Here's hoping that the storm doesn't carry the chemical dispersant over the mainland:

PENSACOLA, Fla. — Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen late Thursday ordered BP to begin evacuating the Deepwater Horizon oil spill site after the National Hurricane Center predicted that sustained winds of more than 55 miles per hour would reach the area perhaps as early as Saturday.

"Due to the risk that Tropical Storm Bonnie poses to the safety of the nearly 2,000 people responding to the BP oil spill at the well site, many of the vessels and rigs will be preparing to move out of harm's way beginning tonight," Allen said. "This includes the rig drilling the relief well that will ultimately kill the well, as well as other vessels needed for containment. Some of the vessels may be able to remain on site, but we will err on the side of safety."

Allen said he had directed BP to leave the well sealed during the evacuation and said that monitoring of the well, which has not leaked oil into the Gulf of Mexico for more than a week, would continue until the last possible moment. He said BP has been told to move ships guiding remotely operated vehicles providing a video feed from the capped well last and to return them to the area first.

"While these actions may delay the effort to kill the well for several days, the safety of the individuals at the well site is our highest concern," he said.

Federal and state oil cleanup workers had begun the process of battening down across the Gulf of Mexico for a weekend tropical storm, pulling out booms and calling vessels back to port from anti-contamination efforts in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

I don't understand enough of this to interpret what's going on, but it doesn't sound good:

NEW ORLEANS -- Worried about triggering another blowout -- possibly deep down a well of uncertain condition -- BP and federal officials have put the brakes on the latest effort to choke off the undersea geyser of crude.

Instead, they ordered a new round of analysis scheduled to start Wednesday before moving forward with pressure tests intended to determine whether a new 150,000-pound cap and a well three miles below the sea floor are strong enough to withstand the powerful flow of oil and gas.

The decision was made Tuesday in Houston, where U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and a team of federal and industry scientists and geologists are overseeing BP's plans to run a "well integrity test."

"As a result of these discussions, we decided that the process may benefit from additional analysis," U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is in charge of the federal effort, said in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon.
After successfully placing a new and beefier cap on the blown-out well, the oil giant had been scheduled to start slowly shutting off valves, aiming to stop the flow of oil for the first time in three months.

If the cap works, it would enable BP to stop most, and possibly all of the oil, now gushing into the sea. The company could either use the cap as a cork to "shut in" the well. Or, if capping would create too much pressure, use the more sophisticated new cap to channel as much as 60,000 barrels a day through pipes and lines to as many as four collection ships.

Neither BP nor the federal government offered an immediate explanation of the additional analysis, but in briefings early in the day, it was clear there are still significant questions about conditions of gear on and underneath the sea floor -- particularly the casing that lines the well.

Those concerns also had prompted Chu to halt BP's earlier "top kill" effort to pump heavy drilling mud down into the well. Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president, told reporters in a conference call from Houston Tuesday afternoon that the integrity test would indicate whether there was damage inside the well. If the pressure doesn't build up as valves are closed on the new cap, he said, it would point to a breech that could worsen if the well is simply capped.

In the worst-case scenario, it could trigger a blowout deep beneath the sea floor that would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to control -- at least until BP finishes drilling relief wells. That effort is still expected to take until mid-August.

MSNBC reports that the containment cap has been removed from the well, accelerating the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico:

WASHINGTON - Oil was again gushing uncontrollably from the BP spill site on Wednesday after the company was forced to remove the containment cap when a robotic submarine hit a vent. The news came as officials also reported two deaths of workers in the response effort.

BP hoped to reinstall the cap later Wednesday after fixing the vent and checking for safety.

Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said the accident sent gas rising through a vent that carries warm water down to prevent ice-like crystals from forming in the cap.

MSNBC is also reporting the deaths of two cleanup workers. A closer read of the article reveals that their deaths are unrelated to their cleanup duties.

The deaths reported Wednesday were not tied to the containment operation. The Coast Guard said the workers had been involved in cleanup operations did that their deaths did not appear to be work related.

One death was a boat captain who died of a gunshot wound, a Coast Guard spokesman said. Further details were not immediately available.

I'll update this with more information as it becomes available.

Jim Tankersley of the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Top Kill is working so far:

Engineers have at least temporarily stopped the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico from a gushing BP well, the federal government's top oil-spill commander, U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, said Thursday morning.

The "top kill" effort, launched Wednesday afternoon by industry and government engineers, had pumped enough drilling fluid to block oil and gas spewing from the well, Allen said. The pressure from the well was very low, he said, but persisting. The top kill effort is not complete, officials caution.

Once engineers had reduced the well pressure to zero, they were to begin pumping cement into the hole to entomb the well. To help in that effort, he said, engineers also were pumping some debris into the blowout preventer at the top of the well.

