Szukseg van a recskiek erejere

Zimanyi Tibor felszolalasa az MDF VI. Orszagos Gyulesen

Az egyik legnagyobb tagletszamu, politi-
kai aldozatokat tomorito tarsadalmi szovet-
seg, a Recski Szovetseg udvozletet hozom.

A Recski Szovetseg kotott eloszor paktu-
mot az MDF-fel a valasztasok elott. Azert
kotottek meg ezt a paktumot, amely kolcso-
nosen elonyos volt mindkettonknek, mert
tagsagunk tulnyomo tobbsege a nemzeti
centrumhoz tartozik. Sok tamadast kaptunk
a kormanypartisagunk miatt.

Hogyan is all ez a kerdes? A mi tagsagunk
igazan megszenvedett a fuggetlen, demokra-
tikus Magyarorszagert. Ezert elvarjuk, hogy
a kormany teljes egeszeben felvallalja a
problemainkat. A lehetosegek hatarain belCI
eddig ez meg is tortent. Ettol fuggetlenul mi
kritikusan, biralo szemmel nezzuk a tarsada-
lom jelensegeit, es biralatainkat sem hallgat-
juk el. Segito szandek vezet bennuCnket, ezert
megerto fogadtatast varunk.

Elegedetlenek vagyunk a rendszervaltas
tempojaval. Elegedetlenek vagyunk az igaz-
sagtetel helyzetevel, amelyet szerintCnk az el-
so evben meg kellett volna valositani. Kifo-
gasoljuk a sorstarsainkra vonatkozo semmis-
segi torvenyt. A megtorlas folyaman minden-
kire igyekeztek koztorvenyes paragrafust
huzni. fgy a mai napig nem semmisitettek
meg a ,,gyilkossag" cimen eliteltek iteletet,
pedig szabalyos harc soran tamado szovjet
katonak halalrol van szo. Az egyeni felul-
vizsgalati kerelmeket pedig sorra visszauta-
sitja a legfelsobb birosag.

Elegedetlenek vagyunk a parlement aszta-
lan fekvo igazsagteteli torvenyjavaslatokkal
is. Modositast fogunk beadni, hogy a va-
gyonelkobzast es a politikai jogoktol valo
megfosztast akkor is alkalmazni kell, ha eset-
leg magat az iteletet nem hajtjak vegre.

Elegedetlenek vagyunk a karpotlasi torve-
nyek vegrehajtasaval. A szemelyi karpotlasi
torveny eletbelepte ota eltelt fel esztendo so-
ran a 320 000 jelentkezo kozul jo ha 10%-ot
inteztek el. Aztan aki az ertesitest vegre meg-
kapja, az is varhat. Jelenleg a novemberi er-
tesitesre most adjak ki magat a karpotlasi je-
gyet. . . Ezert az orom helyett megkeseredik
a sorstarsak szajize. Tudom, hogy kicsi az
apparatus, de ezen az atfutasi idon minden-
keppen valtoztatni kell.

Sokan felvetik, hogy ha megkapjuk a kar-
potlast, akkor szukseg lesz-e meg a Recski
Szovetsegre es testverszervezeteire. Erre tel-
jesen egyertelmu a valsz. Most, amikor
egyesek a Megbekeles-emlekmu gondolatat
dedelgetik, amely a barikad mindket oldalan
elesetteknek egy emlekmuvet akar emelni,
egybemosva a szabadsagharcosokat es a ha-
zaarulokat, amikor Marosan halalakor di-
csoito nekrologok jelennek meg, akkor a
visszarendezodes nyilt kiserlete jelenik meg
a politikai eletben. Bizony, konnyen lehet,
hogy meg nagyobb szCkseg van es lesz
Recski Szovetseg jelenletere, erejere!

