Hungary’s Fidesz and its Christian Democrat centre right governing partner virtually swept the board in Sunday’s local elections as expected, while radical nationalist party Jobbik made gains in the poor northeast and the Socialists confirmed their status as the main opposition force nationally.
The jewel in the crown, Budapest, saw a tighter race with Fidesz, managing just over 51 percent of the assembly vote based on preliminary results, and its candidate for mayor, Istvan Tarlos, just over 53 percent. In the capital, 19 out of 23 districts will be led by Fidesz mayors.
Fidesz is providing mayors for 22 out of 23 major cities and will control all 19 county assemblies, according to official preliminary results.
Hailing the result as equally important as the April election win in which Fidesz gained two-thirds of parliamentary seats, Orban said the local election results were a strong endorsement of the government’s work since it came to power, including its measures to foster national cohesion and cooperation.
He said Budapest, which has gone to the centre-right column for the first time since Hungary reverted to democracy 20 years ago, would no longer be at odds with the rest of the country.
“Budapest is once again the capital of the nation”, Orban said.
The new Budapest Mayor, Istvan Tarlos, said he would carry out his programme in close cooperation with the national government. He said the fact that Fidesz will hold a majority in the municipal assembly would be useful. He said that should the opposition be inclined to cooperate in the interest of the city, there will be no obstacle to cooperation.
“The spirit of the city will change,” he said after noting that Budapest has had left-wing or liberal mayors for 65 years.
Orban said that voters had chosen the politics of national cohesion, a new proportionate tax system, to draw up a new constitution and the strong representation of Hungary’s interests at home and abroad.
“Hungary has stepped from out of its own shadow,” he said.
Orban has promised far-reaching tax reforms to boost competitiveness and growth. But under pressure from the European Union he has also pledged to stick to strict budget deficit targets this year and in 2011.
The market is looking for detail in policy announcements after the election to see if Fidesz is really to implement structural reforms, which economists say are badly needed to keep the strained public finances on a sustainable footing in the future.
In a newspaper interview at the weekend Orban talked up “big changes” such as tax cuts and growth, and ruled out further austerity.
A low number of Hungarians, just over 46 percent, voted in Sunday’s local election, which analysts said indicated the apathy of opposition left-wingers and liberals in the face of a strong right wing dominated by Fidesz.
President Pal Schmitt told a news conference that every ballot cast in Sunday’s election had strengthened the ideal of democracy.
Gergely Karacsony, the green Politics Can Be Different (LMP) party’s campaign chief, told journalists that “the low turnout is always a bad sign for democracy”.
The main opposition Socialist party’s spokesman Zsolt Torok said that people had stayed away to show their disapproval of the government’s work, the governing parties’ fear-mongering and deceitful politics.
Commenting on the low turnout, Orban said that “everyone who went to the polls has given a mandate, and everyone who stayed at home gave permission to [the government to] continue the work begun.”
Hungary’s small parties, LMP and Jobbik, both of which got seats in parliament for the first time in the April general election, fared worse than expected in the local election, analysts said.
Robert Manchin, head of the European chapter of Gallup Institute, said LMP needs to widen its activist base in the provinces in order to become a professional party.
Agoston Samuel Mraz added that Jobbik had produced “rather bad results” which is due to “the end of a protest atmosphere” in the country which had accumulated before Fidesz trounced the Socialists who had governed for eight years.
Attila Mesterhazy, leader of the opposition Socialist party, said his party had done better than expected in Sunday’s local election. The results have confirmed that the Socialist party is a counterweight in Hungary’s political arena and the second strongest party, he insisted.
Agoston Samuel Mraz added that Jobbik had produced “rather bad results” which is due to “the end of a protest atmosphere” in the country which had accumulated before Fidesz trounced the Socialists who had governed for eight years.
All it took was illegally banning their campaign ad from the state media
bobscountrybunker at October 4, 2010 12:24 PM
—
Well, Vona does not share your pessimism about the outcome
I was thinking I should comment on Agoston Samuel Mraz thoughts over the “Jobbik” performance with the added twist that ‘bob’ will run his cry-performance later. I did not do that to start a typical silly ‘bob’-debate
So, does anyone really think that “Jobbik” lost any votes when their ad ran all Friday om M1 (which I was watching on the side while working). It was basically only that ad, then I assume MTV wanted to run with it for the agreed number of times in total. It was like living in Jobbikorszag…
If the effect of first refusing the ad and then allowing it, showing it very often, did anything to the “Jobbik” performance it was probably more positive then negative, then “Jobbik” got (as usual) a lot of free commercial about this temporary ban
To think that a 30 second ad would swing the voters to run out and vote eagerly for any party is probably regarding the electorate a bit stupid
.
