If you’re the average sports fan, or even a casual cycling fan, the name Laurent Fignon may not ring a bell. But if your love of the Tour de France pre-dates the arrival of Lance Armstrong, then you will join me in grieving the passing of this noted French rider.

Professional cycling in the 1980′s was a sport in transition. Still little-known outside Europe, Americans were making their first impact on the sport with the 7-11 cycling team and home-grown riders like Alexi Grewal and Andy Hampston (and some whippersnapper named Lance …). At the same time, a young American rider named Greg LeMond was beginning to make a name for himself riding for a series of European teams. He won his first Tour in 1986, and after a two-year absence due to injury, returned in 1989 to try and reclaim his title.

Meanwhile, Laurent Fignon has enjoyed a successful professional cycling career that had begun in 1982 and included back-to-back Tour victories in 1983 and 1984, afterwhich he was hailed as the country’s newest sporting superstar. Injuries slowed Fignon in the mid-80′s, and he, too, looked to 1989 for redemption.

The 1989 race quickly became a two-man contest, and Fignon and LeMond traded the lead through the weeks. The peloton entered the final stage of the race, a 24.4 km individual time trial, with Fignon enjoying a 50-second lead over the American cyclist. The contrast between the two couldn’t be more apparent as they entered the start house: Fignon, the classic French cyclist with professorial glasses and a ponytail, rode a bike with standard handlebars and spoked wheels; Lemond, representing the future direction of cycling, wore a teardrop-shaped helmet and rode a bike with triathalon-inspired “aerobars” and a disc wheel to decrease air resistance.

In cycling, fifty seconds is a huge lead, particularly to try and overcome in an individual time trial. Fignon, ponytail blowing in the breeze, rode secure in the knowledge that the maiilot jaune awaited him at the finish line – the French media were so secure in their knowledge of his inevitable victory that they had already printed memorial editions of the newspapers. But LeMond, riding ahead of the Frenchman, pedalled furiously and used his aerodynamic tools to full advantage. Word reached Fignon that LeMond was eroding his lead and he put the hammer down, but it was too late. In the end, LeMond beat Fignon’s overall time for the three-week race by eight seconds – the closest finish in Tour history. Upon crossing the finish line and realizing he had lost, a distraught Fignon simply released the handlebars and allowed himself to crash to the ground – one of the most memorable images in cycling history. It was a race for the ages, and helped cement the legend of LeMond – and American cycling.

Laurent Fignon was 50 when he lost his fight with intestinal cancer last week.

As I was driving to work this morning, the local news radio station was a-twitter with a breaking story about planned street closures today in Century City, and the impact they will have on famously bad LA traffic. Road closures are nothing new to Angelinos … potholes, rockslides and broken water mains all take their toll on commute times. But this one is different … very different.

Apparently, sixteen janitors are being laid off from buildings in the area and the local unions are planning to protest. Things are tough all over, so I find it hard to understand what makes this group so unique, but hey – it’s their right to protest. But these folks are taking it a step further, by planning to block traffic to raise awareness of their plight. What’s more, they’ve notified the police of their intent, who are assigning officers to work the protest – hence, the advance notifications that the radio was reporting.

Look, there’s a famous saying – your rights end where my rights begin. I respect your right to protest, and understand your desire to attract attention to your issue. But you have no right whatsoever to interfere with the daily activites of the thousands of commuters who would otherwise use the streets you plan to block. The minute you do that, whatever sympathy I might have for your cause goes right out the window.

The protest organizers have indicated that they are willing to be arrested to make their point. I suggest the LAPD accomodate their wishes – before they step off the curb in front of traffic.

Trying to mix things up here at the ol’ MB – maybe you get a rant, maybe you don’t. Today, you do …

- We’ll start with a decidedly non-sports story that has nevertheless dominated the sporting world this season. The divorce of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren became official today, meaning Tiger is now free to pursue all the strippers, porn stars and Hooters girls he wants. Both sides declared an intention to not discuss the settlement, so financial details were not announced (duh), but the two will share custody and parenting duties of the children as Nordegren, who is currently studying to be a psychologist, will remain in the States to provide Woods with access to the children. Frankly, this day was inevitable. Despite what would appear on the outside to be heroic efforts by both to save the marriage, some things are just too much to overcome. There was an article on one of the online sports sites that included statistics showing that 60% of married sports athletes get divorced, so you could argue that Woods’ experience is just par for the course – and is the only time all year he’s been able to shoot par (did I just say that – ouch!) Perhaps now Woods can turn his once-considerable focus to his game, and get it together in time for the Ryder Cup.

