Tuesday, December 20, 2016

"Managed Retreat" — Obama's Climate Plan to Move Whole Towns

>

Bob Dylan wants shelter from the storm. Don't we all. (Recorded Roseland, October 19, 1994.) 

by Gaius Publius

I'm offering this news to you not because of its news value — the initiative is certain to fail, given the incoming Trump and the imminently outgoing Obama. Nor am I presenting it because Obama, he of the conflicted climate motivations, is acting like his noblest self. After all, if he cared about this stuff, he'd have been doing things like this all along, instead of failing to do in deeds what his "securing my legacy" words appear to promise.

No, I'm presenting this because it actually is a practical program that must be undertaken, and will be undertaken in the U.S. at some point in the lifetime of most readers of this piece.

Are you young enough to live another, say, 10–20 years? This is in your future, unless something forces a national emergency around climate and a WWII-style mobilization. Yes, it's going to take force; it was always going to take force. Absent that force, non-violent of course, prepare for more like this.

From Bloomberg, of all places (h/t Facebook friend Alanna Trebond; my emphasis throughout):
Obama's Final Push to Adapt to Climate Change

With little more than a month left in office, the Barack Obama administration is quietly trying to accomplish one last big thing on climate change: creating a policy for relocating entire towns threatened by extreme weather and rising seas.

The White House has asked 11 federal agencies to sign a memorandum of understanding establishing what it calls "an interagency working group on community-led managed retreat and voluntary relocation." The group's goal would be to "develop a framework for managed retreat" -- including deciding which agency should be in charge, identifying obstacles to relocation and how to remove them, and coordinating with communities that already want to move. The group is supposed to develop an "action plan" within nine months of the agencies signing on.
From Obama's memo itself as quoted in the article (no link; memo was leaked):
As more communities consider managed retreat and relocation as options of last resort to protect human life and avoid future property damage, there is a critical need to better define the Federal role in these efforts and to coordinate Federal assistance for managed retreat and relocation at the national level.
I hope the phrase "managed retreat and relocation" hit you in the face. It did me. Because, of course, "managed retreat" applies to more than just the short-term future of many of our towns, especially along the shorelines. It applies to the long-term future of our species. (Unless, of course, we opt for the always available, always effective "Easter Island solution," which we may well do. After all, there may be a "rolling civil war" in the offing.)

"Voluntary"

One more section from the article, and I'll stop quoting it. Do read though; it's good.
Lest the image of Americans leaving their homes en masse seem like a downer, the White House frames the idea in upbeat terms, calling retreat and relocation "proactive hazard risk reduction strategies for communities threatened by repeated natural disasters." Well, sort of upbeat: It defines retreat as moving infrastructure or homes, and relocation as a form of retreat that entails "a complete abandonment of that community."

The memo's authors were apparently alert to the risk of alarming people. The document stresses that relocation will only happen when "all or part of a community chooses to move"; in the version I looked at, the word "voluntary" appears 26 times.
Naturally, Obama doesn't want to be a "downer," so he sprinkles the word "voluntary" through the memo 26 times. In reality, only preëmptive relocation will be voluntary. When the storm is raging, or has been raging again and again and again, the police or military will take over, and "retreat" will be known by its other name, "evacuation."

Obama's Legacy

A final note about Obama. This "gesture," despite its hollowness, shows that he actually does get it about climate, as I've noted any number of times. He just never wanted to step up to the plate and do the job his understanding required. This is a legacy act in a second sense as well, in the sense that you can brand yourself with deeds as well as with words.

I used to think Ms. Clinton would, in theory at least, be the president with the last clear shot at a solution. Turns out it was Obama after all (unless Trump is struck off his golden horse on the way to Damascus).

Legacy.

GP
 

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Boehner Wins Back Some Love From Confederate Republicans By Blocking Aid To SuperStorm Sandy Victims In The Hated North

>


So today Speaker Boehner was reelected to his post, 220-192 over Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- with 14 Republicans defecting and 3 voting for the Speaker's "partner" in the leadership, Majority Leader Eric Cantor. (Which Republicans didn't vote for their leader? See Aaron Blake's WaPo report below.)

Everyone's been talking about how only 85 Republicans voted for the Obama/Boehner Grand Bargain while 151 Republicans voted against it-- and that 172 Democrats voted yes and just 16 voted no. But there's another way to look at this than just the Republican-Democratic split.

