>>The firepower used in
>>Bosnia- as an example- is but a miniscule portion of the NATO arsenal. It
>>was brought to bear, but the settlement was political.
>
>Yes, it was a political settlement, but only in the Clausewitzian sense
>that war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means, and
>vice versa.  The  Bosnian Serbs were told, in no uncertain terms, that they
>will get the shit kicked out of them if they don't do as they're told.  Is
>that politics?
Remind you of Theodore Roosevelt famous advice to diplomats: "speak softly,
but carry a big stick".    There is a European Committee of Safety and
Security (I may be using a different term).  They tried toi mediate the
Chechnia war and failed miserably: "paper tigers".

>
>But the reengineering may have an impact on the admission process.

It may. But it could hardly be more difficult than now. Admitting new
members requires unanimity. One dissent and no admission. In any case the
current three candidates' admission will likely be decided much before
"reengineering".
>>
>
>If the American Senate voted against NATO expansion, how would that look?
>How would Clinton look?
Not good. Keep in mind Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin did not have to consult
elected representatives. Was that better ?

Andy.

Of
>those leaders, only Clinton has to go back to his government and ask
>permission for what he has already agreed to.

According to the Washington Post, only UK and Canada need not get
parlamentary approval. All the others do. The practice of initialing
treaties by administrative leaders is by no means unique US practice. Last
year re the Hungary-Romania basic treaty both countries had to go back for
parlamentary approval after both prime ministers (and Iliescu) negotiated
and initialed the agreement. This has been standard international practice
since the days of Rome.


>
>The problem, perhaps, is with the way the American system works.

It has been a standard international pastime to criticize and also to envy
America. Thank you.   Andy.

aheringer wrote:
>
> In article >,
>  says...
> >
> >>When I visit Hungary, or look at pictures of Hungarian homes, I always
> >notice that there are plenty of geraniums.  Is the geranium the national
> >flower of Hungary?
> >
> I don't believe there is such as a national flower of Hungary, but yes,
> geranium is very popular, especially the red variety.  Of course, not in
> Budapest, where people don't have any gardens

Mostly, I4d say. There ARE many beautiful gardens in Budapest proper.
( I do not mean parks. I mean private homes. And I do not mean suburbs
only)

and very few have even
> verandas except in the suburbs.
>
> Agnes

Bob Hosh wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 10:24am, Barnabas Bozoki wrote:
> > Subject: Turnip, rutabaga

> >-- End of excerpt from Barnabas Bozoki
>
> Check in Orszagh under "marharepa" for rutabega. Was considered a livestock
> feed not fit for human consumption.
>
Still, it is fit. a) during bad times ( I had it during the war )
b) I believe, there are( is?) some Westphalien recipies making it fit
for connaisseurs.
MKH

Name wrote:
>
>   Of
> >those leaders, only Clinton has to go back to his government and ask
> >permission for what he has already agreed to.
>
> According to the Washington Post, only UK and Canada need not get
> parlamentary approval. All the others do.

Not quite! in many cases, international agreements have the right of
way e.g. in Germany.
The practice of initialing
> treaties by administrative leaders is by no means unique US practice. Last
> year re the Hungary-Romania basic treaty both countries had to go back for
> parlamentary approval after both prime ministers (and Iliescu) negotiated
> and initialed the agreement. This has been standard international practice
> since the days of Rome.
>
> >
> >The problem, perhaps, is with the way the American system works.
>
> It has been a standard international pastime to criticize and also to envy
> America.
This could be a topic for a psychologist...in both directions IMHO.
Miklos

Bob Hosh wrote:
>
> On Aug 1,  8:51pm, Miklos K. Hoffmann wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Turnip, rutabaga
> > Bob Hosh wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jul 31, 10:24am, Barnabas Bozoki wrote:
> > > > Subject: Turnip, rutabaga
> >
> > > >-- End of excerpt from Barnabas Bozoki
> > >
> > > Check in Orszagh under "marharepa" for rutabega. Was considered a
 livestock
> > > feed not fit for human consumption.
> > >
> > Still, it is fit. a) during bad times ( I had it during the war )
> > b) I believe, there are( is?) some Westphalien recipies making it fit
> > for connaisseurs.
> > MKH
> >-- End of excerpt from Miklos K. Hoffmann
>
> And in New England, where "Joe Booker" stew is a tradition.
>
> BH
> 
Is there any more info about "Joe Booker" stew? I4d appreciate!
MKH

Joe Szalai wrote:
 >It is very difficult, if not downright irrational, to argue for the
 >expansion of a military alliance when no apparent enemy exists.

