Gotthard Saghi-Szabo ) wrote:
 [things deleted...]

I have no real comment on any particular person or things they said, but
just a small side-note...  This place (soc.culture.magyar) has been here
for a while and has established a pretty large variety of audience
(Hungarian or not).  I personally don't think there's need for
elliminating anything from one area for the sole reason that some of the
people here are looking for certain things (ie. MOZAIK/etc...).  I
understand that it would limit the traffic and all that jazz, but why on
earth for when it's not as bad as soc.penpal or
alt.binary.sex-with-animals-discussion or whatever...  This is
Hunagry/Magyar/People of Hunagry/ANYTHING Hungarian and that's the way it
should be.  This is a great place to hand out and check out what's on
people's minds when it comes to Hungary and it's ways/thoughts/questions...
Keep it the same and keep on discussing whatever comes to mind!  Any
limits on that and people will lose interest fast! (i've seen it
happen!)  They'll stop lurking/reading/posting and soon it will be a
ghost-town...  Keep posting the FAQ once in a while to keep it on a
semi-wide road to follow, but no need to turn the highway into a one-way
street.  It's a wonderous place, let's all watch and learn... =)'  Cheers

-Zoli =)'  (not Zoli Fekete)


        *********************************************************
           "It's not how far you go, but how go you far!"
                                        -Ski School
**************************************************************************
        e-mail:         
                        
mosaic/netscape:        http://rohan.sdsu.edu/home/zvondien/
         name:          =)'  Holi Zoli  =)'
**************************************************************************

>Hi,
>
>Does anyone out there know the phone number or address for IBUSZ or the
>Hungarian Tourist Bureau in the U.S.? Thanks.
>
>Jon Rand
>

Jon,
   The phone number for IBUSZ in NYC is:
                       212, 582-7412
   I have not used this number for some time now, but it should be
still the same.
   Good luck,
              Amos

Dear Greg,

        You asked me a difficult question: I really didn't have any
preferences about the governing coalition at the time of its making. I was
shocked by the landslide of MSZP and then surprised to hear that - despite
their 54% - they are still looking for a coalition partner. Then, of course,
my expectations and thoughts were already formed by the progressing events.

        If you are truly interested in my personal feelings, I was and still
am quite unhappy that just five years after the fall of Hungarian socialism,
the socialist party is back in power. I'm sad (though not surprised) to see
that people have such a short memory span and they can be so easily deceived
by such transparent propaganda slogans as "expertise" and "under us it was
still better".

        Dear Heather (and also continuing my answer to Greg),

        I was following the steps towards the present governing coalition
very closely at the time. I was first surprised both at the willingness of
MSZP and the eagerness of SZDSZ to form a coalition. My first thought was
that SZDSZ started a very dangerous game: they obviously didn't want to be
"losers twice" because they were worried that this might lead to a complete
disintegration of the party in a country where the party structure is still
very fluid and there are no long-standing party allegiances yet. The main
reason for joining in the coalition was therefore to strengthen their own
position as a party, but on the other hand, they were very much aware of the
fact that this new government will not be able to bring about miracles and
they might lose more in the long run than winning in the short if they won't
have much say in the government but they will be blamed for the government's
failures.

        I think this was the difficult choice SZDSZ were facing and - this is
my private guess - they must have worked out a tactique from the very
beginning to handle both problems. They had to know that MSZP needs at least
another party to share the blame because they (the socialists) also knew they
can lose most of their present support if they can't deliver: and they won't
be able to deliver, I think. So, this was a coalition made in a bad faith
from the very start and both parties wanted to achieve party gains at the
expense of the other.

        SZDSZ tried hard to make this quite sudden turn acceptable to their
own supporters: they were retracting on what they had said step by step but I
think the overall course was pretty obvious already at the time. I think they
had a very definite tactique from the moment the coalition agreement was
signed: to acquire some less problematic but strategically important
ministries, to distance themselves from the socialists in the media as much
as possible and to criticize the "bigger part" of the government as if they
were also an opposition party. MSZP replied or tried to reply in kind: they
try to focus criticism on SZDSZ-dominated ministries (I'm sure they are quite
happy about the havoc Fodor's moves created around the Ministry of Culture)
and discreetly tainted Bekesi as an economist with SZDSZ-leanings to allude
that the harshest part of the economic program is the liberal's fault.

        The difference between the two tactiques is that SZDSZ seems to me to
be more successful: first of all, it's difficult to persuade the population
(especially in the long run) that the majority party is not primarily
responsible for its own government's blunders. Second, MSZP has internal
opposition as well and cannot act and appear so unified to outsiders as SZDSZ
does where the internal opposition (Tolgyessy and probably a few others) is
strictly stifled. Third, pro-SZDSZ people dominate the media and they work
hard to channel dissatisfaction towards MSZP.

                Well, I hope it was comprehensible, I wrote it very quick, I
gotta go now,
                        Bye,
                                Charlie

In the message forwarded by Greg Grose of March 4th, reference is made
to the Cultural Exchange Foundation of Washington, DC. Does anyone have
their phone number or possibly their address? Thanks in advance.

C.K. ZOLTANI

Editorial in the New York Times on Tuesday, March 7, 1995.

SLOVAKIA TAKES A WRONG TURN

Although Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar of Slovakia would like to lead
his country into the European Union and NATO, he is pursuing policies
that disqualify membership in either organization. Mr. Meciar, the
former Communist Party boss who returned to power last winter for the
third time since 1989, seems intent on stifling independent voices in
the press, television and radio.

Mr. Meciar's first official act when he assumed power last November was
to put party cronies in charge of radio, TV and the state agency
responsible for the media. The new boss of state radio cut back on news
coverage and eliminated programs that allowed unfettered discussion of
political issues. Two weeks ago, after the Slovak radio's Washington
correspondent, Peter Susko, reported that a Meciar trade delegation to
the United states appeared poorly prepared, he was ordered home and the
Washington office was closed.

The few Slovak newspapers struggling to stay independent are the latest
target for Communist-style repression. At Mr. Meciar's urging,
Parliament is moving to increase the value-added tax levied on total
earnings. Currently at 6 percent, the tax for newpapers with foreign
investors would jump 30 to 50 percent, putting most of them out of
business. Papers that the Ministry of Culture declares "commercial"
would be hit with a 25 percent tax, while party papers supporting Mr.
Meciar would be untouched.

Slovaks are courageously balking. Eighty Slovak radio staff members
signed a letter protesting Mr. Susko's recall, and over 100,000 citizens
signed a petition last week charging the Government with violating
freedom of speech. Pluralism and a free press are not optional
conditions for acceptance into the ranks of the Western democracies.