Pax vobis Domine!

May you be cloned!

Agnes

S.Stowe wrote:

>>I cannot believe this! Are you serious Sam? You really did not understand
>>what Denes was talking about?!? You just have to read your very own post
>>to understand it!
>>
>>J.Zs
>>
>>P.S: Hints: Compare what the early numerus clausus did with the Hungarian
>>Jewry, and what those 'horrible laws" with the african-americans! Then ask
>>a simple question: What is the difference between oppresing Jews and African
>>Americans!
>
>Hint for you, Janos: He didn't draw a parallel between the treatment of Jews i
n
>Hungary and the treatment of blacks in the U.S. He tried to say that Jews were
>subject to the same kinds of numerus clausus laws in the U.S. which were
>applied to them in Hungary. Perhaps you'd better read the posts a little more
>carefully.
>Sam Stowe

also D.Bogsanyi wrote:

>Actually what I was thinking of were restrictive numerus clausus regulations i
n
> force at universities such as Harward and Princeton which indeed did stop som
e
> Jews from attending thes universities just because they were Jews. The regula
t
>ions were framed in general terms and probably had unintended results. The law
s
> in Hungary were similar and therefore acceptable on the whole. They became
>unacceptable when individual families had to prove their ancestry for two
>generations. It stuck too near home then.

Sam, I guess I owe you an apology. Sorry, I was mistaken. Now, I should not
forget the saying "ha hallgattal volna bolcs(ebb) maradtal volna".

J.Zs

S.Stowe wrote:

>Janos, I don't have the reference materials right at hand and I need to check
>before I can give you an informed answer. I know the Germans were attacking
>shipping off the North Carolina coast long before Pearl Harbor. And they
>weren't British convoys. I don't think convoying started in earnest along the
>North Atlantic routes until sometime around Pearl Harbor or shortly thereafter
.
>I do remember that Roosevelt extended the U.S. patrol areas to the mid-Atlanti
c
>sometime in the late spring or early summer of
>Sam Stowe

As far as I know, not only there was no attack on US shipping or on US Navy,
but Hitler and Donitz prohibited any such attempt. There was
however a strong offensive on US shipping after Pearl Harbor (~January 1942).
It was called 'the second happy time' by the germans, referring to their easy
hunting on British shipping before the convoy system was fully established.
The US was completly unprepared for submarine warfare. There were no convoys,
no radio silence, no adequate costal defence, etc. Of course the 'happy time'
did not last long.

J.Zs

In article >,
 says...
>
>aheringer > wrote in article
>...
>> Pax vobis Domine!
>>
>> May you be cloned!
>>
>> Agnes
>>
>Biztos, azt akarod hogy, oreg, alacsony, kopasz, kover, magyarok legioja
>irkaljon neked leveleket?
>Istvan
>
>
En is alacsony vagyok, oreg es kover (nem kopasz).  Nem akarok
hozzamenni felesegul.  De bar mindenki ugy gondolkodna ahogy Dominus.
Sokkal intelligensebben valaszolt, mint ahogy en valaha is meg tudnam
fogalmazni a mondanivalomat - ezert nem is valaszoltam a maga
provokaciojara - Dominus valaszolt helyettem es nagyon halas vagyok erte.

Agnes

Dear Readers:
   Quotation from The Economist, a British weekly:

