In article
>, "Peter
A. Soltesz" > writes:

>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
>
><<SNIP>>
>> Agnes, you are my woman (as in "you'r my man..) I like what you have
>written!
>>
>> I got ticked off of the Rev.Soltesz and creepy crawly Szekely after
>> reading their "articles" about Thanksgiving. Real Holy men....
>> ....I can't stand it when mere mortals stand on a hill and pontificate.
>
>
>We are NOT pontificating at all. We are stating actual FACTS! If you
>cannot understand that in your drunken state then sober up! Smell the
>flowers and figure out  that THANKGIVING is a thanks to GOD!
>
>Just because you are a Heathen god less pagan please do not take the
>original meaning away and twist it to your benefit.

My dear Reverend Soltesz,
Lets be serious for a minute.....I was truly "drunk" from side splitting
  laughter. After a 14 hour day at my office I came home and turned on
  my computer and there it was....your essay about Thanksgiving.
  So I had a little fun...BTW I don't touch the stuff at all. You are
  totaly wrong, it is not a "Chrisitian" holiday....it is a holiday of all
  peoples. We all have a lot to be thankfull for on this side of the
  ocean...I spend Thanksgiving with friends and family every year.
  I am also thankfull for that you and Rev. Szekely belong to a
  splinter group and there is no contest!!  Off course you are entitled to

  your opinion and belief - but it is inappropriate for you to
  go on and on - and  *yes!*  you  *are*  pontificating.........
  This list is not your parochial district.

I think it is time to put down your pack and move on to a greener
pasturage.

Marina
  Marina

I am looking for someone who can translate the following  into
Hungarian. In this case, the purpose is to encourage people to explore
the possibility that Australia was colonised by a central European
country, rather than the English.

Your help in this regard will be acknowledged as a contribution to
Australian culture.

Thank you.

Passage begins here>>
______________________________________________________
What if someone else had colonised Australia?

Turn the Soil is an exhibition which explores this question through
the works of eleven craftspersons whose parents came to Australia from
non-English countries. These objects represent the kinds of crafts
that might have evolved here if it was their parents  country who had
colonised this land.

More information is available online at
"http://werple.net.au/~kmurray/soil.html"
______________________________________________________
> -----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Murray
http://werple.net.au/~kmurray/
> -----------------------------------------------------
Melbourne , fine and mostly sunny, with southerly breeze freshening
in the afternoon, max 20c

E.Durant wrote:

>> True, but it doesn't not effect the cooperation itself. The cooperation
>> can work even if it forced. The global problems of the world require
>> global actions but the nature of such actions are not determined. That
>> is why I did not see how the common property and soc/communism come to
>> the picture.
>>
>
>Exactly. The idea is to have a coordinated global action -
>determined.  I can't see it happening under capitalism.

Neither do I, but you should keep in mind if you don't understand
how something is posible, it doesn't mean it's impossible.

>> The other thing what you don't understand (or don't want to understand)
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> is that you can show the unfairness, backwardness, contradictions of
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> capitalism, still it will not prove the feasibility of your ideal society.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You have no practical evidence, that capitalism is not taking us
>rapidly towards global destruction, the tendency of this century
>shows that it does.

Please, read the underlined text again, slowly, word by word, and then you
might have some foggy idea what I am trying to say. Whether or not the
capitalism is leading us to a global catastrophe is irrelevant to our subject,
i.e soc/communism is possible or not.

>I pointed out (a few times) what were the very
>easily visible reasons for the failures of socialism so far, such as
>the non-existant conditions that could provide democracy.
>You fail to respond to these points.

First we should get a conclusion about the transition period then
I can try to respond to your points.

>> They had to introduce the idea of temporary dictatorship, because
>> it was obviuos for them the necessary changes in the society
>> (nationalization of the private property,etc) cannot be done peacefully.
>> Also, they wanted to prevent the reappearence of parties, other than
>> communist, in the goverment which could not be secured in a democracy.
>> (At least during the period when the old 'kispolgari' ideas exist in
>> the mind of the people.)
>> And these are the very problems I want you to face.
>
>The marxist definition of proletar dictatorship was actually for the
>widest democracy ever, as more people would have been
>part of the oppressors, than the oppressed. (E.g. the Athen's

The marxist definition of proletar dictatorship is actually irrelevant.
They actually felt the contradiction between their ideal society and the
cruel tool they had to introduce. So, they invent an ill definition of
the democracy. I guess I do not have to tell on this super PC list that
such a definition would allow you to oppress any minority.
What is important, however, the purpose of the proletar dictatorship and
it was what I wrote.
And I give you a further reason to introduce proletar dictatorship. If a
soc/communist society is successful somewhere, the surrounding capitalist/
imperialist countries would do everything under the Sun to destroy it.
So a democratic society would be very vulnerable.  This was a fundamental
thesis of our pol-gazd, too, you cannot deny it. What is your solution for
this problem, the hope?

>What I said was, that if we do let things go on without a conscious
>plan for the future, than the change will be uncontrolled. If you let
>capitalism go on unchallenged, the future is uncertain and
>unpredictable with very small chance of democracy - if you can call
>that what we have now.  I, personally, would prefer a peaceful and
>democratically controlled change. The longer it takes, the less
>chance for it's success.

