shared by Peggy As you may know, DOG NEWS has freely and openly printed verbal attacks on the PAWS opposition coming from the 4 AKC Board Members who voted against AKC support of S 1139, as well as other well known fanciers, AND Donna Malone who is the moderator of the NAIA Animal Talk list. None of the 4 AKC Board Members, nor Wayne Cavanagh, nor Donna Malone, etc., have ever to my knowledge issued public verbal attacks aimed at those AKC Board Members who voted to support PAWS. Donna Malone was the target of John Mandeville's INSIDE OUT column in a recent issue of DOG NEWS. Well, she took him on didn't she? We know that AKC, DOG NEWS, and other persons/groups who support PAWS monitor the various lists that are talking about PAWS. So there is no doubt that Mr. Mandeville has read this letter. Turning Mandeville "Inside Out" by Donna Malone The August 19, 2005 issue of Dog News included an article entitled, "Inside Out - Our Fathers' AKC..." by John Mandeville (aka John '2B' Mandeville). This is my response: Mandeville writes, "This time Donna Malone . . . stands in for all those people whose Internet blather is seldom if ever called to account." I am amused that ol'2B (or 3B or was that another time?) threw the gauntlet down on what he alleges to be "Internet blather," but pleased to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of members of the Fancy opposed to PAWS. Mandeville says my "dissection of Sari's PAWS column is the usual anti-PAWS rhetoric" and that "And after untold renditions it is really boring. And trite. And not worth getting exercised about." Except he does.... He chides, "Someone should tell Donna Malone her zealotry and bombast work with the committed. That is hardly the way to make converts, especially among those of us who have a jaundiced view of the entire PAWS debate." My parody of Sari's article was widely read and well-received. Considering Mandeville's, uh, "passions," it is surprising that he would mistake my passionate objections to Sari's article for "zealotry and bombast work" but, well, apparently his best work is not done with the head on his shoulders. More about that later... ; -) Mandeville suggests I "take note of Carmen Battaglia's widely circulated Internet memo" or "Charlotte McGowan's August 5 DOC NEWS article "Pausing to Understand Objections to PAWS." (Both are excellent works. If you haven't read them, I encourage you to do so. Google for them.) However, I am in a unique position compared to most of the other parties to the PAWS debate. I don't show. I don't breed. I am not, and do not aspire to be, a judge. As such, I am at liberty to say things that neither McGowan nor Battaglia dare say for fear of retribution. Back to Mandeville's article, "Malone resorts to McCarthyism." How about another perspective on McCarthyism? "Thirty years after the death of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy . . . the term "McCarthyism" is still widely used as a convenient and easily understood epithet for all that is evil and despicable in the world of politics. . . . Despite the frequency with which the term is invoked, however, it is quite clear that not one critic of McCarthy in a hundred has the slightest idea of what he said and did during that controversial period from 1950 to 1954." Quoted from: http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/people/vo03no10_mccarthy.htm Did McCarthy make mistakes? Yes. However, in the aftermath of 9/11, when so many Americans are questioning the decidedly un-American activities of Al Qaeda members, it is interesting to note that (type of "ism" aside) those are the very type of activities that McCarthy sought to forestall. McCarthy's Alien Registration Act (also known as the Smith Act) made it illegal to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing our government. It also required all alien residents over 14 file a comprehensive statement of their personal and occupational status and a record of their political beliefs. Does any of this sound familiar? But, enough of the history lesson Mandeville obviously missed.... Mandeville demands names of all the "attorneys and those active in the legislative forum have contradicted his [Holt's] interpretation for years." Let's start with the names of attorneys, off the top of my head, including but not limited to, Sharon Coleman, Cindy Cooke, Jeffrey Helsdon, and Jerald Tannenbaum. Names of others active in the legislative forum, again off the top of my head, including but not limited to, Mary Beth Duerler, Charlotte McGowan, Kelly Wichman, Anne Edwards, Norma Bennett Woolf, Karen Strange, Tere Woody, Linda Chance, and Cherie Graves. ALL OPPOSED TO PAWS... (Please Google these names folks! And, my apologies to those of you whose names did not spring as readily to my mind as those listed when I was writing this.) Have you even HEARD of these people Mandeville? Many are principals in state federations that do the "hands on" legislative work in the cities, counties and states around the Country AND THEY OPPOSE PAWS. They protect your right to own and breed! AKC counts on most of them, like it counts on me, to oppose legislation restrictive to the rights of owners and breeders! BTW, you are aware the AKC counts on US to interpret those laws, right? As for your allegations that I am "exaggerating, if not lying," and your demand for dates and places and "what they said, independently verifiable, of course, where their contradictions of Holt's interpretations have appeared 'for years.'" I'll do you one better than that, let me refer you to the SOURCE MATERIALS! See the legislative intent behind the AWA (federal records), the enforcement history of the AWA (available from the USDA), and case law, most notably, Doris Day Animal League v. Veneman, see: http://www.nabr.org/animallaw/caselaw/ddalvsveneman2003.htm <mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/DEFAULT/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/Default%20User/dv8y4yiv.slt/Mail/rcn.net/Sent?number=214247709> as that is the material that WE (see above list of attorneys and others active in the legislative forum) have been quoting non-stop since AKC's insane endorsement of PAWS. Mandeville also wrote, "as someone who has the utmost regard for the legal profession, sleeping with an attorney as I do, rather than citing attorneys to give your assertion heft you are better advised to cite their