My recent brief exchange with Barna re: Hungarian Heritage Review reminded
me that last I scanned all my issues of it for information to add to an
excellent Web page.

   http://mason.gmu.edu/~achassel/famous.html

This page is truly informative and has a very complete list of famous (and
infamous) Hungarian Americans and their contributions to American and world
culture.

I think that many of you will be amazed at some of the names and the
accomplishments.

I recommend a visit. It will make you proud of your heritage.

Bandi

I see it as the century-old problem, not confined to Hungary, of how can =
a small nation of say 10million keep its particular identity in a world =
where the culture of large nations such as the english speaking areas, =
the German speaking areas, the Slav speaking areas and the Spanish =
speaking areas are overwhelming through radio, TV and the cinema.
Hungary has always been in this position mostly not to her advantage.
Regards
D=E9nes=20



----------
From:  Ferenc Novak[SMTP:]
Sent:  Tuesday, 11 February 1997 12:12
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: Oh, No -- NATO!

 on Feb  8 18:44:27 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #909:

snip

Agreed.  While in 1956 a lot of people would have liked Hungary to join =
in a
Western alliance for protection against Soviet domination, it would have =
been
impolitic to state it outright.  It would have given the Soviets an =
excuse
for intervention (not that they needed one) and would have alienated =
those
who, while opposed to Soviet domination of the country, were also =
against
joining the other side that had been portrayed by the communists as =
"western
imperialists bent on starting another world war".  Neutrality was =
something
everyone could live with.

Ferenc

Vamossy Karcsi wrote:

<<<<If these numbers are correct -- and I have no reason to doubt them -- they
can mean only one thing:  people [still] do not know the definition of
democracy and are confusing it with perceived "living conditions", just like
they misunderstand what a free market economy is.>>>>

If you barely manage to make your living you don4t care a damn about
definitions. This is the type of reasoning and wording that drives the
"simple people" ( the simply called it "goegoes" 1994 and gave a receipt... )
mad and in the arms of demagogues....

       If  23% of Hungarians feel that murdering your opposition is the
proper democratic method for selecting a nations' leadership, than there is
something seriously wrong....>>>>>

see above!
And :
Quite pathetic! I am afraid, young man ( forgive me, I couldn4t help it - also
this would be the the only acceptable exuse for your wording ), you should
quickly read your first introduction in reading and interpreting poll results.
Of course, something is seriously wrong! Seriously wrong with politicians
- including those from 1990 - creating such a desparate state of mind leading
to such results. Or do you think its about time for the parties to elect a
different people? ( Bert Brecht, 1953 )

<<<Democracy became an emerging promise under Nemeth and hit Hungary full force
with Antall and, yes, under Horn.  Did democracy bring about other, possibly
more important changes in living standard, quality of life, etc?  Possibly
not.Certainly most people perceive that it did not.>>>>>

They think it was democracy...and it was the "democrats"...

<<<Democracy is no more and no less than the method countries use to govern
themselves  by electing -- rather than appointing, inheriting, forcing, etc.
-- its representatives and thus its top government.  The current Hungarian
parliament and thus the government is composed according to the wish of the
Hungarian people, just like its predecessor was.>>>>

Unfortunately, to simple : the inherited election law is not proportional!
1989 the opposition didn4t manage to get a better deal : the strongest party
gets an overproportionally large share of the seats. Horns party never had
55 percent of the popular vote. But they have the seats. ( Admittedly, unex-
pectedly it worked for Antall, too )

<<< Each composition represents  a point of view at a certain point in time of
the voters.>>>

Unfortunately not.

<<<The next election may do the same, even if with different results.>>>>

Provided, you have equal chances in published opinion, media etc...

Miklos K. Moffmann

<<<<<More endearing sentiments from redneck territory:

 on Sun Feb  9 08:38:27 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #910:

> ...you're much, much dumber than I am and you know it.

<<[Does he really think it's possible?  And if it were, how would I know it?
;-)]

> ...your incapacity for original thought...
> ...openly moronic and mediocre and isn't afraid for anyone else to notice.
> Sam Stowe

<<<<Poor Sam!  He is doing his best trying to provoke me, this time because I
mistakenly sent out two versions of a post airing some of the products of his
intellectually superior mind.