Just to remember everyone – the ad was in the end shown and probably the number of agreed times, but the showing was delayed a few days
.
And I still think that the expression “gypsycrime” is illegal, which has not been tried in court yet
This has nothing to do with ‘debates’, but what arguments are to be regarded as civil and accepted
In ‘bob’s world there is nothing civil and acceptable when ‘debating’
Whats civil about protecting roma crimanals?
Whats civil about protecting roma crimanals?
Law at October 4, 2010 1:07 PM
—
Nothing civil as I can see it
It normally falls under the category “Aiding a criminal” and is a punishable offense, like protecting *any* criminal
Funny that you always want to protect non-Roma criminals…
And I still think that the expression “gypsycrime” is illegal, which has not been tried in court yet
Viking at October 4, 2010 1:01 PM
And I still think that the expression “gypsycrime” is illegal, which has not been tried in court yet
Viking at October 4, 2010 1:01 PM
====
bobscountrybunker at October 4, 2010 4:48 PM
—-
So a Prosecutor cannot take anyone to court if that *specific* expression/action has not been in court before and therefore been declared illegal?
.
It is the Prosecutors tasks just to do this with things he or she *believes* constitute a crime
The Court decides if it is actually illegal
.
If it makes anyone happier I can use the expression ‘against the law’ if that sounds better, or even I want to make it illegal. It think it is hard to miss what I want…
As usual ‘bob’ discusses forms of debate, than content
Jobbik’s lack of success in the local elections could have several non-mutually exclusive reasons.
1) The banning of the ad. I doubt this is a factor since ultimately the ad was aired and the ban created a lot of publicity for the party (free advertising).
2) Voter apathy due to the belief that the elections were going to Fidesz. High likelihood that this in part would have to do with it. However it does not explain why support would shift for those who did vote. It presumes, Jobbck supporters would be more apathetic then those in other parties.
3) Fidesz is satisfying Jobbik’s supporters need for change regarding issues like the Hungarian minorities in surrounding countries.
4) Jobbik has lost its sheen. Jobbik ran a slick national campaign last spring and put together a good website. Now that they are governing they have made some missteps and have lifted the veil on their racism and antisemitism (boarding school and detention camp proposals, etc.). In addition, several Jobbos have been caught in cases of corruption, intimidation, and perversion. Some previous supporters may now have second thoughts about the party.
And I still think that the expression “gypsycrime” is illegal, which has not been tried in court yet
Viking at October 4, 2010 1:01 PM
====
bobscountrybunker at October 4, 2010 4:48 PM
—-
So a Prosecutor cannot take anyone to court if that *specific* expression/action has not been in court before and therefore been declared illegal?
Viking at October 4, 2010 5:31 PM
@Pete H.
Jobbik has lost its sheen. Jobbik ran a slick national campaign last spring and put together a good website. Now that they are governing they have made some missteps and have lifted the veil on their racism and antisemitism…
Pete H. at October 4, 2010 5:37 PM
Bob wrote: “And I still think that the
expression “gypsycrime” is illegal, which has not
been tried in court yet
Viking at October 4, 2010 1:01 PM
@Bystander
It is a simple case of putting the cart before the horse.
Something is only by definition “illegal” if it is against the law. Either primary law, passed in parliamentary process, or case law, through the decision of a court.
Thus, to say – as I am – that something cannot be called illegal unless it IS illegal, is not some point of controversy up for the debate: it is a truism.
All the talk about the prosecutor is besides the point. He does not decide legality anymore than anyone else can. And even if he DID bring such a case (which he hasn’t, so why is pointless supposition being piled upon pointless supposition, and then being presented as cogent reasoning?) neither would the act of him doing so be a defining factor in legality.
In this circumstance ONLY a court could decide. ONLY. This does not mean ONLY plus Viking.
Which is why saying in the first phrase of a sentence that something is illegal, when in the very second phrase you concede that the only body (exlcuding parliament, but this hasn’t either) that could make it illegal: HASN’T; is the very definition of a contradiction in terms.
