Hello Jim,
I apologize for using your last name as your first name in this post. You
know that I know better. It's an "age thing" on my part. I do that all
the time when I talk to you and I did it again. I have friends who refer
to me as "Forstner" and it seems to come naturally here. How stupid of
me!! My public apology!! I have nothing but respect for your point of
view.
Red faced,
Libby
Libby Forstner
Magical Farms, Inc.
Litchfield Ohio
(330)667-3233
libby@alpacafarm.com
Sent by: Alpacasite@yahoogroups.com
11/16/2008 08:47 PM
Please respond to
Alpacasite@yahoogroups.com
To
alpacapolitics@yahoogroups.com, <Alpacasite@yahoogroups.com>,
<AlpacaTalk@yahoogroups.com>
cc
Subject
[Alpacasite] Patrick's post!
Hello Patrick,
I always read your posts with interest and this one is no exception. Yes,
I agree that our industry is also struggling with the national economic
issues and I have no doubt that this shall pass. I trust that AOBA's
marketing program will be READY when it does. There are people in our
industry who are primarily interested in fiber and that side of the
industry and that is great but there are literally thousands of members
who are rightly concerned about marketing their alpacas. It appears now
that some want us to discuss a meat /hide industry and so I think we need
to discuss it. Not implement it, mind you, discuss it openly and honestly
but not have it shoved down our throats. I also look forward to the
further development of the fiber industry/products and truly believe that
both can and should exist side by side. Yes, we have a lot to discuss as
an industry and lots of smart people are in it and can give some great
input. I would like to point out that we had over 350 NEW people at our
auction in October, most of them very interested in owning alpacas. Some
purchased...most are biding their time until the national economic crisis
subsides. There's a lot of pent-up excitement out there if our auction is
any indication and I find that very heartening.
Patrick, I don't think we can bury our heads in the sand. The Board is
looking at implementing some far-reaching changes in the objectives that
drive our entire organization and our industry and we have a
responsibility to understand and provide input to the objectives. Please
don't attack former Board members and committee members for speaking up.
If they hadn't, no one would have any idea of what just happened behind
the scenes nor be prepared to ask questions and give input. I do NOT see
this as a struggle between Boards. There are too many people concerned by
the objectives they read for it to be that simple. The people speaking up
are those willing to stick their necks out and that includes non-Board
members as well as Board members. I am not aware of any former Board
member (recent past) who would advocate for bankrupting AOBA and starting
another organization!! Good grief. AOBA is one reason why our industry
has been successful...ARI is the other reason. We can disagree with our
leaders but we should support our Association!! I can't imagine Steve or
Amy or any other recent Board member saying otherwise and guessing and
suggesting such negative motives isn't helpful either.
Patrick, I am MORE interested in what comes next with this planning
process than to set up some new committee to investigate the Board's
actions! Hopefully it will never come to that. That's not a good place
for our industry to be! The Long Range Planning Committee concept is a
good one if filled with people with diverse backgrounds led by an
experienced outside consultant. Let's not go on a witch hunt so that we
can assign blame. Let's voice our concerns, ask our questions and give
feedback into these proposed objectives. I think it's entirely okay for
us to ask...demand...information so that we can respond and give feedback
intelligently. We will never be totally satisfied with our leaders. We
can't all get our "way" all of the time. All we can ask is that they
listen, communicate and follow the wishes of the majority, whatever those
wishes may be.
I urge members to ask questions of our Board re: objectives and give them
feedback once the facts are known re: objectives. That is our
responsibility as members, is it not????
With RESPECT,
Libby
Libby Forstner
Magical Farms, Inc.
Litchfield Ohio
(330)667-3233
"Patricks' Pastures" <patrickspastures@verizon.net>
Sent by: Alpacasite@yahoogroups.com
11/16/2008 12:48 PM
Please respond to
Alpacasite@yahoogroups.com
To
<Alpacasite@yahoogroups.com>
cc
Subject
[Alpacasite] If you love alpacas, please read this
First, please allow me to apologize for the long post. It is NOT
political, so I post it on this site. PLEASE READ THE ENTRE EMAIL.
I have been standing back and reading all the posts from many people of
passion and conviction. This industry is indeed at a place of change
caused largely by change in the world's economic markets.
The alpaca industry, being a livestock production industry with a
commoditized product; fleece; is NOT insulated from the world happenings
around us. In times like these; debate is certain to ensue with multiple
opinions heard, some louder than others. During troubled times, blame is
easy to find and differences in personalities are uncovered quickly and
can
turn into long term open wounds.