Of the 85 Republicans who voted yes, only 8 were from the old Confederate states. Of the 151 die-hard obstructions, 65 represent districts that were part of the Confederacy (not even counting border states like Tennessee and Kentucky where the Republicans consider themselves devoted to the reactionary and hateful Southern cause). In seeking to win back some credibility with the Confederate Republicans who completely dominate his congressional caucus, Boehner opted to toss them some red meat after their defeat on the Grand Bargain: he blocked a vote on aid for the victims of SuperStorm Sandy, victims located predominantly in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, states the Confederacy still detests and wishes ill.

The pathetic centrist president issued a statement after his colleague Boehner had adjourned Congress:
It has only been two months since Hurricane Sandy devastated communities across New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut as well as other eastern states. Our citizens are still trying to put their lives back together. Our states are still trying to rebuild vital infrastructure. And so, last month, working closely with the Governors of the affected states, I sent Congress an urgent request to support their efforts to rebuild and recover. The Senate passed this request with bipartisan support. But the House of Representatives has refused to act, even as there are families and communities who still need our help to rebuild in the months and years ahead, and who also still need immediate support with the bulk of winter still in front of us. 

When tragedy strikes, Americans come together to support those in need. I urge Republicans in the House of Representatives to do the same, bring this important request to a vote today, and pass it without delay for our fellow Americans.
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler's statement was more pointed and, like many from stricken area, more outraged:
“Shame on Speaker Boehner for choosing not to act on Sandy relief for the Northeast.  This is a betrayal of the millions of Americans who are struggling after Sandy and a trivialization of the loss of more than 100 American lives.  Not taking up the $60 billion Sandy funding bill will mean that many Americans could remain homeless, the rebuilding of homes and businesses across the Northeast will be delayed, and the coastal infrastructure of the region will remain damaged and vulnerable to the next storm.  The MTA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies cannot execute major repairs to broken facilities without funding certainty.

“The simple fact is that millions of people in the Northeast are hurting badly and relying on this funding to recover, rebuild, and move forward.  I am appalled-- and mystified-- by a total collapse of leadership on the part of Speaker Boehner.”
He shouldn't be mystified. It's just Boehner currying favor with his hate-filled, degenerate caucus-- which he needs to vote for him if he's going to be Speaker again next year. He's already promised them he'll stop negotiating with Obama if he's reelected Speaker. No more private one-on-one negotiations-- which means the crazy teabaggers get to imprint their bizarre ideology into whatever the House GOP does in 2013.

My favorite statement so far on the betrayal of the Sandy victims was from Long Island Republican congressman Peter King, urging wealthy New York donors to stop financing his party's madness with millions of dollars in campaign donations. He was on Fox News yesterday whining that "these Republicans have no problem finding New York when they’re out raising millions of dollars. They’re in New York all the time filling their pockets with money from New Yorkers. I’m saying right now, anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds. Because what they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It was an absolute disgrace... As far as I’m concerned, I’m on my own. They’re going to have to go a long way to get my vote on anything.” 

What about on Boehner's reelection? Boehner insultingly refused to even discuss the matter with New Jersey Congressman Frank LoBiondo. Even Congress' only actual Mafia member, Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm, the Republican from Staten Island, was mortified. “It is with an extremely heavy heart that I stand here almost in disbelief and somewhat ashamed. I am here tonight saying to myself for the first time that I am not proud of the decision that my team has made.” The only Northeast Republican agreeing with Boehner to kill aid for his own constituents was radical right extremist Scott Garrett (R-NJ). Garrett strutted around calling the aid "wasteful spending." His state's governor still hasn't gone public about what he thinks of him. He should, although he probably thinks attacking Garrett is beneath his dignity. "Last night," said the voluble Christie after Boehner scurried off for a vacation, "politics was placed before our oath to serve our citizens. For me, it was disappointing and disgusting to watch. Shame on Congress."



WAPO'S AARON BLAKE REPORTS: "WHO VOTED
AGAINST BOEHNER FOR SPEAKER AND WHY?"
Who voted against Boehner for speaker and why?

Posted by Aaron Blake on January 3, 2013

Twelve Republicans voted against John Boehner’s second term as speaker Thursday, making for a very tense final few minutes of the vote.