The NY Times reports: ‘Top Kill’ Effort Seems to Be Working, U.S. Says Cautiously

The Guardian is live blogging this mess and updating frequently.

Jamie Boule writes:

Michael Tomasky riffs off of Grist’s David Roberts to ask these questions about our eventual response to the Gulf oil spill:

Would people be up in arms demanding the government find a solution at any price? Would a majority of Americans grasp the connection between the need for government and regulation (in this case, the acoustic switch and other redundancies that other governments require in offshore operations but the US does not) and the possible prevention of something like this?

Or would Americans just say, well, this is tragic, but it’s one of those things that happens and it’s not an excuse for more government?

I don’t have a good answer to this question. My hope is that the Gulf oil spill and resulting ecological disaster are enough to penetrate the public’s cynical mistrust of government, and push it towards grasping the critical importance of good government. That said, I wouldn’t be shocked at all if the public came away from this with its attitudes reinforced, especially since one of the two major political parties is wholly enthrall to a vehemently anti-government ideology.

Conservative ideology believes that the free markets should rule, so if BP lies to us about how much oil is being spewed out into the ocean, that's fine, because it's Big Corp. Under Reagan, they slowly began their assault on the federal agencies designed to protect us. We are witnessing the results of deregulation by the free marketers.

Although I really don't care to read these right-wing milbogs, I find it very encouraging that they are not just clear-headed about the issue of allowing homosexuals in the military to serve openly, but they're willing to put it in a formal statement.

JOINT STATEMENT FROM MILITARY BLOGGERS 12 MAY 2010

We consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We want that to continue.

Today, it appears inevitable to us that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law restricting those displaying open homosexual behavior from serving will be changed. And yet, very little will actually change. Homosexuals have always served in the US Military, and there have been no real problems caused by that.

The service chiefs are currently studying the impact and consequences of changing the DADT policy, and how to implement it without compromising the morale, order and discipline necessary for the military to function. The study is due to be completed on Dec. 1st. We ask Congress to withhold action until this is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Matt Burden - Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Jim Hanson - Warrior Legacy Foundation & BLACKFIVE
Blake Powers - BLACKFIVE
Fred Schoenman - BLACKFIVE
David Bellavia - House to House
Bruce McQuain - Q&O
JD Johannes - Outside the Wire
Diane Frances McInnis Miller - Boston Maggie
Mark Seavey - This Ain't Hell
Michael St. Jacques - The Sniper
Mary Ripley - US Naval Institute Blog
John Donovan - Castle Argghhh!
Andrew J. Lubin- The Military Observer
Marc Danziger - Winds of Change
Greta Perry - Hooah Wife

So good on you. Much respect, except, as you guys ought to recognize, if you ask DOD to wait until December, there is the very real chance that a Republican-dominated House could block any action to repeal DADT. Next time, call your left-wing milbloggers into the effort. Or is our position perhaps a little less nebulous?

Yep, it's grim trying to get by in the states that give decent unemployment benefits. Imagine if you lose your job, and have the bad luck to live in one of the states that pays a pittance. Meanwhile, the Republicans scream about the "nanny state" and "being on the dole," even mocking job retraining programs:

Fred Wright and Tyrone Gatson live about 55 miles apart and worked as technicians for poultry producer Pilgrim's Pride Corp. until they were laid off last month.

But Mr. Wright, who lives and worked in Arkansas, is eligible for nearly twice as much in unemployment benefits as Mr. Gatson, who lives in Louisiana and worked at a different Pilgrim's Pride plant in that state, just over the border from Mr. Wright. Under Arkansas's more generous system, Mr. Wright can get $431 in weekly benefits, compared to Mr. Gatson's $284. He is also eligible to receive benefits for three more months than Mr. Gatson.

The differences highlight the inequities of the U.S. unemployment-insurance system, a complex patchwork of government programs guided by Washington but administered principally by the states. [See interactive map here.]

Economists say jobless benefits soften the blow of recessions by offering laid-off workers money for necessities like food and housing while they seek new jobs. The programs also prop up consumer spending, reducing the spread of layoffs in hard-hit areas. As the recession drags on, more Americans are relying on unemployment checks -- 6.7 million in the week ended June 6 -- than at any time since the Department of Labor began collecting the data in 1967.

Unemployment benefits are financed by state and federal taxes on employers; in general, employers pay higher taxes as more of their former workers tap benefits. States set most of the rules based on their own fiscal and policy choices, creating a maze of regulations to determine who qualifies for jobless benefits, how much money they get, and for how long.

Some students of the system say the inconsistencies weaken the safety net and allow many women, low-wage earners and part-timers to slip through. "Too many states are very stingy about paying out adequate unemployment benefits," says Maurice Emsellem, policy co-director at the National Employment Law Project, a research and employee-advocacy group. "Sometimes there's no rhyme or reason to it."