Thursday, December 26, 2019

Mass Media Should Cover Bernie More Fairly-- And Every Newspaper Should Have An In-House Psychiatrist Oversee Their Coverage Of Trump

>

Balls by Nancy Ohanian

A couple of days ago, the L.A. Times featured three letters to the editor under the banner Thousands were at a Bernie Sanders rally in Venice. Where was the L.A. Times? Two were basically complaints about the newspaper not covering the event. And then, to appear “fair and balanced,” the editorial department dug up a shockingly ignorant and negative screed from San Diego whining about how it’s Bernie’s fault Hillary lost and Bernie one— completely unrelated to the headline and completely worthless. The author’s point is that “Trump and his Republican loyalists are silently applauding Sanders’ attack on the liberal establishment candidates who support pragmatic approaches to reversing this president’s policies.” Hard to believe there are still Democrats believing this kind of nonsense. Maybe if the L.A. Times covered Bernie more thoroughly…
Fred Siegel, Marina del Rey:

It was with considerable irony that I read and was pleased by your front-page article, “No #Bernieblackout here: Sanders rides a surge of alternative media.”

Yes, a growing number of voters is seeking out alternative media on the left, and the Los Angeles Times’ lack of coverage of the Dec. 21 rally in Venice serves as a salient example of why this trend has no sign of abating.

More than 10,000 people showed up to an iconic Los Angeles location to hear a top contender for president, along with the international political and media phenomenon Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and there’s no article about it in our local newspaper? While the L.A. Times is to be commended for recognizing the changes in political media, it must also be brought to task for the disregard it has shown Sanders’ candidacy.

Nuna Teal, Santa Monica:

I wish to express my concern about the political bias shown by the L.A. Times in its coverage of leading presidential candidates, and the disrespect for the voters of Los Angeles that this demonstrates.

Sanders’ rally here on Dec. 21. was attended by a diverse and passionate crowd of more than 14,000 people, yet your paper did not consider it worth covering. On Sunday, there was instead a news column about former Vice President Joe Biden’s “electability.”

The reality is that Sanders has received more than 300 endorsements from California leaders in academia, government and local communities. “Tío Bernie” is the leading candidate among the state’s Latinos and among the youth in California and the rest of the country.

In its failure to fairly cover the Democratic race, the outcome of which will decide the fate of both our democracy and our planet, the L.A. Times is abdicating its responsibility as one of the nation’s leading newspapers.
A newly released poll from YouGov spelled out more bad news from Trumpanzee. 51% of registered voters said the approve of the House having impeached him, 45% “strongly.”Only 45% do not approve. As for swing voters, 13% of Republicans also approve, while just 9% of Democrats disapprove. 41% of Independents approve and 42% disapprove. When it came to the question about whether the Senate should remove him from office, 49% of registered voters said yes and just 44% said no. 52% of registered voters said they disapproved of how House Republicans handled the impeachment inquiry, including 14% of Republican voters.


Corporate media likes conservatives, hates progressives



On Tuesday, Trump was whining to reporters that the Democrats are unfair to him and that Pelosi “hates the Republican Party. She hates all of the people that voted for me and the Republican Party and she’s desperate. She got thrown out as Speaker once before. I think it’s going to happen again. She’s doing a tremendous disservice to the country, and she’s not doing a great job. And some people think she doesn’t know what she’s doing. He also told reporters that he’s in a “very good position” [moving into the Senate trial phase]. Ultimately that decision is going to be made by Mitch McConnell. He has the right to do whatever he wants. He’s the head of the Senate… People remember they treated us very unfairly… They didn't give us due process, they didn't give us a lawyer, they didn't give us anything. Now they come to the Senate and they want everything… We have a perfect case. They have no case. Now we have the majority and it’s up to Mitch McConnell. They want Mitch McConnell to do wonderful things for them. He’s going to do what he wants to do, very smart guy, very good guy, and a very fair guy. But they treated us very unfairly and they want fairness in the Senate.”

