Disenfranchised Citizen

Shark's kind of oily...

Spring Break is coming…

That annual rite of passage where drunken teens descend upon the beaches to get a rest from their studies and are often side by side with families, also on vacation from the thawing but still cold North is almost here, and all along the Gulf Coast, resorts and towns who typically make a great deal of money from this annual retreat are crossing their fingers. It’s been a pretty bad year…the economy, the now rising gas prices, the BP oil spill and the resulting tons of Corexit dumped into the waters to combat said oil spill…

So, is it safe for the people to spend time on the beaches? Is the sand and water clean, or is it poison?

It would depend on who you ask.

The CDC says all is well. The NOAA, the FDA and the EPA say all is well…come on down and have a fine time, and those are some pretty heavy hitters. It would appear safe to say that the Federal Government believes nobody will come to any harm by spending days on the beaches of the Gulf Coast, in the water, breathing the air, and the owners of the resorts, the people who work in these towns certainly hope the government is right.

We all do, even British Petroleum, who even while they scale back cleanup across the Gulf Coast continues to focus their attention on the sands of the resort towns, the places where the media doesn’t fear to tread because they know that Spring Break is a proving ground for progress. It’s the time where people will come to the Gulf from all over the country and see with their own eyes whether all their PR efforts, the commercials on television, radio and the internet are right, or are what many in the Gulf believe…a load of shit.

The last thing BP needs is another batch of dead dolphins to come rolling onto Panama City Beach while the MTV crews are around, or a massive fish kill, or a storm that might bring a few more tons of tar balls from the tar mats of oil offshore.

Its also the last thing business owners in the Gulf need.

And that brings us to a choice, the choice…

Nobody in the government wants to be Roy Scheider, the Sheriff of Amity running across the sand yelling, “Oil!”

The government instead chooses the uneasy role of the mayor, anxiety and defiance etched in his quickly aging face and threatening to fire anyone who finds the shark in them waters. Meanwhile, the business community of the Gulf Coast shares the anxiety, torn between trying to revive their economy and a creeping feeling of hope that nothing bad will happen, that the oil won’t come ashore and that nobody will get sick.

Having written on this subject for awhile and having spoken to many others who also write on this subject, it is much akin to writing about seafood safety in the Gulf. Logic would seem to dictate that if you dump that many toxins into a body of water that the seafood is unsafe, but to actually write that is something else entirely, because tugging at your conscience is also the knowledge that this meme would also harm the industry of a part of the country you care for very much, and a great many people who you care about.

As I mentioned, the choice is difficult, especially when you believe that the government and its agencies, as they have been throughout this whole catastraphuk, are only giving you part of the truth or their best case scenario. For British Petroleum and the government, logic and what you believe are unimportant. What is important is what you can prove, and they seem to believe nobody can prove the Gulf is unsafe.

All despite articles such as:

NASA Data Strengthens Reports of Toxic rain on the Gulf Coast From BP Spill – Jerry Cope

or

The BP Oil Disaster: Results from a Health and Economic Impact Survey in Four Coastal Louisiana Parishes

or all of the important information available from the website:

Florida Oil Spill Law

Again, the choice is a difficult one.

But, much as I wish it weren’t the case, I’ve read too much and heard the stories of too many people for me to bury my head in the sands cleaned by British Petroleum, and I am forced to add my voice to the growing crowd of people who are pointing at the surf yelling, “Oil…Oil…Oil…” because whereas I do believe in the importance of an improving economy, I also believe that more important are any potential health risks for the people, even more important than a full beach.

Have a nice day.

United we stand, divided we fall...

Hello again.

Yes, I still kill people for a living.

And yes, I’m in a union.

It’s kind of an off-shoot of the union most US Marshals belong to but we keep it kind of quiet – so that’s all I really want to say about it.

Damn.

That might even be too much…well, its a risk I’m willing to take and why not? I’m an assassin and I’m good at what I do, really good, so let’s just say I got my own back on this. Besides, I felt it only fair to tip my hand as far as where I stand on that whole Wisconsin thing. I may work for captains of industry and politicians, but how many of you people like your bosses?

It’s a contract thing.

So, been watching the news lately and well, since Bobby Jindal felt it okay to weigh in on what’s going on with the public sector unions, that kind of opened the door for me and let me say, I know Bobby. Bobby and I go back a few years. I’ve had dinner with Bobby, but okay, enough of these disclaimers.

Here’s my point:

Certain members in national politics, large conglomerates and the pundocracy have been going on about how the way to solve the economic crisis many states find themselves in is to strip the public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights. They say they need flexibility in their budgets. They say it’s time for the unions to do their share. They say that we can no longer afford for all these government employees to go about in their fancy cars to their fine restaurants and then home to their mansions to feed the finest steak to their french poodles.

The people who are saying these things are full of steak.

And they know it.

I know it. I work for these people. I went to the Super Bowl with some of these people…great game eh bro?

And they are counting on you, the American people, to not know it.

Remember those days after Hurricane Katrina? President Bush and his advisers used that calamity to slam through a number of changes inside the hurricane/flooding zone, tax-breaks to corporations, no-bid contracts, lower wages to employees doing the work…just to name a few. This was all done and approved due to crisis. Budgetary items large business had been pushing for years but unable to realize were suddenly approved en-masse. Had to be done. No choice. It was a national disaster.