He has no more justification to decide something is illegal, than I might have to decide that this car outside my window might is a hippopotamus.
It is just like Pete H. saying earlier that Jobbik were in government. It is not some sort of sophistic piece of opinion permitting a broad range of views.
It’s just a plain simple untruth.
Bobby boy, I see you have put the vinegar back in your piss. You really like to argue semantics instead of substance.
Jobbik is governing in the sense that they are in parliament and are participating in the process of governance. I am perfectly aware that they are not the “governing party”.
I will continue to use shorthand (that any reasonable reader would understand) and not worry about your superficial semantic critiques. Most readers got meant without having to resort to childish insults. I will clarify things for you since you have troubles with this sort of thing.
P.S. I love you too.
@Bystander
Moreover, one can I think convincingly argue that the exact opposite is the case.
The supreme court’s decision can be seen as establishing in case law, de jure, that the phrase “gypsy crime” is NOT illegal. And if you doubt that this is a cogent legal argument just wait, and I assure you it will only be a matter of time before it is used: and this judgement is pointed to.
Viking is arguing (stating) that the term “gypsy crime” is illegal: when no court in the land has made any decision saying so. However, the 2nd highest court in the land has been given the opportunity of saying it IS illegal – through this ad – and have chosen not to do so.
@Bob,
I’m not a lawyer, but I think most legal systems
were designed so that prosecutors are “empowered”
to pursue what they think are broken laws, and
it’s up to the *courts* to make the decision as to
whether their initial decision to bring the matter
before them was correct by granting a decision
based on precedent and law, etc. Correct me if
I’m wrong, but isn’t that how the (western-style)
courts *operate*? It would be a Catch-22 if
courts could only prosecute cases in which an
*exact* precedent was already decided upon! Think
about that one, please…
Also, Bob, while we’re at it, do you mind if I
“tag” one of your quotes?
Bob wrote: “The golden road to diversity and
tolerance is silencing political debate.”
“Fallacy of the single cause (“joint effect”, or
“causal oversimplification”): occurs when it is
assumed that there is one, simple cause of an
outcome when in reality it may have been caused by
a number of only jointly sufficient causes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single
_cause
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
@Pete H.
You really like to argue semantics instead of substance… Most readers got meant without having to resort to childish insults.
Pete H. at October 4, 2010 6:38 PM
@Bysander,
“”The golden road to diversity and
tolerance is silencing political debate.”
I think might also be a case of a straw-man argument. Since, although one particular campaign ad was temporarily suppressed by one particular venue, the overall political debate in Hungary seems to be very healthy. I don’t think it can be argued that Jobbik was unable to get its message out, just because of this one particular case.
…And once again we have to endure this infantile behaviour.
If anyone has the temerity to point out that your comments are hallmarked by presumptuous know-it-all pomposity about Hungary, but you are unable to either spell the country’s name or know accurately who’s in government: then yet again you scream you’re the victim of a conspriacy of heinous right-wing bullying.
It may come as a suprise to you, but no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to come out with all these preposterous errors, you know.
@Bystander
Well I am a lawyer, and by and large in your last comment you have things exactly right. But what would our western democracies be like if prosecutors, as they do in dictatorships, have the right to just stand up and claim that certain things are illegal? Think about it.
Only the courts can decide, not Swedish chefs, not you, not I.
I’m loving all this logical parsing, but why doesn’t anyone apply logical analysis to any of MY actual arguments? Not when I am ridiculing someone else’s.
The whole point about Pete H. and Viking, is that the Straw Man fallacy is CENTRAL.
What can you do if someone says until they are blue in the face one second, that they believe that certain forms of political debate cause violence and assasination?…
When the very NEXT second they say that a certain political party’s rhetoric is the chief obstacle to cohesion and harmony.
And then in the one straight after THAT they applaud when exactly the same kind of debate they object to is “censored.”
And when you put it all together they SCREAM BLUE MURDER that you are attacking a Straw Man!…
“I never said THAT!…” they say. “How dare you imply that I did!”
Well how do you rectify this problem?
Simple…
You ASK them simple straightforward question and request that they answer.
BUT these gentlemen find simple straightforward questions beneath them, and those that they don’t like are “irrelevant” or “misdirection” or “loaded” or “semantic” or any other of a hundred other reasons that have only ONE purpose: to desparately conceal what they truly think, or what they really believe.