   "For the third time this century, Europe is laboring over a peace settlement
that will shape its destiny for a generation. It could be third time lucky,
if this week's summit between U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian
President Boris Yeltsin helps the West and Russia to clinch a new grand
bargain before July, when NATO starts opening its doors to the first new
members from Central Europe.
   Unlike Germany in 1918, Russia is being offered a genuine security
partner- ship, not a peace imposed by victor on vanquished; unlike 1945,
1997 provides no great ideological schism to undermine the peace-building.
Six years after the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States, Western
Europe and a democratizing Russia have a chance to build lasting stability
in this much-fought-over continent. But unless the deal can be got right -
with NATO offering Russia neither too little, nor too much - the chance
could again be lost.
   Getting partnership with Russia right is all the trickier with Russia in
an uncooperative mood. Shorn of the old Soviet empire in Central and Eastern
Europe, it has yet to feel at home in its new borders, let alone confident
of its place in the world. From Napoleon to Hitler, Russians point out, a
weak and troubled Russia has always been vulnerable on its western flank.
Although Mr. Yeltsin and his ministers accept that today's NATO poses no
realistic military threat, they are still inclined to Cold War thinking:
that a bigger NATO must inevitably mean a diminished Russia. Two weeks ago
Mr. Yeltsin accused NATO - a four letter word in Moscow these days - of
trying to 'squeeze Russia out of Europe'.
   Russia's leaders are not alone in criticizing NATO's plans. George
Kennan, who set out the logic for 'containing' the old Soviet Union,
condemns the enlargement of NATO as the 'most fateful error' of American
policy since the Cold War ended, arguing that it will inflame Russian
nationalism. The point can be overdrawn. Russia was bound to be uneasy about
a bigger NATO, but opinion polls suggest that most Russians have more
pressing concerns. And much of the anti-NATO bluster in the Kremlin is
calculated to get the best possible deal in return for accepting the
inevitable. Even Mr. Yeltsin admits that Poles, Chechs and Hungarians have a
right tro choose their friends.
   All the same, as decision-time approaches, it is worth spelling out what
a NATO-Russia partnership would be all about.
   NATO is not even the defensive alliance it used to be. Since the Cold War
ended, the U.S. has cut its troops in Europe from 320,000 to 100,000.
Virtually all NATO's short-range nuclear weapons have gone. This week Mr.
Clinton will offer Mr. Yeltsin more deep cuts in the long-range sort. Around
Europe, troop numbers have fallen sharply; tanks and aircrafts are below
even the reduced numbers allowed by the treaty on Conventional Forces in
Europe (CFE). Recently, NATO offered to revise CFE totals down further, so
as to reassure Russia of its
peaceable intentions.
   Along with its non-NATO friends in "partnership for peace", today's NATO
plans peacekeeping exercises, not counter-lunches at Russia. If Russia does
agree to a special partnership, its military officers will work permanently
at NATO headquarters. There will scarcely be a NATO secret kept from them.
   The offer of such openness from a defence alliance is unprecedented. So
is the political partnership that would go with it. A joint NATO-Russia
council would not just inform Russia what NATO was up to, but attempt to
reach agreed positions, giving Russia high-level representation and a clear
voice in - though
not a veto over - NATO policy on a range of issues from nuclear
proliferation to peacekeeping.
   No one can oblige Russia to accept the partnership on offer. But that,
plus Russia's deepening membership in the G7 (soon to be G8) group of
leading industrial nations, makes the charge that the West is attempting to
isolate Russia absurd.
   Indeed, the greater danger is that, in its efforts to accommodate a surly
Russia, NATO will be tempted to offer not too little, but too much. Russia's
Foreign Minister and chief negotiator, Yevgeny Primakov, makes no bones
about his aim, even should a partnership deal be struck: It is to neuter
NATO as a defence alliance and win veto rights, in practice if not in name,
over its decisions and membership.
   Thus, Russia wants NATO to promise not to put nuclear weapons or troops
or "infrastructure" on the territory of new members. NATO has already said
that it sees no need and has no intention to redeploy nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, a revised CFE treaty would impose tighter national ceilings on
conventional weapons precisely to prevent any threatening level of forces.
   That is enough. Extra obligations on NATO in order to please Russia - for
example, barring peacetime stationing of forces on the territory of new
members, or preventing the construction of NATO facilities there - would
immediately undermine NATO's one-for-all and all-for-one defence pledge, by
creating two unequal tiers of membership.
   Russia would like NATO to abandon any further enlargement after round
one. But above all, it wants NATO to rule out taking in any of the former
Soviet republics as members.
   NATO is unlikely to want to. Absorbing the first comers, while continuing
its own military reorganization and managing the partnership with Russia,
will keep it busy enough. There are also limits to how big the alliance can
grow if it is to operate effectively. But handing Russia even an implied
veto over the future of independent states, from Estonia to Ukraine and
beyond, would be to consign a chunk of Europe to an old-fashioned Russian
"sphere of influence" - rightly evoking fears of a new, Yalta-like division
of Europe.
   Partnership will work for both NATO and Russia only if both are clear
where differences lie and are ready to work to mitigate their effects. That
is the message President Clinton could most usefully deliver to President
Yeltsin this week. Enlargement is not the first issue on which NATO and
Russia have failed to see eye to eye - and, even if they become partners, it
wont be the last."