- Let me start this next segment with the obvious: the fact that Kyle Busch was able to win all three of the NASCAR touring series races held at Bristol this weekend is a testament to his impressive driving skills. Stock car racing is truly a team sport, and the only common element to the teams that won the Sprint Cup, Nationwide Series, and Camping World Truck races was the guy in the seat. It’s never been done since the Truck was added in 1995 and frankly, Busch is the only guy who’s even gotten close. So, congratulations, Kyle. But Busch’s success begs a larger question: why are guys who race Sunday at the highest level of their sport even allowed to race in the support series? Most of the current Cup series stars worked their way up through the lower series, but once they get to the top, that ought to be their goal. Lord knows no other sport allows it – can you imagine Albert Pujols moonlighting as the first baseman for the Cardinals’ Double-A squad? Now, you can’t blame the drivers – most would race anywhere anytime for nothing – but you can certainly blame NASCAR. This is all about the Benjamins, baby – they spend a lot of time cultivating the drivers’ images, and they want to maximize the exposure for their sponsors. There is a backlash brewing, though, and Busch’s victories will only stoke the flames. Your move, NASCAR …

- The Manhattan Beach Open volleyball tournament was held this weekend … or at least something they said was the Open. I’ve been going to the MBO for a lot of years – it’s beach volleyball’s biggest event – and this didn’t look anything like what I’m used to. Where there is usually rows of vendors and a huge stadium court, there was just nets – seemingly hundreds of them – and people – seemingly dozens of them. The change came in the wake of the demise of the AVP, the beach volley organizing body that declared bankruptcy on the eve of the Open. Credit the city fathers and the California Beach Volleyball Association for stepping up and insuring that there would be a 50th edition of the Open, although they created a bit of a controversy by scrapping the fan-friendly AVP (and worldwide professional volleyball sanctioning body FIVB) rules in favor of slower, old-school rules. That resulted in most of the former AVP pros staying away. Ironically, one who did opt to play was Sean Rosenthal, who partnered with fellow AVP ex-pat Aaron Wachfogel to take the men’s draw. On the ladies side, the team of Tealle Hunkus and Heather Lowe (who?) were victorious. Each team split $4,000 – a far cry from the $20K the AVP event would have provided the winner. But they still get their names on the pier, and that’s the important part. Not sure what’s left for the future, but as I look at the official yellow-and-while Wilson AVP tour volleyball I have here in the Home Office, I can’t help but be sad.

You’d never know it to look at me, but I am a child of the beach. I live a mile and a half from the Hermosa Beach Pier, and, save my college years in Riverside, this is the furthest I’ve lived from the ocean in my life. It’s a culture I embrace, and a livestyle I enjoy, even if I do it mostly from the sidelines.

Living at the beach, it’s impossible to miss one of the most prominent sports played there – beach volleyball. Whether an after-work jungle ball matchup or a serious weekend tourney, volleyball nets dot the sand and are in use more often than not. For those who play at an elite level, there are even professional beach volleyball tours where the best players can earn a living playing the game they love.

The game comes in many forms, depending on how many people you have on a team, but the most exciting – and telegenic – version is 2-man (or woman). With only two people to cover all that sand, it leads to exciting digs and dives and spikes. The professional 2-Man tour has been around for decades, and for the last 23 years has been organized by the AVP – the Association of Volleyball Professionals – which brought order to the chaotic beach tour, bringing both genders into the same events, developing sponsors, arranging television coverage, and introducing flocks of landlocked new fans to the sport through a national tour that criss-crossed the country year-round.

Twice a year, the AVP Tour would visit the South Bay beaches – home turf for the majority of the players. Everyone wanted to win Hermosa, because it was their hometown event, and Manhattan, because it was the Wimbledon of their sport. Hermosa Beach is in the books, but the Manhattan Beach Open will take on an entirely new look this weekend, because the AVP has folded its tent and cancelled the remainder of the season.

“On behalf of AVP staff we want to express our sincere gratitude to fans, players, partners and sponsors,” said Jason Hodell, AVP CEO. “Words cannot express our profound disappointment.”

“Through the course of this investor search we have encountered individuals and groups with intelligence, common sense and a passion for the game of beach volleyball,” said Mike Dodd, AVP commissioner. “Unfortunately, the time constraints were such that pulling the trigger on the amount of money necessary to salvage this season were too great. Ironically this sad news comes as we approach the 50th anniversary of the Manhattan Open, our sport’s crown jewel and the one event that showed us all we could dream big. The Open has seen its ups and downs over the years and always persevered. I’m sure our sport will do the same.”

