Other views 2022 to 2024 E-Book

Wagner Eduard

• Herausgeber: BookRix
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

Here I describe events that happen every day in society, politics and the economy. Order directly at: [email protected] , , , ,
 

Das E-Book Other views 2022 to 2024 wird angeboten von BookRix und wurde mit folgenden Begriffen kategorisiert:
Economy, war, peace, society, politics

Leseprobe

Foreword

Far be it from me to attack anyone here or to judge anyone. Rather, it is my view of things, as I interpret it below. It may well be that one or the other thinks that this would be a radical view of things. But sometimes it seems to me that you bury your head in the sand. Not reacting, will solve itself. I believe this thread runs through the entire body of writing. As I said, this is not paternalism of anyone, but my opinion on various things at home and abroad.

April 2022

Ukraine war

Is it possible that too much power has been given to a person or is it perhaps the case that a single man can do as he pleases? You have already seen in the course of the last 2 decades how it developed and you have let it do as it pleased. In addition, he was courted by importing raw materials in large quantities. Apparently, nothing has been learned from history. It has often happened that individuals have used power and others have had to suffer for it. I am thinking, among other things, of the 2nd World War or perhaps of the times of the Roman Empire, where people knew how to help themselves by liquidating the despot named Caesar. But that doesn't mean that you eliminate such a person. But in this context, I have to ask myself why we have well-endowed intelligence services that react accordingly. For example, you know how to deal with opponents, and we saw that not so long ago, for example, when a person was killed in an embassy or a dissident disappears in prison for life. It may well be that such actions backfire, but what is the alternative. We are now seeing this in Ukraine, where tens of thousands of people are being massacred and the world is more or less watching as a man wants to crown himself "tsar". In this context, I also cannot imagine that if the whole thing is carried out effectively, anyone else will be tempted to follow in the footsteps of this despot. As I said, this is by no means meant to be a call to eliminate a human being, because it is not up to anyone to carry it out. The basic evil, in my opinion, is that you give too much power to a person, which has proven to be a mistake time and time again in history. Of course, this president should not lack money, so he has to look for further influence and what is easier than to secure power and expand it. Only the whole thing has an expiration date and such people, as the past shows us, usually do not have a high life expectancy, let alone a natural death. It is only during the lifetime of such people that the people have to suffer from it, and I do not see that.

May 2022

Advertising

It always amazes me when you say in an advertisement that stands for a retail chain that there is more Tyrol in it. In my opinion, it is all well and good to refer to one of the nine provinces of Austria, but as I said, our country is made up of more provinces. After all, the FRG does not only consist of Bavaria. If you look into this, you can see that you had sold a retail chain abroad and now it comes to such statements.

Deaths with Covid

It doesn't make sense to me how it can happen that it is not possible to create exact data on Covid diseases or the resulting deaths. Isn't it the case that the first thing you do when you enter an ordination is asked for an e-card? Of course, this also applies to all other health services. Of course, the social security number is noted on this card and thus, at least in the whole of Austria, there is an indexed number that only exists once. So you have a single number that, in my opinion, can be easily linked. It's clear that the criteria that entail death should be clearly defined, but then I have meaningful data. This material is certainly one that can be used for appropriate evaluations, as well as it should be the basis for political decisions.

Climate change

It always amazes me how long it takes for there to be a movement in society and I don't just mean my homeland, but I do believe that this is an international problem. For years, people have sat back and imported energy from abroad. Yes, the price was probably right, but the whole thing also had the disadvantage of immense dependence on these exporting countries. We are now feeling this accordingly and do not know how to get out of this cycle. Okay, there are alternative energies in the meantime, but it's all going too slowly. When I then learn from the media that 2 thirds of our entire Austrian gas needs are consumed in Vienna and Lower Austria, I have to ask myself why there are so many houses with roofs. In my opinion, these roofs can be used very well for solar panels and, in addition, this does not necessarily disturb the appearance of the environment. In addition, it can be noted that the energy generated can be used in the same building, which in turn would minimize some line construction to and from the building. Yes, the idea of wind turbines is certainly a good one, but it does not necessarily contribute to the appearance of the environment. If you talk about reducing CO2 in this context, then the objectives with periods of more than 10 years are very long. The approaches in this area are good, but in my opinion, this is taking far too long. What natural disasters still have to happen before you finally realize that we are running out of time, it's not five to twelve, it's already twelve o'clock.

Compulsory vaccination

It should be said in advance that I have been vaccinated 3 times. Why? For me, it's not necessarily about my own person, but rather about the fact that I'm always among people. I can get infected as well as infect others. In addition, I see it as my civic duty to protect my environment if I am really ill. I live in this country and therefore have rights and obligations. I see it as one of these duties that I got vaccinated. Apparently, I am one of the few who share my view, otherwise there would have been no need for a political discussion as to whether or not to introduce compulsory vaccination. Certainly has two sides to the point of view. On the one hand, I am certainly against the encroachment on my privacy by legal barriers, but, as I said, the discussion about this could have been avoided if one had fulfilled one's duties as a citizen. It's clear that even after two years of pandemic, we don't know how to deal with it, it has been far too little researched for that. It is only with this dilemma that we will certainly have to live longer. It is also clear that there are side effects with these vaccinations, but I would rather have the risk of suffering from a side effect than hanging on a ventilator for weeks and then perhaps dying. Especially since the percentages of illness from a side effect are lower than falling ill with Covid.