Many times in situations of financially related agendas (or lack of
financing causing panic), decisions are made quickly and not always
articulated properly so that those affected truly understand what is
happening. This, of course, breeds fear, uncertainty and even more
contempt giving rise to panic which results in huge misunderstanding,
divisions and long term morale issues.
For several years, I was the president of a trade association and know
very
well how difficult it is to keep a majority of the membership happy even
during good times. Over the last few years, I supported the AOBA
officers' hard work, not necessarily agreeing with many of their
decisions,
but they were volunteers giving of their own time and monies, so at least
they deserved respect. As many can attest, I never openly criticized the
BOD, but instead did go directly to them 1 on 1 to issue my disagreement
with their policies and hear why they took the direction they had chosen.
Sometimes, I could see their point and other times I flat out told them I
thought it was a dumb move, but it was always gracious and NOT in the
nature
of a personal attack. I may not have made friends with some of the BOD
members and I am certain some would not have wanted me on any
committees.so
be it.but they did know where I stood.
I have contacted a few of our current BOD members to tell them flat out
that
their communications approach to such sensitive issues could really use
some
major refining to say the least. Right now we have a situation that
current and former BODs are battling it out in public on open (member and
non AOBA member restricted) sites with anyone who wants to read the posts
able to do so and spin the information in a manner which might NOT make
our,
yours and mine, alpaca investments look favorable.
We have a long and difficult road ahead of us in struggling thru this very
tenuous economy and we haven't even seen the worst yet! Our alpaca
industry will need to weather the changing markets and be able to survive
the economic conditions that are before us now. Debate is indeed
healthy but attacks and finger pointing only leads to long term division.
If the agenda is to bankrupt AOBA and form a new association; well; that
is
going to be really difficult as during times of polarization and
uncertainty, most people will just walk away and join nothing in order to
save their meager dollars. If we want to see a mentality of every man,
woman and alpaca for themselves; then let's just let the fleece keep
flying
mixed with a whole lot of beans..we will certainly find our mutual demise.
I am calling on the current BOD to setup an ad hoc committee of select
members who represent a cross section of view points to meet in the next 4
weeks. This group should be provided all the facts; the good, the bad and
the ugly. The group will publish a position paper on their collective view
of the state of AOBA, the fleece industry and the membership which can be
read by all and will only state the facts void of opinions. No members of
this committee should have ever served on an AOBA or affiliate standing
committee or been an officer.just common alpaca folks..period.
I equally ask the former AOBA BOD to take a breather from all the
postings.
Each of you has constituents who follow your opinions and look to you as
authorities. I would hate to see the current and former BODs battling it
out and have information leaked that would bias the membership even more
at
a time when we need to let cooler heads prevail.
Many of you who took typing classes in junior high school might recall
typing a phrase OVER AND OVER:
'NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN (AND WOMEN) TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR
COUNTRY (AND INDUSTRY).'
If you feel this posting has merit, then just type the aforementioned
phrase
and post it to this site and all alpaca sites.over and over. Maybe we will
all get the message.
In closing, maybe it is also time to read a speech by President Abraham
Lincoln and apply it to our industry:
********************************************
If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could
then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the
avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery
agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not
ceased,
but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached,
and passed.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half
free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to
fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and
place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the
course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till
it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new --
North
as well as South.
Have we no tendency to the latter condition?
Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete
legal
combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the
Nebraska
doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work
the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him
study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather
fail,
if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among
its
chief architects, from the beginning.
But, so far, Congress only, had acted; and an indorsement by the people,
real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and
give chance for more.
The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States
by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by
congressional prohibition.
Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that
congressional prohibition.
This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point
gained.
This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well
as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise
called "sacred right of self government," which latter phrase, though
expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted
in
this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man,
choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.
That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the
language which follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act
not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, not to exclude it
therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States."
Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter
Sovereignty," and "Sacred right of self-government."
"But," said opposition members, "let us be more specific -- let us amend
the
bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may
exclude
slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted
the
amendment.
While the Nebraska Bill was passing through congress, a law case involving
the question of a negroe's freedom, by reason of his owner having
voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then a territory covered
by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time
in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of
Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision
in
the same month of May, 1854. The negroe's name was "Dred Scott," which
name
now designates the decision finally made in the case.
Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was
argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it
was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator
Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the
Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can
constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter
answers:
"That is a question for the Supreme Court."
The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as
it
was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however,
fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand
votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.
The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as
possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the
indorsement.
The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered
a
re-argument.
The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court;
but
the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the
people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever might be.
Then, in a few days, came the decision.
The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a
speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently
denouncing all opposition to it.