I guess this shows what happens to what is essentially a fringe sport in difficult economic times. Beach volleyball rode the wave created by Olympic success – and little swimsuits – as far as they could, but in the end the wave broke on a rocky shore. The game will go on, of course – this weekend’s iconic Manhattan Beach Open is being run as an “old-school” tournament by the city (a decision that is not without it’s own controversy) – and the Americans will once again compete for gold in two years at London. But they’re going to have to go abroad to earn their spot on the Olympic team, and to earn a living, and that’s a sad statement for all of us who love the sport.

They say there are no bad days at the beach, but there are sad days, and this is definitely one of them. There’s a lot I’m gonna miss about the AVP … Geeter doing the worm … Kerri dominating the net … Rachel’s butt …

As Chris Marlowe always used to say to end the AVP telecasts, “The beach … is closed.”

The National Bird is making a visit to the Southland today. No, I’m not talking about the bald eagle, but rather Air Force One, which will deliver President Obama to Los Angeles for a pair of Democratic Party fundraisers later this evening. AF1 is scheduled to hit the tarmac at LAX around 4PM – just the right time to guarantee the Presidential motorcade will irritate the hell out of evening commuters. The President’s destination is Hancock Park, where they will be holding a pair of events at the home of writer/producer John Wells of “West Wing” and “ER” fame.

Maybe I’m just getting cynical in my old age, but it seems like a lot of time and effort to hop an overnight to Cali just to rake in some money for the party coffers. Sure, they’re gonna stop in Wisconsin to make a speech at some alternative energy factory there, but we both know that’s not the real reason they topped off the tanks on the Big Blue Bird this morning. It’s so the elite – and wannabe-elite – of Hollywood and the local political ranks can be seen with the President, and inject a little capital into a political machine that’s hemorrhaging hundreds. But while it may seem a little smarmy to have the Commander-in-Chief fly cross-country to raise money while juggling two wars, it’s no different than his last 10 predecessors did.

Let’s put aside the distaste for a second and get down to what matters – the money. They always say that if you want to understand a scam, follow the money – so let’s give that a shot here. The two events – a cocktail party and a dinner – are expected to raise about a million dollars. The 200 guests get a chance to hob-nob with the rich and powerful, but we all know there’s only one reason they’re dropping the money in the till – Ol’ #44. Let’s face it, if you want to meet LA Mayor – and fellow fundraiser guest – Villaraigosa, all you need to do is be in the right snack stand at a Lakers game.

So the Dems are counting on the Pres to show up and do his thing, but just how much do you think it costs to bring a sitting President across the country. There’s the cost of the flight, plus the security, plus all the hassle on the ground … I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more than the $1M they’ll raise. And if you think about it for a second, who’s paying to bring Obama to the Wells residence anyway? That’s right – you and I, the American Taxpayer. We’re footing the bill for the entertainment at a event where money is raised for a political party. Wouldn’t it be easier – and a lot less irritating to commuters – if they just had us all write out a check directly to Nancy Pelosi?

Excuse me while I force the vomit back down my throat …

Perhaps it’s rebellion against the diet whackos or maybe just a plot by underemployed cardiologists, but there seems to be a spate of incredibly unhealthy fast food items hitting the market these days.

First it was KFC’s Double-Down, a bacon-and-cheese sandwich where the bread is replaced by a pair of deep-fried chicken breasts. That was topped by the Grilled Cheese Burger Melt from Friendly’s – a gut bomb of a burger with the usual trimmings, save the twin grilled cheese sandwichs that replace the bun. But those are culinary lightweights compared to the newest entry in the field.

Denny’s is revamping their Value Menu as part of their “$2 $4 $6 $8″ advertising campaign, trying to breath life into a franchise that is seen primarily as a breakfast stop. Most of the items are pretty straightforward – cheese quesadilla, nacho salad, fried shrimp platter and the like. But one item in particular has caught the public’s eye – and not necessarily in a good way.

