Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced yesterday that he will use authority Congress gave him to waive all environmental laws that will impede construction of 670 miles of border wall between the United States and Mexico.
The wall threatens the rare wildlife of the Southwest like ocelots, jaguars, jaguarundis, and others with extinction because it will prevent animals from reaching breeding populations in Mexico.
Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, released a statement saying,
Thanks to this action by the Bush administration, the border is in a sense more lawless now than when Americans first started moving west. Laws ensuring clean water and clean air for us and our children -- dismissed. Laws protecting wildlife, land, rivers, streams, and places of cultural significance -- just a bother to the Bush administration. Laws giving American citizens a voice in the process -- gone. Clearly this is out of control. It is this kind of absolute disregard for the well-being and concerns of border communities and the welfare of our wildlife and untamed borderlands that has forced Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club to take a stand and say "No more!"
The Bush administration is aiming to complete the wall before it leaves office, likely because all three presidential candidates have expressed some degree of opposition to it.
The only hopes for stopping the wall at this point are a Supreme Court case by the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife challenging the Bush administration's authority to waive environmental laws, a so-far anemic effort sponsored by Congressman Raul Grijalva to get Congress to change the law, or civil disobedience in the border region aimed at stopping or slowing the wall.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
Comments
View as Flat
thricejamie Posted 3:21 am
02 Apr 2008
Permalink
javaearth Posted 7:01 am
02 Apr 2008
The Bush admin has created so many poor choices, that have led to many creatures destuction. - It is sad that any person could/did vote for this numnut!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 7:21 am
02 Apr 2008
Fencing Israel
Terrorism, wilderness, and the Israeli security wall
by Haim Watzman
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2 ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:11 pm
02 Apr 2008
The fauna of Israel and the Occupied West Bank (?; and are there any critters in Gaza, way over-populated by humans?) are probably isolated from other members of their species. And they themselves should ideally have access to the several ecosystems in that tiny region: the Jordan valley, the Judean and Negev deserts, the Mediterranean littoral, and the intervening highlands.
As Watzman makes clear, human technological reactions based on fear and hatred will of course decrease animals' chances for survival.
As Watzman's words suggest, without his intending, the fear and hatred that human beings fear for one another do not counsel them to do good and wise things.
Note that Lou Dobbs and his fellow travelers similarly refuse to understand Latino undocumented visitors to this country as they truly are, our vulnerable, needy brethren, but prefer to indulge their baser instincts and condemn them as violent, aggressive invaders, threats to our womenfolk and children, competitors for jobs, importers of dangerous illegal substances, and allies of terrorists. That is fear and hatred at work. It will do no one any good, ever.
On a natural-science note, Watzman included both "jackals" and "coyotes" among the fauna of Palestine. "Jackals" probably refers to the Golden Jackal, Canis aureus. But "coyotes" cannot possibly refer to the North American and Central American canid of that name, Canis latrans. However, there may indeed be an isolated population of the Gray Wolf in Palestine, Canis lupus ssp., and those wolves might be small in stature, like our own Mexican wolves, another subspecies adapted for an arid climate; and those wolves might colloquially be referred to by humans with an ill-educated American background as "coyotes."
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:41 pm
02 Apr 2008
But jaguars are stunning too, our largest native cats. And the more diminutive margays, often overlooked, are, if anything, even prettier and cuter than ocelots.
And jaguarundis, of whom our South Texas pal Sam Wells is a great admirer, are also beautiful, but rather more subtly so, since their coloring is a solid charcoal, or thereabouts, not a gorgeous array of black markings on a white/tawny/gold background.
Also, we should never underestimate the effect the border wall is likely to have on the Mexican Wolf, a southernmost subspecies of the Gray Wolf: recently reintroduced into both southern Arizona and New Mexico, and central Chihuahua and Sonora, it would not be helped at all by a big obstacle on the border.
On another matter: We should understand that the erection of the border wall will not drive any of these species into extinction, because all of them are doing OK elsewhere. But we need to understand that populations matter too, and definitely deserve much effort to be preserved. All four of those cats, and the one canid, may very well be eliminated from all of northern Mexico and the US Southwest, without our hard work, including strongly opposing the border wall.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:57 pm
02 Apr 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/19/hunt-border-fence/
Has anyone checked the fence construction crews lately for illegal workers?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6626 ...
Well at least the Blackwater "abu ghraib" for illegal aliens in socal was canceled. Or was it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/30/usa.danglaist ...
