BTW -- a "fairy shrimp" is the freshwater version of the sea monkey.

I've been in favor of posting bounties on illegals. Either in cash or a tax credit. It might put a damper on the more casual illegals if they knew 300 million greedy bastards were on the lookout for them.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with your take on the Enviro's here. Are Greenies over the top sometimes? Sure. Does that mean we can always ignore them? Nope.

I support building an oil pipeline across the Alaskan wilderness because there's just no other way of getting those petro-carbons to market. The same might not be true of bull-dozing in this river estuary. Biodiversity is important, to all of us. The more diverse the biological niche, the more robust and adaptable it is to change. It's also proven that small areas of wilderness act as breeding grounds which keep the less wild parts of the earth (i.e., suburbia) suffering from massive loss of life.

You should have quotes this part of the article.

Members of the Coastal Commission said they did not want to stop the federal government from bolstering border security, but rather believed the government could downscale the project and protect the natural setting and wildlife habitat without sacrificing security.

Bird-watchers tramp through the Tijuana Estuary, one of the few remaining coastal wetlands in Southern California. Local residents share the winding roads with bicyclists, horse riders and picnickers who congregate at Border Field State Park. Often zipping by on the same roads are Border Patrol agents in all-terrain and sport utility vehicles.

Is there a discussion here? Yup. There are real costs & benefits that I don't think the tone of your post gives fair weight to. Honestely, I'm sorry see an Ace-o-Spades blogger try to shut down the debate with a casually dismissive waive of the blogging software.

The MSM is easy to Fisk/ poke fun at because they are unaware of their own biases. Fillet o' Fish is pathetic because he plays rope-a-dope with straw men. Don't make the same mistakes.

Zelda, environmentalists are made up of liberals and conservatives. This is not, and should not continue to be, a wedge or partisan issue. I like to think we're stewards of the land and as such need to be as responsible and careful as possible. In the end if a Wall is the only way to be sure to seal off the three + stretch we'd better put up the wall. I don't know why we can't hire hundreds of more rangers first. I really think it's going to take human intelligence and not a Wall to stop the terrorists. They could just as easily rent a boat in Bimini and steer it up to the Chesapeake Bay than scale a Wall in the southwest.

"So pelicans, rare birds and shrimps take precedence over the safety of American citizens in the middle of a war on terror?"

But of course.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Earth Firsties, who equate wearing fur coats with The Holocaust.

Brock, I feel *very* strongly about environmentalists, as you can see from my post. How that translates to shutting down the debate with a "casually dismissive waive of the blogging software," is beyond me. After all, this post is open for commenting, and I'm responding to you. Regarding the part of the article which you highlighted, I didn't see the point in including it, as it seemed hypocritical to me. I mean who, other than a lunatic will come out and openly say that Pelicans and shrimps are more important than our secure borders? Of course they'll say that they're for bolstering border security. In terms of bird watchers tramping through the Tijuana Estuary, I suppose that's nice. But border security, in my view, takes precedence.

Zelda, there is no such thing as border security. We will never ever have border security.

What we do have is about six more years of high anxiety until our people are in place to perform the counteroperational activities necessary to pull the plug on existing and nascient terrorist cells. So, I stand corrected, we may one day have border security.

Zelda,

My point was that you dismissed the concerns of environmental damage pretty easily - more easily than I thought warranted. Of course border security is more important than a pelican or two, but my it may be possible to have both There's always more than one way to skin a cat, and maybe we can have an acceptable level of security without bulldozing in the estuary.

You asked:

So pelicans, rare birds and shrimps take precedence over the safety of American citizens in the middle of a war on terror?

I guess my main problem is this quote:

Making this landfill is a step in the right direction.

Brock, in all honesty, I don't believe there's any such thing as being "at one" or coexisting with nature. My feeling is that human beings survive on this planet by re-shaping or harnessing nature to suit their needs. That's how we have electricity, computer chips, gasoline, skyscrapers and airplanes, just to name a few things.

So whatever we do, whether it's drilling for oil in Alaska or building this landfill, there will be consequences for animals. Animal species come and go. That's evolution for you, or the natural order of things, if you will.

Also, I have a bit of a problem with the expression "environmental damage." Damaging to whom? To which you would probably reply, "the pelicans." But where we differ is that I view nature as a means to an end, in this case, attempting to secure part of our border.

You asked how I could know that building this landfill sounds like a good start. I don't. I'm not a mind reader. Maybe it won't make a difference. But it certainly sounds better than just throwing up our hands and doing nothing, while people regularly sneak across our border.

Also, it seems that people always say, "well yes I'm for securing the borders, BUT....there's the issue of the pelicans/shrimps/fill in the blank." There's always that hypocritical "but" or "yet." To me, it's a non-issue.

The thing I've noticed about blogs generally is that their writers are honest on where they stand on issues, unlike the mainstream press, where they pretend to be objective. I try and be honest. And I know it's taboo here. But if you vist my blog, you'll see that I'm a big Ayn Rand fan. I've read a bunch of her books, and vist objectivist sites. So when it comes to the environment, I'm in complete agreement with her on that.