The cynicism of the Straw Man is not my error, it is their deliberate modus operandi!
So as to be able to claim whatever nonsensical and illogical drivel that takes their fancy, and NEVER being able to be called on it.
And the only (THE ONLY, if you disagree, suggest another) way of depriving them of this childish ploy to deal with substance is to ask them to answer the questions that are necessary to clarify their positons.
Which is precisely why such questions fill them with such allergic terror.
In effect these guys spend the majority of their time here putting on thereadbare clothes, felt hats, stuffing straw up their sleevws, and waltzing up the yellow brick road with Miss Dorothy Gale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI
…and then BELLOWING with outrage (boy! how they screeeeaaam!) when you either treat them as such, or more importantly: invite them to shed their straw by answering.
sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to make a
distinction. Somebody here said something about
‘how the law is in the west’ or words to that
effect.I just wanted to point out that ‘the west’
includes a variety of different legal systems
based on very different sets of process and
precedence.
-
So moving on from that, where I’m from, the
question of what is illegal and whose job it is to
establish it depends on the offence in question.
Obviously there are some acts that are just
clearly against the law, so I assume nobody is
talking about that. The next level is where an act
is clearly against the law, but there is debate
about whether or not the act committed fits into
the criteria of the law to be judged as this or
that particular offence.This is not just guilt or
innocence. Beyond that, there are ‘grey area’ laws
where the law itself has to be interpreted…so
for example, constitutional or complex cases
involving tax related offences. (Our tax code is
something to behold)
-
So in all of that, it can happen that prosecutors
bring ‘test cases’, that is how precedent is
established, but then there are also many other
cases where there is already precedent but the law
itself has to be interpreted to see if it applies
in this case etc. To say though that something is
not ‘illegal’ until someone has been convicted is
not strictly speaking true.eg: our racial
vilification laws…it just means that the law
itself has not been applied yet.
hope that makes sense.
“He said Budapest, which has gone to the centre-
right column for the first time since Hungary
reverted to democracy 20 years ago, would no longer
be at odds with the rest of the country.”
-
When was Hungary ever a democracy before 1989?
-
I’m sorry, I’ve been in a teaching methods seminar
all afternoon and I just can’t help it.
@Bystander
And in conclusion I might also add, that for some sort of mendacious vicious pseudo-fascistic crypto-Nazi ultra-nationalistic insane pathological abusive semantic-obsessed bully…
I have NEVER exhibited even the slightest problem or remotest reluctance answering any simple straightforward question when it is put to me.
And the reason why this NEVER happens is that I always make it a precondition of my interlocutor that in order to do so he simply shows good faith by first of all honestly answering one of mine.
@Cináed
So in all of that, it can happen that prosecutors
bring ‘test cases’, that is how precedent is
established, but then there are also many other
cases where there is already precedent but the law
itself has to be interpreted to see if it applies
in this case etc.
Cináed at October 4, 2010 7:37 PM
bob: I’m getting really sleepy, so perhaps not the
best for me to try and be too analytical now, but
here goes.
-
in some of those grey area cases, they are not
really what I would call ‘test’ cases. For me a
test case is when the law itself is being ‘tested’
for the first time. In that sense, it is through
the process of a trial that it is determined
whether or not a law is applicable and/or
legitimate. In other cases, where it looks like an
offence has been committed, there may already be
an established and tested law, but the prosecutor
has to argue whether or not the act in question
fits the criteria of the offence as described in
the charges…in that case, it is not really a
test case.
-
in any case (pardon the pun) laws can and are
tested through the courts and sometimes not just
cases, but laws are thrown out. So in that sense,
the courts are a forum for determining what is
legal and illegal to an extent. However, this is
not the situation for all laws and all cases,
which is why I wanted to make the original
distinction.For some reason people often seem to
have this view that everything in the law is ‘up
for grabs’ which is not really true.Yes, the law
evolves and changes, but is usually not so
arbitrary or ‘liberal inspired’.
-
that’s just my two cents on it…and now I’m
really zoning out so time for bed. take it easy.
At the risk of having TOO much fun with this
pointing out of Logical Fallacies thing, I want to
point to Bob’s reprimanding of Pete H:
“You really like to argue semantics instead of
substance… Most readers got meant without having
to resort to childish insults.