<<<<Let's look at the bright side, though.  He has at least cleaned up his
language a bit.  His insults, though still personal, are approaching a level
that may pass for polite conversation in his (red)neck of the woods.

<<<<In line with my principle of being kind to lower life forms, as well as in
deference to Charlie's entreaties for an end to hostilities, I hereby promise
not to call Stowe any names (he paints an eloquently unappealing picture of
himself in his posts anyway).  What's more, I will permit him to have the
last word, which is probably very important to him.  Maybe that will ease his
sense of inferiority.

<<<<Ferenc

<<<P.S.  My apologies to the innocent bystanders.  This whole thing started
after a disagreement on a historical fact.  Sam simply could not forgive my
correcting his notion of Jelacic, whom he thought to be a victorious Serb
general in 1848.>>>>

I am touched to the root of my heart. My tears are running down my cheecks
like Yosemity Fall and Bride4s Veil. So much noble wording! And, also, easing
that sense of inferiority!...
Your sins, my son, against innocent bystanders and your neighbour shall be
forgiven you by the List Community! Ugy legyen.

At 01:09 PM 2/10/97 -0800,  Charles Mikecz Vamossy wrote:

<snip>
>If these numbers are correct -- and I have no reason to doubt them -- they
>can mean only one thing:  people [still] do not know the definition of
>democracy and are confusing it with perceived "living conditions", just
>like they misunderstand what a free market economy is.

Some Hungarians are confusing democracy with perceived "living conditions"
to the same extent that you're confusing democracy with the free market.
There is no symbiotic relationship between the free market and democracy no
matter how hard you look.

I wonder how much of a democrat you, and others on this list, would be if
(and perhaps, when) Hungarians democratically elected a government to
nationalize and/or socialize everything?  Democracy, in and of itself can't
be tied to the "free market".  It is simply an exercise in the majority
expressing its will.  And I'm sure that you won't like a lot of what the
majority would vote for, or, against.

Joe Szalai

Joyous distrust is a sign of health.  Everything absolute belongs to pathology.
        Nietzsche

Dear Eva,
you wrote:

>The Munkaspart also
>>has a website where you can vote on the NATO issue. According to the latest
>>results the pro-NATO people are leading by a few hundred votes. Our vice
 ......
        Oh, they are not dangerous in the political sense although I bet
that at the next elections they will pass the 5% threshold and will be able
to sent a couple of representatives to Parliament. But their constant
harping on NATO, their collecting over 200,000 signatures for a
referendum--I consider these activities dangerous given the ambivalent
attitude of the electorate.>>>>>>>>>>

and much more about your concern re the position of Hungarians to NATO.
Here a small promising sign : a survey of the Ministry of Defense shows
the averall positive reaction (72 percent ) of Hungarians to the IFOR
units stationed there ( mostly GIs ). "You came fourty years to late, boys...".

You find more in todays Magyar Nemzet Online
           //www.magyarnemzet.hu/mn/bp007t.stm

Regards
Miklos

At 07:15 AM 2/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 01:09 PM 2/10/97 -0800,  Charles Mikecz Vamossy wrote:
>
><snip>
>>If these numbers are correct -- and I have no reason to doubt them -- they
>>can mean only one thing:  people [still] do not know the definition of
>>democracy and are confusing it with perceived "living conditions", just
>>like they misunderstand what a free market economy is.
>
>Some Hungarians are confusing democracy with perceived "living conditions"
>to the same extent that you're confusing democracy with the free market.
>There is no symbiotic relationship between the free market and democracy no
>matter how hard you look.
>

You are correct and I don't believe I have suggested that democracy and free
market economy are one and the same thing. I simply stated that both are
concepts that seem to be misunderstood in Hungary.  It is also true that
they tend to go hand in hand (very few democracies have competely state run
planned economies), but it is not a "legal" requirement..

>I wonder how much of a democrat you, and others on this list, would be if
>(and perhaps, when) Hungarians democratically elected a government to
>nationalize and/or socialize everything?  Democracy, in and of itself can't
>be tied to the "free market".  It is simply an exercise in the majority
>expressing its will.  And I'm sure that you won't like a lot of what the
>majority would vote for, or, against.
>

Although I hope I would never have to experience another
nationalization/socialisation of private property in Hungary (the last time
it happened it coincided with the disappearance of democracy and  the onset
of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "people's democracy"),  I would
respect the will of the majority and then do everything in my power to
inform and influence the electorate to reverse its decision at the earliest
opportunity.  Perhaps a good example of this process is the UK's
nationalization of industry under Labor governments and the privatisation
process under the subsequent Tory regimes.  Democracy in action, I'd call it.

