Slashdot Mirror


British Court Rejects Donald Trump's Attempt To Block Wind Farm (nytimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Sewell Chan reports at the NYT that Britain's highest court has unanimously rejected an attempt by Donald J. Trump to block the construction of a wind farm near his luxury golf resort in northeast Scotland. Trump has vowed to stop further development on the project if the offshore wind farm — 11 turbines, which would be visible from the golf resort 2.2 miles away — goes forward. Trump spokesman George A. Sorial denounced the ruling as "extremely unfortunate for the residents of Aberdeen and anyone who cares about Scotland's economic future" adding that the wind farm will "completely destroy the bucolic Aberdeen Bay and cast a terrible shadow upon the future of tourism for the area. History will judge those involved unfavorably, and the outcome demonstrates the foolish, small-minded and parochial mentality which dominates the current Scottish government's dangerous experiment with wind energy."

Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, withdrew Trump's status as a business ambassador to Scotland last week after Trump called for Muslims to be barred from entering the United States. Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has stripped Mr. Trump of an honorary degree it awarded him in 2010. Trump's mother was born in Scotland and moved to the United States in the 1930s. " I think I do feel Scottish," said Trump at one time.

19 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. History? Really? by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think if history judges the presence of this wind farm unfavorably, they can, you know, just tear it down. It seems much easier to undo the damage of a wind farm than it does, say, a coal plant.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  2. you have to question... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has stripped Mr. Trump of an honorary degree it awarded him in 2010

    You kind of have to question why they awarded it in the first place.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:you have to question... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A massive endowment, most likely.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  3. So, Trump failed where the Kennedys succeeded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch

    But another obstacle is a political heavyweight with a famous name, a local Cape Cod address and hardline opposition to the project.

    U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy's primary residence is in Hyannisport, Mass., on the Kennedy family compound. It's one of the closest landfalls -- about 6 miles -- from the proposed site of the 440-feet turbines, which would be visible from his house as well as other surrounding coastlines.

    In all fairness, Kennedy's aides were probably afraid he'd try to drive over to the windmills out at sea.

  4. No rational arguments by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slashdot sure seems to have one hell of an axe to grind with Trump.

    Trump's supporters are all low-class, uneducated, white males who drive rusty pickups(*) and want to take their country back.

    <MorganFreeman>Didn't you get the memo?</MorganFreeman>

    This seems to be the attack narrative passed around the news sites right now: if you're a trump supporter, you're low class.

    (Subtext: "You wouldn't want to be considered low class now... would you?")

    Slashdot readers are highly-educated, well paid, with liberal and progressive viewpoints. Of *course* we bash Trump.

    The elites have completely misread the situation and still don't quite get it. Trump's support is real, and name-calling and ridiculing is not going to change peoples' views. If you can't counter his positions with real arguments you will be ignored.

    The standard attack is to take something Trump said, extend it to mean something beyond all reason, and ridicule the beyond-reason meaning. So for example, he has a war on women (for ridiculing one woman's behaviour one time), he's Joe McCarthy (for wanting a registry of Muslims), he's Hitler (for wanting to ban Muslims), and so on. I actually read an article informing me that Trump hates people with chronic fatigue syndrome (for saying Ben Carson has low energy).

    One thing I *haven't* seen is a rational explanation of why a temporary ban on Muslim immigration isn't a common-sense response to an immediate problem. It's not unconstitutional, it's no less against "American Principles" than going to war on false premises, ordering the death of a citizen, or secret lists and laws. It's also fairly easy to implement - think it through a few minutes and you'll see that detection is relatively straightforward(**).

    People don't seem capable of making the rational arguments, they'd rather point out how ridiculous his hair looks.

    It's disingenuous, and the voters have caught on.

    (*) Fair disclosure: I drive a pickup, although it's not rusty.
    (**) For those with little imagination, I refer you to any of a number of people who vetted refugees during WWII, such as Oreste Pinto. His books are a fascinating read.

    1. Re:No rational arguments by unimacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not temporarily ban white loners in their 20's from owning guns because most of the time it's one of them that are shooting up churches, schools, and theaters?