Me The People by Nancy Ohanian

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 03, 2019

Why Marianne Williamson Belongs On That Debate Stage

>




Marianne Williamson is not a member of the Inside the Beltway Club, and the Democratic establishment-- including their media allies and polling firms-- have largely blacked her out and pretended her campaign doesn't exist. (That said, she will be a guest on Morning Joe tomorrow.) When some random polls do include her, she always polls ahead of the 1% crowd, even U.S. senators like Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar and Reps like John Delaney and Julian Castro. When she was asked how she's going to dumb down her message for the media, she responded that she isn't getting shallow with voters and that she wants them to get deep with her. That's not a campaign that appeals to mass marketing media, whose job is selling Liberty Mutual auto insurance, Lifelock Identity Theft service, Gold Bond Ultimate Healing, Hersheys, Zantac, Allegra-D, Coffee-Mate and Geico Insurance. (Yes, those are this year's top-spending TV ad buyers.) I bet Marianne's message would appeal to as many of them as anything Mayor Pete has to say.

When it comes to which candidates are being covered by TV, Dhrumil Mehta has the beat covered (at fivethirtyeight.com). Whose kickoff got the most coverage?. "[V]oters," he wrote," haven’t heard the same amount of noise from each campaign, because cable news has amplified their launches differently... We found that Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke saw dramatic, mountainous peaks in mentions immediately following their announcements, and in some cases still days after. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren saw more modest bumps. And others-- such as Pete Buttigieg, John Hickenlooper and Jay Inslee-- saw molehills." Marianne Williamson? Not included. She rarely is. I was surprised to see her on the definitive NY Times list of candidates and probable candidates.

This week, Mehta updated his coverage to let his readers have a look at what the 3 cable news networks are doing since the announcement phase. Beto, Kamala and Bernie had the most, followed by Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar. Below 60 mentions between March 24-30 were Mayor Pete, Gillibrand, Frackenlooper, John Delaney, Julian Castro, Jay Inslee, Tulsi and Andrew Yang. Look how flat the graph of Yang's media coverage looks compared to front-runner (for coverage) Beto's.


[I]n the past week, Beto O’Rourke got the most coverage of any candidate on cable news, with Kamala Harris, Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker all at least 95 mentions behind. Jay Inslee, Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard got next to no coverage.

Pete Buttigieg, who saw some favorable polling in Iowa and nationally this past week, was the only candidate who didn’t have a large reduction in media coverage from the previous week, but the overall amount of coverage he received was still modest compared with other major candidates.
Another way to gage which candidates are getting their messages out has to do with Social Media, of course, rather than TV. These are the candidates that the NY Times listed, but listed here according to the number of their Twitter followers. The biggest discrepancy-- among declared candidates-- between Twitter followers and TV coverage is, as you might guess, Marianne Williamson.
Bernie- 9.18 million
Cory Booker- 4.23 million
Joe Biden- 3.39 million
Marianne Williamson- 2.61 million
Kamala Harris- 2.52 million
Elizabeth Warren- 2.33 million
Kirsten Gillibrand- 1.39 million
Beto- 1.39 million

Amy Klobuchar- 667K
Mayor Pete- 645K
Eric Swalwell- 501K
Tulsi- 320K
Michael Bennet- 285K
Andrew Yang- 211K
Julian Castro- 197K
Steve Bullock- 167K
Frackenlooper- 141K
Seth Moulton- 136K

Tim Ryan- 69.3K
Terry McAuliffe- 65.8K
Jay Inslee- 43.2K
John Delaney- 18.5K
Wayne Messam- 5,170


The irony of the non-coverage of Williamson is that she is one of the most issue and policy-oriented of the candidates. Her campaign website's issues section is probably the best of anyone running. Nor does she beat around the bush, ducking and weaving like most careerist politicians who are afraid of the voters. Yesterday she sent her supporters a very clear statement on why she supports the Green New Deal.
There’s a lot of talk these days about the Green New Deal, and for good reason. I do support a Green New Deal, and I want to be very clear about why. We need job opportunities for more Americans. We need massive infrastructure repair. And we need to green our economy. A Green New Deal does all three.

The Green New Deal cites the UN Study that says that we only have a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. The Green New Deal assumes that the only way to save our climate is to make huge and fundamental changes to the underlying systems that have created the climate crisis.

The Green New Deal sets the goal of making America a zero emissions nation by 2030. In addition, it mandates universal health care and a guarantee of a living wage for every American, reinforces the strength of unions, and mentions enacting and enforcing trade rules with strong labor and environmental protections.

Opposition to the Green New Deal comes of the form of those who say it will be “bad for business,” but in too many cases an unrestrained business sector has been bad for our democracy and bad for our lives. The American people should no longer acquiesce to the canard that making short terms profits for fossil fuel companies-- or any other major corporate conglomerate-- is somehow “better for business.” In fact, while such an amoral organizing principle has increased the profits for a few Americans, it has led to devastation for far too many.