300 hp and more

It may well be that I am of advanced age and therefore may have antiquated views in this regard, but some things in the production of motor vehicles and other technical devices always amaze me. In principle, I think the idea of e-cars is good, although it comes to my mind that the plans for them have been in the "drawer" of the car industry for a long time. The reason for this could be that they wanted to use the resources of oil until they are exhausted. However, the only disadvantage of the whole thing is that this is not necessarily beneficial to our climate, which is reflected again and again in various disasters. Another point I have to mention is that the car industry produces vehicles with excessive engine power. 100 hp is not enough, at least 150 and even more are needed. I remember my first car had 34 hp and that was enough. Yes, more horsepower is an advantage when overtaking, but where am I supposed to drive such a vehicle with more engine power, when there are already speed limits in almost every country. Yes, and then no one can persuade me that the consumption is low, with an engine power of less than 100 hp this would certainly be less, which also benefits the environment. Okay, I have a car with 200 hp, maybe a maximum of 130 km/h and pollute the environment. It's clear and I don't want to blame the industry or society, but apparently a car with a lot of power and a lot of technical bells and whistles is a status symbol that the two groups mentioned take into account. What kind of status symbol was it then, as there were no cars yet?

Quality of technical equipment

If you buy any technical device today, whether it's a computer or a household appliance, you have to consider how long it will last. In the past, a batch had been produced in larger quantities and some devices had been taken out of this production and put through their paces. After that, a verification label was stuck on the whole batch. Apparently, this no longer exists today. There is production in tens of thousands of pieces, perhaps still in Asia, and the entire production goes to the dealer without testing. It may be that putting a production through its paces is costly, but the end customer remembers the manufacturer, where he knows whether he has tested or not. Because if he sees that this device had worked perfectly for years, he will be happy to access this producer again and will be more willing to pay a reasonable price for it.

Throwaway society

Is it the case today that you always have to have the latest device, otherwise you won't be up to date? I can remember something where a laptop was bought new in the appropriate store and after opening it, you had to find that the keyboard was defective. So we stood at this dealer, who received this device without hesitation and handed us a new laptop for it. When I asked what would happen to the broken device, I was told that it would be disposed of at the retailer's headquarters. Yes, what does that mean? Since this is hazardous waste, it should also be disposed of accordingly. Well, yes, so again a bit more hazardous waste somewhere in Africa. What is completely incomprehensible to me, however, is that food is treated even worse. It's not just about the disposal of food in the household, but in my opinion much more about the trade, which thinks at the end of business that the food in question will not be for sale the next day. In my opinion, if this is the fault, it is divided between both sides, i.e. retailers and customers. Some think it won't be for sale the next day, others just want nice goods. Yes, but in the end, the customer pays the price for tens of millions of tons of food ending up in the mill. Can we afford that, because the producer rarely takes back goods?

International food

I am always amazed when I hear or read how food is transported across Europe. It starts with meat, living or dead, and continues with potatoes and the like. We are certainly a stable agricultural country where this does not have to be done. We have enough agriculture that is happy if they could see their products in the trade in their environment. Such food does not necessarily have to be carted through half of Europe. Above all, in my opinion, there is a second aspect, namely that of the cost-benefit calculation for the producer, especially at such low prices, because transport is not exactly cheap and in addition it harms our environment when more and more trucks are on the road with food, which is also available domestically.

Dependencies on foreign countries

Decades ago, it was assumed that domestic production was too expensive, and therefore cheaper production facilities were sought. These were also found in the former Eastern Bloc countries and were therefore relocated there. Well, that went well for a few years, but then it was probably the too high costs that hit it again and so you had to look for even cheaper production facilities. They were also found in Asia and production was moved there. What was not considered, however, was the fact that they made themselves dependent on this production. It's just that Asia isn't just around the corner. In the meantime, a chip is built into almost every technical device or car and they became more and more expensive, until the time when the production facilities also lacked the raw materials for the production of such chips or became fewer and fewer. The whole thing was all before the pandemic. Then came Covid and, in addition, a container ship that blocked the Suez Canal and therefore fueled all this even more. Now we are in 2022 with an additional aggressor who thinks his neighboring state is part of Russia. If I now assume that we will cover a large part of our energy needs abroad, in addition to waiting for deliveries of technical components from Asia, I do not see the future as rosy. Of course, this also has an impact on inflation, which has risen dramatically worldwide and, in my opinion, is far from reaching its ceiling. Does that mean that we are where we were in the 30s of the last century? Only the omens are slightly different from back then. Surely a man came to power who thought he would have to overturn the entire world order with a war. Yes, well or not, we have the same scenario now. We have a power-hungry ruler who thinks that state sovereignty is only something that is written in the books and therefore does not have to abide by it. Furthermore, there is a pandemic that we are far from having under control and, on top of that, galloping inflation. A good mix for another world war. It may be that this view is perhaps too pessimistic, but we should look the facts in the eye.