      Banning all Muslims is not a common sense solution because your chances of getting killed by a Muslim in the US is virtually nil. It's not like people aren't getting killed on a daily basis, but the causes are much more mundane than terrorism.

      The idea of banning all Muslims is a reaction to an irrational fear.

    2. Re:No rational arguments by blindseer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The idea of banning all Muslims is a reaction to an irrational fear.

      Trump did not suggest banning Muslims from entering the country. What he did say is that there is a tendency for criminals from outside the country to come from Islamic theocracies, therefore we need to bar people from immigrating from these nations until we can be sure these immigrants won't just kill us once they get here.

      He did not suggest that any Muslim that wished to immigrate here should be prevented from doing so. How would that even be done? It's not like such people cannot lie, in fact Muslims are encouraged to lie and cheat nonbelievers to reach their ends. The test would be on which nation these people come from. Is the nation controlled by Muslim leaders? Does this nation treat Sharia as law? If so then we should not be allowing anyone to immigrate from these nations, no matter what faith they claim to follow.

      This does have other political pitfalls. Some of our supposed allies could fit this definition of "Muslim nation" as Trump spelled out. Barring people from immigrating from Saudi Arabia would be a problem politically.

      While I can agree with Trump to some extent I also don't think we need to have people lie about what he said to make this look like a bad idea. It's a bad idea for many reasons, politically and in practice. What would be a better idea, IMHO, is to stop all immigration or at least reduce it significantly. Such a policy would also have problems politically and practically. What it would not do is allow the opposition to claim racism or religious bigotry.

      A blanket ban on immigration would not only stop people immigrating to cause panic and death, it would have other benefits as well. We are seeing many well paid jobs in the USA being taken by immigrants at a time when unemployment is very high. Wage slavery of immigrants is a problem. Stop that and we should see more Americans getting hired. It might mean a drop in average wages but at least people will be working. Working people buy stuff, they are healthier, and happier. This all leads to a much better America.

      Trump says he wants to make America great again. If he wants to do that then I think he should revise his statement and say all immigration needs to be stopped for a while. That gives us time to figure out a way to properly vet those that want to come here, so that perhaps we won't have immigrants shooting up Christmas parties and making pipe bombs.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:No rational arguments by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing I *haven't* seen is a rational explanation of why a temporary ban on Muslim immigration isn't a common-sense response to an immediate problem. It's not unconstitutional, it's no less against "American Principles" than going to war on false premises, ordering the death of a citizen, or secret lists and laws. It's also fairly easy to implement - think it through a few minutes and you'll see that detection is relatively straightforward(**).

      Because it is
      A) impossible to implement
      B) Alienates good Muslims
      C) drives moderate to borderline Muslims to the other side.
      D) And most importantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      YES it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It violates both the 1st and the 14th amendment, you know discriminating against someone based on their religion and making laws favoring one religion over the other...

      But you are not really looking for a rational aurgiment against it so much as just trying to attack perople.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
  5. Haven't these people seen Macross Plus? by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Giant windmills constantly turning just makes scenery more awesome.

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
  6. Re:Trump by blagger99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems like you are under the illusion that Trump is something other than a catchphrase spouting blowhard racist 1%er who doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything but Trump. Renewable energy is important, Trumps view from his golf course isn't.

  7. Huh? by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look I'll grant you that every media outlet has a narrative whether they are trying to or not (hint though: the left's isn't the only one).

    But seriously, with Trump, what is there to filter? Where is the missing narrative of the time he proposed a policy that made any goddamn sense whatsoever (another hint: yelling at somebody you don't like is not a policy)? I mean, there are people with whom I strongly disagree on how implement solutions (i.e. Cheney: I hate you but you are a clever sumbitch), and then there are complete lunatics brimming with extreme personality disorders proposing things that make a bridge to the moon sound sane.

    Please tell me, what did I miss? I would honestly like to know what actual action Trump has proposed that you (or anybody) thought was appropriate, feasible and constitutional?

    1. Re: Huh? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The dominant force opposing enforcement of immigration laws is Democrat politicians, not the bulk of the population. Increased federal enforcement of immigration laws would be effective, and jailing of local politicians and policemen who thwart the laws would be very effective. Opposing the passive-aggressive philosophy that's called "political correctness" is long overdue.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  8. Re:History? Really? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They hauled it off in pieces and then built a lecture hall in it's place.