Pete H. at October 4, 2010 6:38 PM
Bob must be having some troube focusing today. I made it perfectly clear that I know who is in the government in my second comment about the issue. Perhaps the Hungarian system is not clear to him. Just because Fidesz is the ruling party does not mean that the other parties don’t participate in the process of governance as part of the opposition. And by now we are straying so far from my original comments so that Bob now finds himself in the safe place of arguing semantics instead of the substance of my comments.
Every-time Bob brings up the rather insubstantial (in regards to the substance of my comment) spelling error of mine I will remind everyone of the basis of his debates:
Hearsay Bob regarding his smear of Lantos: “I am no expert on the subject, but I have been told this by people whose opinion I respect. Heresay I know.” http://www.politics.hu/20100928/jobbik-against-setting-up-tom-lantos-institute
I know there are MUCH more important things to
talk about but I just rechecked thread from the
top where Bob wrote this:
“It is just like Pete H. saying earlier that
Jobbik were in government. It is not some
sort of sophistic piece of opinion permitting a
broad range of views.
It’s just a plain simple untruth.”
I’m sorry but I have to agree with Pete H. here
that Bob goofed. Jobbik IS “in government”…
Someone tell me how, since they are represented in
Parliament, how they are NOT “in government”.
I could get more specific like “Parliament is part
of the Government and Jobbik is part of the
Parliament so therefore, Q.E.D., Jobbik is part of
the Government…. but I’m sure someone could get
clever with the List of Fallacies and make me jump
thru more hoops to prove what is almost a
tautology…. DONT MAKE ME DO IT… CAUSE I’LL
*DO* IT, YOU KNOW!
No Semantics required… Just kidding.
It is not for you to decide.
bobscountrybunker at October 4, 2010 5:47 PM
—
Eehh and where did I claim it was *me* who decided those things?
I have only expressed my very humble opinion, that I think it should be illegal
If you do have a problem differentiating my very humble self from the Law, then more people than my humble self will think you do really have a problem
This reasoning by our good friend bob reminds me of an old joke about lawyers:
The lawyer is defending a poor chap and at the end he tells the jury:
And please don’t forget – this guy is a poor lonely orphan!
Well, remember what he was accused of:
He brutally hacked his parents to death …
An airliner was having engine trouble, and the pilot instructed the cabin crew to have the passengers take their seats and get prepared for an emergency landing.
A few minutes later, the pilot asked the flight attendants if everyone was buckled in and ready.
“All set back here, Captain,” came the reply, “except the lawyers are still going around passing out business cards.”
The devil visited a lawyer’s office and made him an offer. “I can arrange some things for you, ” the devil said. “I’ll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you’ll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, and their children’s souls rot in hell for eternity.”
The lawyer thought for a moment. “What’s the catch?” he asked.
Upon seeing an elderly lady for the drafting of her will, the attorney charged her $100.
She gave him a $100 bill, not noticing that it was stuck to another $100 bill.
On seeing the two bills stuck together, the ethical question came to the attorney’s mind: “Do I tell my partner?”
Taylor was desperate for business, and was happy to be appointed by the court to defend an indigent defendant.
The judge ordered Taylor, “You are to confer with the defendant in the hallway, and give him the best legal advice you can.”
After a time, Taylor re-entered the courtroom alone.
When the judge asked where the defendant had gone, Taylor replied, “You asked me to give him good advice. I found out that he was guilty, so I told him to split.”
Mr. Dewey was briefing his client, who was about to testify in his own defense.
“You must swear to tell the complete truth. Do you understand?”
The client replied that he did.
Then lawyer then asked, “Do you know what will happen if you don’t tell the truth?”
The client looked back and said, “I imagine that our side will win.”
A young Law student failed his exam & goes up to his old professor, renowned for his razor-sharp legal mind.
Student: “Sir, do you really understand everything about this subject?”
Prof:: “I do, or I wouldn’t be a professor”
Student: “OK. So I’d like to ask you a question. If you can give me the correct answer, I will accept my marks as it is. However, if you can’t give me the correct answer,you’ll have to give me an “A”.
Prof: “Hmmmm, ok. So what’s the question?”
Student: “What is legal but not logical, logical but not legal, and neither logical nor legal? ”
The professor wracks his famous brain, but just can’t crack the answer.Finally he gives up & changes the student’s failing mark into an “A” as
agreed, & the student leaves, very pleased.