Dr. Zimnyi Tibor,
a Recski Szovetsg fotitkara

Mindig meghat, amikor a honi bolsevik (vagy milyen?) terrorbol csak 
nevtelenul mernek egyesek bargyu kerdeseket feltenni. Kell is egy kis 
erkolcsi tamasz egyes Bandikaknak, mert nem hangzik az jol, hogy jobb
Californiaban csucsulni, mint itthon. Bizony a magyaruldozes miatt nem
lehet hazaterni!
  Szegeny nevtelen baratunk amugy kerdezze meg Nahlik Gabort, de egyuttal
rakerdezhet pl. a Szerencsejatek Rt. vezetoinek fizetesere, vagy hogy ne
menjunk messzebbre, mondjuk a KFKI Vagyonkezelo Rt. vezetoinek, vagy akar
titkarnoinek a fizetesere is. 
  Azt is tudom, hogy az MDF es a Kormany tavolsagtartasa a Magyar Uttol csak
latszat, a valosag az, hogy mindenki orulten lelkesedik a dolgert. En is
alig varom mar, hogy vizsgazhassak magyarsagbol, es az utcan, buszon 
villamoson egyebet sem hallani, mint hogy eljen Csurka, stb.
  En persze halkabban szoktam eltetni a Mestert, mert sosem lehet tudni,
nincs-e ott a buszon Kubinyi Feri, aztan meg a labamra ejt egy kotetet a 
vaskos Fekete Lexikonjabol.

Q	Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, you've seen scientific
visualization in practice here.  As a company we're also very interested
in ongoing research in high-performance computing and scientific
visualization.  Can we expect to see a change in the national scientific
agenda that includes scientific visualization?  Right now I don't see the
scientific visualization as being represented, for example, on the FCCSET
committee.

	THE VICE PRESIDENT:  It is a good question.  One of the people
who flew out here with us for this event and for the release of the
technology policy in just a few minutes is Dr. Jack Gibbons, who is in
the back of the room -- the President's science advisor and head of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy.  And he will be in charge of the
FCCSET process.  That's an acronym that -- what does it stand for, Jack -
- the Federal Coordinating Council on Science and Engineering Technology.
And visualization will play a key role in the deliberations of the
FCCSET.

	We were actually, believe it or not, talking about this a little
bit with Dr. Gibbons on the way over here.  I had hearings one time where
a scientist used sort of technical terms that he then explained --it made
an impression on me.  He said, if you tried to describe the human mind in
terms applicable to a computer you'd say we have a low bit rate but high
resolution.  (Laughter.)  Meaning --this is one of the few audiences I
can use that line with.  (Laughter and applause.)

	But he went on to explain what that means.  When we try to absorb
information bit by bit, we don't have a huge capacity to do it.  That's
why the telephone company, after extensive studies, decided that seven
numbers were the most that we could keep in short-term memory.  And then
they added three more.  (Laughter.)  But if we can see lots of
information portrayed visually in a pattern or mosaic, where each bit of
data relates to all of the others, we can instantly absorb a lot of
information.  We can all recognize the Milky Way, for example, even
though there are trillions of points of light, stars, and so forth.

	And so the idea of incorporating visualization as a key component
of this strategy is one that we recognize as very important and we're
going to pursue it.

	THE PRESIDENT:  Let me just add one thing to that.  First of all,
I told the crowd last night that the Vice President was the only person
ever to hold national office in America who knew what the gestalt of the
gigabit is.  (Laughter.)  But anyway -- and now we're going to get some
very funny articles out of this.  They're going to make fun of us for
being policy wonks.  (Laughter.)

	Let me say something to sort of take this one step further.  This
whole visualization movement that you have been a part of in your line of
work is going to merge in a very short time with the whole business in
traditional education theory called applied academics.  We're now finding
with just sort of basic computer work in the elementary schools of our
country dramatic differences in learning curves among people who can see
the work they're doing as opposed to people who are supposed to read it.
And we're now finding that the IQs of young people who might take a
vocational track in school may not be
all that different from kids that would stay in a traditional academic
track and wind up at Stanford, but their learning patterns are
dramatically different.

	And there are some people -- this is a huge new discovery,
basically, that's coming into the whole business of traditional
educational theory.  So someday what you're doing here will revolutionize
the basic teaching in our schools, starting at kindergarten and going
forward, so that the world of work and the world of education will begin
to be merged backwards all the way to the beginning.  And it's going to
be, I think, the most important thing we've ever done.  And very
important for proving that in a diverse population all people can reach
very high levels of achievement.

	MR. MCCRACKEN:  The President and Vice President have also come
here today to present a new national technology policy for the country.
Do you want to --

	THE PRESIDENT:  We'll answer some more questions.  (Applause.)
I'm going to forego my time and just let him announce the policy, so we
can hear some more questions.  Got to give the man equal time, I know.
(Laughter.)

	Q	I'd just like to say, I didn't vote for you; I wish I
had.  (Laughter.)

	THE PRESIDENT:  I hope you feel that way four years from now.
(Laughter and applause.)

