Your words:
“Yes, she and her lawyers won that war against the big bad power company (and it may have done some bad things but not necessarily with the environmental consequences claimed)”
That's akin to saying the people of China shouldn't be upset just because the milk they fed their children was intentionally tainted with harmful ingredients by greedy,unscrupulous suppliers. After all, not all of them are sick or dead! sarcasm//
China is the best example of why free market capitalism, uncoupled with law, honor and personal responsibility, may not be a viable system for much of the world. And also perhaps why, we in this nation, are having serious problems right now.
Your own admission that "the big bad power company may have done some bad things" and subsequent willingness to ignore the very serious damage those "bad things" caused many innocent people to suffer, leads me to think you may need a refresher course in Honor 101 yourself!
Insults this evening?? I think not.
I deal in these matters daily and have been on both sides of the fence. I have advised companies when they have a problem and that they have to take action. If they don't and if they're violating the law, they deserve what they get. On the other hand, I know when environmentalists are crying foul to bring in a few more members and they don't care if it causes businesses to be shut down. I get tired of enviro-nutters who shout chicken little at the drop of a hat and then go to the jury and cry harm and play upon their emotions. What's most important are the facts in the case and not the emotionalism.
Here is a little primer on the case and the lady. Take it for what its worth but know that there are two sides to these issues and that elevating one figure to a place on the high pedestal may be doing the actual facts a disservice.