I don't often report good news here, but it seems the government - or at least part of it - is finally doing something about the environment.
Check out a ruling from the U. S. Court of Federal Claims called Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States. It seems the Department of Defense "embarked on a quest" to create a "lead-free bullet that was less harmful to the environment than its predecessor but still just as lethal."
We can shoot all the polar bears we want and still not contaminate the icebergs!
And the ammunition is not just environmentally friendly, but it can kill you in more than one way. "(T)he nose or tail portion can be engineered to carry a chemical payload, such as an anti-coagulant or tracking agent, which may be released upon hitting a soft target."
Soft targets, by the way, are defined as people or animals.
OK, the blood is messy, but it's biodegradable. You can use it for your compost heap. This is the way recycling is supposed to work.
You may be wondering what the litigation was about. It seems that a munitions company claimed the Defense Department infringed on its patent for the bullet design. And there was also what must have been a horrible blow to the corporation's psyche: the plaintiff "avers that the government is unfairly claiming credit for
You do something great for humanity, you want to get a little recognition. Or at least a thank you and royalties. Corporations have feelings, you know, because they're people.
I know there are some skeptics out there reading this who think that people who have been killed by cleverly designed bullets that can fragment inside their bodies might not care so much about the environment.
That just shows how irresponsible they are. There's a reason we're shooting at them.
HEADLINE OF THE WEEK. We have to hand it to the Law Offices of Burg & Brock, Inc. - they (or at least their p.r. people) know how to write an eye-catching headline.
Here it is from a press release last week: "One Los Angeles Personal Injury Law Firm Evens the Playing Field."
That certainly caught my eye. How could this be possible?
Well, apparently they take cases on contingency. Why didn't anybody else think of that?
And then there's this interesting concept from the middle of a long first paragraph in the release:
"In a country where 1% of the entire population controls the vast majority of the wealth, it seems like the rest of us '99-percenters' just can't get a break. Nowhere is this gap more evident than in personal injury law."
I had no idea that the top 1% get 99% of tort verdicts. Someone has to got occupy some courthouses.
And then there's this: "From Occupy Wall Street to the halls of Burg and Brock, Inc., the 'meek of the Earth' are letting their voices be heard."
So Burg and Brock lawyers are meek? I'm not sure I'd want to publicize that.
It's interesting to note that Occupy (fill-in-the-blank) has become a wonderful marketing tool.
This is from a press release issued last week by another law firm: "As the Occupy Oakland General Strike was raging outside the courthouse doors, local business owner, Peter Allen was waiting for a jury to tell a large corporation that
A victory for the people? Maybe the press release writer should have stopped there.
Instead the release goes on to tell us that the plaintiff has been litigating for three years and is the president of a corporation who just got a $9 million verdict.
The people occupying
Read the Top 8
Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.