I'm actually in agreement with @blankfist. This is BP, Transocean, and Halliburton's responsibility. They need to provide the funding for all cleanup efforts, including costs incurred by government agencies (like the Coast Guard) in the course of the clean up efforts, plus we're somewhat relying on BP to clean up the oil spill because it's not like we have a federal oil spill clean up team.

To the degree that this is government's fault (and blankfist, you must be aware that that's the Republican party line on this topic), it seems to purely be in that they didn't enforce the existing safety regulations, and stuck instead to that libertarian ideal -- they just took BP's word that they were doing things safely. Following the Republican ideal, they even did so despite having evidence that BP was lying.

The real political battle will probably be about that $75 million statutory limit on BP's liability for the spill. Democrats want to raise or eliminate it, Republicans like Ran Paul go on TV and say shit like "accidents happen", and generally oppose raising or eliminating the limit.

I'm on the "why would there ever be a limit" side of that argument, BTW. That's one regulation that just flat out needs to go.

I can see what dannym is saying. Yet I've been tracking this story for a bit and I see no explanation for any of this. There's been no reasons given...nothing, it's actually kind of annoying how there's hardly any follow up. BP doesn't have the right to restrict beaches...they can tell the government that if the coast guard doesn't restrict the beach people could be in danger. No official orders of the sort have turned up and there has to be in order for this to be legal.

Sorry I'm not buying it, BP did something bad and they appealed to the government to try and handle the media part of this. The government responded and the Coast Guardsmen were a bit too honest when they stated this flatly. It's not science it's just smarts...keep cameras away and salvage a little of our bottom line, it's what any sane company would do. The point here is they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Listen people. If it is a public beach, the government has no authority to keep you out; only if it is a state of emergency. That means something dangerous to people is taking place. The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out.
If it is a private beach they have no authority to keep people out, because the beach does not belong to them; it belongs to whatever municipality the beach falls in.


I honestly don't know what the deal is here, but I can guess. Back in 1989, after the Exxon spill, Congress passed a law that basically put the entire responsibility on oil companies to clean up their own mess. The government oversees it, but we expect the company to have planned ahead, have the expertise, pay for the equipment, etc. It sort of makes sense then that the company gets some say in the procedure. If one of the rules is meant to prevent gawkers from getting in the way of clean-up crews, then I suppose it makes sense. Obviously, they can fly over the site (as many people have) or send crews to the beaches, the just can't expect to send a bunch of boats into the middle of the slick. It isn't much different than police roping off a scene - you can stand outside it and take pictures, but you can't expect to waltz in the middle.

As far as the government's authority goes, that thing about "only if it is a state of emergency. That means something dangerous to people is taking place." is completely wrong. The federal government certainly has the authority to keep people out of the water affected by the spill regardless of whether it is a public or private beach. There's no question here. The better issue is whether they improperly delegated the power to a private party (BP), but it looks like they made sure to have coast guard officials present.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BP, Oil Spill, Gulf, Coast Guard' to 'BP, Oil Spill, deepwater horizon, Gulf, Coast Guard' - edited by kronosposeidon

Uh - the Coast Guard works for the U.S. Government. They don't take orders from BP. If the Coast Guard is not allowing journalists into an area, then the responsibility falls on the U.S. Government - not BP. The only reason journalists could possibly be turned back is if the government was wanting it to be that way.

Now - BP may be involved in the motivation for the government to be doing this (though there is no evidence of that beyond hearsay at this point). However - considering the political blowback Obama's administration is now getting for thier weak, slow response to the event - it is entirely possible that it is the OBAMA administration that is the one engaging in censorship so as to minimize the impact.

Consider... Obama has a notorious, even infamous, habit of stonewalling the pres and suppressing information. I'd make a list - but it would take too long. Needless to say he has a LONG history of hiding away facts that are inconvenient to his agenda. He has a frosty relationship (at best) with the press corps. His history as a community activist was oriented towards suppressing/hiding information he doesn't like, while propogandizing information he wants to be talked about. That's about the only thing Obama knows how to do well as he's a dundering incompetent at just about everything else.

BP certainly has a vested interest in minimizing its damage here to be sure. But they don't control the Coast Guard. Who does? The Obama administration. Ultimately - who is responsible for the USCG? Obama. He's the one you need to be pointing fingers at here. BP is probably more than happy to be complicit, but they aren't the ones giving the CG its orders.

For some reason this video won't play for me. It just plays the advert and then nothing. My Canadian IP maybe?

[Based on comments above]
I think the idea of preventing people from photographing the coastline of this disaster is absolutely unenforceable. I feel bad for the people working for coast guard, just trying to do their jobs as best as they can, based on what they are told to do by superiors.

There's a good 60 minutes report on here about who should be accountable for this mess:
http://videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-2

So the Coast Guard is acting as BP's shill goons? Shocker. This is why we don't need a heavily armed government.

BP spends something like a million dollars a day on capitol hill lobbying our ridiculously unethical congressmen.

The coast guard actually does work for them.

What's this?!?! BP is using the Coast Guard as their enforcers?!?! Uhm... something's not right about that.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Tymbrwulf.

This disaster keeps seeming worse and worse. Damage estimates keep being surpassed, and every day is a whole new nightmare for the local ecology.

http://videosift.com/video/Coast-Guard-Now-Estimates-1-6-Million-Gallons-of-Oil-Spilled

>> ^xxovercastxx:
2009? That part right there is the epitome of politics in any time or place. It's why nobody in their right mind believes that politicians can make the world a better place. These are people who've dedicated their lives to playing these games in order to see how long they can be the center of attention.



I disagree. I think that the following all made the world a better place:

• Child labor laws
  
• Minimum wage laws
  
• Worker safety laws
  
• Car safety laws
  
• Environmental protections (ranging from national wildlife preserves, to endangered species protection to various Clean Air & Water bills)
  
• SNAP (aka Food Stamps)
  
• Unemployment benefits
  
• Civil Rights legislation
  
• Social Security
  
• Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP
  
• FDA, FAA, FCC, FEC, FDIC, FTC, NLRB, NOAA, NASA, ARPA
  
• National Guard, Coast Guard, Peace Corps, Americorps
  

And that doesn't even cover the most basic legislation laid down by "politicians" in the Constitution, establishing things like free speech, protection against illegal search and seizure, the right to a trial by peers, the right to habeas corpus, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and the guarantee of equal protection of laws.

If our elected representatives don't live up to the standards of the above, it's our fault for having sent them there, and we need to do better.

Acting as though it's impossible to improve the situation is exactly the kind of thinking that got them elected in the first place. In fact, there's a whole party dedicated to intentionally fucking up government, then saying to the electorate "vote for me if you think the government sucks!"

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the other party is dedicated to. Seems to me they're dedicated to promising good things, then making excuses about how the other party stopped them from getting them done. I'm hoping eventually they wake up and start fighting for what they supposedly believe in.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Krupo. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Funny-TV-ad-German-coast-guard

>> ^EndAll:
What flag is that behind him?

I suspect the stage he's on has the flags for each branch of the armed services. The white one behind him appears to be the Coast Guard's flag, with the Navy's to the right, and the Marines' flag just barely poking into frame.

Let's hope Obama remembers that he's now a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Amen to that. Make sure to contact the White House to let them know how you feel, too.

*news
*fear
*worldaffairs