Corruption

In my opinion, corruption is a rather broad term, but it makes a big difference. It is already clear in our country that this word is used very easily and, above all, quickly. This species can be found all over the world, sometimes more and sometimes less. Doesn't this start in a small circle, where you are not even aware of it. Can't even an invitation to a dinner, for example, be a kind of corruption, because in most cases I expect something from my counterpart, whether these are material or non-material values. In other words, the whole thing starts on a small scale and, of course, goes all the way into politics and beyond. What bothers me in this context, however, is that it is very easy to use this word without any legal basis for it. But what would not be to be interpreted is that I approve of this, both in terms of the invitation to dinner, nor the "arrangements" in wider circles. Because there is much more to it than you might think. If it is a small courtesy that one expects from such an approach, it may well develop into far greater damage for those in positions of responsibility. What I mean by this is that by accepting the favor, there is a great deal of damage to society. In doing so, I do not necessarily include posts, which should under certain circumstances include a prerequisite qualification. What I mean by this is that it is not only party affiliation that counts, but much more the vita of the corresponding candidate should be taken into account. It may well be that there is a parliamentary committee of inquiry, but we also have a functioning judiciary. It lays down what is meant by corruption and how it is punished. In my opinion, the Committee of Inquiry only serves to establish moral misconduct, but isn't that an obsolete model, morality? In such positions, it seems that people are not aware of what they are doing with corruption and any associated squabbling at the expense of the citizen.

General Administration

I do not know how it is structured in other countries, so I can only quote from what it is like in my country. First of all, it should be noted that the scheme has already been adopted from the time of the emperor and has "built up" even more. This may mean that about one-fifth of GDP goes to this area. Now, however, it is said again and again that this administration should be there for the citizen, but is it really so? At times, and here I can look back on several decades of experience, it seems to me that the official is right and the citizen is wrong. Shouldn't it be the case that you could also be right. Furthermore, it also seems to me that the procedure in order to obtain something is artificially extended more and more with hurdles and possibly forms and procedures. We live in the age of the computer, where many things could actually be done in a matter of seconds. But yes, there is the buzzword "digitization". After all, we are already "transparent people", where data about us is stored in a wide variety of places. But yes, that's where the word comes up again in this context: data protection. It's clear that it certainly shouldn't be softened, but you should also remember that you can network data from various offices and, as I said, that's certainly no longer a problem today. Perhaps then some registered letters to modesty will be omitted. At the moment, I am noticing that the administrative apparatus is being inflated more and more. It is true that time does not stand still and that there are always innovations that must also be taken into account. Such changes are only added precisely because they are necessary at the moment and do not take the trouble to see whether this has not already been done in a different form in the past. It may be that this involves a lot of work, but of course the new system is also time-consuming. However, the whole thing has the advantage that this is not bloated too much and can therefore be found more easily.

Weapons

It's interesting how many weapons there are and, above all, how many are still being produced. Somewhere it is understandable to me when I look into the early history of mankind, where people more or less lived from hunting and also produced appropriate weapons. But if I now assume that the world can be destroyed many times over with the weapon potential that is available right now, it runs cold down my spine. There is also a danger, and we are seeing this right now, that these weapons will be used, and I am not necessarily talking about nuclear weapons, because then this planet will be over. It is also interesting to see how tens of millions are invested in the production of such products and forget, for example, about the poor population, such as in Africa. We prefer to put the money into researching new weapons, endangering each other and sending our electronic waste to the "trash can" of Africa. If I now observe this closely, I think there are 2 scenarios. The first is that we continue in the same way and that there are more likely to be uprisings by poorer sections of the population in the short term, which then lead to a world war, and the second would be that we shorten the whole thing by trying out all the weapons right away, because why do we have them? Yes, but as I said, then it would be over with planet Earth. The human species, and of course I have to count myself among them, apparently only shows power with new and many weapons. In my opinion, animals are more intelligent than any human being. At least they only kill when they need it for their lives, but humans have a different view of things. He shows his power with a lot of money and weapons and has the urge to use these weapons as well. How crazy is that? But well, I also belong to this kind of living being. The money we are investing in research into new weapons would probably be better invested if we invested it in waste avoidance and thus relieved Africa, for example, of hazardous waste and electronic waste.