If you’re not familiar with the technique, read Naomi Klein’s book, Shock Doctrine. She spells out all the tools of Disaster Capitalism and I gotta admit, I turned down the contact on her. Everybody did, despite the pressure from our bosses and know how we could resist said pressure? We were in a union and besides, Ms. Klein is a Canadian and I don’t do Canadians. It’s bad luck.

What? It is…

We all have our quirks and superstitions. I don’t kill people on Thursdays either; bad shit happens on Thursdays and I want no part of it.

The funny thing about this economic crisis though, the unions didn’t cause it and sometimes, they were actually its victims. The whole financial meltdown goes way back, back to Clinton and his love of deregulating the markets which was then given a real kick in the ass by Bushco. You see, when the same people who run the financial institutions and enforce financial law are also working in the federal government and making decisions that benefit their former employers like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and doing investigations for the SEC, much chicanery can result. Hell of a lot more than me and my ilk could pull off. Bad predatory home loans, the deregulation of the commodities market which spikes the price of food and oil, bundles of bad loans put together and then sold as good investments to unsuspecting pension managers…oftentimes, union pension managers. Hell, it was a disaster. Well, you don’t need me to tell you that, you’re living it.

Want to know how many of these financiers went to jail for what they did?

Zero.

Instead they were awarded bonuses, with your money.

Man, not even an assassin can pull that off. Don’t believe me? Spend an afternoon reading Washington’s Blog. It’ll numb your brain and make you mad enough to kill.

Trust me.

I know.

Want to know what else these financier’s did?

They poured money into the election campaigns and got a whole lot of people elected, and want to know what these newly elected official’s are doing?

That’s right, they passed tax breaks to these same corporations, helping to further stimulate the need for spending cuts due to ongoing economic crisis and one way they are trying to make ends meet is to strip the unions, the workers, the nurses, doctors, social workers, teachers and so many other professions of their rights. Tax breaks and bonuses for their buddies who caused this mess, and austerity cuts for you to pay for it all.  

For them, it’s a win-win.

For us, it’s a fuck you.

Though they do promise jobs will come as a result of their shenanigans, economists say it will actually decrease job creation, decrease the revitalization of the economy and increase the already record setting disparity of wealth in America.

And that’s not all…these newly elected officials are attempting the entire playbook of the morality and business agenda: defunding the EPA, the NOAA, Planned Parenthood, energy assistance to the poor. They are going after anything having to do with global warming. These idiots in the Montana legislature are even trying to pass a bill to promote the benefits of global warming. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Gone. The idea that the Federal government tries to promote home ownership as a right, gone. Deregulation of coal plants, continued mountaintop mining in the Appalachians, fracking…etc. The list goes on and on…and want to know what everything on this list has in common?

Simple.

If you’re wealthy, you will be unaffected.

If you’re poor, you’ll be more toxic, a perpetual renter, cold and uninformed…and you will no longer be in a union.

What? Poor union members?

That’s right.

Unlike the myth you are being sold, most in public sector unions, though largely middle class are paid less than their private sector counterpart. Why would they accept being paid less? Because the benefits make up for it. So, you cut the benefits and you cut their wages and they get even poorer than their private sector counterparts. You make them vote annually to keep their union in place while their bosses place pressure to get them to disband the union every year, all while you prohibit unions from taking dues out of payroll and end any collective bargaining rights for union members, like Walker is doing in Wisconsin. And when you do all of this, what do you get?

No more unions.

You’re under assault, America, and I don’t like to be the one who tells you this, but that top 1%, they are endlessly seeking two things in life: how to take your money and how to keep you from realizing they’re taking your money. It’s kind of what they do, like a parasite, like a leech, like a politician…mostly republicans, but a whole hell of a lot of democrats too and don’t get me started on the Tea Party people…ever see the movie Animal House? That scene where Kevin Bacon is bent over during fraternity hazing and being  spanked with the wooden paddle? You know…every time he’s hit, he grimaces and says, “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

Yeah, tea partiers are a lot like that, except of course the people who are organizing their tomfoolery to their own advantage. Those organizing tea partier’s got themselves a paddle too.

I tell ya the whole thing sometimes makes me mad enough to kill, but then again…today’s Thursday and I already said how I feel about Thursdays.

Rough, rough, rough…man, perhaps I should apologize.

Yes, apologize – it seems every time I talk to you out there all I ever have is bad news, but I just had to chime in and help those who dont know, know. I guess I give the bad news because I like you people. Yes, I’m a people person, it’s not a self interest thing. I mean – I’m not worried about my union. Can you imagine anyone stupid enough to try to end the rights of an assassin’s union?

I’m just telling you this because if you think these parasites are going to stop with public sector unions, you’re not paying attention. You haven’t been paying attention for years, either that…or you’re in the top 1%.

So yeah, sorry about the news, but bad news over the internet is much better than any I would deliver in person.

Because, you know…I kill people for a living.

So, uh, as Drake says…

Have a nice day.

The good, the bad, the ugly...