	Q	Well, that's actually why I'm standing up -- I really see
a possibility in what you stand for and I really think this is why you
were elected.  That you say you stand for change; you said that during
your campaign.  I think the company believed that.  They're counting on
you -- I'm nervous -- and I just want to say we're really with the
country behind you.  I think that's why the statistics are saying that
we're willing to have our taxes increased, we're willing to have cuts,
because you say you're really going to do it this time and decrease the
deficit.  I hope to God that you do.  We need it not just for this
present time, but by your actually fulfilling on this it will make a
major change in how we feel about government; that when government says
they're going to make a difference and they really come through, it will
make a huge impact for the future.  And I'm really personally behind you
all the way.  I wish I'd voted for you.  (Applause.)

	THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  I really appreciate that.  Let me
make one comment in response if I might.  I think it's important -- and
you can help others understand this -- to understand why we have to
reduce the deficit, which is something that is normally not done when
unemployment is high.  And unemployment is still too high.  Even though
we're in an economic recovery, most of our recovery is due to high
productivity from firms that, in turn, this time are not hiring new
people for all kinds of reasons.

	And we have to reduce the deficit for two reasons:  Number one,
if we don't -- we're already spending 15 percent of your tax money just
to pay interest on past debt.  If we don't change present patterns we'll
be over 20 cents by the year 2000.  That's money we should be spending on
education and technology in the future.

	Number two, the more money we take out of the pool of funds for
borrowing the more expensive it is for companies like this and other
companies that have to go into the markets and borrow to borrow.  Just
since the election, since we made it clear we were going to try to bring
the deficit down, long-term interest rates have dropped .7 of one
percent.  That is a huge savings for everybody that is going to borrow
money or that has a variable interest rate on a loan, whether it's a
home mortgage or a business loan or a car loan or whatever.  That's
important.

	The second thing we're trying to do that I know you will also
appreciate is to shift the balance of money we do spend more away from
consumption toward investment.  Investments in education technology,
environmental cleanup, and converting from a defense to a domestic
economy.  That one of the bizarre things that happened to us in the '80s
is that we increased the deficit first through defenses expenses and then
through exploding health care costs and increasing interest payments.
But we reduced our investments in the future and the things that make us
richer.

	So those are the changes we're trying to effect.  Let me just
make one other point.  I will not support raising anybody's taxes unless
budget cuts also pass.  (Applause.)

	Q	One of the things that Silicon Graphics has been really
successful is selling into the international markets, approximately 50
percent of our revenues come internationally, including a substantial
market in Japan.  What types of programs does your administration plan to
help the high-growth companies of the '90s sell to the international
markets?

	THE PRESIDENT:  Two things.  First of all, we intend to try to
open new markets and new markets in our region.  That is, I believe that
high-growth companies are going to -- to keep America growing, I believe
high-growth companies are going to have to sell south of the border more.
And to do that we have to negotiate trade agreements that will help to
raise incomes in those countries even as we are growing.  That's why I
support, with some extra agreements, the NAFTA agreement; and why I hope
we can have an agreement with Chile, and hope we can have an agreement
with other countries like Argentina that are making a serious effort to
build market economies.  Because we want to build new markets for all of
you.

	With Japan, I think what we have to do is to try to continue to
help more companies figure out how to do business there and keep pushing
them to open their markets.  I don't want to close American markets to
Japanese products, but it is the only nation with which we have a
persistent and unchanging structural deficit.

	The product deficit with Japan is not $43 billion, which is our
overall trade deficit, it is actually about $60 billion in product, in
manufactured production.  So we have -- we've got a lot of problems we
have to work out there.

	With Europe, we sometimes are in surplus, we're sometimes in
deficit, but it's a floating thing.  So it's more or less in balance.
With developing nations like Taiwan and Korea, those countries had big
surpluses with us, but as they became richer they brought them down, so
that we're more or less in balance.  We have our biggest trade
relationship with Canada and we're more or less in balance.

	So we have to work on this Japanese issue while trying to help
more of you get involved.  Let me make one final comment on that.  I
think we should devote more government resources to helping small and
medium-size companies figure out how to trade, because that's what the
Germans do with such great success and why they're one of the great
exporters of the world.  They don't waste a lot of money on the real big
companies that have already figured it out, but they have extra efforts
for small and medium-size companies to get them to think global from the
beginning of their endeavors.  And I think we're going to have to do more
of that.