Migration

I know that this is an emotional issue, but I would still like to mention a few things here. Perhaps it will give one or the other a different way of looking at things. When my parents were expelled from the former Yugoslavia at the end of the 2nd World War under armed force and the threat of death, they ended up in Vienna. The background was that they were Danube Swabians and therefore their mother tongue was also German. They were received in 1944 with the words: Why can you German so well? What do you want here? Sneak home. Well, there was certainly a difference between the year 1944, when everything was bombed, and today's Austria. But I also can't imagine that a migrant today would be given such questions or instructions. At that time, my parents had not received a single "schilling" from the Austrian state, let alone adequate accommodation. They lived for some time in a refugee shelter, where at least 30 people stayed in one room, until they were able to afford a rented apartment on their own. They hadn't made it to wealth over the years, but they had made it to good prosperity. What does it look like today? Our borders are more or less open, which I certainly think is the right thing to do, but there are, among others, the European Union and politicians who believe that we can do it. Some discuss how to divide the refugees among Europe and come to no conclusion, and others practice filling out asylum applications and the corresponding flood of forms that are associated with them. Okay, the nature of migrants is not much different than it is now. Both were expelled from their homeland, some of them by force of arms, in my parents' case it was partisans who wanted to exterminate the German-speaking minority from the north as well as from the south. The only difference is that my parents had to work for everything and did not receive any support from their new home country. Today's refugees receive shelter, food and a little pocket money. What it all costs. I wonder how a citizen of the respective European country comes to support this wave of migration with tax money. Yes, it is always said that there are almost only rich countries in Europe and we can handle it. Is that so? We could actually use the taxes elsewhere where it would probably be more necessary. It is true that if we did not have immigration, the European population would dwindle and therefore a certain amount of immigration would be necessary. There is only one thing I do not understand in this context, why naturalization procedures are dragging on for so long. If I throw a replica to the year 1944 again, my parents were received with said statements and within a very short time they had a roof over their heads and also their own income through work. In this context, I have another report in a recognized German daily newspaper in mind, which really shocked me at the time. It was about the fact that in one of the two great powers (USA and Russia) some billionaires had come together, who provided the refugees from Africa with five-digit amounts of cash. The background was that they could use this money to pay their smugglers from Africa to Europe. These people who had provided this money did so for the reason that they could damage the European Union economically with a large number of migrants. The two great powers do not need a strong Europe geographically. But the calculation didn't seem to work out, at least that's how it seems to me. What is the European Union doing? It discusses how to secure the borders and whether this would be a national or international issue. In addition, a lot of money is made available for this movement, which, as I said, is taxpayers' money. I can only imagine that we, as Europeans, would not be received in the same way in the countries of origin of these refugees, let alone be able to take advantage of such benefits. It is true that we need a certain influx, as our society is shrinking, but this could also be done much less bureaucratically and with less cost and time. If, for example, I reduce the support for migrants to a minimum, and I am not talking about no support, as my parents had experienced, but to one or two months. If no work and roof over the head was found, then the person would have to leave the country again, because how does the citizen come to support the person for months and years. It may sound harsh, but I can imagine that some people are considering emigrating to the EU.

Official secret

If I can say in a letter to the editor today that official secrecy is outdated, then I can only agree with that. As far as I know, this was created in the time of the emperor and is therefore not applicable today. Of course, there are data and facts that should not necessarily be made available to the citizen, but when I think of redacted files that have been forwarded in the past, I wonder why? After all, they were not made available to the citizens, but to parliamentarians who were elected by the people. Do you want to deceive the population and their representatives, or is there something to cover up? I think so, even if I sometimes doubt it, that the people can handle it.

Politician

In my opinion, this profession is one of the most thankless jobs you can do in a state. No matter what you do or speak, there will always be people who don't agree with it. That's right, we live in a democracy where everyone can express their opinion, and that's a good thing, because I don't want to live in an authoritarian state where you have to weigh every word. But if this gets out of hand, where threats and attacks are aimed at the person in question, I wonder what kind of people they are who get carried away with such actions. Did such people not understand democracy, where there is freedom of expression and not attacks on people? I would recommend them to live in a dictatorship for some time and maybe see the difference. Have those people run out of arguments and therefore have to resort to such means?

NATO's eastward expansion

It is true that NATO has pushed ahead with eastward expansion in recent years, but what is the alternative? Wait until an aggressor comes on the scene and thinks he has to liberate his neighboring state from Nazis here and now. What would it look like how NATO would have stayed with its original states? I do believe that the concern of European states to be occupied by these despots will then be much higher. We can see what such a "war" does in the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland, which very quickly revised their attitude towards NATO and are now considering membership. I believe that the basic evil lies elsewhere. After the end of the 2nd World War, it was thought that more had to be put into rearmament. Huge amounts of money have been spent on it. And now? Now there is an arsenal of weapons where you could destroy the earth umpteen times over, but there would be on this beautiful planet and in my opinion, it is, even more important problems, which would be far more urgent than putting even more money into the weapons potential and their research. Above all, the whole thing has a very serious side aspect. Man, and this goes all the way to our origin, always has the intention of trying out what he has found or invented. The only difference to a Neanderthal is that he tested it for his life, today's man is out to test the whole thing for its destructive power. You can see that in the concrete "war of aggression", where you even go so far as to threaten a nuclear strike. What, then, is the reaction of the other states? Well, maybe then you can fire a "small" nuclear bomb at the attacking country. In this context, it is also interesting to see how states such as Iran or North Korea come up with such technologies to produce nuclear weapons? Doesn't a great power have a hand in this? But yes, it's certainly about strengthening or pushing one's own arms industry. But if this is done too excessively by the recipient countries, well, then we impose embargoes on such countries. But who is the victim? Not the despot, who thinks it must arm itself to protect itself from possible attacks, but rather the people. Only this, and this is what history has shown us, will not be put up with by the people forever. Don't you learn anything from the past? It is not necessarily true in democracies, but rather in authoritarian states, such rulers enrich themselves from what the state collects in taxes. Such despots buy sinfully expensive real estate, yachts and the like, the population is allowed to get by with what they have earned through work and that is only a fraction of what rulers appropriate. How long does something like this go well?