At one point, in fact, the number either voting for someone else or not voting reached into the high teens, raising the possibility that Boehner wouldn’t secure a majority on the first ballot. Eventually, a few of those who hadn’t voted — including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — cast their ballots for Boehner.

Boehner won with 220 votes — six more than the 214 votes he needed. (A speaker needs only a majority of the actual votes cast, not of all members of the House.)

Below is a look at the defectors, whom they voted for, and our best guess as to why it wasn’t Boehner:

Rep. Eric Cantor (3 votes)
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) — conservative freshman who defeated Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) in a primary
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) — very conservative
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) — conservative freshman who defeated Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) in a primary
Former congressman Allen West (2)
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) — noted conservative maverick, Club for Growth favorite
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) — outspoken conservative
Rep. Raul Labrador (1)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) — libertarian ally of former congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.), recently stripped of committee assignments by House GOP leadership
Rep. Jim Jordan (1)
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) — very conservative, recently stripped of committee assignments
Former comptroller general David Walker (1)
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) — frequently votes against his party, recently stripped of committee assignments
Amash (1)
Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.) — freshman conservative, favorite of the Club for Growth
Voting present (1)
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex.) — has criticized Boehner for “being too harsh with conservatives“
Not voting (3)
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) — conservative, frequent critic of Boehner
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) — critic of Boehner’s “Plan B” maneuver on the “fiscal cliff”
Boehner — speaker traditionally does not vote for himself or herself
NOTE: Blake also covers Democrats who voted against Minority Leader Pelosi or just didn't vote. ("We would note that the defections are far less than the 20 who didn’t vote for Pelosi in 2011.")

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

"Only" 12 Republican Senators Voted To Shut Down The Government Last Night

>



Last week, on my travel blog, in covering the devastating earthquake in India and Nepal, I looked over the insurance industry's ratings of American states' relative risks for natural disasters. The Top 10 were Louisiana, Florida, Texas, New York (they counted terrorist attacks as a factor), Mississippi, Oklahoma (tornado alley, but they didn't count domestic terrorist attacks), Alabama, California, Missouri and Ohio (which, believe it or not, suffered "more than 30 earthquakes between 2002 and 2007").

Driven primarily by teabagging nihilists inside their own congressional caucuses, the House and Senate Republican leaderships decided to play chicken with the Democrats on disaster aid. The threat has been that they would shut down the government if the Democrats didn't agree to offset the costs of emergency disaster relief from the recent hurricane and earthquake with devastating cutbacks to clean energy projects that Republican Party funders at Big Oil-- i.e., the Koch Brothers and their fascist allies-- are demanding. Polls have been clear that the public is getting short tempered with the Republican game playing.

Even proto-Republican Ben Nelson (D-NE) resisted the temptation for making an ass out of himself by voting with the GOP when the funding bill came up in the Senate. And so did most Republicans. Only 12 of the worst right-wing extremists were on the losing side Monday night. And many right-wing zombies who are usually all too eager to shut down the government or increase unemployment or in some other way cause pain to the citizenry in the hope that it reflects badly on President Obama, either voted with the Democrats or, like Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Cornyn (R-TX) and even Jim DeMint (R-SC) hid in the cloak room during the vote. All those senators are in states prone to natural disasters and all knew the independent voters in their states were watching closely. That didn't stop crackpots Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), or Pat Toomey (R-PA), all from states that also suffer more natural disasters than the average. They were among Monday night's Dirty Dozen. And Dean Heller (R-NV), the guy who voted to end Medicare more than any other more of Congress... what does he have to lose that he hasn't already lost?

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Has anyone researched how many kleptoplutocrats live within "disaster range" of nuclear power plants?

>

Short of the 24/7 television visual horror of the Katrina catastrophe, what might it take to penetrate the country's painstakingly constructed wall against reality? Surely we can't be rooting for the worst-case nuclear scenario in Japan, can we?

by Ken

I hope everyone has read Howie's post earlier today on the subject of the reaction of people supposedly "in the know," technically speaking, about the Japanese nuclear disaster-in-the-making. As he notes, this is yet another case in which the screeching ignoramuses and murderous kleptoplutocrats of the Right have been caught laying the groundwork for future episodes of the (in this case literal) destruction of the country as we once knew it. Nuclear disaster -- what, we worry?