>Joe Szalai
>
Charlie Vamossy

In article >, Ferenc Novak
> writes:

>Poor Sam!  He is doing his best trying to provoke me, this time because I
>mistakenly sent out two versions of a post airing some of the products of
his
>intellectually superior mind.
>
>Let's look at the bright side, though.  He has at least cleaned up his
>language a bit.  His insults, though still personal, are approaching a
level
>that may pass for polite conversation in his (red)neck of the woods.
>
>In line with my principle of being kind to lower life forms, as well as
in
>deference to Charlie's entreaties for an end to hostilities, I hereby
promise
>not to call Stowe any names (he paints an eloquently unappealing picture
of
>himself in his posts anyway).  What's more, I will permit him to have the
>last word, which is probably very important to him.  Maybe that will ease
his
>sense of inferiority.
>
>Ferenc
>
>P.S.  My apologies to the innocent bystanders.  This whole thing started
>after a disagreement on a historical fact.  Sam simply could not forgive
my
>correcting his notion of Jelacic, whom he thought to be a victorious Serb
>general in 1848.

You didn't "correct" anything, Frank. You simply tried to reverse-engineer
the historical record and I caught you doing it and showed how little you
actually know about the events of 1848. (or are willing to address those
events in an even-handed, honest manner) You are indeed living proof that
a fool and his misconceptions are not soon parted.
Sam Stowe

"Nasal phlegm. Some guys may think it's
funny, Mr. Noir, but it's not."
-- The bartender in Guy Noir's office building

In article >,  writes:

> You're just jealous because: a) you can't come close to matching my
witty
>> style and b) you're much, much dumber than I am and you know it. But,
>> please, don't stop posting the same thing over and over again, Frank.
It
>> speaks volumes about your incapacity for original thought or an
>> interesting way of elucidating it. It's nice to see someone who's
openly
>> moronic and mediocre and isn't afraid for anyone else to notice.
>> Sam Stowe
>>
>
>Thanks for sharing one of your cherished thoughts," It's nice to see
>someone who's openly moronic and mediocre and isn't afraid for anyone
>else to notice". Please do not be alarmed, it is not unheard of
>people speaking on front of the mirror.
>
>                        Mark O.F.

You must do it all the time, Mark. Does the guy in the mirror ever answer
you? Judging from your post, he's been telling you how clever you are. Too
bad he's lying.
Sam Stowe

"Nasal phlegm. Some guys may think it's
funny, Mr. Noir, but it's not."
-- The bartender in Guy Noir's office building

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   urgent

Background:
   According to a statement of  the Vice President of  J.P. Morgan
from last year the bank received assurances from the Water Development
Enterprise of Slovakia that none of the loans it lead manag for this
company was spent on the Gabcikovo dam.
   In November, 1996, Miroslav B. Liska, an employee of the Water
Development Enterprise of Slovakia, indicated that the company has
received a loan for end building of Gabcikovo by a group of banks
headed by J.P. Morgan.

What to do:
    Please send a letter to the Vice President of J.P Morgan and
protest. Feel free to use the attached letter written by S.J. 
Magyarody. The letter compares the failures of the Army Corps of 
Engineers with the Gabcikovo project. 
  REMEMBER WE HAVE ONLY 4 WEEKS LEFT TO ACT. PLEASE HELP!! EVERY 
LETTER COUNTS!!

Fax 212-648-5210

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Margaret W. Southerland              January 29, 1997
Vice President
J.P. Morgan
60 Wall Street
New York, N.Y. 10260-0060

RE: Loan to Slovakia

Dear Mrs. Southerland,

   According to a statement of your bank from July 1996 J.P. Morgan
received assurances from the Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia
that none of the loans you manage for this company will be spent
on the Gabcikovo dam.

   On the 26th of November, 1996, Miroslav B. Liska, an employee of the
Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia, indicated that the company
has received a loan to end the building of Gabcikovo by a group of banks
headed by J.P. Morgan.

