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.