Michael King is a news editor for the Austin Chronicle since 2000 and has reported on politics throughout his career. In this Austin Chronicle article, King criticizes gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott’s statements on the Attorney General office ruling that the Department of State Health Services is no longer required to disclose information on whether or not a company has dangerous chemicals stored. According to King, this ruling came out of a 2003 Homeland Security law that was put in place to try to keep useful information away from terrorists. One of King’s main points of criticism comes from his argument that it was not, in his words, “ ‘terrorists’ who blew up West, Texas,” last year. He also states that, had the first responders who arrived at the scene known that the explosion was caused by ammonium nitrate, their lives may have been saved because they would have known the extent of the danger they were heading into. Abbott is reported to have said, “You can ask every facility whether or not they have chemicals or not. You can ask them if they do…and if they do, they will tell which ones they have.” I agree with King that this response by Abbott to this decision that came out of his office, is comical. My first reaction was to think about how people who want this information, such as the suggestion that terrorists do, could still gather this information if it is so easy to just ask companies if they are storing chemicals. It seems to me that average people, who are not actively looking for dangerous chemicals, would benefit more from direct information than from taking it upon themselves to ask companies.

               King then relates this information to the current gubernatorial race. He states that Wendy Davis’ campaign will likely be better off because of this situation. Though King does not necessarily think Davis’ campaign will benefit greatly, this issue could not hurt it. However, I believe this issue may hurt Abbott’s campaign and benefit Davis’ a lot more. The explosion in West last April caused a lot of heartbreak, and seeing that people, generally, regardless of party identification, do not want to be shielded from information that could kill them, I think people are more likely to pay more attention to a candidate that acknowledges the idea that citizens deserve to know if where they are living is safe. However after reading King’s statement that the fertilizers in West are still there even after the explosion, I question my stance on how much people care about living near chemicals. King states that our leaders “go right on poisoning our air, land, and water… and the best we can manage is: ‘Please tell us where the bombs are buried’.” Throughout this article King does a good job at not particularly choosing a side based political party affiliation, but writing an article that is directed at every Texas citizen who is affected by chemical storage in the state.