SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For decades, proponents of oil and gas drilling have viewed Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as an area rich with natural resources that could help fuel the United States' drive for energy independence.
Now, Congress may be on the verge of finally handing them permission to deliver on an old Republican mantra: Drill, baby, drill.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 13-10 last week to approve a bill that would allow oil and gas exploration in the refuge's 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. The measure will be added to the Senate's tax-reform package that is expected to be put to a vote before the end of the year.
And:
Alaska drilling tucked into tax bill:
The multi-decade fight over allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) could quickly be resolved if the GOP-controlled Congress approves the massive tax overhaul package. The bill includes language that opens up ANWR for drilling, and it will be taken up by the Senate this week, although the vote could be delayed if the Senate struggles to put together enough votes. The outcome of the legislation is unclear.
Also at Quad-Cities Online (opinion) and Alaska Public Radio
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday November 27 2017, @04:52PM
When I see the words "Here's What You Should Know" in a headline, it makes my blood boil. I don't know exactly why. Maybe because of the arrogance of the journalist to assert that this article is the sum total of knowledge on the subject, and that I both need to read it and don't need to read anything else.
Or maybe it's article with this kind of headline tend to have a definable political bias coming from that part of my own side that I would rather just stop talking. Arguments so preaching-to-the-choir bad that they do more harm than good. They say don't judge a book by its cover, but for some reason I can't help it when it comes to patronizing headlines.
So...please never, ever, EVER put that phrase in the Soylent News headline EVER again.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?