Most kedden (11-en) - hogy legyen valami aktualitasunk is - a NATO-csatlakozas
kornyezetvedelmi kerdeseirol beszelgetunk, remenyeink szerint egy HM-beli
katonai szakerto es valaki "ellenlabas" :-) reszvetelevel. En valaki
Alba-korosre gondoltam, telefonaltam is nekik. De ha akar valaki mas (is)
hozzaszolni, belekapcsolodni a csevegesbe, jelentkezzen, jojjon. Jelentkezhet
nalam (464-1357), de akar betelefonalhat az adasba is a FIKSZ Radio
telefonszaman: 463-4313!

Tehat: Zoldindulas - kedd 18-19 ora kozott a 98,0 MHz-en Budapest
vetelkorzeteben.
                                                        Udv:    Tepi

Szeretnem a figyelmetekbe ajanlani a jelentos mertekben kornyezetvedelmi 
temaju, idegen nyelvu anyagokat ismerteto, atlagban havi 8-szor megjeleno 
Bocs Forditot.

B O C S   F o r d i t o                             http://BOCS.HU
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Megrendeles (ingyenes):  cimre
subscribe grazroots.hun (subjectbe vagy 1. sorba).

Lemondas: unsubscribe grazroots.hun 

Ekezetes, nem sortort (uuencode arj) file rendeles: subscribe bocsfordito

Izelitoul a
             - - - -   18. szam   - - - -  (II. evf. 1997 nov. 8.)

                          TARTALOM   (15 ezer leutes)

E szamunk a tavaszi Balaton Bulletin nyolcadik tanulmanyat kozli.

1. John P. Robinson, Geoffrey Godbey: A nagy amerikai lelassulas

Robinson a szociologia professzora es a marylandi egyetemen az Americans'
Use of Time (amerikaiak idofelhasznalasa) projekt vezetoje. Godbey a
szabadido-tudomanyok professzora a Pennsylvania-i Allami Egyetemen. E
szerzoparos konyve Time for Life (Ido az eletre) cimmel ez evben jelenik
meg a Penn State Press kiado gondozasaban.

Mellekletunk (azaz nem sajat anyag, csak ismertte valasat segitjuk) egy a
Demokrataban megjelent, a Resurgence-bol forditott iras: Guaicaipuro
Cuautemoc: Az igazi kulfoldi adossag


Az ekezetes, sortordeles nelkuli korabbi szamok letolthetok a
http://BOCS.HU webhelyrol, vagy e-mailen is a  cimre
kuldott get http://bocs.hu/ford/bocsf*.zip paranccsal (a level 1. sorba),
ahol * a kert BocsFordito szama.

A teljes forditasokat es a kulon jelzetteket kiveve (amelyeknel
egyeztetest kerunk a honorariumrol), a media atveheti - ami a forditasi
jogokat illeti - anyagainkat, csak hivatkozzanak a forrasra: "BOCS
Fordito", es kuldjenek peldanyt a megjelent anyagbol a fenti postacimre.


Gyula Simonyi
H-8003 Szekesfehervar, Pf. 7.
Tel: +36-22-327263, fax: -343823.
        http://BOCS.HU

remelem, ez meg nem volt.....
ha igen, bocs az ismetlesert.

diana

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY? 

In one of those strange juxtapositions of life, a sane little book arrived in
my mail this week as if it were meant to be contrasted with the insane debate
our senators were holding on campaign reform.

"The Technique of Consensus" the book is called, its author is Richard H.
Graff, he published it himself.  Graff puts forth a technique intended, he
says, to help people find shared ideas and objectives, instead of dwelling on
disagreement and conflict.

Try, says Graff, to frame discussions through nontrivial questions to which the
expected response will be not defensive argument, but thoughtful silence. He
gives some zinging examples:

Does anyone disagree that farming practices should be sustainable in the long
term?

Is there anyone who thinks that company profit and shareholder value are more
important than the long-term well-being of our species?

