Freeloader, I think you wholly misunderstood my post?

I wholly support the power plant builders. For that matter, I think you and Tatume are pretty much in agreement?

As I read it, the plant is not on the duck hunting property the owners of which are suing to stop construction of the plant. Correct?

In this case, the duck hunters are acting 100% like the various protectionist groups I cited. They are trying to use the courts to block the use of another's land.

I do see your point about the "rich" vs "poor" argument and I agree. Had the coal-plant-stoppers been enviros, the article would have been 100% in their favor, with "facts" to prove the case, I suppose...

We here see the courts continuously and unendingly used to violate the express purpose of public lands originally set apart for timber extraction, mining and ranching. The media continuously supports such obstructionist activity.

Such activities have been totally stopped or hindered on vast acres of lands. Possibly some enterprising attorneys will be able to make the case that because timber extraction has simply not occured on many National Forest lands in various parts of the West a violation of the law has occured, in spite of the procedural and technical aspects of various subsequent environmental laws or regulations that have been used to stop that activity.

Certainly we here in north Idaho can provide a history of cessation of use that makes the case.

The current adoption of ecoterrorism {use of procedural environmental law to destroy economies and rural communities} as a policy of government is not a purely philosophical or ideological shift. There is money to be made. Just like Al Qaeda selling opium...?