legislative and lobbying credentials - in Washington, please, this is Federal legislation we're concerned about." Admittedly, I am not an attorney and I have not slept with one. I am a paralegal (graduated top of my class) and have worked for attorneys 20+ years. I have researched case and code and prepared all types of legal documents. When Memphis proposed BSL, I advised the City it would not withstand challenge. Two of the top law firms here assured our City Council and County Commission that it would. GUESS WHO WAS RIGHT? ;-D Mandeville also demands "legislative and lobbying credentials - in Washington, please. . ." Sir, Will Rogers pretty much summed up what most folks think about Washington when he said, "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." (You aren't seriously suggesting that only Washingtonians are capable of drafting/understanding legislation and/or lobbying are you?) Mandeville next attempts to justify his and Sari Tietjen's demands for the resignation of two or three of the AKC's board members who opposed PAWS alleging a "conflict of interest." Correct me if I am wrong here, but rumor has it you are the same Mandeville that got FIRED from the AKC for....? (Isn't that where ya got that nickname "2B" or "3B" or whatever it is? (You know, the number of the room where you were doing what you do best?) Come to think of it, seems like there was a rumor that Sari has her own demons... something about being on the AKC's payroll and showing maybe? Neither of you appear to have the ethical/moral authority to be pointing a finger at anyone! For the general audience reading this, conflict of interest arises whenever the personal or professional interests of a board member are potentially at odds with the best interests of the nonprofit. If anyone is acting in a conflict of interest, it is the board members who voted for PAWS. Members of the board have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the Fancy but what are they doing? Spending time and $$$ promoting PAWS, a law so at odds with the purpose of the AKC that they are having to REWRITE the AKC's statement of purpose! Mandeville further attempts to justify his conflict of interest assertion by alleging that so and so says he is right. I can see it now. Mandeville calls them, gives them his rendition of the "facts", and they say something along the lines of IF you are right and IF thus and such actually happened the way you said it did, THEN it MIGHT not be ethical behavior. Any "attorney" stupid enough to do otherwise should not be practicing law! Finally, Mandeville recognizes my "we want OUR FATHER'S AKC" "is "a rhetorical plea for a time when AKC's legislative perspective was in harmony with hers," but calls it "delusional." He knows, as well as I do, that I am talking pre-PAWS. He does bring up an interesting point though - that the AKC has only "bothered" (his word not mine) with legislation for the last 15 or so years. And, "bothered" generally means they call or email someone in the trenches (LIKE ME) to get out and oppose it. Yes, they serve a purpose BUT it is not the same as being there, hands on. Speaking of the AKC lobbying... Folks, you have now seen what the AKC can do when they WANT TO compliments of PAWS. What did the AKC do when restrictive legislation was last proposed in your area? They probably did not travel all over the applicable area lobbying clubs to help you oppose the legislation, did they? Hmmmm... They probably also did not take out, much less pay, for a FULL PAGE AD in local papers opposing the bill, did they? Unh, unh... They probably also did not make a personal appearance before elected representatives, much less hire a lobbyist to oppose the bill, did they? Tisk, tisk.. Yeah, they mailed a "package" to applicable elected representatives, if you supplied the names and addresses to them. Oh, and, let's not forget that handy dandy one page (front and back) brochure on how to plead your case to elected representatives! Although that really isn't a substitute for the other, is it? My intention is not to discredit the legislative department or its employees (I like them) BUT there is another side of this story that is not being told. The people opposing PAWS are not a bunch of inexperienced and legislatively ignorant yokels. Most of us have MUCH MORE expertise on legislative issues than the AKC has or will have in the foreseeable future and, taken collectively, the AKC may never be able to catch up with us on the issues. WE ARE THE EXPERTS AND PAWS IS NOT IN YOUR BEST INTEREST! PAWS IS A "BACKDOOR" MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER, BREEDER LICENSING LAW! And, if PAWS is any example of what we can expect legislatively from the AKC in the future, the AKC needs to GET OUT OF LEGISLATION ENTIRELY! To read more about WHY YOU SHOULD OPPOSE PAWS visit: http://www.dfow.org/paws.htm <mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/DEFAULT/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/Default%20User/dv8y4yiv.slt/Mail/rcn.net/Sent?number=214247709> http://www.naiaonline.org <mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/DEFAULT/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/Default%20User/dv8y4yiv.slt/Mail/rcn.net/Sent?number=214247709> http://www.naiatrust.org/NAIA_Trust_Opposes_PAWS_S1139.htm <mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/DEFAULT/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/Default%20User/dv8y4yiv.slt/Mail/rcn.net/Sent?number=214247709> http://www.ncraoa.com <mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/DEFAULT/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/Default%20User/dv8y4yiv.slt/Mail/rcn.net/Sent?number=214247709> http://www.saova.org <mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/DEFAULT/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/Default%20User/dv8y4yiv.slt/Mail/rcn.net/Sent?number=214247709> VISIT THIS SITE TO WRITE YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES: http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home <mailbox:///C%7C/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/DEFAULT/APPLICATION%20DATA/Mozilla/Profiles/Default%20User/dv8y4yiv.slt/Mail/rcn.net/Sent?number=214247709> Donna Malone PERMISSION TO CROSS-POST FREELY. ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org ============================================================================