‘Protectors,’ not protestors

Re “Say no to the Dakota pipeline,” editorial, Nov. 3

While your editorial is a step in the right direction, it is also disrespectful to the Native Americans at Standing Rock. They refer to themselves as “water protectors,” not protesters. Nowhere is there mention of the U.S. policy of virtual genocide against our own indigenous people.

You also ignore the work of your own colleagues in the media. Journalist Amy Goodman broke the story when her filming of an attack dog with blood on its mouth after setting upon a water protector went viral.

Finally, the demand that oil should be left in the ground captures not only the aims of the Native Americans but also those of environmentalists. Gene Rothman Culver City

In a nation crying for help in terms of repairing its sagging infrastructure and national economy, how could you recommend stopping the $3.8 billion, nearly 1,200-mile Dakota Access Pipeline?

About three-quarters of the pipeline route has already been cleared, and the project was thoroughly reviewed and approved by four states and the federal government before the Obama administration pulled an 11th-hour political power play of needing to re-review a river crossing easement near a Sioux tribe’s reservation (but not on that reservation).

Dispassionate observers agree the project can be safely completed without harming Sioux sacred lands or the environment. The editorial board needs to look again at this one. Richard Nemec Los Angeles Nemec is a writer for Natural Gas Intelligence.