you are correct! i use 1/3 pork 1/3 beef and 1/3 kolba'sz to make my gulya's
i know its not traditional but those i feed it to with telyfo"l think it o.k.

hows about veg things like rakot krumpli to change the subject. (do you spike
it with kolba'sz or szalona?)
nice to learn! :)
emil

Alexander Berendi ) wrote:
: Emil -_

: When pork is used (disznohus) you don't call the dish gulyas.  You call it
: porkolt. (sertesporkolt that is.)  You can make it gulyas-like with lotsa
: water (hosszu lere eresztheted) and it will be like gulyas but nobody calls
: pork based dish gulyas.
: Udv.
: Alex

> Felado : 
> The fact that Nato has no treaty obligation to act in xYugoslavia might
> be pertinent.
Agreed. But didn't Poland (whose own Lech Walesa just ripped Horn for this
move) and Czechoslovakia enjoy treaty protection before WWII?

> If a paroled burglar moves next door to me, I'd be nice to him, but
> I'd still buy a security system if one comes along at the right price.
Absolutely.

> "Effective" is not the only quality one looks for, either.  I think
> reliability should count, too.
Indeed. One should hope that treaties are worth more than the paper
they are written on, but the best way to make them so is to set them up
in a way that's mutually beneficial.

> The question "Who, overall, is the best guarantor, Russia or Nato?"
> If forced to choose only one, my guess would be Nato.  Both would be
> better, best would be bilateral agreements with all neighbors on top.
But why should Hungary be forced to choose only one? So that Walesa can
roar even more mightily? The man should pay a visit to the Main Post
Office in his old city...

> > so to secure their blessing for joining NATO is not such a bad idea.
> No it isn't.  But if the blessings don't flow from that particular
> fountain, join Nato anyway.
Yes, even over Russian objections, if that's actually feasible. But the
smart thing is to assuage their fears and to make sure that they publicly
agree. It is enough for them to have left peacefully (actually, more than
"enough", it is a wonderful, near miraculous thing that I never expected to
see in my lifetime) and scoring further "victories" such as stopping them
from ceremonially marching out of Berlin is both unnecessary and unwise.

> If you're suggesting that treaties turn out to be meaningless, then why
> would one with Russia be any better?
No I'm not suggesting that all treaties are inherently meaningless (though
the record, including Hungary's own record, is far from spotless) I'm merely
suggesting that the best treaties are based on mutual recognition of genuine
interests, not on rubbing salt in the wounds.

> Whose societal and political structure is more stable, Nato's or Russia's,
> and what does that suggest about the faith one can put in treaties with
 either?
Obviously Nato countries are more stable, and equally obviusly, they show
much less willingness to enter an actual conflict. Please keep in mind that
there is genocide taking place right now, in Bosnia. One tends to blot out
all these images of crippled children, mourning wives and husbands, and the
ever-growing cemetary in the stadium. The bumper sticker tells you to
visualize world peace -- I urge you to visualize Sarajevo.

> > and the agressors (not necessarily Russia -- Hungary has as much or more to
> > fear from its Serbian, Slovak, and Romanian neighbors) will have their way.
> Or maybe not.
Or maybe not. Like I said, I'm eagerly awaiting the judgement on Gabcikovo.

> Just maybe a treaty obligation will lead to more than hand wringing.
Well at least it should protect Hungary against an arms embargo.

> But, this may all be moot.  Nato might just fall apart over the lack
> of action in xYugo.
Let's hope not. But to put all eggs in this rickety basket is unwise, and
Horn is acting more cleverly than that. By opening the Iron Curtain
(actually going against treaty obligations) in 89 he has proven that he is
far from completely beholden to the Russians, and if he still steps lightly
it only proves he has a better measure of Hungary's (and his own) importance
in the scheme of things than Walesa.

Andra1s Kornai

I hate to tell you that while I still remember (with some nostalgy) of these
recepies, I don't eat most of them anymore.  I am into this low cholesterol
thing that promises for you to leave long enough to get Alzheimer's disease
or whatever will render a person unable to use the toilet paper.  I have not
had a real egg or a spoonfool of heavy cream or a slice of szalonna (bacon)
for at least 5 years.