Energy

It may well be that we are dependent on energy imports. It was certainly a mistake of the past, but that can't be changed now. Now we should see how we can get replacement supplies for oil and gas, which will certainly not be easy, since other states have the same problem. There is only one thing I don't understand, why does the price of energy have to be based on the most expensive price, i.e. gas. Advertising suggests that electricity is produced from hydropower and renewable energy, and despite all this, the price of electricity is increased even further. Where is the logic in this? This electricity, if I can believe this statement, is produced exclusively in this way. Perhaps it is because the state has a significant stake in such companies. On the one hand, he benefits from higher dividends, on the other hand, from increased tax revenues, which in turn have to be eaten by the consumer. This is contrary to my basic understanding of business. It is already clear that the switch from fossil raw materials to environmentally friendly energy generation does not happen from one day to the next, but why does the customer have to pay more and more?

Repair costs

The idea of a repair bonus, which Austria has introduced, is already something sensible, only the handling "lacks". It is a good idea to avoid a lot of hazardous waste, but where are the companies that carry out such work? There is already a development that did not begin yesterday, but has been going on for years and decades. On the part of the manufacturers or production, when something breaks, it has always been assumed that they will buy a new device. Is probably attributable to the fact that a corresponding profit should come out of every new production. In addition, in some cases, after production, it was not necessary to check the production for errors, which of course entails additional costs. Furthermore, I had to realize that in some devices, such as smartphones and laptops, the chassis are made from one piece. This means that replacing a battery can only be done with a lot of work. In the past, you just provided two hinges for it and you had the battery in your hand. Today it's all in one chassis and you have to open umpteen screws until you get to the battery. This means nothing other than that you have to dispose of the device yourself if it is not already sent to the service partner for hazardous waste. But where does such garbage end up, in the landfill in Africa.

Lungs of the World

It's interesting how some rulers disregard everything. A vital primeval forest is being cut down just for the sake of profit, regardless of losses not only in their own country, but all over the world. Are such people not aware of what they are doing in the face of climate change?

Advertising

It's clear to me that you need advertising to sell products, but lately I've noticed that the whole thing is getting out of hand. When I look at our advertisements on domestic radio and television, for example, it seems to me that they rely more on advertising than information from all over the world. Now, however, it is the case that every participant who enjoys Austrian radio and television also has to pay a fee for it. That's right, too. It's only when I compare the Federal Republic of Germany with us, for example, that it seems to me that there is more information there from all over the world. In our country, it seems that such broadcasts are reduced in time in favor of advertising. It can happen that an advertising slogan is broadcast umpteen times on one evening, although you have already understood it after the first time, especially since the expressiveness of the one is not very high. Is the duty of a public broadcaster to provide information really complied with? On the other hand, you always see new people on radio and television, where I already ask myself some questions about it. The coverage suffers, but as I said, that's my opinion.

Parking space management

Well, now we have a nationwide parking vignette for the whole of Vienna for a short time. But since the beginning, I have not been aware of the meaningfulness of this. If you have more parking space and you will find a parking space earlier. I don't think so. Rather, it is now the case that you now have to search even longer to find a suitable parking space. I understand that if you use the public road network, it costs something, but if the vehicle owner does not already pay enough through various taxes and duties, you just have to take money out of his pocket, just so that he can park near his home. Furthermore, I can also imagine that this cannot necessarily be very profitable for the operator, i.e. the municipality of Vienna, when I think about how many staff are behind it.

Drift to the left or right

How far away are our current politicians from the people, whether they are right, left or center? On the part of those in power, one is only fixated on accumulating more money or striving for more and more power. As a result, however, the opinion of the people is ignored or perhaps no longer heard at all. The population is getting worse and worse from various crises and politicians are almost unaware of this. If I start from the 30 years of the last century, this is a good ground for left-wing or right-wing tendencies. But this had the consequence of a world war. Is this also flourishing for us now? If I now look at all forms of government, only one has actually lasted for thousands of years, and that is democracy. It may be that this one also has its faults, but why is it the form of governance that has outlived all the others? Is it freedom of expression, or perhaps the prosperity that has come from this way of governing? If there are then a wide variety of tendencies that pull in one direction or the other, it may already be noted that those people in our democracy are not doing so badly after all. Why, then, do they follow left and right directions, have they forgotten history? How long has a Greater Germany existed and how long can a communist structure exist? But yes, there are always people in history who can move entire peoples with their rhetoric, just as it was in the past and is also evident in the present. Should such people not be shown in time that they are going in the wrong direction? Because, as the saying goes, power comes from the people. As I said, democracy is not necessarily the best either, but it has proven itself over thousands of years, can the same be said of a dictatorship or communism?