(ket tovabbi folytatas jovo heten)

Kedves Magyar Testvereim!
 
  Ott vagyunk megint, pont ahol voltunk roviddel a II vilaghaboruba
valo belesodrodasunk elott:
 
  Szerbiaban puccs tortenik, fenyegeto helyzet keletkezik a (most
mar csak volt-) Jugoszlaviaban elo nepekre nezve. Az embertelen
szerb puccsistak az oroszokkal paktalnak. Nemetorszag nem turi,
hogy a Balkanon efajta zurzavar fenyegesse az ottani lakossagot
(tobb  millio nemet elt ott, akikbol  Tito a haboru utan
lemeszarolt 600 ezret, a tobbi elmenekult) beavatkozik - keri
Mo-ot, hogy a nemet katonai szerelvenyek atutazhassanak es keri
egyes vasutvonalak hasznalatat. A magyar kormany topreng - nem
akar belekeveredni a haboruba, azonban egyreszt a gazdasagi
szalak szorosan kotik a nemethez, masreszt a nemet, habar
"szepen" is kerte az atutazasi jogot, megerttette a magyarokkal,
hogy engedely ide vagy oda, ok pedig at fognak utazni. A magyar
kormany azt is jol tudja, hogy az angolok szovetsegeseikkel
esetleges partraszallast terveznek Jugoszlaviaban - ez esetben az
angol es a  nemet hadsereg magyar teruleten fogja elet-halal
harcat vivni. A magyar kormany kapcsolatban volt az angolokkal,
minden lepesrol informalta oket. Vegul is a magyarok megadtak az
engedelyt - azonban attol a ponttol fogva, Anglia nem tartotta
Magyarorszagot semleges allamnak (habar nem uzent hadat -
rogton).
 
  Nos olvasom a kepujsagban:
 
>  Az Egyesult Allamok gepei atrepulhetnek hazank legteren - jelentettek be
>  a kormanyszovivoi tajekozaton.
 
>  A magyar kormany ugyanis megadta ehhez az elvi engedelyt a washingtoni
>  kormany humanitarius segelyt szallito repuloinek.
 
  Nos, a szerbek szokasuk szerint megint gyilkolo orgiat rendeznek, 
az oroszokkal paktalnak. Megint egy nagyhatalom (USA) be akar
avatkozni. Megint "csak" arrol van szo, hogy atutaznak, es persze
humanitarius segelyt osztogatnak ( DE a legelso lelott amerikai
repulo haborura adna okot).
 
  Azonban ez alkalommal a gazdasagi szalak nem koteleznek, Mo.
teruletet nem fenyegeti az a veszely, hogy csataterre valik, az
USA nem fenyeget megszallassal ha Mo. nemet mond. Igy jelenleg
Mo. nincs kenyszerhelyzetben.
 
 A kerdes: Igen vagy Nem?
 
  Szerintem NEM! 
  
  Nem, mert  nem vesznek be minket a NATO-ba. Nem, mert
nem adnak megfelelo hadisegelyt (hany repulot, tankot,
harckocsit, raketat kapott Magyarorszag az USAtol?). Nem, mert az
USA es Mo. nem kotottek megegyezest arra az esetre ha az USA egy
szep napon megunja a dolgot (mint ahogy ez tortent pl.
Vietnamban) es odebbal - akkor Mo-nak egyedul kell a garantalt
szerb boszuallasal kinlodni (emlekezzunk Kambodiara). Hol van es
ki kepviseli a magyar erdeket ?
 
  Tehat: amennyiben nincsenek titkos megegyezesek, szerintem kesz
orultseg Mo.-nak atrepulesi engedelyt adni az USA-nak. A legjobb
esetben egy par ezer muzulman eletet megmentjuk, ezzel szemben az
a reszkir, hogy az amerikaiak tavozasa utan, ott all Mo., gyenge
fegyverzettel, gyenge hadsereggel, szemben egy felboszult,
verszomjas, jol fegyverzett szerb vadallattal - akinek meg
raadasul nagyszeru kedve is van, hiszen egy szuperpower-t gyozott
le. Koszonom, ebbol nem kerek.
 
  Van-e valasztek ? Esetleg igen - pl. mi tortenik, ha megegyezunk
a szerbekkel, hogy a magyar legter nem valik hadi utta, a
szerbek pedig vissza adjak az autonomiat Vajdasagnak ?

				Tisztelettel, Csorna Istvan