    When they haul it off in pieces, they don't just disappear. They have to be securely stored somewhere. And even if they can return the site to a useful state, the original claim was that it was easier to do this for a wind farm, not that it was impossible to do it for a nuclear power plant.

  9. Re:Wow... by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "free" stuff

    You say it like it's cigarettes and beer. It's fucking health care and financial assistance programs for people (you know, humans like you and I), and the transition of some of our tax burden to the mega corporations that currently pay jack shit. Disagree with the programs if you want, but don't be the disingenuous prick who reduces the whole thing to your idiot fiction of a black Friday mob of welfare mothers.

  10. Re:Wow... by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, it does make sense in this dimension...

    I know there are people who think the media is just in the tank for the left, that they choose sides knowingly, the Cabal mentality. I don't think it's true. I think the people in the "media" are really acting in their own best interest and within their personal beliefs. However, this tends to align them with the views of the people in power more than they and an outside observer might imagine.

    Look at the choices of people working for Fox over those working for CNN, what do they cover? How is it different? Get really wacky and listen to NPR and contrast that with Fox and CNN. It's night and day what they choose to comment on and how the stories are slanted and if you forget your personal opinion for a moment and just listen to the differences in how things get reported. It's striking to me, just how slanted outlets like NPR actually are, how they feed on each other's stories, using the same words and phrases to explain their take on the story. But this is how the cheese is made, how the media feeds on itself, reinforces its perceptions and ends up generally on the left of everything because of the influence of a few.... Well, that and the politics of personal destruction and this headlong rush to be PC we are in... Oh no, you MUST have the proper views or your are stupid, bigoted, racist or a combination of the three.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  11. Re:Trump by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Worse, there's studies that show

    Yes, exactly like those studies that show that a special pixie dust from a naturopath cures cancer and sometimes even done by the same people!
    From looking at what the "victims" all have in common it looks like redneck corrupt crony politics is the major cause of windmill syndrome. The instant cure is being able to make money from a windmill.

    you can't raise red flags without being called an ignorant

    There's a good reason for that with the stupid charging at windmills using invented anecdotes, which is what the "studies" that show a problem all turned out to be. There are a large number of professionally run investigations into the matter that didn't turn up any problem, but those are conveniently ignored by either real or pretended ignorance.

  12. Re:Wow... by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "free" stuff

    You say it like it's cigarettes and beer. It's fucking health care and financial assistance programs for people (you know, humans like you and I), and the transition of some of our tax burden to the mega corporations that currently pay jack shit. Disagree with the programs if you want, but don't be the disingenuous prick who reduces the whole thing to your idiot fiction of a black Friday mob of welfare mothers.

    It's not healthcare. That I could get behind. It's insurance. Insurance is not equal to healthcare. For many people it is one or the other. I know I can't afford to pay for both insurance and also get healthcare. And there is no financial assistance for people, at least not people like me. When I lost my job, I received no food stamps, no section 8 housing, no reduction in my insurance premiums, no tax credits for my insurance premiums. I got about 4 months of unemployment. Other people are apparently on it for years. There seems to be some line that determines whether you are a giver or a taker. If you are a giver and you need a handout, you are out of luck. If you are a taker, then you can be a taker forever.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  13. Re:Trump by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The news in my country did a segment on wind farms and revealed they were extremely loud, which can't be healthy.

    You're right, watching non-credible news stories is extremely unhealthy.
    If you ever see a wind farm, go in for a closer look and listen, they are less noisy than your average car and we seem to accept those every-fucking-where on earth...

  14. Re:Wow... by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These days, be prepared to be called a racist, even if you aren't. All it takes is opposing some political position which is tangentially related to race, or can be argued to be related. It's called "playing the race card" and it's been done a LOT by the current administration and the media supporting it.

    Don't think so? What's all this hype about voter-ID laws? If I support imposing a voter ID rule, where you must show a picture ID to vote, in some circles that's considered a racist view. Or, one of my favorite examples is the guy who said "All lives matter" in response to the recent "black lives matter" movement. How's either idea racist by default?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101