   Mrs. Southerland, did J.P. Morgan manage the loan for the
completion of the Gabcikovo project? In this case, your bank did not
only neglect the warnings of numerous environmental activists who
recognized this project as environmentally disastrous and illegal, 
but J.P. Morgan also acted contrary to its statement from July
1996. Please clear this up.

   I would like to remind you that the Gabcikovo project  did the Danube
("Szigetkoz" region) exactly, what the  Corps of Engineers  did to the
Florida  wetlands.  After spending hundreds of millions of  dollars on
draining  the wetlands, straightening out of rivers with costly dams,
they have realised, that the watertable, so important to the  State,
was lowered and polluted.  Now they are spending hundreds of millions
of  dollars, to put back the  system to its original,  natural  state.

   If your experts did not explain this to you,  they did a very costly
disservice to you and your company.

   Surly, you will not  back an ecological and  financial disaster, like
the Slovakian  project. Or would you?

Sincerely

your name, title, address

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   urgent

Background:
   According to a statement of  the Vice President of  J.P. Morgan
from last year the bank received assurances from the Water Development
Enterprise of Slovakia that none of the loans it lead manag for this
company was spent on the Gabcikovo dam.
   In November, 1996, Miroslav B. Liska, an employee of the Water
Development Enterprise of Slovakia, indicated that the company has
received a loan for end building of Gabcikovo by a group of banks
headed by J.P. Morgan.

What to do:
    Please send a letter to the Vice President of J.P Morgan and
protest. Feel free to use the attached letter written by S.J.
Magyarody. The letter compares the failures of the Army Corps of
Engineers with the Gabcikovo project.
  REMEMBER WE HAVE ONLY 4 WEEKS LEFT TO ACT. PLEASE HELP!! EVERY
LETTER COUNTS!!

Fax 212-648-5210

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Margaret W. Southerland              January 29, 1997
Vice President
J.P. Morgan
60 Wall Street
New York, N.Y. 10260-0060

RE: Loan to Slovakia

Dear Mrs. Southerland,

   According to a statement of your bank from July 1996 J.P. Morgan
received assurances from the Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia
that none of the loans you manage for this company will be spent
on the Gabcikovo dam.

   On the 26th of November, 1996, Miroslav B. Liska, an employee of the
Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia, indicated that the company
has received a loan to end the building of Gabcikovo by a group of banks
headed by J.P. Morgan.

   Mrs. Southerland, did J.P. Morgan manage the loan for the
completion of the Gabcikovo project? In this case, your bank did not
only neglect the warnings of numerous environmental activists who
recognized this project as environmentally disastrous and illegal,
but J.P. Morgan also acted contrary to its statement from July
1996. Please clear this up.

   I would like to remind you that the Gabcikovo project  did the Danube
("Szigetkoz" region) exactly, what the  Corps of Engineers  did to the
Florida  wetlands.  After spending hundreds of millions of  dollars on
draining  the wetlands, straightening out of rivers with costly dams,
they have realised, that the watertable, so important to the  State,
was lowered and polluted.  Now they are spending hundreds of millions
of  dollars, to put back the  system to its original,  natural  state.

   If your experts did not explain this to you,  they did a very costly
disservice to you and your company.

   Surly, you will not  back an ecological and  financial disaster, like
the Slovakian  project. Or would you?

Sincerely

your name, title, address

At 07:09 PM 2/11/97 +0100, Kadar Gyorgy wrote:

<snip>
>Without the return of conservative morality
>we  Hungarians (here in Hungary) will certainly be lost.
>Of course I see the  desperate idealism of all the above text...
>De inkabb egyenek meg a fergek, minthogy ferget egyem... barmilyen
>sok is van/lesz beloluk...
>
>        Istenvelunk...                  kadargyorgy

What on earth do you mean that Hungary must return to a "conservative
morality"?  I thought Hungary wanted to be a part of Europe, and not a part
of central Asia, like Uzbekistan, Afganistan, Turkmenistan or Kirghizstan to
name just a few of the nations who never abandoned their conservative morality.

Joe Szalai

In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>Some Hungarians are confusing democracy with perceived "living
conditions"
>to the same extent that you're confusing democracy with the free market.
>There is no symbiotic relationship between the free market and democracy
no
>matter how hard you look.