The Denny’s Fried Cheese Melt at first appears to be your typical grilled cheese sandwich – a guilty pleasure to be sure, but not the end of the dietetic world. But the staff back in the kitchen weren’t satisfied with your normal pan-fried delicacy, so they kicked it up a notch – by adding four deep-fried mozzarella cheese sticks into the mix. Denny’s isn’t discussing the calorie count, but the folks at DietsInReview.com did their best to try and figure it out:

The restaurant chain announced that the Fried Cheese Melt will cost $4.00, but has not released its caloric content. Here’s our best estimate, with data provided by Denny’s:

• 750 calories for an 8-ounce serving of Denny’s mozzarella sticks, without condiments (Denny’s does not disclose how many pieces they consider a serving)
• 650 calories in Denny’s three cheese melt,
• Totals 1,400 calories

The meal will also come with a serving of fries, and a serving of marinara sauce. The french fries have 425 calories per 5-ounce serving, and the average 1/2 cup of marinara sauce has 93 calories.

Our estimated calorie count for the meal is 1,918 calories. That’s about as many calories as one should eat per day. It’s not hard to imagine why America has an obesity problem when restaurants serve things like this an appropriate meal.

Lord knows, I’m a sucker for this kind of stuff. My weights tends to rise and fall like the tides – often, as defined by the availablity of McDonald’s own gut-buster, the McRib sandwich – but I at least have choices in my diet, even if I opt to avoid the right ones. One of the reasons community activists hate to see fast food joints moving into the inner city is because their menus are traditionally filled with high-calorie, low-nutrition crap that only makes difficult lives even harder. Denny’s, however, is supposed to be family-friendly, sit down fare – theoretically, exactly the kind of stuff you’d like to see come to those same tough neighborhoods. But if this is their idea of a wholesome, nutrition rich meal, they can keep it.

Those of us who travel on business understand and appreciate what a difficult, frustrating prospect it can be when you have to fly from one city to another. The post-9/11 changes to travel regulations make it hard enough, and the miserly squeeze being placed on passengers by the airlines doesn’t help. Add to that mix a couple of rude passengers who think it’s all about them, and it’s a wonder you don’t see more people going nuts on airliners.

By all accounts, yesterday’s JetBlue Flight 1052 from Pittsburgh to New York’s JFK Airport was your typical commuter flight – lots of folks headed to the big city, each with their own agendas and plans, wanting nothing more than to get the flight behind them. Among those charged with the passengers’ safety and service was flight attendant Steven Slater, a 20-year veteran flight attendant who had recently rejoined JetBlue after five years away. Perhaps the time off wasn’t as rewarding as he’d hoped, or perhaps wiping up after a cabinful of rude, ungrateful passengers wasn’t as exciting as he remembered. All we really know is that after getting into a disagreement with an unruly passenger, he made his last flight an a JetBlue employee memorable for all onboard.

After he was bonked in the head by a bag, Steven Slater stunned passengers by spewing profanity and ranting about quitting as the flight from Pittsburgh pulled up to the gate about noon.

“To the f—–g a–hole who told me to f–k off, it’s been a good 20 years,” Slater, 38, purred, cops said. “I’ve had it. That’s it,” he added, a passenger said.

The mad-as-hell steward grabbed a couple of brewskis and popped one open before activating the emergency exit, witnesses told airport employees.

After tossing his two carry-on bags on the slide, he followed them to the tarmac.

Slater then walked to the AirTrain, stripped off his company tie and flung it off as bemused passengers watched.

“I wish we could all quit our jobs like that,” said passenger Phil Catelinet, 36, of Brooklyn, who was on the flight and the AirTrain.

“He seemed kind of happy about it. He was like, ‘I just quit my job.’ “

Slater calmly exited the airport and headed home, where he was taken into custody later in the day. In a court appearance this morning, he was charged with charged with criminal mischief, reckless endangerment and criminal trespass, and his bail set at $2500.

Interestingly, the majority of reaction towards Slater’s actions, while not necessarily endorsing his unorthodox exit, tends to be at least supportive of his frustration. As you might expect in this day and age, there are YouTube tributes and Facebook fan pages. There’s even talk of a reality show, presuming he ever gets another job.

Look, punching out of a plane isn’t a good idea, even on the tarmac. But after twenty years of dealing with self-centered jackholes day in and day out, it’s hard to blame the guy for finally snapping.

Got a hunch we haven’t heard the last on this one … stay tuned …

In my Facebook profile, I describe myself as “slightly right of center” politically. That means I can usually see both sides of an argument, and seldom agree completely with either. It also means that my opinion tends to irritate people from both sides of the political aisle, and I suspect this will be no different.