The usual half-baked analysis from Joe.  For Hungary, there is certainly
a serious threat, i.e., an unpredictable and potentially vicious Serbia.
Nothing more is needed than some ethnic cleansing of Vojvodina Hungarians
and Hungary cannot avoid being involved.  A NATO-member Hungary, on the
other hand, will carry much more weight and the kinds of Slobodan Milosevic
would pay her much more attention.

 >a loud, public, debate on this issue could actually backfire on the
 >proponents of expansion.  If the American population is truly interested in
 >its own pocketbook, "the bottom line", and "the buck stops here" kind of
 >stuff, then emotional appeals to historical events won't sway them.

Events in x-Yugo amply demonstrated the capacity of the Balkans to blow
up and the need for US involvement to put the lid on things.  For all
rational thinkers in the US, NATO extension is tantamount to an insurance
policy: the ability of stabilizing Eastern Europe and preventing having
to be involved in bloody conflicts with a high potential for US casualties.

Incidentally, this is the argument for accepting ROmania ASAP.

Add to this the still-existing US idealism about being the leader of the
free world, and you have to reasons.

George Antony

At 08:11 AM 8/1/97 GMT, Janos > wrote:

>muska'tli? or ibolya? or tulipa'n?
>
>my vote is the tulip! it *is* the national flower!
>
>janos

Your kidding, no?  If the tulip is Hungary's national flower, is it being
kept a secret?  I've not seen it on anything official (not that I see a lot
of "official" anything in Hungarian).

Joe Szalai

At 10:50 AM 7/31/97 -0400, Andy Vadasz wrote:

>Answering Joe Szalai:
>>It is very difficult, if not downright irrational, to argue for the
>>expansion of a military alliance when no apparent enemy exists.

>It is now more a political than a military alliance.

I don't think so.  However, if you're right, then what on earth is a
"political alliance"?  I don't think such a beast exists.  If it did, then
by definition, it would have to be an anti-democratic political alliance.

>The firepower used in
>Bosnia- as an example- is but a miniscule portion of the NATO arsenal. It
>was brought to bear, but the settlement was political.

Yes, it was a political settlement, but only in the Clausewitzian sense
that war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means, and
vice versa.  The  Bosnian Serbs were told, in no uncertain terms, that they
will get the shit kicked out of them if they don't do as they're told.  Is
that politics?

>That is why a
>rethinking and possibly a renaming may be in order. There seems to be
>support for that, but no urgency. All I am trying to do is to separate the
>reengineering from the admission process.

But the reengineering may have an impact on the admission process.

>First of all expansion was supported bipartisanly. The Dole/Kemp campaign
>last year spoke up very strongly for it, while Clinton was lukewarm ("yes,
>someday", etc.) Now Clinton is 100% for it. (I attribute his change to
>settling with the Russians and Sec.Albright's persuasive stance.) Sen.Trent
>Lott, Senate majority leader (Republican) is clearly for it. It is not a
>partisan issue. According to the papers, about half the Senate definitely
>"for", perhaps 15-20 against, the rest undecided. Were it not for needing a
>two thirds majority, it would pass. The public probably knows and cares
>little, but can be sold (I think based on past situations, like Bosnia,
>which was far more risky and quite expensive.)

I find it very frustrating that the President of the United States can go
to the NATO summit, dictate who will and who will not be new members, only
to discover that whatever he says may not happen because of internal
American politics.

If the American Senate voted against NATO expansion, how would that look?
How would Clinton look?  America would have to forfeit any pretence to
world leadership.

Joe Szalai

At 11:14 AM 8/1/97 -0400, Andy Vadasz wrote:

Joe Szalai wrote
>>If the American Senate voted against NATO expansion, how would that look?
>>How would Clinton look?

>Not good. Keep in mind Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin did not have to consult
>elected representatives. Was that better ?

Let's not get too carried away here, Andy.  All of the other NATO leaders
have agreed to admit three new members, although some wanted more.  Of
those leaders, only Clinton has to go back to his government and ask
permission for what he has already agreed to.  None of this has anything to
do with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, or consulting elected representatives.
All the NATO leaders are democratically elected and they all have to
consult their representatives.  But, when they give their word at a summit,
that's the end of it - except for the Americans.

The problem, perhaps, is with the way the American system works.  Perhaps
Clinton should first get permission from Congress and the Senate as to what
the Americans will do, and then take that to a summit.  The way it is now,
Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, are waiting in limbo until some
American politicians - who are usually more interested in re-election and
domestic politics - figure out what they should do.  I find this state of
affairs unacceptable.