Look, I am sorry, but I was not interested in your beliefs and preferances.
What I would like to know, it is your rational opinion about the chance of
a peaceful, democratic change. According your very own descriptions it is
not very promising.

>The marxist definition of proletar dictatorship was actually for the
>widest democracy ever, as more people would have been
>part of the oppressors, than the oppressed. (E.g. the Athen's
>democracy in ancient Greece was democratic for free men, but not for
>slaves and women - probably the majority)
>However, as we know, due to well known objective reasons, such as
>low level of literacy, low level of communication and extreme level
>of poverty, the democracy was gorgotten from this recepee and the
>ditatorship stayed in the Soviet Union, and they were in the position
>to propagate this system to maintain the status-quo of their new
>burocratic elite.

So, I ask again, may I conclude that a small proletar dictatorship is
not that bad in your opinion, unless the democracy is not forgotten from
the recipee?

J.Zs

> Please, read the underlined text again, slowly, word by word, and then you
> might have some foggy idea what I am trying to say. Whether or not the
> capitalism is leading us to a global catastrophe is irrelevant to our subject
,
> i.e soc/communism is possible or not.
>

My main point was - if you'd read carefully, that if you can
see no possibility of capitalism giving us a secure future,
than we cannot sit back and wait/hope something will
turn up, we have to actively consider alternative solutions.
If you come up with something better, than socialism, I'm all
ears.


> First we should get a conclusion about the transition period then
> I can try to respond to your points.
>

Again, if I give you my practical picture for change, you
tell me I'm pushing my dogma, and I agree. I think each community
will have their own solution, there won't be a centralised
"method" - if there will be a working democratic change.
There are already such embrionic changes, self governing
communities,  workers' coops overtaken factories, schemes
of work done for exchange without money (world wide
LETS)  etc etc. At some point such moves accelerate
exponentially and quantity turns into quality...


> The marxist definition of proletar dictatorship is actually irrelevant.
> They actually felt the contradiction between their ideal society and the
> cruel tool they had to introduce. So, they invent an ill definition of
> the democracy. I guess I do not have to tell on this super PC list that
> such a definition would allow you to oppress any minority.

Actually, the argument was, that if the majority IS part of
the democracy, that that democracy is the best
in history, where it was always a minority rule.
I'm afraid,  the same argument is used to defend capitalism,
saying, that only a minority (a third) is poor, two-third
can be said at times to be doing ok... well in the west anyway...
and not really taking part in any meaningful democratic
decisionmaking...


> What is important, however, the purpose of the proletar dictatorship and
> it was what I wrote.
> And I give you a further reason to introduce proletar dictatorship. If a
> soc/communist society is successful somewhere, the surrounding capitalist/
> imperialist countries would do everything under the Sun to destroy it.
> So a democratic society would be very vulnerable.  This was a fundamental
> thesis of our pol-gazd, too, you cannot deny it. What is your solution for
> this problem, the hope?
>

You don't say! The Champions of Democracy would give all
the assistance to a fledgling democracy... (bitter sarcasm).
Well, you are ofcourse right; thats why the "socialism in one
country" was a doomed idea from start. The way I picture it
is, that if there is a successful looking change anywhere, we would
now know about it globally, and could defend it and copy it
if relavent to circumstances. Revolutions spread like fire in the
past with primitive communications - just imagine how fast it all
could spread now...


> Look, I am sorry, but I was not interested in your beliefs and preferances.
> What I would like to know, it is your rational opinion about the chance of
> a peaceful, democratic change. According your very own descriptions it is
> not very promising.
>

As you can see above, I'm an optimist, I cannot be anything else
for my children's sake...


> So, I ask again, may I conclude that a small proletar dictatorship is
> not that bad in your opinion, unless the democracy is not forgotten from
> the recipee?
>
> J.Zs
>

Well, yes, democracy seems to be the most important ingredient...
that is the gruelling lesson to be learnt from the past.
Badly missed in Hungary  for the years I lived there, and
badly missed here in the UK  to where I am also affectionately
attached...

> So if the majority of the hungarian gypsies don't have a regular job and
> earn their money either with illegal activities or through the wellfare
> system, am I stereotyping if I conclude they don't like to work (or worse,
> they are lasy). If I am, why?
>
 > J.Zs
>

You are not just stereotyping, but spreading a malicious lie.
A large portion of gipsies are unemployed, but the majority
are earning their money like the rest of the population.
The larger than average sized unemployment is due to
the unskilled/low educational situation. This is due to
inefficient resourses allocated to education at the poorest
areas where gipsy communities are/were concentrated
and residual racism/discrimination/prejudice of the past and the present
regimes.
A pattern of marginalised communites  like aboriginals(Australia)/indians(US)
follows; alcoholism, short life expectency patterns, etc.

"Peter A. Soltesz" > wrote:
>
>Here is one other thing that HU needs to eliminate!
>
>Getting tickets and PAYING the fines ON-THE-SPOT!
>
>I wonder how many millions of HUF wind up in the policemen's pockets?
>Are the fines larger the "better" car you have -- you betcha!
>
>Let's start fixing things in HU one thing at a time. This might give
the
>residents a slight improvement on their perspective of life.
>
>Peter Soltesz

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I agree with the above and the same idea came to my mind, that On The
Spot Fines are absolutely uncalled for and a corruptive.