Last month I took a lingering look at a New Yorker blogpost by Andrew Solomon on the developing insurgence in Libya, who had written about the Qadaffi regime for the magazine in 2006. One of the things that popped out at me was his description of one of the basic mistakes the regime had made since he wrote his piece, its "lack of attention to the poverty of the population."
Libya is North Africa’s most prosperous country, given its tremendous oil wealth and small population. Yet most Libyans live in deplorable conditions. The state provides little by way of civil society and does not take care of even the most basic government obligations. There are police to control people who stray from supporting the Leader, but there is little else. As a housing crisis has escalated in the past few years, the regime has made no effort to provide adequate public accommodation. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of the very few. It would have been easy for Qaddafi to raise the standard of living for the population as a whole either by creating a sustainable non-oil economy or simply by distributing some portion of oil revenues, but he chose to do neither. [Emphasis added.]

Since then, I've had occasion to read a wide assortment of reporting and commentary on the situations in, among others, Egypt and Tunisia and Morocco and Saudi Arabia and Burma. With eerie resonance, every single story included a local version of the same disconnect between the government (and the economically privileged elites who are in cahoots with it) and the general population. To a degree that beggars comprehension, the rulers have been in varying degrees ignorant of and utterly indifferent to the way the overwhelming majority of their subjects live.

Now these are all places in what we think of patronizingly as the "Third World." But the quotes kept sounding like the morning news here in the First World, where we reality has been overturned by a bizarre coalition of rampaging ideological hooligans, cultivatedly ignorant masses of stooge followers, and especially the financial kingpins pulling the strings.

Oh, Americans have stumblingly started to grasp the message that Somebody Up There doesn't give a crap about them. But in the cruelest of ironies, they've been gulled -- in part by the daily onslaught of lies from bought-off cynical exploiters like Rush and Bill-o and Sean and Glenn -- into blaming mostly the wrong people, in particular overlooking the kleptoplutocratic economic elites who have bought and paid for all the supposedly "grass roots" far-right-wing movements of the last several decades, up to and emphatically including the Teabaggers.

As raging sociopaths like the House Thug Republican leadership and satraps of criminal and societal malfeasance (you know, the people Howie's been writing about regularly (here, for example), like the Republican governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Scott of Florida, John Kasich of Ohio, and Mitch Daniels of Indiana) do everything in their power to take a torch to civil society as it's evolved over the course of human existence, they count on the anger, fear, and carefully bred effective imbecility of the American masses.

Of course this behavior is nothing new to American right-wingers. Once you've sufficiently dumbed the populace down sufficiently, it's easy to assail and

the importance of labor unions and an entire system of government regulation that stand as, basically, our only counterweights to the tyranny of the Big Money kleptoplutocrats, who have shown themselves prepared to fight to with every resource at the disposal (with both the resources and the ability to use them have been increased humongously by its docile government stooges, emphatically including the predatory thugs of the tenaciously cutltivated extreme-right-wing Supreme Court majority), no matter how many billions of dollars it costs, to maintain their grasp on the trillions they've become accustomed to extorting and just plain plundering from the rest of us.

As Republicans announce their new laundry lists of mad-dog spending cuts, neither they nor the infotaniment noozers who pass on their latest ravings as if it was just political business as usual (which I guess it has indeed become) are concerned that they literally don't have a friggin' clue what they're talking about. It's only every now and then that around the edges a ray of reality illuminates a bit of the festering hellhole into which the elites plan to turn the country that most of us live in, as Howie pointed out in the case of the huge slashes the Republican crazies have planned for matters of nuclear safety.

But it's only when catastrophe strikes on a scale sufficient to compel the attention of the infotainment noozers and of a ghastliness sufficient to penetrate the reality-blocking fortress walls of the minds of the American public through endless TV repetition that Americans at large sort of get a primitive version of the lesson of conservative "governance" (nongovernance would be more accurate -- or, better still, misgovernance). Honestly, I thought Americans were so heavily fortified against reality that even those days of nightmare TV images of Katrina-struck New Orleans wouldn't register, but it turned out that I was wrong.

I wasn't the only one who was wrong, though. Remember Young Johnny McCranky and "Chimpy the Prez" George Bush cutting birthday cake while the city drowned in the wake of years of plutocratic neglect of the flood-control system and days of meteorological warnings which should have allowed for at least some preparation to cope with what was coming, with general complicity from a federal bureaucracy that had been transformed into a do-nothing network of crooks who took it as their mission to prove that government can't do anything right.