As president, I will not forget this. I believe in capitalism with a conscience, and responsible business leaders will find me an enthusiastic partner in any effort to claim for the capitalist enterprise a moral and ethical center.

I support the Green New Deal because we cannot wait any longer to repair our country. A better version of same old same old will not disrupt a dysfunctional trajectory. Some things need to change in this country, and if I am president they will.


Keeping Marianne largely off TV, prevents her from reaching potential contributors to her campaign. If she doesn't get the 65,000 donors she needs, she won't be part of the debates. Even if it's just a buck, please consider contributing to her campaign here Her voice and perspective can only make the Democratic Party stronger and more relevant. Take a look at this video of Marianne doing a Q&A session on Boston's NPR television station.




Labels: , , , ,

Friday, October 15, 2010

About the guy "Big Dick" Cheney shot

>

It wasn't possible to cover up the fact that "Big Dick" Cheney had shot a guy, but we sure as shootin' didn't find out how severely the poor guy, Dick Whittington, was injured.

by Ken

Credit Washington Post reporter Carl Farhi with a nice piece of reporting in following up on the man whose identity was transformed into the guy "Big Dick" shot.

One of the things we learn is that, contrary to the impression created at the time of the shooting, Whittington wasn't an old friend, or really a friend of any kind, of the vice president. We also learn that they haven't become any closer since what Whittington himself insists was, an accident, "plain and simple." ("It could happen to anyone.") They haven't seen each other in two years, Whittington says -- not since the funeral of Anne Armstrong, their hostess on that fateful day.
The two men barely knew each other. Before the shooting, they had met briefly only three times since the mid-1970s and had never gone hunting together before. "The most you could say is that he was an acquaintance," Whittington says. . . .

Although Whittington says they've exchanged birthday greetings, they haven't seen each other for two years. The last time they met was when they attended the funeral of Anne Armstrong, the ranch owner whose invitation drew the two men together.

Another thing we learn is that Whittington's injuries were way more severe than we ever knew, presumably thanks to Big Dick's ability to stage-manage the infotainment news media.
Nearly five years on, Harry Whittington still speaks with a slight flutter in his voice -- a "warble," he calls it, inadvertently choosing a bird metaphor. His easy East Texas drawl changed forever one day in February 2006 when a tiny lead pellet pierced his larynx. It's still there.

Whittington sweeps a hand up to his dusky face and points near his right eye, then to the right side of his forehead. The eye socket, hairline and hand have birdshot pellets lodged in them, too. If you look closely -- and strangers occasionally sidle up to him to do just that -- the accident's remnants are evident; there's a tiny bump in each spot.

Every so often, for months afterward, some of the lead in Whittington's body worked its way to the surface. But many pieces remain too deeply embedded to remove, including one near his heart. At 82, Whittington knows he will live the rest of his days with about 30 pieces of shot inside him. Somehow, he jokes, he can get through a metal detector without causing a commotion.

I for one didn't know that once the guy got to a real hospital, he spent a week in intensive care.
The shotgun sprayed upward of 200 birdshot pellets at Whittington, causing scores of wounds. His facial lacerations were the most dramatically bloody, but the injuries to his neck and chest were the most serious. Four days after being hit, the birdshot near his heart prompted it to beat erratically, forcing him back into the intensive care unit. Doctors said Whittington suffered a mild heart attack; he thinks it was something less, a heart "event."

Still, the injuries were more dire than previously disclosed. Whittington suffered a collapsed lung. He underwent invasive exploratory surgery, as doctors probed his vital organs for signs of damage. The load from Cheney's gun came close to, but didn't damage, the carotid artery in his neck. A rupture could have been fatal, particularly since it took the better part of an hour to transport him from the vast Armstrong ranch to the Kingsville hospital.

Yes, the guy is conservative, but "conservative" in the sense that he really believes in the bedrock of traditional conservative philosophy. He grew up hard.
He grew up in the boom-and-bust oil patch in Henderson, 140 miles from Dallas. His family struggled through the Depression, and Whittington never forgot it. His father lost his dry-goods store and cotton gin after the community suffered four successive crop failures.

Attracted by the GOP's small-government/low-tax message, Whittington shocked his family, Democrats for generations, by becoming a Republican as a young man.