This year I went to Hungary twice. First in May than this month.

Since I had to go Oroshaza both occasions I was stopped by the police on
the E5 to Szeged. The first trip 3 times, twice going and once coming.
Remember it's a relatively short trip!!

 While the last time I was stopped twice the same way and finally, once
on the Budaorsi ut, the night before I left the country.

It's obvious, that these type of activities must be changed on part of
the police and On The Spot Fines must be stopped. When are they going to
wake up?

Laszlo Balogh

At 02:20 PM 11/30/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote to Sam Stowe:

>"My side" was in the streets of Budapest in '56, in
>Prague in '68, in Kent State University in '70, in Beijing in '89, and in
>Belgrade today.  Meanwhile, "your side" is watching football on TV.

        Wow! I haven't realized for the longest time that Joe and I are on
the same side! How silly of me.

        Eva Balogh

Olvastam, hogy Nadia Comaneci (Kemenes Ilona) egy magyar apja van
(Gheorgie Comaneci - Kemenes Gyvrgy) is ezirt Ilona egy filszarmasz
magyar. De azt nem hittem... Nadia Comaneci (fil)-magyar szarmasz
ember-e? Rigen hallottam ezt. Mig nem biztos vagyok.

Peter Chong

Ui. Mi tvrtint Ilonaval 1980 utan? Kmvancsi vagyok...

Hi, Joe and Listmembers!

At 17:34 27/11/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:
<snip repartee between Peter and Joe>
>I hate doing this, but anyways...
>
>In the book of Genesis, line 28, it is written, "And God blessed them; and
>God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue
>it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over birds of the heavens, and
>over all animals creeping on the earth."

Now, this is only my very personal opinion, based on my own prejudices, I
guess you would say. Let's say that an all-knowing and all-powerful God
created the world and everything in it. And let's say God laid down
guidelines of right and wrong which were codified in the Bible, but which
are in words which could be understood by men of faith who were not men of
science. And God gave men (which includes women, too, of course), who were
made in the image of God, free will. They have the ability to do good or to
do evil.

Now, back in the Biblical era, mankind did not have the ability potentially
to destroy the earth. There weren't that many people, the technology was a
lot simpler, and most agricultural methods were more or less
organic.(Leaving aside the mere fact that raising crops in fields devoted to
just one crop is itself unnatural and maybe inherently risky to the
environment.)

God said "Be fruitful and multiply." That may have been hunky-dory in the
time of Adam and Eve or Abraham, but is not a wise blessing today. It would
appear to be better for the human race if it was a little less fruitful and
multiplied a little less readily.

Same goes for the subduing of the creatures of the earth and the earth
itself. What it meant in 2000 B.C. and what it means now potentially are two
different things. People just didn't have the resources (e.g. chemical
fertilizers) to destroy the quality of the soil so effectively, and if a
particular area became depleted, there was always some other territory to
which people could migrate.

Now, we have progressed beyond that stage. We have the means to destroy, and
we also have the means to see the consequences of our acts. What makes you
think that a God who created the world, and said that it was good, would
also wish mankind to destroy what He had made? I think if such a God did
create the world, He used natural forces. In other words, who is to say that
7 days to God might not have been 7 billion of our years? And isn't it also
possible that He has used the creation of DNA and natural selection as His
tools?

I think, in other words, that God's wish would be that mankind would restore
the land, and I think it is in our own best interest to do so. However, I
think it is more the secular humanism which preaches that "man is the
measure of all things" is more likely to result in dangerous hubris, that is
the common belief among people today that we are *in control* of things,
that we have *eliminated* contagious diseases, and can eliminate hunger, and
so on. If we were a little more humble, and tried to do things in accordance
with God's law, which some people would call Natural Law, we would not be
facing potentially worse disasters down the road because of our
short-sighted efforts to control natural forces which are really beyond our
ability. The efforts to control the flow of the Mississippi River around New
Orleans, and many examples of the activities of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, strike me as falling in this category.
<snip snip>
>Joe Szalai
>
>"America owes most of its social prejudices to the exaggerated religious
>opinions of the different sects which were so instrumental in establishing
>the colonies."
>               James Fenimore Cooper

Yup, like, for example, William Penn and the Quakers in Pennsylvania!

Forgive me - I'm pontificating!

U:dvo:zlettel,

Johanne/Janka




Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

 wrote:


Snippety snip snip
>entertained by putting him in a round room and telling him to urinate in a
>corner at a higher intellectual level.
>Sam Stowe
Ahem.  Sorry to intrude.
Is there somewhere we can meet?
sara

Szia megint!

Joe Pannon, over on SCM, suggested that I post on this List a note about the
newly released film, "The English Patient," starring Ray Fiennes. It is
based on the novel by the Canadian author Michael Ondaatje, who won
Britain's prestigious Booker Prize for it several years ago. It starts out,
I believe, (haven't seen it yet) with a man being thrown from a plane which
has crashed in North Africa. He is severely burned over most of his body and
has amnesia. The people who rescue him believe he may be English, because he
speaks that language. Apparently, however, is actually a Hungarian, Count
Laszlo Almasy, and we see his story gradually in the form of flashbacks
throughout the picture.

It is getting great reviews and is apparently predicted to be in the thick
of the race for the Oscars this year.