When Feinberg first proposed the methodology for interim and final payments he clearly made everyone unhappy. Even BP weighed in with their dislike of his payment system as far too generous, and while their now apparent total disregard for their public relations department can be summarily dismissed, the people who matter here, namely the people injured by this spill, well, they were equally unimpressed. A two week public comment period came with that methodology on February 2nd and over 1400 comments rolled in. Feinberg listened to several of them and made some minor changes. Feinberg also ignored many more and stuck to some of the least popular ideas present in his methodology. Here’s some of the good and some of the bad in the now final rules for interim and final payments from the GCCF.

The good:

1. Even if people were denied for an EAP, of which there were hundreds of thousands, they can try again and file for an interim or final payment and unlike the first time round, there are now some guidelines, some indications of what kind of documentation the GCCF is looking for along with how they are making their calculations.

2. Most industries not having a direct connection to the coast are no longer summarily denied. Instead there will be an eligibility test where claimants both direct and indirectly effected will have to show there revenue declined in the eight month post spill period from May through December of 2010 and that decline was more than any similar decline during the years of 2008 and 2009. Also, the decline must be worse than any decline in revenue during the four months of 2010 leading up to the spill on April 20th. For businesses and individuals away from the coast, some of the documentation Feinberg will accept to show losses would be unpaid bills and/or canceled contracts from businesses that operate along the coast.

3. Not only oyster harvesters will now benefit from the special payment scale  initially introduced on February 2nd, oyster processors are now included.

4. Feinberg has stated, yet again, that documentation of losses for the oil spill are inadequate, so the GCCF will cover costs for accountants hired to help people with their claims.

The bad:

1. The no sue clause is still in effect. To receive a quick payment or a final payment, claimants and their families must still sign away their rights to sue BP and a hundred other companies associated with this spill when future recovery of the Gulf is unknown. Interim payments are available for people who don’t want to sign such a clause, but Feinberg has indicated in many press releases and in his own methodology that he believes the Gulf is in full recovery so it is likely that showing damages that will result in payment from Feinberg will become increasingly difficult and may be for naught.

2. The 2012 timetable is still woefully inadequate and Feinberg’s study of Gulf recovery by 2012 is flawed. Jane Lubchenco, head of the NOAA has said as much and new studies, studies not done with BP money are showing that problems are likely to persist well beyond 2012.

3. Gulf sicknesses have not been addressed. Hell, gulf sicknesses are barely being covered by regional press, let alone the national press and if people continue to get sick, there will be no compensation and their families will be awash in medical bills that will either go unpaid, or have to be picked up the state.

4. Mental health issues and any bills contained therein are not covered.

5. Public perception of Gulf seafood is negative and this will strongly impact recovery of the seafood industries.

6. People who suffered property damage while enrolled in the VOO program will not be eligible for reimbursement through the fund.

The ugly:

This list of pro and con is not meant to be exhaustive and there is surely more to be said on both sides of the issue, but when it comes to making things right for the people in the Gulf Coast, this new methodology is not comprehensive. People will continue to suffer. Bills will continue to go unpaid and people will be left out in the cold. It could be argued that no methodology will make everybody happy, a point that even I can concede, but certainly it can be better than this, certainly it can be better than letting British Petroleum know that no matter what happens, you’re only going to have to work on making things whole until 2013, and then the people of the Gulf Coast will be left on their own while Feinberg heads back to New York, without apology and leaving an un-recovered Gulf behind.

Have a nice day.

Simple, it would appear Samantha didn't read my report...

Ken Feinberg believes the Gulf of Mexico will be recovered by 2012.

British Petroleum disputes this time-table as being too lengthy.

A new study released by the University of Georgia however, reveals Feinberg and BP may both be inhaling far too many fumes from their vanishing oil.

At a science conference in Washington Saturday, marine scientist Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia showed the results of what she found with submarine dives that travelled across 2600 square miles of the Gulf’s seafloor where her team took 250 core samples, “I’ve been to the bottom. I’ve seen what it looks like with my own eyes. It’s not going to be fine by 2012,” Joye told the Associated Press. “You see what the bottom looks like, you have a different opinion.”

She showed pictures of bottom dwelling creatures that are choked with oil. They included dead crabs, and brittle stars that normally would be bright orange and wrapped tightly around coral. Instead they were pale, loose and dead. She also saw tube worms so full of oil they suffocated.

“This is Macondo oil on the bottom,” Joye said as she showed slides. “This is dead organisms because of oil being deposited on their heads.”

Damn Ken, even Jane Lubchenco from the NOAA says your 2012 time-frame isn’t right, and she has a hard time finding oil under the hood of her car.

This is far, far from over, no matter what anyone who is, or receives money from British Petroleum might want the country and the courts to believe.

Read the article:

Scientist finds Gulf bottom still oily, dead

Have a nice day.

The NOAA recently opened the skull

What a week…

Lot of news from the Gulf these past few days…so this morning, I kinda stepped back a bit and cleared the mind before taking a look at this whole mess from the outside…especially in light of a reader comment I received yesterday, who asked what people can do to keep the pressure on British Petroleum and the GCCF.