                                            Istvan L. Szabolcsy

Dear Readers:
   It occured to me after I sent my previous message, that it was Francis Power
who was shut down with his U-2 plane, high over the Soviet Union in the 50's,
probably with the help of the "proximity fuse" provided by Rosenberg...
Istvan L. Szabolcsy

In article >, Janos
Zsargo > writes:

>Sam, I guess I owe you an apology. Sorry, I was mistaken. Now, I should not
>forget the saying "ha hallgattal volna bolcs(ebb) maradtal volna".
>
>J.Zs

Don't sweat it.
Sam Stowe


"If you hear a Southerner say, 'Hey, y'all, watch this!',
move away from him immediately. They're usually
the last words he'll ever utter..."
-- from "Southbound," a primer for our Northern friends
contemplating a move to the promised land.

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

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
  Please help to convince vice president Al Gore to make a statement
in favour for Szigetkoz. Feel free to use the attached new form
letter. Al Gore will only take notice if he receives thousands of
letters. 
  Therefore please send at least one letter every day. Furthermore
PLEASE MAKE A CHAIN LETTER OF THIS CALL FOR ACTION. Send it to
everybody on your personal mailing list and ask them to forward it to
their friends. PLEASE ACT!!

What to do: 
Please ask vice president Al Gore to make a statement in favour for
the environment of Szigetkoz. Feel free to use the attached NEW form
letter. Al Gore  will only take notice if he receives thousands of
letters. 
      SEND SEVERAL LETTERS A DAY!!! PLEASE DO NOT ONLY SEND
      THEM BY E-MAIL!  Send them even by fax or "priority
      mail".  Below are the fax number, and the priority mail
      addresses you should use. 
      In all cases, put the names of _both_ the Vice President
      _and one or another of his key aides_ on the top of the
      fax, or on the envelope address.  

key aides:
Executive Assistant to the Vice President: Heather Marabeti
Deputy Chief of Staff:                        David Strauss
Director of Political Affairs:              Karen Elizabeth Skelton

address of key aides as well as of Al Gore: 
Room 276, Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC  20501
fax number: 202-456-7044

e-mail address of Al Gore:


*************************************************************

<date>

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC  20001
(E-Mail:  )

Dear Mr. Vice President:

On August 21, 1993, you wrote to Professor Bela Liptak about
your concern for the Danube ecosystem.  Today humankind is approaching
an important precedent:  On March 3, 1997, the International Court of
Justice started proceedings in the first international environmental 
lawsuit in The Hague. 

The ICJ will decide a case involving the Danube and the destruction of
its ancient wetland region, the Szigetkoz.  This name, loosely
translated, means "region of a thousand islands,"  yet today there is
not a single island left there, because the water is gone.  

However, the implications of this case go beyond the future of just
one river or just the 400 endangered species of one ancient ecosystem.
This lawsuit will set a precedent for the whole planet and will answer
a much more basic question:  Do national governments have the right to
do as they please with our ecosystems, or does humankind as a whole
have a right to protect the rich natural treasures which belong to all
of us?

Mr. Vice President, in 1995 nine international environmental NGOs
submitted a memorial to ICJ, which its president, the Honorable
Mohammed Bedjaoui, has accepted.  A Compromise Plan was also submitted
to the Court; this Plan would guarantee the restoration of the ancient
Szigetkoz wetlands, together with fulfilling the water supply,
shipping and energy needs of the region.  For details of this Plan and
for other aspects of the lawsuit, please ask Bela Liptak or visit the
web site at:  http://www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm .

Dear Mr. Gore:  It is very important that the first international
environmental lawsuit be given the media attention it deserves. The
Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment can inform you of the
details.  A statement by you can guarantee that attention; please make
such a statement.

Respectfully,

<Your name, title and address>

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

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
  Please help to convince vice president Al Gore to make a statement
in favour for Szigetkoz. Feel free to use the attached new form
letter. Al Gore will only take notice if he receives thousands of
letters.
  Therefore please send at least one letter every day. Furthermore
PLEASE MAKE A CHAIN LETTER OF THIS CALL FOR ACTION. Send it to
everybody on your personal mailing list and ask them to forward it to
their friends. PLEASE ACT!!

What to do:
Please ask vice president Al Gore to make a statement in favour for
the environment of Szigetkoz. Feel free to use the attached NEW form
letter. Al Gore  will only take notice if he receives thousands of
letters.
      SEND SEVERAL LETTERS A DAY!!! PLEASE DO NOT ONLY SEND
      THEM BY E-MAIL!  Send them even by fax or "priority
      mail".  Below are the fax number, and the priority mail
      addresses you should use.
      In all cases, put the names of _both_ the Vice President
      _and one or another of his key aides_ on the top of the
      fax, or on the envelope address.

key aides:
Executive Assistant to the Vice President: Heather Marabeti
Deputy Chief of Staff:                        David Strauss
Director of Political Affairs:              Karen Elizabeth Skelton

address of key aides as well as of Al Gore:
Room 276, Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC  20501
fax number: 202-456-7044

e-mail address of Al Gore:


*************************************************************

<date>

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC  20001
(E-Mail:  )

Dear Mr. Vice President:

On August 21, 1993, you wrote to Professor Bela Liptak about
your concern for the Danube ecosystem.  Today humankind is approaching
an important precedent:  On March 3, 1997, the International Court of
Justice started proceedings in the first international environmental
lawsuit in The Hague.

The ICJ will decide a case involving the Danube and the destruction of
its ancient wetland region, the Szigetkoz.  This name, loosely
translated, means "region of a thousand islands,"  yet today there is
not a single island left there, because the water is gone.

However, the implications of this case go beyond the future of just
one river or just the 400 endangered species of one ancient ecosystem.
This lawsuit will set a precedent for the whole planet and will answer
a much more basic question:  Do national governments have the right to
do as they please with our ecosystems, or does humankind as a whole
have a right to protect the rich natural treasures which belong to all
of us?

Mr. Vice President, in 1995 nine international environmental NGOs
submitted a memorial to ICJ, which its president, the Honorable
Mohammed Bedjaoui, has accepted.  A Compromise Plan was also submitted
to the Court; this Plan would guarantee the restoration of the ancient
Szigetkoz wetlands, together with fulfilling the water supply,
shipping and energy needs of the region.  For details of this Plan and
for other aspects of the lawsuit, please ask Bela Liptak or visit the
web site at:  http://www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm .

Dear Mr. Gore:  It is very important that the first international
environmental lawsuit be given the media attention it deserves. The
Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment can inform you of the
details.  A statement by you can guarantee that attention; please make
such a statement.

Respectfully,

<Your name, title and address>

At 06:45 AM 3/18/97 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        I don't know how many times we have to repeat it that although 40
>million people are not insured they are receiving medical treatment gratis
>from the hospitals. If they didn't American vital statistics wouldn't be
>practically identical to the Canadian ones. Hospitals therefore must charge
>more the treatment of those who are insured.

Hmmm.  Sounds a bit like slipping money to the doctor for 'better' and/or
'faster' service.  In Hungary it's called a bribe.  In America it's called
private insurance.  The result is the same.  Those who have money get
better, preferential treatment, and those who don't, don't.  How humane!

In a previous post you also mentioned that Canada is having problems with
the health care system because some doctors are leaving Canada for the
States.  Yes, that's true.  However, I have little sympathy for those
professionals who aren't happy with a quarter million dollars per year in
Canada and go to the States for even bigger bucks.  The way I see it,
Americans aren't getting better health care from these professionals.
They're just getting more expensive doctors.

Joe Szalai