On SCM, Joe raised the question of why Ondaatje, which doesn't sound like a
Hungarian name (I think it may be Dutch and that he originally came from
South Africa, but I am not positive), would have selected such a small
country to be the homeland of his hero. Does anybody have any ideas?

U:dvo:zlettel,

Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Sorry to resend this, but my newserver crashed ovenight. If anyone has
posted a translation, would you mind posting it again. Thanks.

I am looking for someone who can translate the following  into
Hungarian. In this case, the purpose is to encourage people to explore
the possibility that Australia was colonised by a central European
country, rather than the English.

Passage begins here>>
______________________________________________________
What if someone else had colonised Australia?

Turn the Soil is an exhibition which explores this question through
the works of eleven craftspersons whose parents came to Australia from
non-English countries. These objects represent the kinds of crafts
that might have evolved here if it was their parents  country who had
colonised this land.

More information is available online at
"http://werple.net.au/~kmurray/soil.html"
______________________________________________________
> -----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Murray
http://werple.net.au/~kmurray/
> -----------------------------------------------------
Melbourne , fine and mostly sunny, with southerly breeze freshening
in the afternoon, max 20c

To Whom it May Concern:

I would like very much to learn the Hungarian language. There are very
few programs in the United States. (The only summer program I know of is
at Indiana University). Can anyone recommend a reputable Intensive
Hungarian Language Program in Hungary itself? I am looking for a summer
program, which offers course credit. Specifically I need to know
application deadlines and tuition costs, and of course the mailing
address. Everyone says Hungarian is "one of the hardest languages to
learn" but I need to have at least a reading knowledge. I would
appreciate any suggestions and information. Koszonom szepen!

Tisztelettel,

Johanna Granville
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA

Except on <http://www.travelfirst.com>;, do you know any homepage about
MALEV on the net' ?
You who travelled with this airline, please provide us reports and
opinions concerning comfort, F&B, security, service.
Thank you very much.
Inirsort Bourges
E-mail:>
<http://www.travelfirst.com>;
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Hali, Johanna!

At 02:24 01/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>To Whom it May Concern:
>
>I would like very much to learn the Hungarian language. There are very
>few programs in the United States. (The only summer program I know of is
>at Indiana University).

<snip>

Last Summer there was an intensive (5 hrs./day) course given at the
University of Pittsburgh. I seem to have purged the notice from my hard
drive, so I suggest you contact that university for more info. It looked
like an excellent program, and I believe they had some financial assistance
available.
>
>Tisztelettel,
>
>Johanna Granville
>Carnegie Mellon University
>Pittsburgh, PA

Couldn't be more convenient for you!

Viszont,

Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Sam Stowe had it:

> The President doesn't appear to address publicly the role God Almighty
> plays in America in anything you've posted so far. He does appear to dip
> into the well of Southern Baptist piety as a rhetorical embellishment and
> a figurative nod to American civil religion.
The President is a Southern Baptist indeed. I guess he did
not need a confession about his religious experiences in
order to get the victory -- after the election! It would
have been nonsense: he already won it, fella. The election
was over! Nobody had to be convinced or cheated to join the
President's side in the election anymore. So he could afford
to be honest. And, what a surprise!, he made his speech
about God.

> Readers with any interest in the intersection
> between religion and government in late 20th Century America have a whole
> feast of thought-provoking authors to choose from to learn more on the
> subject -- Richard John Neuhaus, Stephen Carter, Robert Bellah, James
> Davison Hunter and more.
I read Father James D. Kennedy, who also made interesting
points. Do you really want me to quote him?

> >Cheer up, the life is short.
> >                                             Sz. Zoli
> The thought that yours indeed may be so does bring a smile to my lips.
> Sorry, it's an involuntary muscular reaction.
Now, you want to make me murdered. Did my points (actually
the points of your President!) hit you so hard?! ;-)

> >And who are
> >these misterious 'people of God'? Undoubtedly, the
> >people of God are the Christians of America, many of
> >whom prayed for the President.
> Undoubtedly, the people of God are the ones who struggle to keep the great
> commandments: love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your
> soul and with all your mind; and, love your neighbor as yourself.
I like your quoting the Bible!! Maybe you are not the guy
you try to show up in desparation? You mostly show up a
sour even bitter fellow of yourself whose only joy is
poking fun on a Saturday Night Live level. And now... You
argue as a Christian. What a surprise!

(to be continued)                                Sz. Zoli

At 10:09 AM 12/1/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>At 02:20 PM 11/30/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote to Sam Stowe:
>
>>"My side" was in the streets of Budapest in '56, in
>>Prague in '68, in Kent State University in '70, in Beijing in '89, and in
>>Belgrade today.  Meanwhile, "your side" is watching football on TV.
>
>        Wow! I haven't realized for the longest time that Joe and I are on
>the same side! How silly of me.

Is that because you wish/want all opponents of oppressive, dictatorial
governments to think alike?  If you do, then you have more in common with
those governments than you imagine.  And employing sarcasm doesn't change that.