Joe Szalai

At 05:01 PM 8/1/97 -0400, DANUBE > wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:
>>
>> The problem, perhaps, is with the way the American system works.  Perhaps
>> Clinton should first get permission from Congress and the Senate as to what
>> the Americans will do, and then take that to a summit.  The way it is now,
>> Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, are waiting in limbo until some
>> American politicians - who are usually more interested in re-election and
>> domestic politics - figure out what they should do.  I find this state of
>> affairs unacceptable.
>
>   Yes, I have suspected that much, Joe. The rules of democracy are "un-
>acceptable" for you. Democracy means that the leaders are accountable to
>the voters. I know,  dictating is much less bothersome.  Thanks,  but no
>thanks, we don't want any of that.
>                                    Amos

Oh Amos, you're hopeless.  I was just suggesting that Clinton first check
with Congress or the Senate to see what he'd be able to do and not the
other way around.  That's not being undemocratic.  And, if he's unwilling
to do that, then the Americans shouldn't bother to send their president to
summits.  A low ranking official would do just fine.

>   PS - please read Gabor's message carefully.

Why, is there a hidden message in it?

Joe Szalai

P.S.  "The rules of democracy" are varied, whether you like it or not, and
they don't always equal the American way.  I hope you don't find that fact
too troublesome.

At 05:46 PM 8/1/97 GMT, Eva Kende wrote:

<snip>
>I think Janos is right. If you look at old Hungarian folk art, even
>new for that matter, the tulip is almost always present, but never the
>geranium. Folk songs too refer to tulipan quite often. I think the
>geranium is popular because of it's long blooming season, vivid color,
>ease of over wintering and general ease of keeping in pots. In the
>country nearly every garden has huge (8-10 in) dahlias in the front
>and usually sunflowers in the vegetable patch.
>Happy gardening to you!
>Eva, the most optimistic gardener in the Rockies.

The tulip may be present in Hungarian folk art, as it is in other folk art,
because it's easy to draw and easy to recognize.  Have you ever tried to
draw a geranium.  And, if you've tried, would others recognize it as a
geranium?

Joe Szalai

At 12:15 PM 8/1/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

<snip>
>Anyone engaging in diplomatic negotiations with the U.S. must learn
>to live with the vexations and complexities of the way this country is
>governed.  To put it crudely, the alternative (which is open to Hungary
>and the other NATO applicants) is not to deal with the Americans at all,
>and certainly avoid all alliances and entanglements with a country that
>presents such a sorry spectacle of mismanaging things.  Just let those
>Americans stew in their own juices, and ask them no favors.  As they say
>in Hungarian, "nem eroszak a disznotor"...

It's not the idiosyncrasies of the American political system that are
irksome but that they're always played out on the international scene.  Is
it too much to expect, that at a *summit*, leaders come prepared to make
deals, sign treaties, etc..  All the background politics, the wheeling and
dealing back home, the side arrangements, etc., etc., should have already
been done.

Joe Szalai

On Fri, 1 Aug 1997 08:56:32 -0400, Joe Szalai
> wrote:

>At 08:11 AM 8/1/97 GMT, Janos > wrote:
>
>>muska'tli? or ibolya? or tulipa'n?
>>
>>my vote is the tulip! it *is* the national flower!
>>
>>janos
>
>Your kidding, no?  If the tulip is Hungary's national flower, is it being
>kept a secret?  I've not seen it on anything official (not that I see a lot
>of "official" anything in Hungarian).
>
>Joe Szalai
I think Janos is right. If you look at old Hungarian folk art, even
new for that matter, the tulip is almost always present, but never the
geranium. Folk songs too refer to tulipan quite often. I think the
geranium is popular because of it's long blooming season, vivid color,
ease of over wintering and general ease of keeping in pots. In the
country nearly every garden has huge (8-10 in) dahlias in the front
and usually sunflowers in the vegetable patch.
Happy gardening to you!
Eva, the most optimistic gardener in the Rockies.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Eva Kende B.Sc. Author of Eva's Hungarian Kitchen
look for it at: http://kinga.com/cook.html
email to: 
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

At 10:24 AM 7/31/97 -0400, Bozoki Barna  wrote:

>Can anybody clarify this "white carrot" mystery for me?

I can try. I think it is "petrezselyem". And the other one is "retek".

Gabor D. Farkas

At 08:11 AM 8/1/97 GMT, janos wrote:

>muska'tli? or ibolya? or tulipa'n?
>
>my vote is the tulip! it *is* the national flower!

Are we Dutch?