Among my circle of friends are individuals who are openly gay – and others a little less open – and if you were to ask them they’d confirm the following: I am not comfortable with the concept of homosexuality. I was raised in a conservative time and manner, where such things were expected to remain in the closet, and in a church where, as most churches still do today, homosexuality was seen as a moral failure. Even today, as enlightened as I like to consider myself to be, I find it difficult to understand how someone looks as someone of the same sex and finds love.

That said, I believe that yesterday’s decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to declare unconstitutional California’s voter-approved Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, is not only the right decision, but the only decision he could have made.

I”m no legal scholar, but in my mind this day became inevitable the moment the first government got involved with the marriage business. Originally, the church was the de-facto government, providing stability and social order to untamed societies. You got married by the church, everyone recognized you as married, and that was it. Eventually, though, as what we see today as a traditional government began to take on some of the role of the church in providing for the welfare of the people, government chose to provide a parallel process to the church wedding, both allowing governmental recognition of church marriages as well as providing a pathway to marriage for those who opt out of the traditional religious wedding. That’s why while you today you may get married in the local church, you apply to the government for a marriage license – and that license is what yesterday’s decision is all about.

Whether you’re married in front of the altar or in front of a clerk, the marriage license represents a contract with the state, not the church, and is therefore ruled by the Constitution, not the Bible. The church has every right to determine who can or cannot be married in their sanctuaries, or have their marriages recognized by their members. But our Founding Fathers understood the importance of separation of church and state, and built it right into the Constitution by which we are ruled today – and which drove Judge Walker’s decision yesterday. The State cannot force the People to accept homosexuality – tolerate yes, accept no. But at the same time, the People cannot force the State to deny benefits to some they would grant to others, simply based on that lack of acceptance.

It’s worth noting that while Proposition 8 did successfully pass and is the law of the State of California, it hardly came with a ringing mandate – only slightly over 52% of the votes were in favor of the new law. Frankly, I think a lot of people were just like me – unwilling to vote for it, but afraid to vote against it as well. Change is a scary thing for people, and gay marriage represents change. But sometimes, the right thing to do is to take a deep breath and face, rather than fight, the change.

Once upon a time, a boy and a girl grew up, fell in love, got married and raised their kids alongside the rest of the crops on the farm. That was traditional marriage, and proponents of Proposition 8 point to that tradition as part of what they are trying to defend. But look around – the traditional family was gone long before homosexuals began their push for marriage. Science helps couples have children even if both parents are sterile, same-sex couples use surrogates to have children, single people adopt children from around the world – the needs that the traditional marriage provide have long since been met in many different ways. You don’t have to like the direction that society might be moving, but you cannot deny it – and you certainly can’t try and use the law to stuff the cork back in the bottle.

I have a former girlfriend who is a lesbian. She was gay when I met her, although I was probably in denial about it, and she’s gay today, part of a stable, loving couple. That she tried so hard to be someone she was not just to be with me will always be a source of immense pride. But she is who she is, and while I may not be comfortable with it, I do not have the right to tell her who she should be. Similarly, if we the people offer through our government a service to couples – that service being the civil contract of marriage, and all the benefits that come with it – we do not have the right to pick and choose what couples we offer the service to. Believe me, there are plenty of heterosexual married couples that I’d deny the right of marriage to if I could, but you don’t see anyone suggesting we do that.

Back in the early ’90s, I was a supervisor in an assembly area. One of my employees was gay, and her partner worked in an adjoining area, so I saw the kind of interaction they had on a daily basis. It was a new experience for me, and I was surprised to see that they faced the exact same changes any other couple goes through – the ups and downs, the fun and the friction, the financial challenges and the shared celebrations. Perhaps it shouldn’t have come as such a surprise since, gender aside, they were simply two people in love, trying to build a life together.

I’m someone who’s relationship history can be described as hit-and-miss at best, so I can appreciate how hard it is to find that one right person. Imagine if on top of all of the challenges that life places on each of us, you felt so uncomfortable in the traditional gender role that society placed upon you that you are willing to face the scorn that we all know the community continues to place on anyone who is different – just to find true happiness. Do we as a society really want to tell them they are wrong for trying, when all they ask for is the chance to live their life the way we live ours? Whether you accept or reject the notion of homosexual relationships, there’s no denying that gay marriage will do nothing to damage the fabric of our society. Whatever changes it may be seen to represent were set in motion long ago, and the granting of rights to homosexuals is as inevitable and right as it was to blacks and women before.