Joe Szalai

Eva Balogh wrote:
>>>>>>
        As the matter of fact the soviets and the east european communists
paid absolutely no attention to the environment. It is pitiful to look
around in Hungary. The air is polluted practically everywhere; the water isfoul
; untreated sewage is poured into rivers; Lake Balaton is a mess. Just
lately there is strong evidence that in a village in the county of Baranya
lethal chemicals are seeping into the soil and the water, while the minister
of the environment tells us that everything is just fine and dandy.
<<<<<<

This is a broad generalization with which I strongly disagree. There is no
indication that these countries paid less attention to the environment
than other countries of similar wealth. Even wealthier countries (like
the US) did not have much to boast about until rather recently (until
the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were implemented).
Eastern countries had certain advantages (from the environmental point
of view) which they often took advantage of:
- Recognized environmental goals could be more easily and swiftly
  implemented than in market-driven economies. Erosion control
  measures, establishment of new forests, enforcement of sustainable
  forest management practices are just a few examples.
- In terms of nature conservation, the protection of endangered
  plants and animals was better legislated and implemented than in
  most western countries.
- Recycling of metals, paper and textile was well organized and widespread.
  Practically all bottles and jars were reused (better than recycling).
Examples: With the exception of a handful explicitly listed nuisance
(starling) or very common (sparrow) species, all birds were
protected by law. Hungary was a widely recognized safe haven for
migratory birds which suffered major losses while traveling through
southern Europe and Africa. All caves (known and unknown) were
automatically protected by law. (And there _was_ enforcement!)
The first east-west national park (between Hungary and Austria) could
not be established until recently because the Austrian side had trouble
resolving land disputes and regulatory issues with local interests.
Hungary had long been ready.

Of course, there were major problems, one of them being the difficulty
with which citizens or communities could represent their interest.
But more often then not, environmental measures had to be enforced
against the will of the people, much like the way seatbelts were
introduced despite the opposition of many (if not most) drivers.
Strict laws prohibited the conversion of forests into other uses and
the conversion of arable land into industrial or residential use.

The above examples are from Hungary, but similar things could be
said about other eastern countries. Even in notorious Romania
(just as in most Eastern European countries), forest
management is (was?) more ecologically sound than it has ever
been on private lands in the US.

Zoltan Rakonczay

In a message dated 96-12-01 11:43:45 EST,  (Johanne L.
Tournier) writes:

> Hi, Joe and Listmembers!
>
>  At 17:34 27/11/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:
>  <snip repartee between Peter and Joe>
>  >I hate doing this, but anyways...
>  >
>  >In the book of Genesis, line 28, it is written, "And God blessed them;
and
>  >God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and
subdue
>  >it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over birds of the heavens, and
>  >over all animals creeping on the earth."
>
>  Now, this is only my very personal opinion, based on my own prejudices, I
>  guess you would say. Let's say that an all-knowing and all-powerful God
>  created the world and everything in it. And let's say God laid down
>  guidelines of right and wrong which were codified in the Bible, but which
>  are in words which could be understood by men of faith who were not men of
>  science. And God gave men (which includes women, too, of course), who were
>  made in the image of God, free will. They have the ability to do good or
to
>  do evil.
< snip snip >

>  I think, in other words, that God's wish would be that mankind would
restore
>  the land, and I think it is in our own best interest to do so. However, I
>  think it is more the secular humanism which preaches that "man is the
>  measure of all things" is more likely to result in dangerous hubris, that
is
>  the common belief among people today that we are *in control* of things,
>  that we have *eliminated* contagious diseases, and can eliminate hunger,
and
>  so on. If we were a little more humble, and tried to do things in
accordance
>  with God's law, which some people would call Natural Law, we would not be
>  facing potentially worse disasters down the road because of our
>  short-sighted efforts to control natural forces which are really beyond
our
>  ability. The efforts to control the flow of the Mississippi River around
New
>  Orleans, and many examples of the activities of the U.S. Army Corps of
>  Engineers, strike me as falling in this category.
>
>  U:dvo:zlettel,
>  Johanne/Janka

Hi Johanne,
I don't know much about the label "secular humanism"
or what it exactly covers. My very personal belief is that
god had nothing to do with what humankind did to this earth.
Men can interpret the bible in many different ways to suit
their game plan - it is literally "men made".  What brought
us to our current state is greed and the total lack of respect
for other human beings or the animal kingdom. Humanity
should know the cause and effect of their actions, but
those around here who pollute the earth think only about their profit
margins. It is a grave error to think, that man can rule
over nature. With all we know today it should be clear
that nature is the one who governs and we are just paying guests
travelling through time.

".....We are aquainted with a mere pellicle of the globe
 on which we live. Most have not delved six feet beneath
the surface, nor leaped as many above it. We know not
where we are. Besides, we are sound asleep nearly
half of our time.... "   Thoreau "Walden"

Sincerely,
Marina

I have flown on Malev several times from London to Budapest using an old
Russian built Ilushin ? (Boeing 727 copy). The flight was OK although it
left late (the Captain and a pretty stewardess were arriving late from
their shopping -- last minute duty free ya know!)..  When it left London
the pilot liked to demonstrate the performance features of the aircraft,
right around lunch time. BTW lunch and service was good! Airplane noisy.

Several times I flew from New York to Budapest on their new Boeing 767
non-stop.
Service on the Hungarian section needs improvement (this is a Delta/Malev
joint flight).  Pilot was better this time -- I guess they learned how to
operate a commercial plane by now!.
Food OK by international standards. Service was acceptable by the same
standards --- a ways to go before it meets Singapore Airlines or other
top airlines service levels.