Levy for vacant dwellings

When I walk through my city, I am always fascinated by how many apartments are empty. However, this applies not only to the private sector, but also to the sector of cooperatives, condominiums and municipal housing. I don't have the logic to do this, because the operating costs, for example, even if the premises are empty, have to be paid. However, these cannot be transferred to the other tenants, but the respective owner of the property has to pay for it. In this context, however, I don't know whether this pays off for the owner. Okay yes, it may certainly be an investment property, but are the monthly expenses for an unused apartment in relation to what might come out of an increase in the value of the property. The way I see it in my city, more and more are being built at the expense of grassland. Then you have to discuss green spaces, where they should be created, because in summer the whole thing gets too hot. Well, yes, something concreted over is covered with trees again and it is believed that it would be beneficial to our climate. In the center of cities you have vacant apartments and on the edge one new settlement after the other shoots out of the ground. I can already imagine that revitalizing or renovating an existing rental property will be cheaper than building something new. Could also have a corresponding impact on the infrastructure as well as on the cost of rent.

NATO accession

If Finland and Sweden are seeking to apply for membership of NATO, I fully understand that. Especially in the case of Finland, which has a common border of 1300 km with Russia, there can always be "incidents". One can expect a lot from such a ruler in terms of chemical, biological and nuclear attacks on other countries. But if the common border of about 2000 km borders on states that belong to a military alliance, I can already imagine that this intimidates such a person. With this military assistance pact, this aggressor would suddenly face 32 states. It may well be that he will not necessarily stand idly by, but Finland, for example, would feel safer with this, because this ruler cannot be trusted. Whether he feels threatened or not, I dare to doubt. I don't think this will lead to escalation, at least not at the military level. He believes that he would have other means of exerting pressure, if I only think of oil and gas. The calculation will not work out only for him, since the Western states are united in their face to this, which fascinates me, because who would have thought that this would have been possible about half a year ago. In addition, Russia is dependent on foreign currency, because how could it finance this war? But if it really comes to a scenario where Western troops meet Russian troops, then the whole thing will be done anyway and we would have the next world war. Only then would you have to test all the weapons, because why do you have them? But then the Earth era would also be over and that really can't be in the interest of humanity.

Life in Russia

If I can follow the reports from this country, a majority of the population is still united behind their president. Only the sanctions imposed by Western countries are already having an effect on the lives of these citizens, if I assume double-digit inflation, for example. Furthermore, of course, the fallen soldiers, who had to follow this argument of a "war of aggression", return to their homeland. I do believe that in the meantime this will have to be a few thousand soldiers. We, as well as the Russians, will never know exact figures. What is interesting in this context is that the aggressor repeatedly draws a comparison to a Nazi regime. But I do think that on the one hand this was an excuse to invade the neighboring country and on the other hand, what does he want? Is there such a big difference between a person who commands a Nazi regime and a despot who holds on to power with the security apparatus? But how long does something like this go well, history should teach us otherwise. Every ruler and I call him that and not a politician, can only remain in power as long as the people are behind him. In Russia, he can still unite the population behind him, but for how long? If the country then rebels in the face of rising prices and fallen soldiers, then such a person can only beware, the past has shown us that. Only, as I said, we have watched the goings-on of such people for too long and nothing has been done about it, because this has not been going on since yesterday, but has grown much more over time. I am already thinking of the fact that he had secured power until 2036, which is not necessarily democratic. At the latest, however, one should have reacted in 2014, when he annexed the Crimean Peninsula. I can't march across a neighboring country and appropriate a part of it, no matter what your interests are. What did the world do about it back then?

Shortage of doctors

If I can believe that we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, I have to admit that there has been a lot of movement in recent years, not exactly for the best. For example, if you are looking for a general practitioner who also has a health insurance contract, it can be difficult to find one. Once you have found what you are looking for, you may well hear the statement that you cannot accept new patients. If you have really managed to get an appointment a few weeks later, you may leave the practice within minutes without much analysis. There is hardly any time for a personal conversation about his suffering between the patient and the doctor. If you then perhaps need a specialist, it may be that you will not find a health insurance specialist. Yes, I can also go to this one and put a lot of money on the table for any treatments. It's true that I can submit this amount to my health insurance company. It can only take a few weeks for about a third of the fee paid to be returned. I just don't understand why the first thing you have to do when you enter an office is to pull out your social security card in order to be able to save the probable treatment. Thus, both the doctor and the health insurance company can see what the patient has used. Are we well on the way to a 2nd class medicine? It seems to me that we are starting to save on fees among the panel doctors and, at the same time, are pushing the system of elective doctors. It is questionable whether we are still one of the countries with one of the best health care systems. I can also imagine that a fully qualified doctor will ask himself such questions. Furthermore, in my opinion, there is also the problem of filling a doctor's office in the federal states. If I assume that a general practitioner in Lower Austria, for example, has a catchment area of patients within a radius of 30 km, I wonder whether this is desirable for a young doctor. In addition, I think it's a different kind of relationship between doctor and patient in the federal states.

Guns in the U.S.