I doubt that Whittington and I would find much to agree about if we found ourselves talking politics.
Whittington managed John Tower's successful 1960 bid to become the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a Senate seat in Texas. He became "social friends" with a transplanted Texan named George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, eventually working on Bush's failed campaign for the Senate in 1964. He supported another friend, future secretary of state James Baker, when he lost the race for Texas attorney general in 1978. He helped a young man named Karl Rove set up his first direct-mail firm, leasing office space to him in his building (Whittington still sits on the board of Rove's consulting firm).

But at least as presented by reporter Farhi, Whittington comes across as a man with some real principles, and real compassion. As he rose to prominence in the Texas Republican establishment, he was tapped for a series of commission-type assignments.
His most lasting work was on the state prison board from 1979 to 1985. Whittington pestered lawmakers and held public hearings to expose a series of messes: drug-running scandals, rampant cronyism, no-bid contracting and a barbaric system in which wardens permitted prisoners to discipline other prisoners. The crusade culminated in the ouster of the prison system's director.

Whittington eventually launched an initiative on behalf of nonviolent, developmentally disabled inmates, pushing the state to adopt a legal standard for determining who deserves such consideration. Whittington later aided in the legal appeals for Walter Bell, a developmentally disabled man who was on death row for 28 years for a double murder (the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 struck down capital punishment for the developmentally disabled, leading a judge to commute Bell's sentence to life in prison). For Whittington, the issue was personal: One of his four daughters was born with such disabilities.

"Harry is a patrician Republican; he's as conservative as they come," says Scott McCown, a former state's attorney who now runs the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin think tank that advocates on behalf of the state's poor. "He came on the prison board having a pro-corrections, pro-administration stance. But he's a hard-nosed guy, and he didn't like being lied to. He raised hell. When he sees a problem, he speaks his mind. And since he's richer than God, he can afford to."

And beyond insisting that the shooting incident was nobody's fault ("'Naturally, people want to make it appear that it's someone's fault,' he shrugs"), he "bears no ill will toward Cheney ("He calls him 'a very capable and honorable man' and adds, 'He's said some very kind things to me").

Indeed there's a lot to respect about Whittington, and what's nice above all in Farhi's piece is the dimension he manages to accord his subject. We're really only interested in him for the accidental brush with history he had that day on Anne Armstrong's spread. However, Farhi gives us a real life.

To his considerable credit, at least in my book, Whittington -- although he won't say so, or talk about it at all, seems to remember only too well that Big Dick has never apologized.
[D]id Cheney ever say in private what he didn't say in public? Did he ever apologize?

Whittington, who has been talking about his life and career for hours, suddenly draws silent.

"I'm not going to go into that," he says sharply after a short pause.

Harry Whittington is too gracious to say it out loud, but he doesn't dispute the notion, either.

Nearly five years on, he's still waiting for Dick Cheney to say he's sorry.

A notion I'm hearing talked about more and more by friends and colleagues in the wake of the government response to the economic meltdown -- with highest, if not sole, priority assigned to making their bankster bankrollers whole, and lowest priority assigned to determining who might be criminally culpable and doing something about it -- is that this has become, more or less officially, a government of men and not of laws. Big Dick's shooting spree seems to me a classic example of a class of people who truly believe they're above the law, starting with the way he and his retainers succeeded to such an extent in suppressing coverage of the event and continuing with the astounding chutzpah of attempting to blame the victim, who by the way still feels sheepish about the statement he made when he was released from the hospital, seeming to apologize for being shot. Basically, he just wanted the incident to go away.

So did Big Dick, but for very different reasons. And if we hope to have a government of laws, those reasons matter.
#

Labels: ,

Thursday, January 29, 2009

The Boz asks: "Do Republicans really want Americans to suffer, alone in the dark?"

>

Power lines downed by an ice storm yesterday in Danville, Kentucky

"People are dead, thousands are without the basic amenities they need to live, and the Republicans voted en masse to ensure that disasters like these happen again."
-- The Boz, in a Boztopia post, "Alone in the Dark,
or the Winter of American Discontent"


by Ken

During the snow and ice storms yesterday that crippled much of the midsection of America. As Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show last night, the weather event, while severe, really wasn't more than an eminently foreseeable event: a severe winter storm in January -- and yet it turns out that we are apparently largely unequipped to cope.