Hope that this helps.
Peter Soltesz

At 02:24 AM 12/1/96 -0500, Johanne Grenville wrote:
>To Whom it May Concern:
>
>I would like very much to learn the Hungarian language. There are very
>few programs in the United States. (The only summer program I know of is
>at Indiana University). Can anyone recommend a reputable Intensive
>Hungarian Language Program in Hungary itself? I am looking for a summer
>program, which offers course credit. Specifically I need to know
>application deadlines and tuition costs, and of course the mailing
>address. Everyone says Hungarian is "one of the hardest languages to
>learn" but I need to have at least a reading knowledge. I would
>appreciate any suggestions and information. Koszonom szepen!

        I see that Johanna Tournier already called attention to the
Pittsburgh program. My first reaction was: Pittsburgh has an excellent
program on Eastern Europe (also on ethnic studies) and therefore it is
likely that there is a Hungarian language course there as well. As far
Hungary is concerned you ought to get in touch with the University of
Debrecen. (They have a webpage.)

        Yes, Hungarian is a difficult language but to my great surprise an
awful lot of people managed to learn it exeedingly well. I have to tell a
funny story about foreigners learning Hungarian. I had a good friend in
elementary school and later in high school (we still keep in touch) whose
mother was Viennese but ended up marrying a Hungarian in the middle of the
1930s. As a child I knew that Mrs. B. spoke a bit funny but no big deal as
far as I was concerned. Thirty years later I was visiting Hungary and
visited my friend's parents. Indeed, Mrs. B. spoke Hungarian very fluently
but had a strange habit of leaving out the -t suffix in the accusative case.
I said to her, "Mrs. B. your Hungarian is excellent but you leave out the -t
in `ta'rgyeset.'" The charming Mrs. B. answered: and what is "ta'rgyeset."

        Good luck!

        Eva Balogh

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Zoltan Rakonczay wrote:
<SNIP>

While Zoltan I agree with some of the things that you have said, let me
suggest the following:

If you go to Budapest during the winter you will see the evidence of the
air pollution on the cars or any morning on the ground. The muck on the
cars and the streets is dark, gooey, and sticky usually about 1/8 of an
inch thick or more!

Hungary still has not abandonded the 2 stroke engines in cars (Wartburgs,
Trabant, etc.) nor has it forbidden the outright use of coal for heating
(poor quality coal). Therefore one can practically choke in places like
Budapest and almost die in Miskolc from the thick visible pollution.

The effluents into the Danube river from both outside and domestic
sources are way exceeding any known standards.  Hungary has a Loooong way
to go to clean up its act.  I do not ever remember being in such poor air
pollution even in LA (perhaps at rare times) that one can see in some
major cities in Hungary during the winter.

Hungarians (to the gov't) were offered special taxis to BP to enable them
to be recycled after two years of use as an exchange to anyone owning a
Trabant and other 2 stoke engines. This was denied -- it would have
rapidly exterminated the Trabants, et al while reducing the air pollution.
Why one might ask??? In my opinion they were too greedy to accept a good
deal.  The main air pollution comes from cars -- see USA et al....
the cars today have 10% of the pollution of 10 years ago (roughly) we do
have better air.
Peter Soltesz

Peter (Soltesz)

I agree with your remarks. I never claimed that the environment
in Hungary (let alone in EE) is all right. I was objecting to
Eva Balogh's unjust generalization. I would not blame environmental
problems solely on the governments ("Communists", as EB put it).
In many cases the government was working for a better environment
against the resistence of people. And let me repeat: comparisons
should be made between countries at a similar stage of development.

With respect to air pollution, Hungary is very unfortunate to be
located in the bottom of a basin. This, combined with the commom winter
phenomenon of thermal inversion, makes pollution
problems much worse. Most major cities infamous for their smog are
located in much more favourable environments (Athens, LA, London,
Tokio). Mexico City has problems similar to ours. This only
means that Budapest can get away with less emmission if it wants
to meet the same standards as other cities.

Another comment (maybe more interesting):
As I mentioned, much of the environmental legislation had to be
pushed down people's throats. There are strict regulations on
septic systems, but they are commonly and willfully violated,
threatening the ground water. Municipal sewage systems could not
be built in many villages (people were unwilling to buy into it)
where villagers don't think twice before erecting outrageously
ugly and expensive fences in front of their houses.
Two-cycle engines are nasty, but people don't drive Trabants for
fun, most of them can't afford buying anything better. (But they
are not allowed to be used as taxis.)
All in all, the environment is not a high priority in people's
minds, but in my opinion there are broader issues behind that:
- A general selfish behaviour, not respecting public goods and
  common interests.
- A general (not unfounded, but in this case unfortunate) defiance
  of and suspicion towards government, even when it is right.
- A lack of recognition of self-interest: smoking, drinking,
  watching (too much) TV are prime examples, environment is just
  one of them.
I read an article in 1989 or 1990 in a US paper (The Washington
Post?) in which the journalist praised the ingenuity of E Europeans
(I think Russians) in defying authority by telling how a cunning
taxi driver put the seatbelt across his chest without fastening it
(it was before automatic belts became common) to deceive the police.
I remember those days, and buckling up was indeed considered a
wimpish act. I knew someone who put a clothespin on his automatic
seatbelt to prevent it from retracting, so that he didn't have to
fasten it. What could "the communists" have done about it?
You can find the same attitude towards the environment.