But before I get to that, first a summary of the most recent going’s ons in the Gulf…

British Petroleum:

They’ve resumed paying dividends to their shareholders, got Feinberg to pay a business partner’s $10 million dollar final claim and made a deal with the Russians only to have an injunction filed against said deal. They continue to scale back cleanup in the Gulf, despite tar balls still washing ashore, saying they are in the final cleanup stages and didn’t you know they promised to make things right? Oh, and they’re doing their best at this while being accused of manipulating gas prices.

Ken Feinberg:

He released his methodology which really helped nobody and then woke up to find out he’s not independent from BP, don’t ya know. He continues to tell the Justice Department and everybody else he’ll take their criticisms under advisement, but narcissistically plows straight ahead appearing to do nothing of the sort. His prediction that the Gulf will be fine by 2012 is based on the best guess of a scientist who is already coming under fire from scientists who weren’t paid by British Petroleum and there has been no word as of yet on whether he’s apologized to Steven Gillers, his buddy at NYU for making him famous as the man who wrote the ethical letter that appears quite unethical to most sensible people.

The Government:

Barack Obama continues to believe the Gulf of Mexico is simply a bad television show he can just turn off at his leisure while his Justice Department writes letters to display their lack of authority. The NOAA seems to believe that Feinberg’s estimate of all things well by 2012 is certainly the doomsday scenario because according to them, things have been peachy since August, all the while their ugly kid sisters, the EPA and FDA open fishing waters, swimming through tar balls to show how if the fish swim really fast, that stuff just slides right off. Scientists continue to express concerns about toxins in the water and the marine life that lives there, as are Americans according to a recent poll, 70% of them, and the government is of course renewing their concerns about the public concern, they have to…spring break is coming and there are a lot of concerned parents in the government employ.

The Wildlife:

Basically, dead…though British Petroleum, Ken Feinberg and the government will surely tell you this had nothing to do with any oil spill.

Last, but certainly not least, the residents of the Gulf Coast:

Angry, depressed, disappointed, getting sick, losing jobs, businesses, families and culture and a terribly long way from “right.” (see above)

Keeping all that in mind, back to the comment I received yesterday…what can one do to keep the pressure on British Petroleum and the GCCF.

If you happen to be in New Orleans today, you could start with:

Dr. Wilma Subra to be Principle Speaker

If not in New Orleans, I would suggest you join one of the many advocacy groups that are working hard in the Gulf to really, make things right…or make sure BP and Ken Feinberg do…

Here’s a few links to get you started, and anyone else, feel free to comment, adding more:

LEAN: Louisiana Environmental Action Network

SKYTRUTH

Gulf Restoration Network

Have a nice day

And as your president, I promise to always stand strong for all 46 states of our great Union...

Barack Obama gave his State of the Union speech last night and did his best George W Bush impression by not mentioning Louisiana and coastal restoration. He also did his best to avoid such a foreign concept as global warming, and when it came to Ken Feinberg’s GCCF and that oil spill, that whole British Petroleum thing that happened down there in the Gulf, well…

It would appear that was so last year.

Too bad that for the people of the Gulf Coast, it remains so today, so right now.

From Florida Oil Spill Law:

“Really Alarming” No baby oysters being found in most productive areas of Louisiana – “Scientists are baffled.”

“All the fish are dead” Trout now washing up on beach near Galveston, TX.

Bumble Bee Seafood shuts down processing plant near New Orleans, moves to Thailand – Official blames oil disaster.

And then, some congressional democrat had to further go and screw up Obama’s lack of mention by bringing up a few e-mails to point out that the Fed’s whole response, or lack of response can be blamed in part by, you guessed it, public relations and politics:

A Democratic congressman wrote a scathing letter Tuesday to President Barack Obama accusing the White House of valuing public relations over science when it made public pronouncements about the effects of the BP oil spill and the government’s role in fighting it. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a liberal conservationist and avowed opponent of expanded offshore drilling, charges that spin control won out over scientific reasoning during discussions late last summer about how much oil remained in the Gulf. The congressman went so far as to liken Obama’s handling of scientific information to that of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, often accused by Democrats of placing his political agenda ahead of science.

Who, Obama?

Didn’t he pledge to do precisely the opposite?

Many scientists supported Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008 which culminated in the promise to “restore science to its rightful place” in his inaugural address.

Course, then the science got a bit inconvenient to poll numbers, public perception, and the new narrative that all is well in the Gulf…reported on national television by the now resigned, Carol Browner.

In one e-mail cited by Grijalva, a NOAA official complained about getting “strong pushback” from the White House regarding scientists’ plan to announce that the total amount of oil spilled might be higher than the official government-endorsed figure of 4.9 million barrels. The final report stuck with the 4.9 million barrel figure, which was near the high end of the scientists’ estimate of 3 million-5 million barrels spilled.

Another e-mail sent July 31 from Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe warned that it would be a mistake to present the exact percentage of the oil broken down by chemical dispersants, a controversial part of the government’s response, because the numbers were only “rough estimates.” But he was overruled and told the White House wanted a “communication product” that would highlight the success of its spill-fighting efforts.