As I remember the rakott krumpli kolbasszal a legjobb.

Good luck

Alex

Several points to clarify.  Gulyas is the name of a main dish soup, no
matter what meat (or bean) is used.  Porkolt is a stew; if you add sour
cream to it, it is called paprikas.  All three start out the same way and
continue almost the same. For Hungarian paprika: the lead scandal
involved only private sellers, but the scare was so big that the two big
paprika producing companies lost enormous amounts of money, even though
their product has remained untainted and safe. There are some ways of
checking whether paprika contains lead (spread some on water, the lead
will sink, etc.), but the properly packaged commercial paprika is reliable.
I use it -- so you can trust me.                        R

Answer #1:

Of course, the obvious answer to the question about the divergent statistics
is "that people on Ro1zsadomb live better than people in Ko3ba1nya." However,
the difference between the two figures is still too high for a European
country and for a former "socialist" country, where there shouldn't have been
such a great difference between the upper and lower classes. As we all know
the American situation is different, given a much greater difference between
the rich and the poor and between regions, e.g., deep south, large urban
centers and the rest of the country. Moreover, I think and Joe Pannon was
right pointing out the medical care ordinary mortals receive and the medical
care the intellectual (and now business) elite receives. As we all know in
Hungary one needed connections. Somehow I don't think that the people of
Ko3ba1nya has too many connections.

Answer #2:

On the NATO question I don't agree with you, Andra1s. I didn't suggest that
Hungary "should play the roaring mouse with Russia." Just the opposite, I
suggested that she shouldn't negotiate with Russia exactly because "Russia is
a major power and Hungary isn't." By the way, I don't think that your example
of Serbia has much significance. After all Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a member
of NATO, neither is Serbia. I can't believe that if one of the NATO countries
were attacked, NATO troops would stay put and do nothing.

As for your statement that "There is no historical reason to believe that
Hungary (or the whole region) is of great significance to NATO beyond being a
convenient buffer zone. In fact there are good historical reasons to think
otherwise: 56, 68, and 81," that exactly what we have to change. That
situation was created after World War I and after World War II the area fell
to the Russians. This is what must be changed. The area should be firmly
attached to the West, especially while Russia is still relatively weak.

Eva Balogh

On Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:30:52 -0500 > said:
                                                              As we all know
>the American situation is different, given a much greater difference between
>the rich and the poor and between regions, e.g., deep south,

--Ordinarily, I would not disagree with you.  But as a transplanted
Northerner, I must offer a mild protest.  Health care is not all that
bad here.  The averages are dragged down by our rural counties, some
of which are quite poor and medically underserved.  Admittedly, we
are not New York, but we aren't exactly the back side of the moon,
either.

Charles Atherton

Eva wrote:

>I suggested that she shouldn't negotiate with Russia exactly because "Russia i
s
>a major power and Hungary isn't."

I, too, don't see Hungary's negotiation with Russia very realistic.
Like a mouse negotiating with a bear.  Hungary can't possibly get a fair
shake from such negotiations.  Then there is the question of enforcing
such deals.  If Hungary does not live up to her side of the bargain,
Russia can sure do something about it, while Hungary could not if the
situation was reverse.  Therefore Hungary would tend to uphold a treaty
with Russia, while Russia might not when it was no longer convenient.
So I agree, Hungary should try to get the US represent her interests vis
a vis Russia.  But then, I'm not so sure that US will take Hungary's
interest as more important than Russia's except in circumstances when
American interests closely parallel that of Hungary.  Good luck!

>As for your statement that "There is no historical reason to believe that
>Hungary (or the whole region) is of great significance to NATO beyond being a
>convenient buffer zone. In fact there are good historical reasons to think
>otherwise: 56, 68, and 81,"

This part I don't quite get.  How does 56, 68 and 81 prove the
importance of East-Central Europe to NATO?  If anything, I think it
would prove the contrary.  Didn't they just stand by and watched?  Oh,
they did take in the refugees afterwards, but that was about it.
Or am I getting Eva's point all wrong?

Joe Pannon