How much longer can the gun lobby continue to hold its own in America, or is it even the attitude of the common people? I heard from the media that there are already more weapons than inhabitants. But there had also been a president who encouraged this tendency, even to the point of storming the Capitol. Now, however, as in Europe, there are strong tendencies to both the left and the right. If I can now buy a weapon like a "sausage roll" without any formalities, then this person must also be aware that this is a murder tool. There is not much missing that this weapon is also used, that is in the nature of mankind. If I have a device where I can harm another, sooner or later I will have to use it. I praise our state, which has put a stop to this by providing appropriate laws for it. In America, it seems that various extremes cannot be controlled, but then it should not be surprising if excesses occur where many people are killed. It is also partly understandable if the executive branch tends to extremes or encroachments. But that doesn't mean that I approve of that, but rather that the legislator should come up with something to deal with it. I can imagine that a police officer is frustrated when he sees how various crimes are punished. Unfortunately, however, as I see it, this trend is already on the rise in Europe.

0-Covid policy in China

It is always interesting how to deal with Covid in a communist country. Tens of millions of people are condemned to house arrest and everyone adheres to it. If this were to be attempted in our country, the outcry would be immeasurable. We already have difficulties with simple measures, such as "wearing a mask". This is probably due to the fact that they are different forms of government. Even though I don't necessarily have to have some discussions, I don't necessarily want to be locked up under house arrest like I did there. Only with punishments and imprisonment you can't keep such a lot of people in check. This may go well for some time, but you can't oppress the people forever with measures. But I also think that the mentality in both countries is very different. If, however, there are also supply difficulties in addition to house arrest, this will not exactly be understood and there will be appropriate reactions. In this context, it is also interesting how the virus originated in this country. There will probably never be an answer in this regard. What we do know is that it was born out of research. How this could then spread has not yet been clarified. I just wonder why money is being spent on such research at all, since there are much more urgent research projects that would certainly be more beneficial to the general public. In my opinion, this raises the question of whether this research project is not intended for the development of a biological weapon. Apparently, it is more important to put money into science that harms people than to serve the general public.

Reconstruction Ukraine

How can it be that you first lay waste to a country and then you go here and rebuild it with an enormous amount of money? Does such a damaged country still have the means to do so, when so many billions have been invested in the defense of its homeland? It is true for a state to spend money on its defense, but where does the money for reconstruction come from? Billions of dollars in weapons are being supplied by Western states, where I also assume that they will be paid for by Ukraine. But what about after the end of the war? Do you calculate profits in the rest of the world if you support this state with money or is that perhaps a boost to the economy? First you destroy a country and then you give that country loans for reconstruction. But what is the consequence of all this? First you support a state to defend itself against an aggressor with weapons, and then you give it money so that the country can be rebuilt. In this case, however, these are enormous sums, where Ukraine is likely to become dependent again. This is incomprehensible to me. I mean this is called the global economy.

The principle of unanimity in the EU

This reminds me very much of the times of the heyday of communism, where there was and still is 100 percent approval, i.e. in principle a form of unanimity. Now we have 27 states, which of course look at their national requirements and therefore repeatedly speak out against proposals in votes. It's a good thing if you can be your interests, but that the number of all countries would be of the same opinion, that will probably never matter. This may mean nothing other than rethinking this principle, because it only takes unnecessary time to bring the respective country into line. But where does the EU stand today? Are we now an economic network of 27 states, or is everyone once again cooking their own soup, as we have often heard? If, conversely, Brussels comes up with a law which, for example, stipulates the curvature of the banana or bans the word 'jam', I wonder whether such decisions are vital. In my opinion, we should concentrate much more on the point of becoming a unit vis-à-vis the great powers, because then we can be perceived as such. Now the Schengen area and the distribution of migrants are being discussed there and no agreement can be reached. It may well be that every single member has to take national sensitivities into account, but if you don't think about radical solutions, hardly anything will change in this community. If I use North America with its states, I can't get much out of this form either. I'm just thinking of the legislation and the resulting jurisprudence, where almost every state has different laws. In this respect, the EU with its legal framework is structured differently. It's true that about 80% of our laws are passed in the EU Parliament and the rest in the individual member states, but there is also a framework where they adhere to it, no matter in which EU country they currently live. This legislation will then apply to every EU member. But what I think would be more important is to turn to a more difficult matter, and there is enough of that, if I think of the climate crisis, for example. This topic is only half-heartedly discussed, with exit scenarios that lie beyond the decade limit. A wide variety of measures should be taken immediately and not tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, time is running out. Well, it is already clear that once again there are a wide variety of lobbies that cannot be upset, because they are beneficial to the gross domestic product. It is only in this context that I do not understand at all how individual states can classify nuclear energy as green. Have you forgotten about the safety risk or is there already a safe disposal of the waste that arises from it? No. This brings me back to what I meant at the beginning with the principle of unanimity. Fortunately, we in Europe live in democracies where everyone can and should express their opinion, both the citizen and his elected representative. I can't really imagine that a referendum would result in a majority in favor of nuclear energy, and many politicians should ask themselves that.