And now this environmental disaster from this boondoggle as well? And the damn thing is defeated by a wirecutter. Whenever mules want to move a load of human cargo across.
No mention of universal biometric ID and a fool proof system so employers can make sure they don't hire illegals and enforcement against employers who do. In order to stop the incentive for illegal immigration. And allow legal work permits for aliens and legal wages, safe working conditions, and tax and social security collection.
And my congressman sent campaign ads out in the mail all about his visit to the border fence and his dilligent work to get it done. Hooray.
Sure makes me want to campaign for him. Yow. Oh yeah, he likes cellulosic ethanol too. And I betcha clean coal and nukes too. Haven't asked, but it's a fair assumption. He claims to be a democrat too.
The border fence, another stinking load of contracting on america, brought to US by the most corrupt, worst administration in history. Backed by my congressman, who I campaigned for. he wants more donations from me now.
Get it from Blackwater and Halliburton, you moron. That's what your bushco friends do.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
madtownkdog Posted 6:24 am
03 Apr 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:41 am
03 Apr 2008
Here is the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Abbey.
I already feel indirectly accused by my friends (i.e., people whom I admire; I do not claim that they have any affection for me) Wolverine and LegumeSam (writing on another thread) for being too ineffective, too much like the Dalai Lama, sheltering behind an ethic of non-violence.
But I do indeed believe that that ethic must be preserved. And if "what Edward Abbey would do" is an act of violence, then I would have to ask long and deeply why I should participate in it.
Notate bene, however: Civil disobedience is not in itself violent. "Pulling up stakes" is not violent!
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 9:12 am
04 Apr 2008
And what should we do? Personally, I think some good old-fashioned civil disobedience is definitely in order. If the powers that be insist on flouting the law, what else can we do?
Let the jaguars return!
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:07 am
04 Apr 2008
I'm not defending the wall or anything. I'm for saving resources and ecosystems.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:18 pm
04 Apr 2008
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/so ....
Backcut,
OK, point taken, I know what you are saying, generally. It is always ethically tricky, when sabotage as a form of civil disobedience might involve destruction of a scientific work-in-progress. Sometimes such destruction is justifiable, but by no means always; hopefully, activists will be able to do the hard, honest reasoning that is required if their activism is going to be truly progressive.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:15 pm
04 Apr 2008
Yet so many like to say their actions are non-violent. Hypocracy abounds on both sides!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:39 am
05 Apr 2008
Depends on how it's done. If you make them obsolete?
How about the masters of (oil) war? Making (oil) war obsolete, that has to be aok.
And that can be done non-violently. With a combination of civil disobedience, political action, and trend setting.
Is having 100 million bucks to invest in hedge funds trendy? Look at Hill and Bill, undone by a poor person. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 5:24 am
05 Apr 2008
Consider this, however: Let us imagine that someone were to spraypaint graffiti on the Carnegie Library building. (If you don't have one of these in your home town, substitute your favorite historical edifice.) Is cleaning off the paint an act of violence against the graffiti artist? Should we be concerned about the cost of the paint, and the time that the painter invested in creating the graffiti? Or is the graffiti artist the one who's acting violently? Should we simply state that vandalism of a historical building is inappropriate, regardless of the time and money invested in said vandalism?
I think it's entirely appropriate to ask these questions with regard to the border fence. This project is, (to my mind), an act of violence and vandalism against wilderness areas on the border, much worse, in its way, than graffiti tags on a historic building. If someone takes action to destroy a barrier fence in a sensitive area, are they meeting violence with more violence? Or are they simply cleaning off the graffiti, and trying to repair the damage?
The creative impulse is a beautiful, wonderful thing, but unfortunately, it is sometimes used to very destructive ends. As Dave Barry once observed, "The Unabomber made finely crafted, high quality letter bombs. That doesn't make it right."
It should be remembered, also, that civil disobedience does not simply mean monkeywrenching. It can take many other forms.
Let the jaguars return!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:11 am
05 Apr 2008
Funny you should mention the Carnegie Libraries. Whatever we may think of the legacy of old Andrew, as arch-industrialist and steel magnate, he certainly was a great benefactor of the arts and sciences. Carnegie Hall here in NYC is perhaps his best-known and appreciated gift. But as a dinosaurophile, I fondly remember his sponsoring some of the great paleontological discoveries of the US West. His museum in Pittsburgh is, I believe, the only museum in the world (and now undergoing a thrilling restoration) with not one but two large mounted sauropod skeletons, Andrew's favorite Diplodocus, and the even larger Apatosaurus louisae, named in honor of Mrs. Carnegie.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:42 pm
05 Apr 2008
Is Backcut's use of the word within this definition?. He appears to suggest that any wilful disruption of another's (professional?) activity is intrinsically violent. I assume this would apply however peaceful the means of disruption and however demonstrably malevolent the disrupted activity's nature or purpose. Do we accept that?