Gabor D. Farkas

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 22:16:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Peter A. Soltesz" >
Subject: HAL: Position open at CEU (fwd)

From: 

Program Assistant

The Central European University (CEU) Department of Environmental
Sciences and Policy is accepting applications for the position of
Program Assistant, to help coordinate activities for its one year
Master's Degree Program and its ongoing research projects.  Job
responsibilities will primarily include administration of student
recruitment and admissions procedures, assisting in Registrar
activities, coordination of student and staff travel, and any other
organizational and administrative work necessary for the running of the
program.  We are looking for individuals who are fluent in English with
excellent organizational skills and prior administrative or academic
experience.  A solid knowledge of computers (Microsoft Word, Excel and
Pegasus Mail) is also required.  Regional environmental contacts,
budgeting skills, proficiency in Hungarian and familiarity with the CEU
and/or Soros network will be looked upon favorably.  The job will start
in late August 1997 .  Please send your CV and two references by August
11, 1997 to:
CEU Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy
Nador utca 9
1051 Budapest
Fax: +36 1 327 3031
E-mail: 

Joe Szalai on the prospects of a contentious Senate ratification
process for the NATO enlargement:

> The problem, perhaps, is with the way the American system works.  Perhaps
> Clinton should first get permission from Congress and the Senate as to what
> the Americans will do, and then take that to a summit.  The way it is now,
> Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, are waiting in limbo until some
> American politicians - who are usually more interested in re-election and
> domestic politics - figure out what they should do.  I find this state of
> affairs unacceptable.

This is funny.  Just a few weeks ago Bela Liptak suggested that the
Hungarian Constitutional Court ought to abolish the parliamentary system
which allows cabinet members to sit in Parliament.  Now we have Joe
suggesting that the 'advise and consent' clause of the U.S. Constitution
ought to be abolished.  "This state of affairs is unacceptable", says Joe.
Well, we just got to change the Constitution then, don't we.  Reminds me
of an old song John Lennon used to sing...

The idea that the President ought to get Senate blessing before concluding
international agreements is hopelessly impractical.  It would subordinate
the executive to the legislative branch.   The Constitution sets up the
three branches as co-equal.  Giving the Senate the right of prior veto
over diplomatic moves by the executive would run up against one of the
basic pillars of American constitutional order.  In addition, it would
create a situation where the President would have to negotiate with a
hundred senators in addition to negotiating with the existing NATO members
and the new NATO applicants.  As things stand, the NATO negotiations are
complex enough without dragging in all the pet issues of each senator,
from abortion to tobacco subsidies.

As a practical matter though, in all major diplomatic negotiations
it is customary to have a few key Senate members kept in the loop.  The
problem is that the Senate is no longer run by a few power brokers who
can deliver crucial votes like this.  A generation ago strong Senate
leaders like Sen. Russell or LBJ could guarantee passage of important
legislation by twisting arms and breaking legs, if necessary.  Since
then, the Senate has turned into a hundred independent fiefdoms, with
inflated senatorial egos that hardly fit under the cupola of the Capitol.
Even if you have the key senators and committee chairmen on your side,
an insurgent band of 34 senators can sink any deal at any time.

Anyone engaging in diplomatic negotiations with the U.S. must learn
to live with the vexations and complexities of the way this country is
governed.  To put it crudely, the alternative (which is open to Hungary
and the other NATO applicants) is not to deal with the Americans at all,
and certainly avoid all alliances and entanglements with a country that
presents such a sorry spectacle of mismanaging things.  Just let those
Americans stew in their own juices, and ask them no favors.  As they say
in Hungarian, "nem eroszak a disznotor"...

-----
Gabor Fencsik

In article >,
 says...
>
>>When I visit Hungary, or look at pictures of Hungarian homes, I always
>notice that there are plenty of geraniums.  Is the geranium the national
>flower of Hungary?
>
I don't believe there is such as a national flower of Hungary, but yes,
geranium is very popular, especially the red variety.  Of course, not in
Budapest, where people don't have any gardens and very few have even
verandas except in the suburbs.

Agnes

On Aug 1,  8:51pm, Miklos K. Hoffmann wrote:
> Subject: Re: Turnip, rutabaga
> Bob Hosh wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 31, 10:24am, Barnabas Bozoki wrote:
> > > Subject: Turnip, rutabaga
>
> > >-- End of excerpt from Barnabas Bozoki
> >
> > Check in Orszagh under "marharepa" for rutabega. Was considered a livestock
> > feed not fit for human consumption.
> >
> Still, it is fit. a) during bad times ( I had it during the war )
> b) I believe, there are( is?) some Westphalien recipies making it fit
> for connaisseurs.
> MKH
>-- End of excerpt from Miklos K. Hoffmann


And in New England, where "Joe Booker" stew is a tradition.