Can anyone point to someone who is less deserving than him- or herself?

Is it a good idea for us to divide ourselves into groups and factions that hate
each other?

Sitting in silence, thinking through the implications of the questions and
waiting for rebuttal (which may come, and which will be instructive if it does)
is the important part of the exercise.  Graff adds three stipulations to keep
the exercise in bounds.  First, any response must be accompanied by a reason. 
If you say, "I don't agree" but refuse to say why, you can be ignored.  Second,
no quibbling.  Editing the premise to clarify it is fine, but not muddying it
up with unimportant distinctions or distractions.  Third, speak only for
yourself.  No making up some other party who you imagine might disagree.

What grabbed my attention, given the Senate debate, was Graff's examples in the
realm of politics.  He starts with: Does anyone think that politics should not
be based upon ethical principles?

"Our audience has to remain silent," says Graff, imagining the response to this
question.  "Everyone looks around to see who's going to speak up.  Even those
who may be violating the principle do not disagree with it, and thus they are
faced with the inescapable fact that they are behaving in a way that is at
variance with their own beliefs."  Since the rule is to speak only for
yourself, there can be no finger-pointing, no "but so-and-so is unethical."  No
one stands accused except by him- or herself, so there can be no hypocritical
scrapping of the sort that dominates Washington.
Graff continues with: Does anyone think it is a good idea for our elected
representatives to be unduly influenced by special interests?

A question could arise about the meaning of "unduly," he admits, so he suggests
further questions to stake out the arena of undue influence.  Such as: Does
anyone think it is OK for substantial contributions to be given in support of a
congressman's election, in the understanding that that congressman will support
legislation that unjustly favors one particular interest at the expense of the
general welfare?

The subsequent resounding silence won't put an end to undue influence, says
Graff.  But it will "put those who are exerting ... such influence into an
untenable position.  It is clear to them that no one supports ... such behavior
-- including themselves."

So all week, as the senators have been reminding me of the parlous state of our
democracy (only six percent of Americans gave campaign funds to any candidate
in the last election; less than half the eligible voters voted), I've been
thinking up Graff-inspired questions.

Is anyone happy with the fact that our politicians spend at least half their
time (time for which we pay them through our taxes) raising funds for their
next election?

Does anyone believe we get the best candidates, when no one can stand for
office who is unable to raise millions of dollars?

Would anyone argue that the best decisions for the good of the country can be
determined by the relative amounts of money people are willing to pay to back
them?

Do we have the kind of free speech that furthers democratic debate and free
political choice, when only those with lots of money can participate in that
speech?

Does anyone think that campaign ads give voters important or accurate
information about the ability of a candidate to govern?

Have any of you voted recently for a candidate you honestly thought was
open-minded, untainted by any special interest, dedicated only to serving the
long-term good of the whole people?

Does anyone believe that a system where only rich people (or those supported by
rich people) can run for office, where all politicians are obligated to large
money interests, and where millions of dollars are spent to misinform voters
can rightfully be called a democracy?

Richard Graff says that when questions are phrased this way, he observes the
following results.  Everyone stops and thinks before speaking up.  Everyone is
enfranchised and empowered.  Everyone is treated as a mature adult.  The
silence is civilized, peaceful and calming.  A sense of community builds.

Also, I would hope, a sense of commitment to make our political system actually
operate by the deep values we all share.

(You can obtain "The Technique of Consensus" for $10 from Richard Graff at 621
Airpark Road, Napa CA 94558-6272.)

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

Kedves Mindnyajan! 
> =======================================================
> Felado :  [Sweden]
> Temakor: Re: tiszta vizet a dunaba ( 26 sor )
> Idopont: Thu Nov  6 12:59:20 EST 1997 KORNYESZ #435
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> A jelen helyzet fenntartasa nem jo, mert a szlovak fel meg azokat
> a vizmegosztasi megallapodasokat sem tartja be, amelyeket alair, az
> pedig nem is remelheto, hogy az eredeti elovilag visszaallitasahoz
> szukseges mennyisegu vizrol mondjanak le -- amig nem kotelezik oket
> erre. 
Szivembol szolt, kedves Laszlo.