The thesaurus puts things in a rather different light: synonyms for violence are listed as "brutality, brute force, ferocity, savagery, cruelty, sadism, barbarity, brutishness". I find it hard to associate the act of surreptitiously moving or removing surveyor's stakes with any of these words, however annoying or indeed counterproductive it might be.
Let's not debase the language and throw around random and irrelevant charges of hypocrisy. Let's keep some perspective here.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:55 pm
05 Apr 2008
That sounds like violence to me!
Violence doesn't have to be limited to just the physical.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:00 am
06 Apr 2008
http://www.rathergood.com/ocelot/
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:33 am
06 Apr 2008
To return to the present example, do you consider the disruption of the border fencer's doubtfully 'lawful' work an equal evil to the fencer's species-threatening disruption of an essential habitat? We're hardly talking about harming a traditional way of life here: the fencers got the job yesterday and it'll be finished tomorrow.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:31 am
06 Apr 2008
The great Southern white biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr., Taylor Branch, gave an address on Monday, March 31, at the National Cathedral (Episcopal) in DC, on the fortieth anniversary of MLK's last church sermon, also in the National Cathedral. The address, which made me weep, is excerpted among the op-eds in today's NYTimes Week in Review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06branch.html?_ ....
Branch reminds us that democracy is essentially a great form of nonviolence.
And he summarizes King's interpretation of the ever-moving parable of Lazarus the Beggar and Dives the Rich Man: "There is a great chasm that divides us," says Father Abraham, but that is really the creation of Dives the Rich Man, who fails to recognize Lazarus as a fellow sentient being.
Building the border wall is essentially the creation of another uncrossable chasm between Heaven and Hell, and we shall find ourselves on the side which is Hell. The great majority of undocumented Latino immigrants are just poor people struggling to keep themselves and their families alive. When we mistrust and vilify them as terrorists, drug smugglers, thieves, and destroyers of society of other sorts, we treat them as Dives treated Lazarus, and we are establishing for ourselves our place in Hell, on the woeful side of the chasm.
The same goes for our disregard of the interests of wild animals. Neither King nor Branch made the explicit reference to non-human sentient beings, but that is certainly implicit in the figure of Lazarus, who symbolizes all who are vulnerable and helpless, and who suffer through our neglect.
SpaceShaper,
thanks for responding so well to Backcut's particular issues. Backcut's complaints may be justified, for all I know -- having no real knowledge of forestry conditions in the PacNW, which is where I think Backcut lives and works, I remain agnostic -- , but it is not clear that he is using "violence" correctly. For that matter, I am not sure I would even go so far as you seem to go, in accepting sabotage, or "monkey-wrenching," i.e. destruction of machinery, as a form of violence. "To violate" is a very strong verb, and we should restrict it, and the nominal forms "violation" and "violence," to occasions of real physical harm inflicted on sentient beings.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:25 am
06 Apr 2008
I agree.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 9:05 am
06 Apr 2008
If everyone acted upon their "beliefs" (instead of facts), we'd certainly have chaos. In the example of our forests, activists are disregarding scientific facts and testimony from top ecologists, and taking matters into their own hands (and not being aware of what the flagging they are taking down is for). For them, civil disobediance is more important than the cause and resolution.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:51 am
06 Apr 2008
However: yes, I would be annoyed at my vehicle being vandalized. But I would still consider this to be a very different kind of activist behavior than dropping a rock from an overpass as I was driving below. I'd reserve the 'violence' monicker for the latter.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:11 am
06 Apr 2008
Regarding the fence, there HAS to be a way to mitigate effects in design or re-design. Will this wall lead to "sea-walls" to keep "ethnic amphibians" from invading America? I don't think a fence is going to be that effective, in the first place. Plus, we're all still waiting for the promises that the Irish would take over this country to come true, as well.
smirk
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:36 pm
06 Apr 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 3:00 am
09 Apr 2008
Let the jaguars return!
Permalink
getwork Posted 12:15 am
10 Apr 2008
I realize now that someone is going to tell me something like "electricity is not a necessity blah blah blah" but water is.
Permalink