The professor continues to wrack his brain over the question all afternoon, but still can’t get the answer. Finally he calls in a group of
his best students & tells them he has a really tough question: “What is legal but not logical, logical but not legal, and neither logical nor legal? ”
To the professor’s surprise, all the students immediately raise their hands.
“All right” says the professor & asks one student to answer
“It’s quite easy, sir” says the student “You see, you are 75 years old & married to a 30 year old woman, which is legal, but not logical. Your
wife has a 22 year old lover, which is logical, but not legal.And your wife’s lover failed his exam but you’ve just given him an “A”, which is neither legal, nor logical.
In which country having a lover is illegal? At least not in most european countries.
@ Tom
I don’t know about Europe but there are several States where adultery is illegal – the list is on the Internet
Example:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section14
Your comment peaked my curiosity so it took me 2 minutes to find the answer – I honestly did not expect it “adultery” to be a crime.
So I guess you are free to laugh at the joke now.
@Tom – Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Taiwan, Korea & others.
Also Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, & Virginia.
And all the other states if you’re a member of the military.
Alternatively, http://tinyurl.com/5kk6c8 or http://tinyurl.com/3xaz6ue
Adultery was also a crime in West Germany until 1969 as were homosexual activities among adults and procuration for example.
So when I wa a student it was almost impossible to have your girlfriend stay overnight in your room – the landlord would have been in danger of going to jail for procuration (Kuppelei in German).
Abortion was also illegal until 1974 as was sterilisation of a woman – even if she wanted it, maybe because she had several children already …
There was a famous case of a doctor who sterilised married women after talking to them and their husbands, whose office was raided by the police.
The liberal students’ group where I belonged to invited him to speak about this – the relevant law had been made by the nazis who wanted many German children …
BTW:
We also invited the chief censor of the German movie industry who gave a talk and showed clips of films that had to be taken out …
The first clips were “horror” and brutality – the worst being ascene where someone is forced to swallow his own tongue that has been cut off …
When the switch to “sexy” scenes came an audible sigh was heard among those watching (mainly students) …
PS: That revolution in German law was orchestrated by the first liberal and social democrat coalition that came to power in Germany in 1969 under the leadership of Willy Brandt.
@ Wolfi and Curious George
Wolfi – I have not forgiven you for your shameful posting of trying to eat that poor rabbit on pestiside.hu but someone told me (did not verify it) that in California the law states you may not set a mouse trap without a hunting license. Not sure about their laws on mouse-stew
Curious George
I just noticed I missed your wife’s birthday; Hope she had a good one and will have many happy returns; I feel confident that you managed to come up with a more memorable birthday gift than a dinner of raw fish.
On the subject of adultery – If there is one posting of Pavaszem’s that I shall never forget is his equating a married woman’s rape with adultery and then adding insult to injury he posted some Bible quote to justify his position.
I noticed JA bringing up his AWOL status. I heard from reliable sources that he is busy writing a Mea Culpa book apologising for all the awful postings, and personal attacks. Let me know when you get your email apology which I understand is also on his “to do” list.
I do miss Vandorlo.
@olga:
I’m realy sorry about my little joke …
Actually I hate rabbit meat because of all those little bones …
Our cat was out overnight and brought me a mouse (dead) this morning and another one later, but she’s so well fed, she doesn’t eat them, just leaves them on the floor for us to praise her for her hunting skills …
@ Wolfi
Thanks for another disgusting posting – ugh.
BTW, I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I only have male cats because I heard that “females are hunters” meaning they bring you little gifts of dead mice and birds.
On another note – if you know of a website that shows Hungary’s overall election results by percentage break-downs according to the parties please post it
olga: I grew up on a farm, so we always had a cat
to help control the rat and mouse population. For
us if a cat DIDN’T catch them, it was regarded as
not doing its job. We always use to make sure we
came when she called and gave her lots of praise.
…it just wasn’t so easy when she left a pair of
rat kidneys on the front door mat for us to find in
the morning.
Thanks for info on legal position on adultery. Now i am not sure should i laugh on the joke or on the countries that are positioning themselves as beacons of free world and criminalize adultery… Hmm..
@Cináed:
Cats also usually leave the gall bladder of the animals they killed – not very nice either, but that’s life …
I wouldn’t wont to live in a house and garden overrun by mice – one was enough. After the cat got it we had to wash all our dishes in the cupboard – little pieces of mouse-shit everywhere -ugh!
wolfi: no doubt you’re right, but I wasn’t about
to do an autopsy on the entrails to find out what
was left.