And just as interesting, turns out one of the “independent” scientists who assisted in the review of the infamous oil budget that stated half the oil was gone, was a British Petroleum official whose name was removed from later drafts and not included in the final version of the report.

To which, Representative Issa expresses the obvious concern:

I am concerned not only about any changes BP may have suggested to the report that were not publicly disclosed, but about how a report of this magnitude can be considered independent when the company under investigation had a staffer review a pre-publication draft.

And this brings us all back to last night’s State of the Union address.

The SOTU highlights an agenda, the presidential agenda and it attempts to set the agenda out there for the American people and the mainstream press to follow, to report on, to discuss. When the science doesn’t support the narrative that the Gulf is okay, when the facts don’t support the idle dream that the people in the Gulf are being taken care of or British Petroleum is owning up to its responsibility, this president who promised to bring science back into the fold and not ignore the Gulf Coast, did what the previous president did, and many of the presidents did before him, he simply left the problem off the agenda, dismissed it from the speech altogether and in doing so sat idly by while the whole issue of the spill, the claims process and coastal restoration is left to drift further from the minds of the average American.

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida had a chance last night to be put back in the spotlight as they rightfully should have been. British Petroleum had the chance to have the scrutiny placed back onto their promise to “make things right.” Ken Feinberg had the chance, two days before his appearance at congress, to be put on notice that the White House wants answers.

But instead, Barack Obama gave nothing, no mention, just like George W Bush before him during Katrina’s aftermath. It took a congressman from Arizona of all places to raise the question of politics in the Gulf Coast response.

And today, the Gulf Coast still waits for Obama’s answer.

Have a nice day.

C'mon people! How many times does the NOAA and BP have to tell you it's all good in the Gulf! Damn! You're all so freakin' entitled!

So, let’s take a look at a few recent headlines, shall we?

From the Tri-Parish Times, tar balls are again seen coming ashore on Elmer’s Island. The Louisiana Bucket Brigade’s Peter Brabeck, an environmental monitor, spotted the new oil deposits and called them “the worst instance of oil contamination since the BP oil spill.”

From the newsstar.com, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries expert said the states fisheries and coast could feel the impact of the Gulf oil Spill for generations, “The dispersant worked in fragmenting the oil, but LSU scientists tell us there will be traceable quantities of oil longer than anyone here will be alive.”

From ABC WEAR, the Southern Environmental Law Center states Alabama’s coastline is the most environmentally threatened place in the South East United States and is facing immediate and potentially irreversible damage because of the continued threat of oil.

Sounds pretty bad, sounds like they should be doing as many studies as possible, you know, to determine the extent of the damage, to limit it as much as possible and find the best way to fight it, to make sure the fish are safe to eat, to determine for sure as the oil continues to come ashore in the future, years into the future, you know, whose oil it is that’s still screwing things up…I mean, everyone will assume it’s all a result of BP, but can ya prove it in court? After all, it ain’t what we think is right, it’s what we can prove.

So, let the studies and the analysis commence!

The more we understand, the better we can fight, the more we work together, the better our analysis, the more we can prove, the better we can get the financing from those so culpable to pay for fixing this whole mess. Information is good, information is necessary…all together everybody, let’s get to work, let’s do this, let’s…wait a minute…what?

Gulf-oil studies stalled by scarce samples…frustration of independent researchers spills out over suspended distribution by British Petroleum/US Government.

Oh yeah…right…I forgot myself for a moment…this is the Gulf of Mexico.

Turns out that ever since the Macondo Well was capped back in July, oil samples necessary for the exploration of ecological effects and to develop a better response have become increasingly scarce and currently, distribution has stopped.

So, who has the oil? Who’s gumming up the necessary environmental analysis?

1. British Petroleum

“At least as far back as September, BP began issuing a standard letter to independent researchers who requested samples, stating “Requests for source oil will be delayed…” pending development of protocols for dealing with available oil collected after the blowout. The impetus for ending distribution, BP says, was a general preservation order issued by a federal judge soon after the well was capped, which prohibited any evidence destruction. Although the order does not specifically address the oil samples, BP spokeswoman Hejdi Feick says that the company took a conservative approach in its response.

The standard letter promises that the company will develop protocols “over the next several weeks” to allow resumption of sample distribution — but no date for this has been set, according to Feick. “Our best estimate at the time we stopped providing samples did not account for all of the activity that has been necessary to ensure that BP could meet its legal obligations and resume providing material for researchers,” she says.”

2. The NOAA and the NRDC

US government agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and companies they contract also collected substantial quantities of oil for use in the official Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process, which is being used to determine BP’s liability. Although NRDA trustees filled some sample requests for small quantities, Greg Baker, an environmental scientist at NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration in Seattle, Washington, says that they too had to suspend distribution to be sure that there would be enough oil to support the legal case.

Andrew Zimmerman, a biogeochemist at the University of Florida began requesting samples back in July and was bounced back and forth between various factions of BP until he received the denial letter on September 23rd. Andrew Whitehead, a biologist at LSU, also requested samples and was turned down by BP, “I think the lack of samples will prevent important research from getting done,” says Whitehead. Ira Leifer, an oil spill expert at UC-Santa Barbara, who was part of the US government led task force that produced the official flow-rate estimate was also turned down.