If by "symbiotic" you mean that capitalism and democracy inevitably go
hand-in-hand, then no, you won't find an indestructible bond linking the
two regardless of historical context. That doesn't mean, however, that the
two are irreconcilable. Capitalism will thrive under a variety of
political circumstances as democracy will thrive under a variety of
economic circumstances. The two systems live in dynamic tension with one
another and rarely find a satisfying equilibrium which lasts for very
long. That's why we see swings in the amount of government interference in
the economic sphere of life and why the wealth produced by that sphere
sometimes has an unhealthy impact on the political sphere. It's a
never-ending tug-of-war designed specifically to allow you to run off at
the mouth with your crackpot theories.

>I wonder how much of a democrat you, and others on this list, would be if
>(and perhaps, when) Hungarians democratically elected a government to
>nationalize and/or socialize everything?  Democracy, in and of itself
can't
>be tied to the "free market".  It is simply an exercise in the majority
>expressing its will.  And I'm sure that you won't like a lot of what the
>majority would vote for, or, against.

Gee, why speak so hatefully of the proletariat unless you believe that
stuff about an intellectual vanguard which will lead the masses to a
higher class conscience? Sure, they can vote themselves bread and
circuses. But in a real democracy, they can also change their minds and
throw the bakers and the circus clowns out of office. If the Hungarians
democratically elect a government to nationalize or socialize everything,
that's their democratic prerogative. The question is whether that
government, once the electorate decides it's had enough of nationalizing
and socializing everything in sight, will accept its removal from power at
the ballot box. If it doesn't, then it's no longer democratic. How's your
juggling coming along?
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Ssssh. We'ah hunting wabbits...


"Nasal phlegm. Some guys may think it's
funny, Mr. Noir, but it's not."
-- The bartender in Guy Noir's office building

At 07:09 PM 2/11/97 +0100, Gyorgy Kadar wrote:

>        The issue, introduced yesterday by Eva Balogh, is one of the most
>important ones to be discussed with the highest possible level of
>objectivity.

        For those of you who haven't been following the discussion it was
about a recent opinion poll which had some bizarre results concerning the
state of democracy, on the one hand, and freedom of the press, on the other.
And yes, I agree with Gyorgy Kadar that the topic of the media and its place
in society is an important one.
        At the beginning I would like to state that I consider the role of
the media in politics a very important one. In this country at least it is
often referred to as "the fourth estate," that is, a kind of watchdog over
the activities of the government and our elected representatives. Especially
in the last twenty-odd years investigative journalism has become a part of
the political scene and without the journalists' persistent probings into
certain affairs we would have not known about an awful lot of misdeeds of
government officials and elected representatives.
        This kind of role of journalists was of course entirely unknown in
the socialist countries. On the contrary, journalists were arms of the party
and the government who through official newspapers were supposed to
"enlighten" the populace. In Kadar's Hungary, especially in the last few
years, journalists had a little more leeway to criticize and probe than in
some other socialist countries but all these activities were quite limited.
        I may also add another distinctive feature of Hungarian journalism:
Hungarian journalists were rarely only journalists in the past: they were
also writers and poets who, by freelancing to different newspapers, managed
to make a living while being able to devote themselves to literary
activities. That tradition has made Hungarian journalistic style very
different from, for example, the Anglo-Saxon one. In the United Sates
especially the style is brisk: short and simple sentences, short paragraphs,
over-all message of an article comes in the first paragraph and rest is
simply amplification. The Hungarian style is more like the style of a
nineteenth-century essayist: not exactly everybody's cup of tea. I would say
that some essays appearing in the Hungarian weeklies are way above the head
of the average reader. And even a more than average reader will have to read
some of the sentences twice to be sure that it is properly understood. I
often wonder how many people without college education actually read the
editorials of Hungarian papers. And there are eleven dailies in Budapest
alone. They are practically all bankrupt.
        Another big problem is the question of objectivity. Sure, we all
have our biases, we all have our opinions, but when a historian, a
journalist, a political scientist sit down to write a book or an article
he/she tries to strike a balanced tone. Unfortunately, in Hungary (and
elsewhere in Eastern Europe) there is not even a pretention of objectivity.
Instead of writing articles which give facts with minimum of commentary,
most of the Hungarian pieces I encounter are opinions, the kind you find on
the op-ed or on the editorial page.
        Given this unabashed partisanship--on both sides of the isle--and a
generation of journalists who before 1990 didn't practice journalism as
members of "the fourth estate" it is quite clear that journalism as a
profession is still on rather shaky grounds in Eastern Europe, including
Hungary. Journalists look upon themselves as members of the intellectual
elite instead of some hard-nosed reporters asking hard questions and doing a
lot of detective work in order to get to the truth. Sometimes I think of
these people not as people running around from office to office, talking on
the telephone, making inquiries at the police station but intellectuals
sitting in their studies and thinking deeply about the state of the world
and the country. And making, of course, pronouncements.

