Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Before the discussions here escalate again, I want to report completion of the house demolition. Everything went quite well, but only because I was involved every day, and by that I don’t mean hands in pockets and a seat on the podium, but rubber boots and in the dirt. The challenge was maneuvering the excavator on the virtually non-existent outdoor areas. With numerous old tires and wooden planks from the demolition house, it also succeeded without the sidewalk needing a new surface. When digging out the strip foundations, and due to a driver change in the excavator, on Saturday we still had to dig out and chip away about 3 tons of foundations at the last minute. Costs remained within the negotiated framework except for the last construction waste container, a few cans of diesel for the excavator, and small items (~ total 1k). Now there is still a trailer full of residual waste and the shed to be disposed of, then this milestone will finally be reached. Since I was very interested in finishing on time, I did not hesitate to make myself useful for a few days. Along the way, I learned a lot about the excavator and its attachments as well as the technology behind them. I can now change the tools in my sleep ;-). I found the concrete breaker fascinating. The excavator picks up the part like a shovel and a movable steel plate in this "shovel" crushes the chunks down to about the size of a tennis ball. In one day, the entire concrete was shredded. The concrete debris was then driven directly to a construction site where filling was necessary. I found that fascinating because I assumed that all of it would end up in the landfill. I was also told that the old wood is thermally recycled. So about 50% of the materials used in the old house have an additional purpose and don’t end up in some heap that grows endlessly.

I didn’t want to start a media discussion at all. I also didn’t mean to say that our public broadcasters are not somewhat "biased," if you can put it that way. I think that’s clear to all of us, even though opinions on "how much" probably vary widely. But it’s a whole different story when the public broadcasters in your country a) are the only ones left, and b) claim that what your country is doing militarily is legitimate and right, while __ the ENTIRE UN __ agrees that it is an internationally illegal war of aggression.

I didn’t want to start a media discussion at all. I also didn’t mean to say that our public broadcasters aren’t somewhat "biased," if you can put it that way. I think we all agree on that, even if opinions on "how much" probably differ greatly. But it’s a whole different ball game when the public broadcasters in your country a) are the only ones left, and b) claim that what your country is doing militarily is legitimate and right, while the __ ENTIRE UN __ agrees that it is an illegal war of aggression.

What you didn’t want to do, however, you have started with this post. I basically agree with you on all points. However, it is very noticeable how Western media perceive the war compared to 2003, when there was an illegal invasion of Iraq. Back then, the media in the USA were all pro, and ours were divided. We had both pro and contra. What is happening in Russia is nothing different than what happened in the USA in 2003. The current war causes me immense pain and sorrow.

That the public broadcasters had the mandate to discredit the party by all possible means when the AfD nationwide had an ever-increasing voter approval at the time.

Can you provide the source for that? I would find it interesting to read exactly, but I can't find anything.

We had pros and cons. What happened in Russia is nothing other than what happened in the USA in 2003.

Sorry, this really is the wrong forum for political discussions, but this cannot be left as it is.
In 2003, the USA overthrew a cruel dictator under false pretenses, Russia is conducting a brutal war of aggression against a democratic country with the declared goal of destroying it and annexing land.
Both are violations of international law, both are wrong, but otherwise the differences could not be greater ☹

Can you name the source there? I would find it interesting to read exactly, but I can't find anything.

I just checked again. Kai Gniffke SWR director. Links are not allowed to be posted here.