And what were these three scientists attempting to study? The effects of the oil spill on marsh plants and possible clean up methods, the effects of the oil spill on fish, and a way to improve the remote sensing of surface oil. Leifer eventually gave up and went out to the Gulf to collect samples of his own and also obtained dispersant samples by what he described as “unofficial means.” He couldn’t get the dispersant from Nalco, because in order to do so he would have had to sign nondisclosure agreements.

It would seem only rational for the common-sense individual to see all this maneuvering as a way for the US government to control the information that runs against their official narrative and for BP, a strategy to minimize the information available to the public about the extent of damage.

British Petroleum, of course, says nothing could be further from the truth, “BP has no intention of withholding samples of the variety of source oils we have collected,” says BP spokesperson, Hejdi Feick, “except as is essential to ensure that BP retains adequate quantities of each type of oil to satisfy its legal requirements.”

Yeah, because if there’s one thing we’ve learned over the past nine months, it’s that British Petroleum is always concerned about their legal requirements, just as concerned as the US government’s is in keeping the public informed with the truth, about the Gulf of Mexico and their response.

Ah, another beautiful morning in the Gulf…

Have a nice day.

Too big to fail, bitches...

When it comes to our government and its accompanying systems, people tend to fall primarily into two camps: believers and skeptics. The believer tends to take the government’s word for it, listen to what they have to say and nod accordingly, maybe occasionally troubled by its actions but ultimately believing they are working for the greater good. The skeptic is more inclined to questions, more critical, perhaps sees the government institutions as troubled and crumbling, and when it comes to the greater good, oftentimes feels the government seems to be on the wrong side of the equation.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who’s visited this website I fall hard into the skeptics crowd.

So, keeping that in mind, as I read and listen to the pronouncements of the EPA, the NOAA, the FDA, and the formal government itself, both local, but especially federal, as they continue to sound the narrative of all is well with the seafood in the Gulf and the safety of the water, I struggle. As they seemingly ignore the idea of health problems throughout the Gulf, saying there is no definitive link between Corexit and the all the crude in the water, I find this difficult to accept. When they say that most of the oil is gone, the methane is gone, the beaches are great, I raise an eyebrow. When Feinberg denies, denies, denies and says he is doing the best he can, and all we get is a tepid suggestion from the Justice Department that Feinberg and the GCCF should be more transparent in their methodology, I sit back and breathe, wondering, “that’s the best you can do?”

Obviously, there is a very simple reason for all of what the government and its agencies are saying. According to their narrative, there are no health effects, the food and water is safe, the oil is gone, Corexit is harmless and Feinberg’s doing the best he can.

But being a skeptic, I don’t buy it.

When independent scientists report finding oil and dead animals on the seafloor near the very spot the government reports is clear, when independent scientists are finding alkylated PAHs and hydrocarbons in the seafood the government says is safe, when doctors are attributing widespread sicknesses to toxic chemicals from the Gulf, when scientists are finding both crude oil and dispersants in Mississippi soil samples taken from their beaches, why should I buy the governmental all clear?

And if it’s not all jake, why would the government pretend all is well?

I don’t know for sure, but I have a thought, a theory, a possibility…

How much does $20 billion dollars buy?

Crazy?

Maybe so…but still, c’mon…

I don’t mean to insinuate the government would intentionally put people’s safety at risk, intentionally lie or cover up, with the potential of poisoning the nation with bad seafood, air and water, but let’s just say they aren’t trying as hard as they could to find the problems. Oftentimes, according to the government, it isn’t what you might think is right, it’s what you can prove in court. Is the seafood poisoned? Our limited testing shows all is well. Keeping the testing limited gives cover. Are people suffering health effects from Corexit and toxic poisoning by crude? These things are very difficult to prove in court so again, cover. Toxins on the beaches? Hey, nobody said the cleanup is over, we’re just making it a bit more ornamental. Oil on the seafloor, tar mats? We didn’t say the oil is completely gone, just most of it. We looked and we couldn’t find it. Independent scientists say what? This is unimportant, just look at our reports, they are much more intensive, much better funded and they are also reported on by the mainstream press.

And hey, we asked Feinberg to be more transparent.

Cover.

Again, how much does $20 billion dollars buy?

The government response could be interpreted as: they don’t necessarily need to be right about anyone’s safety, they just need to have done enough to satisfy their consciences and satisfy popular opinion. They need to be able to say, we tried, for the good of America. In the long run, the rest is negligible.

But what might a responsible government do?

They might take each finding by independent scientists and team up, work with them, form partnerships to address each and every problem to get this cleaned up right, or as right as possible. They would expand testing of Gulf seafood to seek out all toxins. They might demand to see the books of the GCCF and try to determine what is going wrong, to help facilitate payments to the people so harmed. They might run wide scale testing of the health of Gulf Coast residents, of American citizens to find out if people are being poisoned by toxic chemicals in the Gulf, to know…for sure, rather than say nothing and wait for it to be proven years down the road, when it might be too late for people who are sick, now.