The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter
to
indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his
astonishment
that any different view had ever been entertained.
At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of
the
Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton
constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of
Kansas; and in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a
fair
vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down
or
voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether
slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an
apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind -- the
principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to
suffer
to the end.
And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling,
well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only shred left of his
original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter
sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary
scaffolding -- like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and
fell back into loose sand -- helped to carry an election, and then was
kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against
the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska
doctrine. That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make
their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never
differed.
The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator
Douglas's "care-not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its
present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working
points of that machinery are:-
First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no
descendant
of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that
term
as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in
order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of
that
provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that: "The
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities
of
citizens in the several States."
Second, that "subject to the Constitution of the United States, " neither
Congress nor a Territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United
States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill
up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property,
and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through
all
the future.
Third, that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State
makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not
decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the
negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be
pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently
indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical
conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred
Scott,
in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any
other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free
State.
Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska
doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at
least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down
or
voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also,
whither
we are tending.
It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind
over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will
now
appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring.
The people were to be left "perfectly free," subject only to the
Constitution. What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not
then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred
Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect free freedom
of
the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly
declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the
adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.
Why
was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion
withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now- the
speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon
which
the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation
on
the indorsement? Why the delay of a re-argument? Why the incoming
President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things
look
like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to
mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And
why
the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?
We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result
of
preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of
which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by
different workmen- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance-and
when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly matte the
frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting,
and
all the lengths and proportions of the different l pieces exactly adapted
to
their respective places, and not a piece. too many or too few,-not
omitting
even scaffolding-or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the
frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in-in such a
case
we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger
and
James all understood one another from the beginning and all worked upon a
common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.
It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska Bill, the people of a
State, as well as a Territory, were to be left "perfectly free," "subject
only to the Constitution." Why mention a State? They were legislating for
Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State
are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but
why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law? Why are
the
people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together,
and
their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the
same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief-Justice Taney, in the Dred
Scott case and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges,
expressly
declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits
Congress
nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States
Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution
permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly this is
a
mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought
to
get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a
State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought
to
get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the
Nebraska Bill-I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been
voted
down in the one case as it ad been in the other? The nearest approach to
the
point of declaring the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge
Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and
almost
the language, too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact
language
is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of
the United States the law of the State is supreme over the subject of
slavery within its g jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the States
is
so restrained by the United States Constitution is left an open question,
precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the
Territories, was left open in the Nebraska Act Put this and that together,
and we have another nice little niche which we may ere long see filled
with
another Supreme Court decisions declaring that the Constitution of the
United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits.
And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not wether
slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon he public mind
sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an be maintained when
made.
Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all
the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and
will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty
shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that
the
people of Missouri. are on the verge of making their State free, and we
shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made
Illinois
a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work
now before all those who would prevent that consummation. This is what we
have to do. How can we best do it ? There are those who denounce us openly
to their own friends and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is
the
aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us
to
infer all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present
head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single
point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is
a
great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be
granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if
not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and tooth. less one.
How
can he oppose the advances of slavery? He does not care anything about it.
His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about
it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior
talent
will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade. Does
Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching ? He has not
said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For
years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro
slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a
sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And
unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He
has
done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a
mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave
trade-how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly
free"-unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the
home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly
without a ground of opposition.
Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser today
than he was yesterday-that he may rightfully | change when he finds
himself
wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make
any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can
we
safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish
not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do
aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and
we
can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from
his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But
clearly, he is not now with us-he does not pretend to be-he does not
promise
ever to be.
Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted
friends-those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work-who do
care
for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over
thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of
resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against
us.
Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the
four
winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot
fire
of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to
falter
now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent?
The
result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not
fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or
later, the victory is sure to come.
Kindest personal regards,
Jim Patrick
Patricks' Pastures Alpaca Ranch
3030 N. Trinity Road
Denton, TX 76208
940-323-1011 (O)
214-505-0754 (M)
214-447-9241 (F)
<mailto:jpatrick@airmail.net> jpatrick@airmail.net
<mailto:patrickspastures@verizon.net> patrickspastures@verizon.net
<file:///C:
\Documents%20and%20Settings\Jim\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Sign
atures\www.patrickspastures.com> www.patrickspastures.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message posts are the opinion of individuals posting and are not necessarily endorsed or approved by Yahoo! or the moderator of this group. The purpose of this discussion group is to ensure that all points of view can be aired. It is the responsbilty of all individuals who post to treat others with respect and civility.
