We know for a FACT that there are animals that would put out "feelers" offering to pay people to blog for them. All I/We want to know is, would melvin take them up on the offer? If you read some of his/her comments/replies to anti-animal Kossacks (trolled so I can't link to them) it's not hard to understand why I am asking this
valid, legitimate question.
melvin seems to have no problem with answering simple yes-or-no questions. Rather, he/she goes off on these tirades, that address the real issue (see examples below the fold). I'm not the only person he/she has done this to. This question has never been asked. Yet, each time, he/she refuses to give a straight answer. Why do you suppose that is? melvin have you been bought and paid for by the Radical Salamander Agenda??!.
Here is the
proof that melvin supports the over throwing of the human race in favor of his animal allies:
The Scott Bar salamander was identified as a species separate from the Siskiyou salamander, which was already listed. California Fish and Game concluded that the new species, since it was not listed, was not protected, and its extremely limited habitat could therefore be logged.
But that is not all, he goes on to defend the Siskiyou slamander:
Ah, but just for giggles, the state has now moved to delist the Siskiyou salamander as well: At the same time, California Department of Fish and Game is moving to delist the Siskiyou Mountains salamander under the state Endangered Species Act. This move has been sharply criticized by the primary experts on the biology of these salamanders. Forest Service scientist, Dr. Hartwell Welsh, for example, concluded that "interpretation of the science" used by the state game agency to support delisting was "seriously flawed" (letter available upon request).
More alarming is his sworn allegiance to the orangutan who's habitat is being destroyed to farm palm oil (a very unhealthy fat being used to replace trans-fats). He insiduously links to a study that claims:
The sprawling oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia that produce most of the world's palm oil have had a devastating effect on the rainforest and its wildlife. Palm oil, widely used in processed foods and cooking oils in Asia, Europe, and--to a lesser extent--the United States, also harms human health. Yet those effects are not broadly recognized in the countries that finance, import, and trade in palm oil.
He then recommends that:
* Do not trust the environmental assurances of
retailers and manufacturers about the legality
or sustainability of wood products unless
these can be backed up by independent
verification with a full chain-of-custody.
* Only buy wood products which have been
independently verified as legally sourced,
with a full chain of custody, such as wood
sold under the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) scheme.
* Stop buying merbau flooring until it is
available with the assurances given above.
What's more important to you, huh, melvin?? The type of wood for your floor or the lives of Malaysia's natives, orangutans, and tigers? He even advocates
cannibalism, what more proof do we need that he will side with the animals when the impending civil war for the Earth ensues? But not all animals are created equal according his
biased assertion that:
The native red squirrel is similarly threatened by the introduced grey. Among the many suggestions for ridding the country of greys, I like the one suggested in the House of Lords, despite the press ridicule it has received: Lord says feed squirrels to kids Why not turn the grey into a delicacy?
Like Nixon and Rove, melvin promotes a "southern strategy" of race baiting, pitting the endangered red squirrel versus the abundant grey. Have you no shame melvin?
Most disturbing is melvin's allegiance to the night and mysterious international organizations:
The first group I ever ran across working on reclaiming the night was one run largely by British astronomers. The Campaign for Dark Skies is still the best organized and most informative of several organizations working on the issue. The International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) is also very active. They have an interesting newsletter.
He even goes on to counter common wisdom with his own experiences and even produces facts to counter the
human feeling that light makes us safer:
My personal favorite:
So many people fear the dark and think light protects them. But an Australian study found that outdoor lighting does not deter crime. Instead, it points to doors, lights the way and creates deep shadows for hiding. Naturally dark places can actually be safer.
(Much better documented here and especially here.) This is something that people absolutely refuse to entertain, I can tell you from personal experience. I tried to float the notion of reducing street lighting and redirecting remaining lighting towards the ground at Town Council. The security issue trumps everything. Eventually, if it is demonstrated that illuminated ATM's and entrances, unnaturally deep shadows nearby, and "guard" lights aimed squarely into the faces of passersby on the street all add up to better opportunities for crime, the response will be "Yes, all that is true. But the lights make people feel more secure." This logic somewhat resembles that of keeping gays out of the military not because they will cause any problems, but because other people think they might.
Well there you have it. Either melvin is a
paid to blog for animals...or worse, some shadowy organization that hopes to save billions of birds and barrels of oil by reducing light pollution simply so we can see the milky way, what an absurd concept!
And I PLEDGE to delete this diary if melvin proves, to this very valid, legitimate assertion, as long as he/she responds without vulgarity and sarcasm, so the proof is believable.