11,99 €
No AI, No AI translated by Eduard Wagner
Other views Q4 2023-1
Every day there are events where one can have a different opinion. Therefore, I would like to present a more differentiated view in this book. I'll leave it up to you as a reader to decide how you feel about it.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024
Far be it from me to attack or judge anyone here. Rather, it is my view of things, as I interpret it below. It may well be that one or the other thinks that this is a radical view of things. But sometimes it seems to me that you bury your head in the sand. Not reacting will resolve itself. I think this thread runs through the whole of the Scriptures. As I said, this is not paternalism of anyone, but my opinion on various things at home and abroad.
October 2023
You're already used to a lot from this person. Only the fact that he, because he has to appear before an independent court, insults the judge and the prosecutor in the worst possible way, is an intensification of this person's choice of words. Of course, like every other citizen of this country, the presumption of innocence applies to him. The judiciary, as far as Europe can be seen, is independent in America, and when accusations are made, these organs must also have facts and evidence in order to articulate such an accusation. We had already heard from him in the last election that he had been disadvantaged in this vote. However, close investigations have revealed exactly the opposite, namely that this election was carried out in accordance with the relevant laws. How far does this man's sense of democracy go? It is highly questionable whether he will be able to win the next presidential elections. However, if this is true, then the image of the largest democracy is already very damaged as far as the rest of the world is concerned. After all, American legislation also makes it possible to govern from prison, whether this is in the interest of the citizen is hardly to be assumed.
It's interesting how people in America deal with people who don't agree with other politicians. Said McCarthys was speaker of the House of Representatives and had probably with a lot of effort brought about a majority that prevented a financial collapse in one of the largest economies. For this, he was rewarded with impeachment. Just imagine the impact it would have had if he hadn't brought about this vote. Not only would payments from the American budget be frozen, but this would also have catastrophic consequences for the global economy. How far do individual politicians go in their thinking, what they achieve with such obstructions? It is only a stopgap solution to the economic problems of this country and will apparently have to be dealt with again in mid-November, but at least the state of the USA can carry on again. The extent to which savings in expenditure are thought of is probably of secondary importance. However, rethinking spending from the financial budget will certainly not be a major issue there, as it is in other countries around the world. Only it is not always possible to spend, but should also think about whether these are justified or not.
Does something have to happen again and again in order to create appropriate laws and regulations, or is it also possible with "common sense"? The background is that in Austria we have 9 federal states, but also in each of these countries we have different regulations regarding leashes and muzzles. This is probably due to federalism, which is the only way to ensure the safety of the citizen, who, as in this particular case, died. If, in this context, one hears the statement that such list or fighting dogs are "weapons", one can hardly deny this. In addition, there is also the question of whether such animals are also bred. It should be possible to pass a uniform law for 9 federal states, which, for example, stipulates a muzzle as well as the obligation to keep dogs on a leash in public before people are killed again.
This is how it can work if there are always such outdated nuclear reactors. Not only is the production of energy one of the most expensive, but it is also not exactly squeamish about safety. If, however, a member of the Union also relies on this type of electricity generation, then there is the question of how this country intends to regulate the disposal of fuel rods, because this is not a problem of the next generation, but rather one that will occupy this planet for millennia to come. To date, no solution has been found, but attention is still being paid to the expansion of nuclear reactors. If alternative energies were to be pushed forward, this would be beneficial to global warming and also an opportunity for the future of the earth. As is the case again and again, individual lobbies will probably have to push through their interests in order to push their own profits. Do such groups not think at all about the continued existence of this planet?
Once again, a conflict that has been waiting for a solution for a long time is escalating into a war. How many more locations must there be that would end in war? In Grenada, for example, an attempt was made to get the parties to the conflict in the current war zones around the same table, but what was the result? The countries involved were not even willing to sit down at the table and discuss the settlement of the conflict. An example of such ignorance is Russia's aggressive annexation of neighbouring Ukraine. War has been going on for so long and in the course of time the fronts are hardening so much that it seems almost impossible to come close to a solution. Are we going the wrong way? First to make an act of war and then, perhaps, to negotiate a ceasefire in the distant future. It is not the people who instigate such actions, but rather the population. The rulers, to whom the people seem to be unimportant, have always "judged" it as far as their physical well-being was concerned.