[ SHOWGSD-L ] long but excellent.......
- From: Peggy <pmick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:51:46 -0400
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
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] long but excellent.......