Zoltan Rakonczay

(Johanne:-cut-)
>
> I think, in other words, that God's wish would be that mankind would restore
> the land, and I think it is in our own best interest to do so. However, I
> think it is more the secular humanism which preaches that "man is the
> measure of all things" is more likely to result in dangerous hubris, that is
> the common belief among people today that we are *in control* of things,
> that we have *eliminated* contagious diseases, and can eliminate hunger, and
> so on. If we were a little more humble, and tried to do things in accordance
> with God's law, which some people would call Natural Law, we would not be
> facing potentially worse disasters down the road because of our
> short-sighted efforts to control natural forces which are really beyond our
> ability.

I thought it is secular humanism that actually puts mankind in line
with other living biological structures, pointing out the similar
ancestry etc. However we developed a more multifunctional brain,
with ability to picture the future and ourselves as consceous
(self-aware) beings. History shows, that we have the capability to
control the physical environment very successfuly, once we discover
the patterns of the physical/chemical biological laws, and the
corresponding technology. We could keep check on renewable
sources and conserve the  environment if our cooperation was more
efficient - if we found the pattern of social structure, too,  as if
this stays chaotic and unpredictable, we cannot achieve this
most important objective.
My  impression is, that if you leave the elimination of contagious
diseases and hunger etc, etc, to some god,  you can wait a VERY long time...
If god's law is same as "natural law", than we should use our
brain much more effectively to stop all human suffering. Surely
all your loving gods would agree with that.

At 02:19 PM 12/1/96 EST, Zoltan Rakonczay wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>        As the matter of fact the soviets and the east european communists
>paid absolutely no attention to the environment. It is pitiful to look
>around in Hungary. The air is polluted practically everywhere; the water isfou
l
>; untreated sewage is poured into rivers; Lake Balaton is a mess. Just
>lately there is strong evidence that in a village in the county of Baranya
>lethal chemicals are seeping into the soil and the water, while the minister
>of the environment tells us that everything is just fine and dandy.
><<<<<<
>
>This is a broad generalization with which I strongly disagree. There is no
>indication that these countries paid less attention to the environment
>than other countries of similar wealth. Even wealthier countries (like
>the US) did not have much to boast about until rather recently (until
>the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were implemented).

        I am most surprised about your answer. Everything, but absolutely
everything I read in the newspapers about industrial pollution in the
socialist countries contradict what you are saying in the body of your
letter. Horror stories from the Ukraine, from Slovakia, from Poland, from
East Germany, and so on and so forth. Pollution in Hungary is awful. And not
just in Budapest, although there is especially bad. Just today I saw an ad
in HIX's TIPP in which somebody is offering a house for sale. One of the
points he especially emphasizes is that the village where the house is
located has relatively clean air!

        I will be most surprised if other people on the list read reports
which are radically different from the ones I read.

        Eva Balogh

>=======================================================
>Felado :  [Canada]
>Temakor: Apologists ( 48 sor )
>Idopont: Sat Nov 30 10:26:17 EST 1996 HUNGARY #862
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You wrote on Nov 30, 1996:

>By the mid-Nineties 1.5 million Americans were in jail: that's 373 per
>100,000.  And that figure is more than double what it was 15 years ago.
>
>Today, 5.1 million Americans are in jail or under judicial supervision.
>That's triple the figures of 1980.
>
>Today, the income of 75 million Americans is lower than it was in 1966.
>Eighteen per cent live under the poverty line.
>
>Between 1929 and 1969 the inequality gap between the rich and the poor
>shrank continually.  Since then it has been continually widening.
>
>The quality of education is in decline.  And I won't even touch American
>style medicare.
>
>A conservative(!!!) American historian, Edward Luttwak, says that if present
>trends continue, the United States will be a Third World country be 2020.
>(Le Monde, 5 June 1995,11)
>
>Meanwhile, American-Hungarians like Peter Soltesz are wetting their pants in
>joy now that American style mega-malls are opening in Hungary.
>
>Oh joy!  Oh progress!
>
>Joe Szalai
>=============================================================================

Boy, was I wrong! I naively thought that I live in the freest country in the
world, in a country where the standard of living is the envy of the world,
and because of these things, immigration has to be curtailed by law. But you
straightened me out! Now I am trembling because of the high crime rate (have
you heard that the crime rate in America is significantly declining?),
obviously you rather heard that "education is in decline". I have some other
discouraging news for you: most of the Nobel prizes are awarded to this
terrible country. And about your cavalier remark on medicare, of which you
obviously know nothing. I happen to be on medicare, and with a supplementary
insurance, my medicare does not cost me a red cent, and I receive the best,
most sophisticated medical service in the whole world.
And about declining income for 75 million Americans. I don't know where you
got this information, it sounds like a page fromn an old Pravda. The fact
is, that the economy is good, the average income is constantly rising, most
of those who are left behind, have an aversion for  a 4 letter word: WORK.
But cheer up my Canadian neighbour, good old America is still here. So when
you cross the American border next time, you still may rush to buy American
goods, because they are obviously less expensive. And I could go on to
describe life in America, (bad and good), but I do not want to spoil your
fun this holiday season.