A responsible government, concerned about its citizens might make demands to the GCCF that they waive the no sue clause so if health or environmental problems continue to persist in the Gulf of Mexico, its citizens would have some sort of recourse to the law, for compensation, for a disaster inflicted upon them by a large company or companies.

Course, all of that could be rather expensive, to the government, to British Petroleum and to Nalco, makers of Corexit.

And of course, Obama remains silent.

Why?

Such is the thinking of the skeptic…

Shake your head if you want, but before you dismiss me outright, say the government would never engage in such activities for the benefit of a few corporations…answer me this, when AIG and the rest of the banks and Wall Street began to experience big trouble, primarily because of bullshit predatory mortgages and securities lending between brokerage houses, did the government come to the aid of homeowners or did they come to the aid of the banks? When city budgets are in trouble, do state governments tax big business, or do they cut funding to people, poor people.

In the financial crisis, who’s keeping their homes?

And who’s keeping their homes in the Gulf…BP or the people who live there?

It’s just a question…

Have a nice day.

Don't worry about it, they've almost got a plan...

Approaching nine months after the Deepwater Horizon exploded, spilling 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, sensitive marshes off the coast of Louisiana are still covered with oil. Friday, state and local representatives took the media on a tour of Barataria Bay, showing an area where the oil continues to destroy the marshes and also where protective boom is gone or has been eaten away by the oil to the point of being useless.

While Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish gave a press conference to highlight the continued destruction of Louisiana’s protective wetlands, he was interrupted by Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer who said, “Clearly there is oil here in the marsh but we are working as a team to find a best way to clean it up…it’s a high priority.”

“It’s like you’re in bed with BP,” Nungesser replied.

Interesting…

The Coast Guard is working on a plan.

Almost 9 months later.

When asked, Lauer gave few details as to what this plan entailed. They also couldn’t explain why there are no protective measures in the marsh to keep things from getting any worse. Lauer did however emphasize that “No one has ever said, it’s over, we’re going home.”

Ah…I see, but what does BP say?

British Petroleum spokesman Daren Beaudo said in an e-mail that with the exception of the occasional tar ball, there is no evidence of significant amounts of oil from the blown out well reaching the Louisiana shoreline since the end of August.

Ah…I see, perhaps he should tell that to the residents of Grand Isle, Louisiana, where some company’s oil is continuing to wash ashore…

From the Times-Picayune: BP has scaled back its cleanup efforts from 48,000 workers during the summer to 6,000 now. That has prompted some local officials to complain in recent weeks that the work has slowed down on the heels of the 2011 tourism season. Earlier this week, Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris Roberts also complained that clean up on the beaches of Grand Isle was at “neutral.”

Elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, tar balls are washing up in Perdido Key, Florida, on Gulf Shores, Alabama, and the shores of Mississippi. The oil is still coming ashore in four Gulf Coast states, but as we found out yesterday, the NOAA and the Coast Guard are working on a plan, all while BP denies and cuts down the amount of cleanup workers.

“This is the biggest cover-up in the history of America,” Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser told reporters, gesturing with his gloved right hand, which was covered in oil.

Agreed.

Have a nice day.

BP trusts me, what more do you need?

Who do you trust?

Who do you believe?

Who’s looking out for you and who is not?

Such are the questions in the Gulf Coast, about the claims process and the safety of Gulf seafood. In the federal version, the seafood is fine, the FDA is doing their testing and everything is coming up aces while Feinberg is doing his best as a neutral arbitrator and quickly trying to get as much money as he possibly can into the hands of a beleaguered public. Justice is running its course, and all of the companies involved in the BP oil catastrophe will be legally obligated to make amends and pay their fair share towards restoring the pristine waters of the Gulf back to their only kind-of polluted state. British Petroleum is cleaning up the oil, using all the manpower it deems necessary to do so. In a show of confidence, the federal government has urged the armed forces to start using Gulf Seafood to feed the troops.

Obama is silent on most of these issues and on vacation in Hawaii, so no worries…the Secret Service won’t allow for anymore shirtless president photos to grace the AP wire.

Sounds pretty good.

Sounds.

Course then there’s this:

An environmental law firm in New Orleans said it was preparing to challenge the government’s public declaration that following the nation’s worst-ever oil disaster, seafood from the Gulf of Mexico remained safe to eat. Stuart H. Smith, Esq., of the law firm Smith Stag, LLC., was leading the charge, rallying additional litigants to his side through a website called Oil Spill Action.

One of the toxicologists on Smith’s litigation team pursuing BP was Dr. William Sawyer…he’s calling the Food and Drug Administration’s safety test “little more than a farce…they did not test the [total petroleum hydrocarbons] (TPH) in their samples,” he said, calling his testing methodologies a much more comprehensive way of examining compounds present in seafood when compared to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests.

Dr. Sawyer added that some of his test samples came from seafood on its way to market, pulled from waters that had only recently been classified as safe for commercial fishing activities. “The sensory test employed by the FDA detects compounds that are volatile that have an odor; we’re detecting compounds that are low volatility and are very low odor,” he added. “We found not only petroleum in the digestive tracts [of shrimp], but also in the edible portions of fish. We’ve collected shrimp, oysters and finned fish on their way to marketplace — we tested a good number of seafood samples and in 100 percent we found petroleum.”