As I hinted above, we mustn't for a moment underestimate the importance of the crucial, long-in-the-works project of stupidification of the American public, about which both Howie and I have written frequently. From the standpoint of the economic elites, America needs morons, and their billion-dollar think tanks have found ways to deliver them.

Nor is it a coincidence that the Right, whose existence is predicated on its famous Noise Machine, made up of a cluster of hard-core liars whose every word is aimed at making its listeners know even less than they did before about subjects they previously knew very little about, launched an utterly bogus but tragically successful campaign against ACORN, which had committed the cardinal sins of providing assistance to the economically nonprivileged and adding large numbers of such people to the voter rolls. (As Michael Moore pointed out recently, the one thing we have going for us against the kleptoplutocrats is our potential large numerical advantage at the ballot box, and they're only too keenly aware of the danger to them of actual democracy.)

Or that they've targeted the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio, since public radio in particular is perhaps the only quasi-organized voice that at least attempts to penetrate the veil of nonreality so rigorously maintained by the combined infotainment noozemedia. The terrible thing is that virtually all of these fact-free lynch-campaigns undertaken in the last dozen years have succeeded. The people who should have been in the trenches fighting back have generally sat back cowering if not actually, and incredibly, nodding agreement.

It's a reminder that the kleptoplutocrats can't do it on their own -- not even with the redoubtable assistance of all their hired stooges. They count on being able to hornswoogle a nation of painstakingly cultivated morons. Only a sucker would bet against them.


SPEAKING OF "OUT OF TOUCH," YVES SMITH PAYS
TRIBUTE TO OUR EVER-CARING FEDERAL RESERVE


NY Fed Prexy William Dudley -- "Let them eat iPads"?

While we're on the subject of the powers that be being totally disconnected from the general population, Yves Smith has a great post on her Naked Capitalism blog, prompted by a stupefying piece of bluster from New York Fed President William Dudley. Reuters reported that Dudley, faced with "persistent questions from the audience on food inflation . . . said people forget that even as the price of food is rising, other prices are falling. He mentioned the price of the iPad 2, prompting guffaws from the audience."

Yves continues:
Now before you forgive this as standard economist thinking . . . the Wall Street Journal’s Economics blog makes clear Dudley was speaking to people in Queens:
The central banker hit the iceberg when he was trying to defend his belief–one shared by many private-sector economists–that underlying inflation in the U.S. economy is low despite a worrisome surge in commodity prices which Dudley said the Fed would be “unwise” to overreact to. The grief Dudley got indicates the Fed is facing a growing gulf between how it and the public at large perceives inflation. If this disconnect widens, it could risk undoing the public’s confidence that the Fed will be able to keep price pressures at bay.

Dudley’s day went south when he was pressed by several audience members about how he can view inflation as low when things such as grocery prices are marching higher. One participant asked “when was the last time, sir, you went grocery shopping?”

The central banker told the audience “I certainly acknowledge food prices have gone up.” But he added some prices are lower and noted “Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1, that’s twice as powerful,” as an example of favorable price dynamics. His example was greeted with widespread grumbling in the audience, in a display of conspicuous discontent unusual for a Fed speaking event.

The WSJ piece is still a bit of a fail, in that it attributes the gulf between the Fed and the great unwashed as being due to that food prices are “highly visible” and hence are in everyone’s face when they rise.

Hello! What planet are these people from? Yes, the food and fuel prices are noisy, so the Fed focuses on so-called core inflation. But using only one metric is naive and in this case overlooks the fact that food and fuel loom large in the household expenditures of lower income people. And does Dudley not understand that eating, heating your house, and getting to work are non-discretionary activities, contrary to technology purchases like the iPad?

Plenty of finance ministers and central bankers in emerging economics believe QE2 [i.e., the Fed's second round of "quantitive easing," in which, according to Wikipedia, "the central bank creates money which it uses to buy government bonds and other financial assets, in order to increase the money supply and the excess reserves of the banking system"] has played a significant role in stoking commodities inflation, including food prices. There is some evidence to support that view although the jury is very much out (perishable commodities, which cannot be hoarded and thus reflect fundamentals better than ones that are storable, as well as non-exchange traded commodities in India, such as cooking oil, do not show the same degree of price appreciation as exchange traded agricultural goods have). But there is a large cohort that would applaud if the idea that Bernanke had said, “Let them eat iPads” got traction.