In the end, what are gays and lesbians really asking for? All they want is the right to face the challenges of life, hand in hand and side by side with the one they love, sanctioned by their government the same as any other couple. How is that fundamentally any different from what I want for myself? I’ll probably never be comfortable with the concept of gay marriage, and will always feel a bit uneasy around a gay couple. But if two people in love want to try and face the challenges of married life together, I’ll be damned if I’ll be the one to tell them they can’t.

We live in challenging times. From overseas wars to domestic terrorism to global warming to catastrophic environmental disasters, there’s more than enough for us to worry about. You’d think that among those who particularly have their hands full would be the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI. But they must have everything under control, because they still have the time and resources to go after Wikipedia for using their logo without permission.

As you probably know, Wikipedia is the user-generated online encyclopedia. Like any encyclopedia, it consists of articles about various topics, in this case authored by interested parties and subject to the content rules of the Wikimedia Project that oversees the Wikipedia. One of the articles is about the FBI, and is accompanied by a copy of the FBI seal in image form. Apparently that’s an issue for the FBI, and they’re leaning on Wikipedia to remove it.

In a letter to Wikipedia dated July 22 and posted by The New York Times, the FBI demands that its official seal be removed from a Wikipedia article about the FBI because the agency had not approved use of the image.

“The FBI has not authorized use of the FBI seal on Wikipedia,” the letter said. “The inclusion of a high quality graphic of the FBI seal on Wikipedia is particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting” copying and reprinting of the FBI’s seal.

The letter goes on to threaten legal action if its demand is ignored: “Failure to comply may result in further legal action. We appreciate your timely attention to this matter.”

Blah blah blah.

The Feds are basing their legal argument on a violation of United States Code 18 USC 701, which punishes anyone who “manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof” for other than official use. Most media outlets have pointed out that Wikipedia, like most reference texts, would normally be extended certain courtesies in using such an image, as had Encyclopedia Britannica. But I noticed just now that someone went in yesterday and edited the Brittanica entry on the FBI to remove the offending image … hmm …

I appreciate the concern the FBI or any law enforcement organization might have over people forging credentials and using them to advance their nefarious purposes. But I have a difficult time believing that Wikipedia is truly a prime source for such behavior. It’s enough to make you believe that the ghost of J. Edgar is roaming the halls with his famous list … or maybe someone at FBI HQ has confused Wikipedia with Wikileaks …

As I write this, the folks at British Petroleum are going ahead with plans to shove mud and eventually cement down the mouth of their leaking Gulf of Mexico well.  I’d love to tell you that I have more faith in this version of a solution (Plan G? Plan H?) than the rest, but history isn’t on our side.   So far, BP and the people managing the leak seem pretty good at developing plans and holding news conferences, but not too good at actually succeeding at much of anything.

To recap (pun strictly intended), BP’s Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling platform failed catastrophically on April 20th and sank in 5000 feet of water, taking the lives of eleven of her crew and tearing open the well bore, causing it to gush uncontrolled into the Gulf waters.  There were repeated attempts to stem the flow – some traditional (blowout preventer), some not (top hat, junk shot, top kill) – but all were unsuccessful.  A temporary cap was put in place on July 15th, limiting the flow to some seepage from the seabed, but no one’s sure just how long the cap can last.  Relief wells are still being drilled, but are several weeks away from completion.  Even if today’s effort to kill the well is successful, the relief wells will be completed to kill it deeper and decrease the likelihood of later failure.

If there’s any good news in all of this, it’s that the visible damage is far less than I or most others were expecting.  Having watched the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, I was prepared for lots of oil on the beaches, but it seems that most areas have little more than tar balls.  Even the areas closest to the blowout along the lower coast off Louisiana seem to have fared far better than anyone could have hoped.  Perhaps it’s the difference in distance from shore between the spill in Prince William Sound (half a mile offshore) versus the Gulf (50 miles), or maybe I’m just watching the wrong newscasts.  Maybe it’s all sitting just offshore waiting for the skimmers to finally arrive … or the first big hurricane. Whatever the cause, it’s a blessing.

Of course, that’s just the visible oil.  Experts have said that the great depth of the blowout has resulted in huge amounts of oil mid-ocean, far below the surface, where cleanup is impossible.  No one has any idea just how that is going to impact the Gulf, both now and far into the future.  There’s also a great deal of concern over the use of chemical dispersants that were used to try and break down the oil.  They were used extensively, and the concern is that you are simply trading one chemical demon for another.  In any case, much like the sites of past disasters, we will be dealing with the results of this disaster for many years to come.

For now, let’s just get the damned thing capped.