BH

On Aug 1, 10:12pm, Miklos K. Hoffmann wrote:
> Subject: Re: Turnip, rutabaga
> Bob Hosh wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 1,  8:51pm, Miklos K. Hoffmann wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: Turnip, rutabaga
> > > Bob Hosh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 31, 10:24am, Barnabas Bozoki wrote:
> > > > > Subject: Turnip, rutabaga
> > >
> > > > >-- End of excerpt from Barnabas Bozoki
> > > >
> > > > Check in Orszagh under "marharepa" for rutabega. Was considered a
>  livestock
> > > > feed not fit for human consumption.
> > > >
> > > Still, it is fit. a) during bad times ( I had it during the war )
> > > b) I believe, there are( is?) some Westphalien recipies making it fit
> > > for connaisseurs.
> > > MKH
> > >-- End of excerpt from Miklos K. Hoffmann
> >
> > And in New England, where "Joe Booker" stew is a tradition.
> >
> > BH
> > 
> Is there any more info about "Joe Booker" stew? I4d appreciate!
> MKH
>-- End of excerpt from Miklos K. Hoffmann


It is a tasty stew of bacon, beef, potatos, carrots and rutabaga topped with
parsley dumplings. Although not Hungarian, I will send you the recipe. :)

Bob H.

On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> The problem, perhaps, is with the way the American system works.  Perhaps
> Clinton should first get permission from Congress and the Senate as to what
> the Americans will do, and then take that to a summit.  The way it is now,
> Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, are waiting in limbo until some
> American politicians - who are usually more interested in re-election and
> domestic politics - figure out what they should do.  I find this state of
> affairs unacceptable.

   Yes, I have suspected that much, Joe. The rules of democracy are "un-
acceptable" for you. Democracy means that the leaders are accountable to
the voters. I know,  dictating is much less bothersome.  Thanks,  but no
thanks, we don't want any of that.
                                    Amos

   PS - please read Gabor's message carefully.

Fellow Hungary Netters,

   I find the message below even more disturbing than earlier ones
from Bela Liptak and the HL.  It was bad enough  to pester members
of the International Court.  Regardless what  anybody thinks about
Slovakia and the present Slovak Government, this is a clear inter-
ference in another country's internal affairs.  It is one thing to
criticize actions of that government,  another again  to interfere
in a country's election process by foreigners. It is one thing for
the Slovak media  to get involved  in this matter,  the HL  has no
business doing  so or asking  others to do so.  I don't understand
why is this such a difficult concept to grasp.Finally,Meciar won't
have to fish for silly excuses,he will be able to point to the HL.
Won't be that peachy?!?
   The second thing I find bothersome  is that my mailbox is stuf-
fed with messages I didn't ask for.And neither Bela Liptak nor the
HL bothered to ask me whether I want to receive any of this stuff.
On top of it,  Mr. Liptak is not around  to discuss the proposals.
And please don't tell me he is too busy, we are all very busy. And
I am not the first one to mention this.
                                         Amos
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Bela Liptak wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Binder financed Meciar's drive for power and now he is getting paid. It is
> important to understand that without Binder, there would be no Gabcikovo,
> without Gabcikovo, there would be no Meciar and without Meciar, Slovakia
> would be an European state and a friendly neighbor.
>
> Please read and distribute the attached and please help stop Binder's drive
> for the Slovak presidency.
>
> Best regards: Bela Liptak
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> there are information published by the Slovak media that the leading person
> responsible for almost all illegal activities concerning the Gabcikovo dam,
> huge economic losses, and environmental destruction as well as the one who
> sparked a huge nationalization of the issue, Mr. Julius Binder, general
> director of Vodohospodarska Vystavba (state owned corporation investing in
> the Gabcikovo and many other dams all over Slovakia) will candidate for
> president of the Slovak Republic in the next presidential elections in 1998.
>
> For more information e-mail to: Juraj Zamkovsky, Center for Environmental
> Public Advocacy, email: 
>

aheringer ) wrote:
: In article >,
:  says...
: >
: >>When I visit Hungary, or look at pictures of Hungarian homes, I always
: >notice that there are plenty of geraniums.  Is the geranium the national
: >flower of Hungary?
: >
: I don't believe there is such as a national flower of Hungary, but yes,
: geranium is very popular, especially the red variety.  Of course, not in
: Budapest, where people don't have any gardens and very few have even
: verandas except in the suburbs.

: Agnes


muska'tli? or ibolya? or tulipa'n?

my vote is the tulip! it *is* the national flower!

janos