Austria's accession to NATO

I am also one of those who are in favor of neutrality, but we should also bear in mind the current situation. Finland and Sweden have also been neutral or non-aligned for years and decades. The State Treaty of 1955 and the perpetual neutrality associated with it had certainly brought something to our country, and that in all respects. But even the states mentioned were against joining NATO some time ago. Well, that's not so easy to compare, because some of these countries have common borders or are even neighboring states of an aggressor. But let's take a look at our history, weren't they also "annexed" by one of our neighboring states, whether we wanted to or not. However, the conditions of these countries are also fundamentally different, for example as far as the state of the respective army is concerned. We had apparently invoked our neutrality and more or less starved our army, in the sense that nothing can happen to us, we are neutral. However, current history shows us that such things cannot be relied upon. But that doesn't mean that we have to follow any defensive structure immediately and immediately. In my opinion, this means that we have so many resources that could be used all over the world, so we don't necessarily have to serve as weapons. The comparison may be flawed, but what about Ukraine? From the very beginning of the campaign of conquest of neighboring Russia, the President of Ukraine begged for help, and not just for weapons. They were allowed to come, but of course not soldiers who defend the foreign country. This is also a good thing in our sense, because then we would certainly have a world war. In Brussels, there is a discussion about setting up a European army, but if it takes as long as it is customary in the EU, perhaps our children and grandchildren will have it. Suppose there is an entry of enemy troops into our country, what is the consequence? Our Armed Forces will certainly not be able to resist this for long, as they have too few resources to do so. I'm not even thinking about our airspace surveillance, because as far as I know, we only have a handful of operational interceptors at our disposal. An aggressor in the "Putin" format probably doesn't care whether you're neutral or not. Whether we are then supported by the Western states with weapons or soldiers will then fail because of our neutrality. In this context, it should also be possible to think about adapting this neutrality.

Keyword Zeitenwende

Now, since the war in Ukraine, we once again have a new buzzword, dubbed a "turning point". Yes, but what is meant by this term? Does this only refer to the balance of power between the superpowers or is there more to it? It may well be that the map is shifting between West and East, but in my opinion, there is more to it. Weren't we really happy when the blocks began to crumble a good three decades ago, among other things with the fall of a wall? Now, however, there is again the tendency to turn back time due to people who refresh themselves in hegemony and one believes that the old blocks have to be restored again. In the past, it may have been a guarantee that you could live in peace or not. Only such a change of direction entails many risks. However, such a "turnaround" also involves much more than just geographical changes. When I think of the grain deliveries from the warring nations, which are being blocked, I wonder how they can be used to supply the starving population in Africa. I'm even talking about trading such staple foods on the stock exchange, which I have always considered unethical and moral. Yes, and there is also a pandemic that will certainly keep us busy for some time to come. I don't even want to talk about a climate crisis under this term, because we are already on the best track to destroy planet Earth if a radical rethinking in this area is not carried out immediately and immediately. But you always have to take various lobbies into account, as there could be votes in the next election that will be lost. But I am sure that there is a lot "inside" in the area of climate protection in terms of profit and a better environment. Perhaps there will have to be some major environmental catastrophes before we finally react. As far as inflation or inflation is concerned, I think this is also homemade. If such an aggressor had been put in its place earlier, we would not be under pressure in terms of energy sources or food, for example. Of course, there are again people who capitalize on such a bottleneck, sad but true. Are we here in the 30 years of the last century? If you don't make rigorous changes, it almost looks like it. Only after the 2nd World War did the earth remain. I can remember a quote that said: It is in the nature of man that he has to start a war after about 50 years. But now we haven't had one for almost 80 years. Instead, we have a person who thinks he has to conquer a neighboring country, a climate crisis, a pandemic and, last but not least, exploding inflation. I don't think much more is possible.

Chat messages

I am always amazed at how many messages are written that are sent there. Maybe, and that may sound conservative, in the past people met and discussed it face to face. That's right, such messages are easy to write and reach several people than in a personal conversation. Only if such communications are in the thousands, they also require a certain amount of time. If I then also question the people who make such statements, I wonder whether they shouldn't go about their work during this time, because that's what they get money for. However, this does not only apply to politicians and leaders of a "color", but much more to all people who are in the public eye. Is this perhaps a curse of "digitization"? In addition, parliamentary committees of inquiry are being set up to deal with this matter. Of course, in my opinion, such news is certainly not entirely flawless in terms of morality or ethics, but this committee cannot find more than these two things. Only such a day in the committee of inquiry also costs the taxpayer a lot. If such chats have really led to violations of the law, then we have an "independent judiciary", even if I sometimes doubt that. I do believe that, for both reasons, such as the author and the committee, the time and money could be used for something else.

Gender debate

When I look at and hear the reporting, it always annoys me what "crazy ideas" you come up with. Soon there will have to be someone "attached" everywhere, otherwise it will be discriminatory. What is this? We have had our language for a long time and, as far as I know, no one has felt disadvantaged if the supplement was missing. Now we seem to have the time to make such excesses socially acceptable.

Burkini in the bathroom