        One important desclaimer is in order before I say anything about the
media in Hungarian politics: I have been following Hungarian political
affairs only in the last three years; that is, I began reading the Hungarian
media only a few months before the 1994 general elections. All I know about
journalistic activities prior to that time is second hand. However, there is
no question in my mind that the media was very antagonistic toward the
right-of-center government. Because I was not following events prior to
January-February of 1994 I can't say whether this antagonism was justified
or not. However, I can say that the style of the attacks was alien to me: it
reeked of political partisanship, something one is not accustomed to in the
United States. Sure, we all know that the New York Times is a liberal paper
and most likely the staff is delighted when the Democratic candidate wins
but there is serious effort on the part of the the journalists and editors
to disguise that fact. There were no pretenses of that sort in Hungary: pure
hatred was pouring out of the pores. Whether it was justified or not, I have
no idea. And even if it was justified this kind of journalism is alien to me
after being in North America for forty years. There was a real war going on
between the government and the media. In fact, it is still referred to as
"the media war." One serious bone of contention was the Hungarian
state-owned television. As it stands today the Hungarian state television
costs an awful lot of money to the tax payer over and above what he/she has
to pay as a subscriber. By all accounts the Hungarian tv has twice as many
employees as it actually needs. The Boross government used this as a pretext
to get rid of the most outspoken critics of the government at the most
inopportune time in March 1994, a two months before the elections. The war
was by that time truly on: one liberal weekly had a picture on its front
page where the fired journalists, fists raised shouted: We Will Be Back! And
back they were. The very first act of Horn and his government was the
reinstatement of the 129 people fired. (Mind you, the staff is still too
large and now they are talking about 500 people to get the pink slip. The
new president of the MTV [Magyar Televizio] is trying to let some people go
but, of course, there is huge upheaval about this even today by the
journalists.) In any case, there was no pretense whatsoever that the media
hated that government with a passion.
        Then came the elections and the results: an overwhelming majority of
the MSZP and eventually a coalition which included the SZDSZ. The
journalists again made no secret that *they* "won." The same liberal weekly
which had the group of journalists raising their fists and yelling "We Will
Be Back" was simply fixated on the old regime. They couldn't talk about
anything else but the misdeeds of the former government. Ad infinitum. For
two months there was hardly any current news in that particular weekly:
total preoccupation with the former government, including some feeble
attempts at investigative journalism and feeble it was. In fact, so feeble
that the "young talented journalist," as the author was described by the
editor-in-chief of the paper later, didn't even bother to check whether the
signature he presented as the signature of the former minister of foreign
affairs was genuine or not!! And my God it wasn't! The article itself was
full of unsupported innuendoes. And when it all came to light that the
signature belonged to someone else and the rest of the article was
unsupported rubbish, the editor-in-chief dragged his heels and wouldn't
apologize or retract. It was an awful scene! Then came article after article
which I called in my earlier letter as "gooye," dripping of sugary stuff and
naive enthusiasm practically saying: from here on everything is going to be
wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!!!! The new ministers were described as
genuises, experts in their fields, men of decency, wonderful guys in brief.
Not one critical voice on a cabinet which at best could be described as
motley. When an American-Hungarian journalist got hold of some internal
paper from the White House which described Horn as liking vodka too much,
three pages were devoted to the refutation. It was at this point that I
wrote to the second man in charge of the weekly and warned him that if they
were not careful they would be labeled a government paper!
        Eventually truly democratic voices were raised against this
adulation, like Flora Fencsik who wrote several pieces calling attention to
the real role of the media. However, months went by and although the
high-pitched tone of the media was lowered somewhat still the journalists
were not doing their job. Sometimes I am not sure whether the reason for it
is simple laziness or ideological bias. Most likely both play a part. Since
our "intellectual journalists" don't like the grubby world of hard-nosed
journalism (you know the kind one can see in old American movies) they don't
like to stick to a story. They find the same old topic boring! So, they go
to a few places and ask a few questions and the government officials (who
are the same officials who were officials in the Kadar regime) tell them to
go and get lost, they go and get lost. They don't try to knock on another
door. Therefore, juicy stories--they certainly would be juicy stories in the
West--are dropped like hot potatoes. We will therefore never know what
happened to Oilgate, for example. Or any other "-gate." The Tocsik affair,
on the other hand, is still around but not because of the journalists. But
because the FIDESZ got hold of the story and the parliamentary committe
which is investigating it is headed by a FIDESZ member. If it depended on
the journalists, I really wonder whether it would be still on the agenda or not
.
        Being less of an ideologue than Gyorgy Kadar and most likely being a
much greater cynic than he is, I would asign a great deal of the blame on
ignorance, laziness, lack of knowledge of what is expected of them, rather
than purely ideological biases. But at the same time I am not saying that
there is no such thing as ideological bias. Of course, there is. The latest
I found was an article in Nepszabadsag (I simply can't get over the fact
that the people who took over Nepszabadsag didn't change the name!!) about
the first jail sentences meted out by a Hungarian court to some of the
participants of mass murder of peaceful demonstrators in November-December
1956. The article was unspeakable. The message was something like that: who
really cares about all this, perhaps only  people who were around then!!
        However, I am optimistic that sooner or later the journalists of
Hungary will find their own roles and their own voices. I very much doubt
that a scene similar to that of the spring of 1994 would be repeated in the
future: uncritical adulation of a untested government simply because its
members had "experience" in an undemocratic, one-party system which in
retrospect seemed much more rosy than in reality. Perhaps the journalists,
like everybody else, will learn that there is no easy solution to Hungary's
problems and naive dreams of returning to a time when easy foreign loans
made an untenable system more or less workable is over.
        Eva Balogh

