Beach vacation is set for July, and I'm desperately looking forward to it. Or I was, until someone said: Do you think the oil will be there by then?

Er ...

"Crude from the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico has now entered currents that will carry it out into the Atlantic Ocean and up the East Coast," reported the Baltimore Sun last week. "But experts say the worst that beachgoers in Maryland are likely to encounter might be a few sandy tar balls — soft, asphalt-like blobs that can do little more than stain your feet."

Oh well, tar balls. That's all.

As if that's something good and positive.

SMART REMARKS: Of course BP's in charge

As of this writing, the blowout continues to spew huge volumes of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. How much? Hard to say, or rather no one will say; BP hasn't exactly been transparent on this issue, and the Obama administration hasn't pushed BP too hard. More on this in a moment.

The disaster has had the feel of an American Chernobyl, and an air of inevitability has accompanied the catastrophe from the first. In a world so dependent upon oil, where most of the easily tapped sources are being tapped out, of course this was going to happen. If we remain on this path, eventually it will happen again.

And we will remain on this path. For getting off the path — reducing our dependence upon oil — simply requires more sacrifice than we're willing to make. Other nations won't follow along, giving them a competitive edge. Conservation means greater dependency on, say, public transportation. Our frontier, independent mentality can never accept this.

And real "change" would require unprecedented governmental planning and control, something Americans would never abide.

So, no, we won't be getting off this path. And this is the trade-off.

Conservatives have tried to make this into "Obama's Katrina." But if it is, it's not because his administration failed to grasp the severity of the problem — it's that officials may know how bad it is, yet still they've deferred to BP.

Sure, Obama has criticized BP — which riled one high-profile conservative, Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul, who called Obama's cricitisms un-American. "Maybe sometimes accidents happen," Paul said.

Then later in the week the Associated Press reported that "Senior managers complained oil giant BP was 'taking shortcuts' by replacing heavy drilling fluid with saltwater in the well that blew out." But I suppose pointing out that sometimes accidents happen when you're looking to cut costs is also un-American.

No, the problem isn't that Obama has dared criticize BP. It's that Obama gives the impression of doing little but criticizing.

The Coast Guard commandant heading the federal response to the spill said last week that "BP and the government are working closely together, with the government holding veto power and adopting an 'inquisitorial' stand toward the company's ideas. ... The government has the authority to tell BP what to do."

But has the government told BP what to do?

If government has neither the expertise nor the authority to assert control in a time of national crisis, a nation that has so long deferred to private enterprise has no choice but to defer to BP. BP has obvious incentives to stop the flow of oil, but equally obvious incentives to downplay the severity of the spill to minimize the public relations damage, and indemnify itself against the waves of lawsuits destined to follow the waves of oil.

And all we as citizens of this great corporatist state can do is smile, blink and accept that, sometimes, accidents happen.

Just don't step in any "accidents" down at the shore this summer.