Among the people represented in his suit are everyone from seafood retailers to crabbers to real estate developers, and they continue to add plaintiffs, all targeting BP, Transocean, Anadarko, MOEX Offshore and Halliburton.

Said Dr. Shaw, a marine toxicologist at the Marine Environmental Research Institute in Maine about exposure to the crude oil in the Gulf, “There is no safe level of exposure to this oil, because it contains carcinogens, mutagens that can damage DNA and cause cancer and other chronic health problems…many people in the Gulf have been exposed for months — not just workers but residents. There are hundreds of health complaints from local people with symptoms that resemble symptoms of oil exposure. It will be years, possibly decades, before we understand the extent and nature of the health effects caused by this spill.”

Meanwhile, Feinberg and the GCCF’s claim process continues to get its fair share of criticism.

In an Op-Ed written by the Alabama attorney General, Troy King and published in the USA today, King writes “Gulf Coast Claims Facility Administrator Kenneth Feinberg cannot be trusted. While Feinberg has tried to persuade residents of the Gulf Coast that he works for them — referring to himself as their advocate and friend — he was hired by BP, his law firm is being paid $850,000 a month by BP, and every action he has taken has benefited BP….regrettably, throughout this process Feinberg has dragged his feet, admittedly applying uneven criteria to many well-documented claims from businesses on the verge of bankruptcy and closure, thus pressuring business owners to take whatever small compensation he offered.”

And from an editorial in Sunday’s Times-Picayune:

Nevertheless, Mr. Feinberg promised that legitimate applicants could expect to receive money within a day or two. Yet, many applicants have languished for months without receiving anything, and Mr. Feinberg appears loath to blame his organization for that. If a person’s been waiting for money since August, he told The Times-Picayune, there must be something wrong with the application. “All I can say is there’s a very, very good reason for it.” Apparently not so good a reason that he can share it with frustrated applicants. Mr. Rogers (a claimant) says he doesn’t know why he hasn’t gotten a payment.

Mr. Feinberg’s presence here along the Gulf Coast is supposed to guarantee that people with legitimate claims can get damages they’re owed by BP without having to give a portion of it to a hired lawyer. Yet, hundreds of people were so frustrated with Mr. Feinberg’s slow pace that they lined up in the cold this month to sign over a third of any money they get to attorney Tim Porter if Mr. Porter can help them secure the money. That should be a sign to Mr. Feinberg how frustrated people are with him and his organization.

In response, Feinberg has hired several law firms and a claims administration company to help people in applying for final claims. The law firms will be set up in offices across the Gulf Coast and though Feinberg has now promised to release the methodology the GCCF is using to approve or deny claims and determine how much each claimant is given, as of yet these guidelines have not been posted to the GCCF website.

So again, who do you trust? Who are the people in the Gulf Coast supposed to trust?

Its a hard question with no easy answer.

The government has never appeared to play it straight with the Gulf since this thing started. Be it flow rates, the waffling of Thad Allen, the exceptions granted every time to BP to continue spraying dispersants while maintaining their categorical use had ended. It’s also the ridiculous oil spill numbers they released, the NOAA’s opening of water for fishing only to find newly discovered oil and then the immediate closing of the same waters. There appears to be an overall refusal from the beginning to acknowledge adverse health effects of the crude or the chemicals. They appeared complicit in BP’s refusal to allow the press in to cover the story. The NOAA seems virtually incapable of finding oil on the seafloor while for the University of South Florida, this appears to be no problem. The government withholds information from the public at every turn and Barack Obama? Besides a brief swim and a couple of speeches has been absent from the Gulf of Mexico.

These things are glossed over in the official version of events, but we are told to trust the FDA that the seafood is safe despite the increasing clamor from independent scientists like Dr. Sawyer who believe this isn’t the case.

Meanwhile, Feinberg has been a colossal disappointment at best and his solution to his own failure is to hire more attorneys to advise plaintiffs on what to do. If British Petroleum pays Feinberg, then British Petroleum is paying these new legal advisers as well. And if it is in both BP and Feinberg’s interests to settle claims without suing BP, why would a plaintiff be anymore inclined to trust the new legal help?

Personally, I worry about a bunch of attorneys running down to the Gulf to sign up plaintiffs for lawsuits and take a healthy chunk of any compensation that should all be going to the plaintiffs, but at this point what other option exists? Trusting Feinberg?

So who do you trust?

In my estimation, you trust your own instincts and the people who want the truth, and not just best case scenarios. If the seafood is safe, even though not legally necessary, why doesn’t the FDA do the more thorough testing to prove their point? If anything, just to reassure the public because isn’t that the whole point of the FDA saying the seafood is safe? To reassure the public? And Feinberg…Good lord, where to begin…if he had been more up front, more realistic, more consistent and most importantly, transparent…Gulf Coast residents would not have felt it necessary to hire their own attorney, but Feinberg has been none of these things and if it were me, much as I don’t want to say it, I’d be making some phone calls. At least then I would know for sure the attorney is on my side.

It didn’t have to be this way, but through the unfortunate actions/inactions of Feinberg, the government and their collective agencies, now it is.

Have a nice day.