Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

McCarthy, getting feisty, allegedly elbowed a Republican colleague and critic in the back while the colleague was being interviewed, who then proceeded to chase after him.

[McTraveller]

New York state is suing Pepsi Co because its residents litter.  (Note: PepsiCo is headquartered in NY State)

This... sounds ridiculous, to hold a company responsible for the behavior of citizens.  I mean I guess, yes, if you don't make a product, then people can't abuse its packaging?  I'm not even sure how a company could reduce litter by piece count even if it reduced the amount of plastic mass in the packaging.

I know I know, people try to hold other companies responsible for misuse of their products, but this... I mean, you're basically saying that the consumer has no personal responsibility and are putting it all on the manufacturers with this.  Why would a consumer even bother trying to dispose of their trash properly, when they know the manufacturer has to foot the bill for clean-up?  And of course the consumer will scream about how much the stuff costs.

This is not the world in which I want to live... this is not even close to industrial dumping or anything, this is just... I don't even know what this is.

EDIT: Linky

More Edit:  The suit allegedly includes charges like "didn't adequately warn consumers about the dangers of plastic packaging" and "misled consumers about the company's efforts to reduce plastic use."

[Random_Dragon]

Well that's...interesting. You can't just post something that blursed and NOT link any kinda source. :V

[Starver]

I seem to recall a past initiative somewhere in the UK for certain Drive-Through meals to have the receiving car's registration printed on the packaging before being handed over. Not quite sure how that went(/is going), with all caveats about how easy it is to render deliberately-littered packaging unidentifiable (if littering is not just carelessness) or how hard it would be to roll out to 'pedestrian' purchases (like bottles from vending machines, or even 24-packs of cans from your local mom'n'pop cash'n'carry).

But clearly there's always room for improvement in any scenario. Perhaps this pivots more on not really bothering to do any of the simple measures (guilt-tripping customers with more prominent "Dispose of properly!" messaging, e.g.) and thus painting a huge unbiodegradable target on their back.

(Written without full understanding of how these things happen in the US. It could also be an otherwise irrelevent "political flex" of the kind that impinges upon legal procedings on occasion.)

[nenjin]

Normally I reject the phrase "government overreach" because the people saying it are usually fools.....but honestly this sounds like a fishing expedition by NY State for dollars they aren't making in taxes. I'm curious how quickly this will get thrown out when it fails a reasonableness standard.

[Random_Dragon]

It could even be retaliation for some specific incidence of typical corporate tax evasion shenanigans, underneath their stated motives.

Anyway, have a source since you didn't deliver on that. Article indicates they've been complaining about multiple companies with PepsiCo just being the one they've decided to hit with a suit (maybe more will follow, who knows), with a mention of misleading statements about their packaging.

So corporate fuckery probably factors in here at some point regardless of NY's motive.

[hector13]

George Santos has been found to have defrauded his campaign by the House Ethics Committee.

The panel found the Republican congressman from New York "blatantly stole from his campaign" and exploited "every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit".

In its report, the ethics committee, which is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, found that Mr Santos reported fictitious loans to his political committees in order to induce donors to make further contributions to his campaign.

He then diverted campaign money to himself as "repayments" of those fictitious loans, it found.
According to the report Mr Santos also:

• Spent campaign money on Botox treatments, luxury fashion purchases, trips to Atlantic City and Las Vegas, vacations in the Hamptons, and even his own rent
• Recorded 37 expenses of exactly $199.99 - one cent below a threshold set by law that requires campaigns to keep receipts
• Was "frequently in debt, had an abysmal credit score, and relied on an ever-growing wallet of high-interest credit cards to fund his luxury spending habits"
• Hired one of his own companies to work for his campaign. The company, RedStone, paid Mr Santos at least $200,000, which he used to pay credit card debt and make purchases from companies including Hermes, OnlyFans and Sephora
• Claimed to own multiple properties and a luxury car. The report states: "At no point does Representative Santos appear to have owned a Maserati, despite telling campaign staff otherwise."

He won’t stand for re-election next year, but hopefully his colleagues decide to oust him long before then. Two Republicans and a Democrat have brought forward motions to expel him.

[nenjin]

Fuckin' hang him.

[Starver]

I still get George Santos mixed up with George Soros, when suddenly sprung upon out of nowhere by his name, which made much of what was said just there quite mystifying for several moments until I corrected my internal reconstruction of who was doing/saying what.

[Telgin]

It's honestly incredible that Santos hasn't been expelled already.

[Maximum™]

It really isn't surprising given he's in a party that is still dutifully following a disgusting orange fascist bitchbaby.

Said bitchbaby seems to have gotten a bit of help from Cannon in delaying parts of his trial until after primary voting starts I think.


Also, I fail to see why companies which have been successfully pushing off the costs of their harmful actions on everyone else suddenly being held responsible for shit their customers do is a bad thing.

If CEOs were dragged out and put in stocks before being pelted with litter their customers deposited it would be absolutely fair play, fuck those pricks, don't feel sorry for them, they will not return the favor.

Think about the phrasing of climate change mitigation: there is absolutely NOTHING you or I can do to alter it, because all of our impacts are minimal, and any methods put forward based on individual actions by all of us non-wealthy schlubs are pointless.

Now, a billionaire flying all over the goddamn place in a private jet, keeping their various homes heated/cooled whether they are around or not, and running massive companies who are actually responsible for doing all the shit they try to foist the blame off on us for?

THEY can take individual actions which matter, but won't, and won't be held accountable for this until we stop buying their lies.

[McTraveller]

Hey hey, I did add a link in an edit....


The problem isn't holding companies accountable - the problem is that it basically lets individuals do whatever they want.  It's a huge problem with US culture at the moment.

"No no, you don't have to be responsible for anything, just blame governments (but only of the party/nation we don't like!) or Companies or the Rich or $Foreigners!"


Carl's Junior. Carl's Junior. Carl's Junior. Carl's Junior. Carl's Junior. 

[Frumple]

I mean, if pepsi actually has been lying about its efforts to reduce plastic pollution, it probably should be on the hook for something. There's pretty good odds the folks putting through the lawsuit think they have a case.

Framing the issue as letting individuals do whatever they want is weird, though. Part of the lawsuit appears to actively be about making it easier for individuals to positively manage their behavior. That's like the exact opposite of what you seem to be suggesting is a problem.

[McTraveller]

What is so hard about the general public just throwing their stuff in the appropriate trash  or recycling receptacles?  This is what I mean.  How does the lawsuit make it easier for people to throw stuff in the trash?  I mean are they saying they are going to require companies to not just produce their products, but also be a waste management company, we'd have massive systematic inefficiency.

Sure I guess I can buy an argument about "misleading investors about efforts to reduce plastic use" but that doesn't have anything to do with litter ending up in a river.

Litter ending up in a river has only to do with consumers or shady waste management companies. It has nothing to do with Pepsi or any other plastic producer.  You'd end up with litter that's paper, wax paper, glass, plastic, metal... it's just grandstanding.

[Schmaven]

Well, if I were on a mission to erradicate guns from the country, I would find this way of suing a pepsi for people littering with pepsi products very similar to sueing into oblivion the gun companies that make firearms used in crimes.  It's no different really, so from a legal perspective, you'd have set the precedent.