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Sam Stowe wrote:

>
> Gee, why speak so hatefully of the proletariat unless you believe that
> stuff about an intellectual vanguard which will lead the masses to a
> higher class conscience? Sure, they can vote themselves bread and
> circuses. But in a real democracy, they can also change their minds and
> throw the bakers and the circus clowns out of office. If the Hungarians
> democratically elect a government to nationalize or socialize everything,
> that's their democratic prerogative. The question is whether that
> government, once the electorate decides it's had enough of nationalizing
> and socializing everything in sight, will accept its removal from power at
> the ballot box. If it doesn't, then it's no longer democratic. How's your
> juggling coming along?
> Sam Stowe
>
> P.S. -- Ssssh. We'ah hunting wabbits...
>

Just out of curiousity, isn't this exactly what France seems to do every
once in a great while, put a person in office who shifts the policies fat
left or far right?

Darren Purcell

Lectoris Salutem!

        The issue, introduced yesterday by Eva Balogh, is one of the most
important ones to be discussed with the highest possible level of
objectivity. Of course, all of us have the burden of our own subjective
opinions, but opposing opinions should not demolish the style of anybody.
This issue is too serious, needs serious style...

        Eva Balogh and Miklos Hoffmann were touching the question I wish
to raise here, that is the interaction of the government and the media
(and there are many other sides of the thread, I do not touch now):

Eva Balogh:
"And then as a
further proof about the confusion about democracy here are the answers to
the last question about freedom of the press: Kadar, 9; Nemeth, 9; same, 4;
doesn't know, 24; Antall, 19; Horn, 35 percent!!! ...
 ... I found only the last two figures
surprising: during the Antall government there was a very active and very
oppositional press while shortly after the inauguration of the Horn
government the Hungarian press slipped from the category of free to
"somewhat free" in a New-York-based press watch group."

Miklos Hoffmann:
"2) the 19 vs 35 percent is not a surprise if you take into account
   that the majority of the media and the people within were and are
   anti-conservative. The government of Antall made the mistake to accept
   a confrontation course ( e.g. the long - lost - battle for the cont-
   rol of the electronic media ) generating the impression of an  anti-
   freedom-of-press attitude. With Horn, the press had their government.
   The press was and is handling this government unusually benevolently
   by analyses, by the way they were interviewing, by the way they are
   reporting and by omissions. It is only since Tocsik, that there is a
   cautious distance coming up."