If only people of a Teabagger-type mentality understood that they're funded and consequently manipulated by the very people in cahoots with the likes of "iPad Bill" Dudley to make sure that absolutely as few dollars as absolutely necessary are permitted to trickle out of their clutches down to us unwashed masses.
#

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

And there are people -- Democrats, no doubt -- who say that Republicans haven't learned anything about disaster management

>

Galveston after the storm Saturday -- what aren't we seeing?

by Ken

This is kind of nauseating, and not easy to document, but it seems there's reason to believe that Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- by general account at least as dim a bulb as his predecessor, Tiny George Bush -- imposed a media blackout on the worst of the damage from Hurricane Ike, notably on Galveston Island, by denying media access to those areas. The speculation, naturally, is that we might be seeing scenes reminiscent of the TV coverage of post-Katrina New Orleans, which marked the beginning of the end of the credibility of the Bush regime.

Our Texas colleague Vince Leibowitz blogged yesterday on Capitol Annex:

Is Texas Governor Rick Perry Imposing A Media Blackout In Areas Hardest Hit By Hurricane Ike?

By Vince Leibowitz

During a press conference today, Texas Governor Rick Perry was accused of impsing a media blackout on some of the areas hardest hit by Hurricane Ike on the Gulf Coast of Texas–specifically Galveston’s West End and Bolivar. (VIDEO HERE)

At today’s briefling, Houston TV reporter Wayne Dolcefino posed some hard questions to Perry, who dodged many, offered some Nixonian answers on death tolls, and blamed city, county, and federal officials for lack of access to the areas in question.

When asked by Dolcefino about the death toll in Bolivar, Perry gave a somewhat odd answer:
I don’t think there has been any fatalities confirmed. And, I think that’s a very important issue until next of kin has been notified of, if there has been fatalities, that is appropriate. I don’t think you or your firends in the media would want to go out on a limb before that, would you?

When Dolcefino pressed Perry on fatalities, Perry denied knowing of fatalities in Bolivar. “There have been none confirmed, to me,” Perry said.

Dolcefino went on to compare the media’s lack of access to the situation in Myanmar, where the media was denied access to many areas hit hard by disaster there.

In addition, some sources tell Capitol Annex that local government leaders and some legislators have already begun to criticize both the state response and FEMA’s response to Ike, although none of that has been covered by the media yet.

Vince told me yesterday:
I've requested the e-mails from the governor's office that would document it, but they have 10 days to turn them over. However, he's being assailed by the media at every turn over this -- especially as he leaves press conferences. I've talked to enough local officials and covered enough disasters in this state to know, though, that if someone is keeping people out of those two areas, it's Perry, not the mayors, etc.

And malicious people say that Republicans are so uninterested in governing that they don't learn from their past disasters.

Meanwhile, Matt Glazer is reporting on another Texas blog, Burnt Orange Report, that the state may have screwed up disaster relief plans by abruptly and without explanation pulling out of the PODs (points of delivery) program for distribution of emergency relief supplies, which was to have been a joint effort by city, county, state, and federal officials. State Sen. Mario Gallegos, a Democrat "whose senate district included the hardest hit areas of Harris County and Houston," told Burnt Orange Report that an unidentified state official phoned word of the state's decision not to participate just before a 3pm Sunday press conference.

Gallegos, a former Houston firefighter who "has worked many hurricanes," also criticized the state's disaster preparation efforts, saying resources were deployed way too early, as much as a week ahead of the storm's actual arrival -- far too early for accurate storm-path prediction. As a result, Gallegos told BOR, "By the time we knew that the storm would strike Houston and Galveston, 60 percent of the state's assets had been deployed somewhere else." The BOR report continues:
"If they had waited 72 hours, there still would have been time to do the evacuations. They could have got the people out of the hospitals, got the buses ready, had the assets in place," [Gallegos] said.

"I have been in contact with emergency response professionals who have been involved in the planning of the response since it began. They've been on the conference calls, and they will tell you that this was not done the way it should have been."
#

Labels: , , , , ,