Liptak Bela javaslata arra iranyul, hogy a vizcsap magyar kezbe
> keruljon. 
Liptak javaslataval az az apro gond van, hogy amennyiben a duzzasztas 
Kilitinel kovetkezik be, az elovilag, es fokeppen a vizbazis ugyanugy bajban 
lesz. Tok mindegy, hogy szlovak, vagy magyar letesitmeny duzzaszt.

A szlovakok megtarthatjak az eromuvet es aramot is termel-
> hetnek vele, az elovilag szamara nem szukseges *tobblet* vizzel.
A szlovakok eddig egy megallapodast irtak ala, Londonban, meg az eltereles 
honapjaban. Azota ala sem irtak semmit. Megpedig azert nem, mert a Duna 
teljes vizhozama 
evente mindossze nehany hetig eleg arra, hogy valamennyi turbina 
mukodjon. A tobbi honapban, kulonosen oszi kisviz idejen, ket-harom 
turbinahoz elegendo csak a viz. Vagyis az egesz ugy gazdasagtalan, ahogy 
van - pontosan emiatt kritizaltak a hetvenes evek vegen a Tudomanyos 
Akademia kutatoi a projektet. Ennek a kritikanak a napfenyre kerulese 
inditotta be a Duna-mozgalmat.

> Erdekes Liptak Bela azon felvetese, hogy a Duna vizienergiaja kozos,
> igy az energia hasznositasaval termelt aram is az. Azt nem konnyu
> kiszamolni, hogy ha az egesz bosi eromuvet a szlovakok epitettek,
> akkor az ott termelt energianak mekkora resze illeti a magyarokat,
> de az teny, hogy a Duna teljes vizienergiaja momentan el van lopva.
> 
> Korkerdes: Ti mit tartanatok jo kompromisszumnak?
Nincs jo kompromisszumos megoldas. Az energiatermelest el kell felejteni. A 
hajozas akkor is mehet, ha a betonteknoben all a viz, es csak a 
zsilipelesnel elveszo mennyiseget potoljak. A tobbit vissza kell vezetni az 
eredeti mederbe.

A HIX-olvasok bizonyara tisztaban vannak azzal, hogy a Szigetkoz alatt levo 
vizbazis igen jelentos. De hogy mennyire jelentos, azzal talan nem. Nos, 
Europaban, egesz Europaban nincs meg egy ekkora, raadasul (amennyiben a 
folyot hagyjak folyni) megujulo vizkeszlet. Az, amely a Rajna alatt van, 
lenyegesen kisebb, es mar 
regen elszennyezodott. Eppen dr. Hajos Bela szamolt be egy cikkeben 
azokrol a jelensegekrol, amelyeket a duzzasztas idezett elo a Rajnan a 
duzzasztok megepiteset koveto evekben.

A tiszta ivoviz ma fontosabb strategiai kerdes, mint a koolaj! Nem 
jelentekeny mennyisegu, maskeppen is eloallithato energia kedveert egyszer s 
mindenkorra tudatosan tonkretenni Europa legnagyobb kapacitasu termeszetes 
ivoviz-tartalekat, nos, ez nem vall jozan eszre. Kinek lesz abbol haszna, ha 
Magyarorszag es Szlovakia lakossaganak egy jelentekeny resze teljes 
mertekben es mindorokre fuggove valik
a.) technikai-vegyi tisztitasi eljarasoktol es berendezesektol
b.) kulfoldrol importalt forrasviztol?
A kerdes nem szonoki, gondoljanak csak arra a haborura, amely az asvanyvizek 
minositese korul dult egy-ket evvel ezelott - ez a legtutibb aru! Kocsi 
nelkul lehet elni, villanyaram nelkul is. Ihato viz nelkul nem.

Miro Kiss Ida