Best wishes

Szegedy Sandor
>
>

It seems that I am unable to please some people on this list. Zoltan
Rakonczay objects to my using the word "communists" talking about the
governments of Eastern Europe before 1990. Yesterday I received a piece of
private E-mail in which a gentleman told me that I am making him sick
because of my pro-communist remarks and subsequently unsubscribed from this
list because he refused to read the "garbage" produced by likes of Eva Balogh.

        I am not quite sure what adjective or noun would be acceptable to
Zoltan Rakonczay describing a one-party regime where voting was a farce and
where the population was, for all practical purposes, unable to voice their
concerns. The people couldn't vote the governments out of office either on
account of the environment or for any other reason.


>Another comment (maybe more interesting):
>As I mentioned, much of the environmental legislation had to be
>pushed down people's throats. There are strict regulations on
>septic systems, but they are commonly and willfully violated,
>threatening the ground water. Municipal sewage systems could not
>be built in many villages (people were unwilling to buy into it)
>where villagers don't think twice before erecting outrageously
>ugly and expensive fences in front of their houses.

        I think it is question of education. How much effort was put into
educating people? How much effort was put into an anti-smoking campaign?
Practically none. I am absolutely dumb-founded at the ignorance of people
about health matters, for example. Conversely, my doctor relatives are
amazed at how much I know about health matters considering that I am just a
layman. But in the United States the media is absolutely full of news about
health concerns. On the other hand, what do you with a country where the
doctors smoke as much as their patients? How are they expected to educate
the population? Luckily, since the communist regime (sorry, but I did it
purposely!) collapsed there came into being grassroot groups concerned about
the environment and other matters, like smoking. A gentleman from Hungary in
the name an environmental group published a sample letter in the Forum just
yesterday asking us to write to the minister of environmental matters
concerning cans versus bottles for beer and soft drinks. This is the kind of
effort which couldn't exist before.

        I am not at all surprised that the government's efforts had been
useless. A government which was established in an illegitimate manner and
which governed without the consent of the governed cannot be expected to be
liked, obeyed, or listened to. That was the case in Hungary and it will take
a long time before there will be a different relationship between the
population and the government.

        Eva Balogh

Eva Balogh wrote:
> I am most surprised about your answer. Everything, but absolutely
>everything I read in the newspapers about industrial pollution in the
>socialist countries contradict what you are saying in the body of your
>letter. Horror stories from the Ukraine, from Slovakia, from Poland, from
>East Germany, and so on and so forth. Pollution in Hungary is awful. And not
>just in Budapest, although there is especially bad. Just today I saw an ad

I'm sorry Eva, but I fail to see the contradiction. My letter was not
about "industrial pollution", but about the "environment" which is
a much broader category. It includes many things besides industrial
pollution. (Your contested statement referred to the environment in
general and I assumed you knew what you were talking about.)

Moreover, I do agree that there are major problems all over the region.
But:
- Not "everythig, but absolutely everything" (and not everywhere) is
  bad, no matter what papers you read;
- Countries differ significantly, and this is the Hungary list;
- Compare the Ukraine to India and Hungary to Portugal or Greece;
- As I tried to point it out in my last posting, the reason behind
  these evils is "the communists" "only" to the extent of their
  influence on overall economic development. So it is not so much of
  an environmental record, as it is a part of their economic record.
  If you believe otherwise so might be surprised to see
  the lack of improvement in many areas.

Zoltan Rakonczay

Eva Balogh:

> I think it is question of education. How much effort was put into
> educating people? How much effort was put into an anti-smoking campaign?

A lot, about the same as in the US.
Tobacco ads and vending machines were non-existent, anti-smoking ads
were all over the place and smoking was discouraged at all levels
of education. Same with alcohol. Environmental education was part of
the elementary school curriculum, most of the recycling was done
by students with support from the school and parents.

> Luckily, since the communist regime (sorry, but I did it
> purposely!) collapsed there came into being grassroot groups concerned about
> the environment and other matters, like smoking.
Grassroots groups were the strongest in the eighties, when they
represented a form of opposition to the government. After 1990 these
groups gradually lost importance (unfortunately, I should add), although
the problems remained (some got better, some got worse). They were
fueled by an anger against the regime, not so much by a concern for the
environment.

> A gentleman from Hungary in
> the name an environmental group published a sample letter in the Forum just
> yesterday asking us to write to the minister of environmental matters
> concerning cans versus bottles for beer and soft drinks. This is the kind of
> effort which couldn't exist before.
Such efforts could exist and did exist. What could not work was
lobbying for meaningful changes. Stopping the import of East German cars
could not have worked, or shutting down Paks (nuclear plant).

>        I am not quite sure what adjective or noun would be acceptable to
>Zoltan Rakonczay describing a one-party regime where voting was a farce and
>where the population was, for all practical purposes, unable to voice their
>concerns. The people couldn't vote the governments out of office either on
>account of the environment or for any other reason.
I don't know, either. But your above definition of "communist" systems
pools Chile, Albania, Mexico, Mongolia, North Corea
and South Corea (until a few years ago) China and Hungary together.
So it is meaningless, at least in the context of discussing the
environment.

Zoltan Rakonczay