Page 1 of 1
Posted on October 31 at 3:54 p.m.
The argument against P is poorly reasoned and vague. Stanford Environmental Law wrote the bill taking into account other effective bans that have withstood litigation. The best lawyers you could find wrote this. I am deeply disappointed in whatever leadership at the Independent made this decision, that is at odds with the values of its readers (to drink clean water, breathe clean air) and at odds with the truth. The Executive Editor, Nick Welsh, is for P so who made this call? Guessing it is the publisher wanting to lure former readers of the more conservative News-Press. It is a financially motivated endorsement and it will end up costing the Independent the trust and respect of many readers including this one.
On Endorsements 2014
Posted on October 31 at 3:39 p.m.
This is so bogus- I can't believe the independent is publishing big oil propaganda and lies as though it is news. Jobs will not be lost and even if they would be, why poison our water and air to preserve outdated jobs? The future is in renewable energy which will create its own jobs. Ultimately jobs in the oil sector will and should be lost. If we stopped making carbon today, the temperature would still rise 10 degrees by the year 2100. This threatens everyone on the planet - not a few jobs here and there.
On Measure P Will Cost Jobs
Posted on July 21 at 7:36 a.m.
What an amazing story. I'm going to try it.
On Hiatal Hernia