recogitare.com

Another day, another shooting.

Sweet home Alabama...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/4- ... 305e&ei=32

Obviously just sprayed an area with machine gun fire.

And it's nowhere near St Valentine's Day.

Another Kentucky courthouse shooting happened in Letcher County. Sheriff shot (killed) the judge.
There was also "the Kentucky shooter" incident, of a guy shooting at cars with murder in his heart. He was found suicided after days of searching the woods.

stanky wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:30 am Another Kentucky courthouse shooting happened in Letcher County. Sheriff shot (killed) the judge.
There was also "the Kentucky shooter" incident, of a guy shooting at cars with murder in his heart. He was found suicided after days of searching the woods.

I never did read anything about motive on the freeway shooter guy. Just another asshole with a gun who decided to kill random folks, or was there something else? I know they id'ed the suspect very quickly, but never said anything more about him.


According to police, the Alabama shooting was someone paid to kill someone else, and he (I think they?) decided the most effective way to achieve the payday was to use a machine gun to shoot the crowd he was in.

And that sheriff/judge thing. Didn't read a motive there, either. There's just too many murders to keep it all straight.

I suspect that a lot of people are angry and depressed; often drug addled...add guns to that scenario, and here we are.

When Americans aren't shooting each other, they're suing each other.

Here in America, we have plastic recycling. Except, we barely have plastic recycling, really. Most plastics either are not recyclable, or they could only be recycled if enough very similar plastics were collected together, with no contamination from other products, including from other kinds of plastic. So, in practice, we dump a bunch of plastics into our recycling bins which the municipal garbage collectors pick up, and most of it ends up in landfills or incinerators, but people like my wife feel good about helping to save the planet by recycling their plastic grocery bags. (They aren't recyclable, but after telling her that a few times, and saying they should be put in the regular trash, I realized this was not a path to domestic happiness, so I dutifully carry the collected bags to the recycling bin.)

However, California has a solution to the problem: Sue Exxon-Mobil!

Yep. It's their fault because, not only do they make the stuff, they also brag about recycling it.

Some plastics are, indeed, recycled, but the Attorney General of California thinks that not enough is recycled to justify ads that say that plastic recycling is good for the planet - or whatever it is that Exxon says. So, it's not the fault of state and local government initiatives that provided recycling services to the citizens, at taxpayer expense. It's Exxon-Mobil's fault because........well I'm not sure, but it is.

And besides. They have lots of money. They won't miss it.

(Full disclosure: I own a couple of thousand dollars worth of Exxon-Mobil stock.)

One thing to add. In the article, it gave examples of other plastic recycling related lawsuits, including ones where a producer of consumer products sold their goods as recyclable, but in fact they weren't. I'm perfectly ok with those sorts of lawsuits. There's literal deception going on, and that's bad. Even there, I think plain old fines are a better mechanism, but that's quibbling.

I object to the Exxon-Mobil lawsuit because there's nothing false in their advertising and, moreover, the real culprits in the recycling case is governments who encourage recycling of goods that they know, or ought to know, are not recyclable.

MM says: "One thing to add. In the article,"

Missed the citation here, could you post it again?

Here's a trick.

In the middle of the "chasing arrows" logo there's a number. Only the numbers 1 and 2 - which are PET and HDPE. The other numbers - 3 to 7 - are technically recyclable, but they're either economically unfeasible or the process is too difficult, or makes a poor quality product. Of the plastic you chuck into the recycling bin, only 1 and 2 will actually be recycled.

Source

sparks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 4:28 am MM says: "One thing to add. In the article,"

Missed the citation here, could you post it again?

Sorry. I forgot to post the link, and I can't find that speciic story. However, there are lots of others. Here's one:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california ... uit-exxon/


What's missing from that one is the stories I mentioned about other lawsuits. In those lawsuits, Hefty and Keurig, among others, but those were two companies I remembered, were sued because they included claims on the packaging that the products they sold were recyclable, but they aren't. It's simple fraud.

What the current lawsuit is alleging is that Exxon claims some plastic can be recycled, but in reality some platic cannot be recycled, and for the stuff that can, it's sometimes too expensive to make it actually happen.

Now, of course, Exxon's advertising could mislead stupid people. The State of California's advertising could also mislead stupid people. Across the nation, and the world, governments have touted their recycling programs and provided free bins for recycling or in some cases even made recycling mandatory, despite the fact that recycling the way that the governments promote doesn't work. That's not Exxon's fault.

But politicians can make claims about taking on big corporations, and morons will praise them for doing it.

ETA: And what makes this a "Planet America" story is the litigation aspect. Politicians go along with bad ideas, and promote bad ideas, and run for election based on bad ideas, and then sue deep pocketed corporations because it was a bad idea.