Unluckily for him, but luckily (in the end) for us, our colleague the Boz found himself stranded, en route from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, "in a podunk motel in Nowheresville, Oklahoma -- literally, I had no idea where it was, apart from it being two hours outside Oklahoma City." He stopped there, he explains, "because the roads were getting progressively worse as I drove through the states. Arkansas and Oklahoma’s sections of Interstate 40 are in terrible shape -- full of potholes, cracks, and the like -- and that’s before the freezing rain, sleet, and mush turned the trip into a potential deathtrap."
Still, it could have been worse -- I had plenty of food and supplies, and a place to rest my head. Many Arkansans, Oklahomans, and more are without power, and they may not get it back for weeks because the grid is collapsing under the strain of the bad weather.

Amazingly, I had working cable TV, and I had C-SPAN in the background, listening to the House debate the stimulus bill that will supposedly jumpstart our economy. And if anything could keep me warm, it was the boiling of the blood from listening to Republicans attempt to barter down an already-weakened package to buy themselves more tax cuts for businesses that have already larded up on billions of our dollars.

I don’t know what’s more galling. It may be the idea that the supposedly richest, most powerful nation in the world can ignore the fact that we’re literally falling apart from the inside out. Or it may be that the party that brought you a global recession, the loss of billions of invested wealth, and two ongoing wars that cost us billions of dollars a month (Why doesn’t anyone bring up ending the Iraq war as a way to bring in more revenue?), has the gall to say that the only way to get us out of the hole they dug is to give them more money.

Not to mention that the corporatized media is bound and determined to ensure that any message they distribute to the public plays their tune and no one else’s. I was listening to the editor of The Hill ramble on the radio as I was driving about the need for “bipartisanship” and for Obama to reach out to Republicans, as if nothing is more important to the destiny of the country than to make sure the party that got its ass thoroughly kicked in the last election at least has a cookie and milk as consolation.
And what we get in Washingon, Boz writes, is "political Kabuki Theater," "where everything is done for the benefit of those who maintain power."
Outside D.C., however, the fundamental issues we face are larger than any single election or politician.

The stimulus is already stingy in almost every respect. It won’t bring us nationwide broadband investment. It won’t give us enough for smart power grids. It won’t cover enough for mass transit development. It doesn’t fund enough investment in alternative energy sources. It will help a lot, make no mistake -- anything is better than nothing. But ultimately, all it does is paper over the cracks in the foundation -- the proverbial Band-Aid on cancer.
Boz recalls a Nevada congressman boasting about the "boom economy" of Las Vegas. The boom doesn't look so impressive now given the deep distress of its leading industries, construction and tourism.
As David Sirota wrote not long ago, Vegas is a symbol of the unsustainable cycle of development we’ve been pushing for decades now. You can’t build a thriving city based on industries that can go belly-up so easily. You need investment in new technology, new ideas, and new determination to see them through.
He returns to the situation in Oklahoma.
A modernized power grid that conserves electricity and provides more power with less waste could help families across the states hit by the ice storm and keep them from freezing or using portable heaters. Rural broadband investment could create statewide Wi-Fi networks that could keep people in instantaneous contact and give them all the information they need to figure out how best to deal with the storm, instead of trying to parse out information from the useless weather television channels or the equally clueless local news. (Imagine if the digital television transition had taken place during this storm, and all the people who would be completely in the dark, literally and figuratively, as a result.) And better roads with more people working on keeping them clean and sanded would not only keep people like me on the move, but it would provide more jobs and more economic boosts for states that desperately need them.

19 people would still be alive and thousands of people would still have power just from improving the services and systems we have. More money for states means more jobs, which means more services, which means both more tax revenue and more consumption of goods. I’m not an economist, but this isn’t freaking neuroscience.

Instead of the vision we need for true economic stimulation, we’re getting endless speeches from smirking Republicans unironically quoting Margaret Thatcher as an invocation of our slide into socialism -- while many of these same people cast votes for TARP (both times) and every military action that’s drained our Treasury, wrecked other countries, and cost thousands of lives.

And the people who should be providing the vision as the majority are willing to provide business tax cuts that don’t work at the cost of more money given to programs that do work. Instead of throwing everything we have at full-scale national broadband investment (which alone could provide aid to everything from health care to green tech), infrastructure spending, and renewable energy development, we’re going halfsies.

And half-assing it won’t cut it for a genuine solution to our fundamental problem -- that our way of life is unsustainable and can’t continue.
#

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: , , , , ,