Eva Balogh again:
"Those who sympathize with this
government think that the media is extremely harsh on the Horn government.
The same people, of course, took every word of the journalists as gospel
truths when the same people criticized the Antall/Boross government. The
media behaved terribly in the first few months after the socialists won the
elections. ... But the honeymoon is over by now.
        But again, the impression that there is more freedom of the press
today is somewhat misleading because the journalists until very recently
didn't really push hard enough to hold the Horn government accountable."

Now my comments:
        I can agree with all the facts mentioned by Eva Balogh and
Miklos Hoffmann. The responsibility of the governments is immense, and any
deeds, deteriorations, improvements are transmitted to the population. The
question is: by whom? how emphasized? which tone? for what purpose?
Eva Balogh writes: "The media behaved terribly in the first few months
after the socialists won the election." (In 1994). Sure! The
anti-government media turned into anti-opposition media. It was easy for
them.
        But the media behaved terribly too in the first (and until the
last) months after the center-right won the election, in 1990! Then the
pro-government media turned into pro-opposition media. It was strange from
outside but natural and easy for them ...
        In the late night of April 26, 1990 the watchers in front of the
Hungarian television could clearly see the unhidden disappointment on the
face of the TV-journalists when the numbers arriving from the electoral
districts proved unambiguously the lead of the Hungarian Democratic Forum.
This disappointment lasted for all the four years of the Antall/Boross
government.
        I recommend for you the reading of the discussion of the
Antall-program on the pages of the "Parlament Diary" on the 5th working
day (May 22, 1990) of the newly elected National Assembly (link from the
http://www.mkogy.hu homepage). All the party leaders (Tolgyessy, Pozsgay,
Fodor, Torgyan, Keresztes, Konya) except Orban of Fidesz praised the
program, promised confidence for the first months, and an atmosphere of a
possible national consensus can be felt by reading the diary. What was
transmitted from this atmosphere by the Hungarian television? Nothing.
        I do not want to say that an atmosphere could easily be
transmitted... But the fact is, that in the middle of Antall's speech,
much before any of the party leaders could have commented his program, the
Hungarian television switched to some sport performance, soccer-match or
who-knows-what. The government (not yet formed) was unable to choose then
the "confrontation course", the first unfair hit came from the media. And
I personally have not seen any unfair revanche from Antall. He was a
gentleman and never left the path of the rule of law (jogallam).
        The Hungarian media simply stole the possibility of the
presentation of the fact for the Hungarian citizenship, that with the 1990
elections and subsequent political events a new period of the Hungarian
history could have begun.
        All the four years were followed by the media with the same
spirit. Why to be surprised that no new period of the Hungarian history
began? In 1990 a geopolitical earthquake, triggered by the 1956
Hungarian revolution, arrived in our region and attempted some
restructuring in our country for several years. The media-blinded people,
inspired by the political opposition to stay indifferent, could not
recognize that (Hic Rhodus, hic salta!) they had an occasion to change
their own destiny, and instead reelected the party of Gyula Horn.
        Now we have a government, whose head can not decide whether he was
a national guard (nemzetor, see his book "Colopok") or a Russian-leading
paramilitary agent (muszkavezeto pufajkas) in 1956. And we have a
governing coalition party-leader who claims even these days that his
ancestors lived as a carpenter's family after the war and he claims this
after a lost court-procedure which proved that the family was "elevated"
quite early into the status of "hard" apparatchiks.
        The problem in these (and other) cases is not the reality, not the
facts of the past, but the behavior, the ambiguity of the persons. How can
people take the responsibility of leading or even informing other people,
when they are in conflict with their own past self? There are too many
such persons now in high government, banking and media positions in
Hungary. And not only now but it was (remained) so in 1990-94 too.
        I think that the highest positions (less than a hundred) have to
be left intact by such persons, any political party they belong to. A (I
mean one) turn on the Damascus road may be accepted in historical moments
if carried out with honesty. Without the return of conservative morality
we  Hungarians (here in Hungary) will certainly be lost.
        Of course I see the  desperate idealism of all the above text...
        De inkabb egyenek meg a fergek, minthogy ferget egyem... barmilyen
sok is van/lesz beloluk...

        Istenvelunk...                  kadargyorgy