-
When my parents first got married they lived in a
cane-cutter’s barracks on my grandfather’s farm
that they had repaired and converted into a
‘home’…it was made of corrugated iron and in the
north queensland sun was a steam cooker…it also
didn’t seal well and so the rats from the sugar
cane field used to infiltrate the house. My mum
noticed one day that my brother (who was a baby at
the time) had these scratches all over his head.
She realised that the rats were eating the
dandruff off his head. After that, my parents
always had a cat. They also gave a home in the
ceiling to a carpet python to also keep the rats
down. However, one night the snake came down out
of the roof and ate one of our kittens. Of course
the snake had to go. Fortunately for me, it was
not long after I was born that my grandfather
decided it was not good enough for this young
family to live in such conditions, so he built a
new cottage for us on a corner of the farm. Of
course, rat control remained a pretty serious
effort…such is life in the country.
@Cináed:
Yes those were the “good old days” …
Maybe everybody living in Europe now should be sent a month or so to some of these places where conditions are , you know what I mean …
Africa would be enough or a remote village in Bangladesh – North Korea is maybe too extreme …
I still remember those times – I regularly tell everybody around:
You should be thankful to live in the 21st century – in Europe!
@Olga – thanks, and I did get her something nice besides the raw fish. No, not another Patrizio CD:)
Well, it does look like Pav’s meds are finally working. Either that, or his keyboard is broken
Guess we’ll have to wait for the book to find out.
wolfi: that’s one of the reasons why I laugh at
people who scoff when they hear I’m from the
‘lucky country’. We were dirt poor, but my parents
both worked really hard and we managed to get
somewhere. Even though my father was an
electrician and not really an ‘academic’ type,
both of my parents really valued education and
made us work hard.
-
so yeah, if Australia is the ‘lucky country’ it is
so because of the bloody hard work of its people.
I could tell you story after story of farm life,
but one that sticks in my mind is my great-
grandmother going row by row down the freshly
planted cane, ‘chipping’ at the edges to make sure
the planted billets weren’t exposed to the
birds…she would do this out in the burning sun
all day with my great grandfather. She would leave
their little baby in a covered basket at the end
of each row and then just move him over when they
moved on to the next one. When I say ‘burning sun’
it is like if you reached out you could touch the
surface of the sun. Nothing in Hungary compares to
that. Still, that’s the life they had, and the
family still farms their now…to the third
generation and hopefully a fourth.They originally
carved the farm out of thick forest, using hand
saws, chains and horses.
@Cin – What you said about your brother reminded me of something I remembered seeing on the TV in Australia. Simply unbelievable!
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewvideo.php?id=w6qWgySdVVg&tid=144173
CG: Thankfully we never had a plague quite like
that. I remember that one though. I’ve seen
footage of farmer trying to burn them out with
flame-throwers…pretty gruesome.
-
I’m so glad my family weren’t farmers in the
southern regions of Australia…they get the worst
of it. Droughts, mice plagues, at the moment
they’re preparing for what might be the worst
locust plague in living memory. My uncle was very
lucky to recover from weil’s disease earlier this
year, so it was a good reminder that being a
farmer anywhere is not so easy.
-
Our biggest worry was probably the weather. I’ve
lived through 7 serious cyclones, which let me
tell you, can be pretty exciting.
Maybe our American friends here should travel to New York to watch the new performance of “Angels in America”.
http://www.broadway.com/shows/angels-america-millennium-approaches/buzz/153469/angels-in-america-extends-a-second-time-through-february-20/
And bob should watch the opera written by Peter Eötvös based on Kushner’s play …
http://www.operatoday.com/content/2010/03/angels_america_.php
And They Have The Nerve To Scream ‘Racist’ At Everyone Else
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/40284-and-they-have-the-nerve-to-scream-racist-at-everyone-else
‘Goyim [non-Jews] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.
In Israel, death has no dominion over them … With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant … That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.
Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi [lord and master] and eat. That is why gentiles were created.’
- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of the Shas Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator, quoted in the Jerusalem Post.
Since the mayor of the Western Hungary town Pápa was appointed to become head of the regional Kormányhivatal (Government’s Office), a local election was held today in Pápa.
The Fidesz candidate won by 58%, MSZP got 35%, Jobbik got 7%.