. I didn't mean any of the above. What I
meant was that if his October days were on the other side of the barricades,
and if his brother died in defense of that old order, when he thinks back to
October 1956 he must get misty eyed too, but surely his memories must be
vastly different from mine, although possibly just as emotional. Eva Balogh

Bill Walsh writes:

> All of this discussion reminds me of the incident that embarrassed PBS
on
> their election night coverage--when Clinton went over the top, all the
> staffers on the floor cheered.

> Nihil novus sub solum est,

> bill

I think you could exchange the crews and nobody, but nobody would notice
the difference. Maybe some language problems but that is only a minor
issue. But rejoice, they are doing it on taxpayer money, but that does
not bother them either. It is their right to tell us their opinion on
our money. If we complain we violate their freedom of speach. Hmmm.
where in the Constitution says I have to pay for somebody else's
"freedom of speach"?
Maybe we are just taken for a ride.
Regards,Jeliko.

Dear Eva, just a quick note before you make up more premises:

>What I meant was that if his October days were on the other side of
>the  barricades, and if his brother died in defense of that old
>order [...]
 But he was not on the barricades, not even according to his accusers...

-- Zoli

Dear Eva, looks like you came down on the subjective side after all:

>Before the entry of the United States into the war and before
>Stalingrad, Germany looked pretty invincible. The Hungarian
>government which had deposited some money abroad for the
>establishment of a government in exile, shelved the project in the
>spring of 1941 because German victory looked inevitable.
  Had you said before Moscow I'd say you can make a case for that, but
afterwards the Germans were already limited to local advances - of
whose Stalingrad was the biggest one, the last straw eventually breaking
the camel's back. Even the good Admiral wrote that "[t]he severe check
[Hitler] received before Moscow shook the general faith in the
invincibility of the German arms."
 By the spring of '41 the Germans already lost the battle of Britain;
but my point was specifically made with respect to the waging of war
against Russia as well, ie. the summer of '41 - and how the HU
government did, could and should've looked at the situation then.
 I even found some German high command general stating shortly after
the war that attacking the SU was a fatal mistake (will quote it, if
dug up that book)...

-- Zoli

In reply to your message of "Thu, 07 Jul 94 18: 45:13 EDT."
             >
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 18:07:56 -0700
From: 

Zoli Fekete writes:
> ...the good Admiral wrote that "[t]he severe check
> [Hitler] received before Moscow shook the general faith in the
> invincibility of the German arms."


Let's play a game, shall we?  Let's pretend that evidence introduced by
one party can be used by the other side in a dispute with authority
equal to that claimed by the first party.  Sounds bizarre, doesn't it?

In other words, if we accept the "severe check" bit, why can't we accept the
general faith bit?  And please don't tell us, in so many other words, that
Horthy is only right when he agrees with you.  :-)

--Greg

In response to:
{Colin Woodard inquired about the future of higher education in Hungary a
couple of days ago. I am taking this opportunity to inquire about changes
introduced in the structure in education in general in the last four years. I
am a bit mixed up about the different gymnasiums, for example. Can anyone
tell us about educational reform in the last four years? Eva Balogh}

I'm familiar with a lot of aspects of higher education reform, but
there's been a lot of controversial moves in general eduation. The
MDF has turned over a lot of public schools to the Church, which has
non-Catholic parents a bit upset to say the least. I think that trend
will be bucked under the new government. Gabor Fodor and the SZDSZ
have firm control over the education and culture portfolio.
-Colin Woodard (budapest)