EduTalk to Discuss 'The Underground History of American Education'

Beginning June 1st the EduTalk group we will begin reading John Taylor Gatto’s book, “The Underground History of American Education.”

This book is a must read for parents.

In order to understand where public education is headed, we must understand the roots of our educational system.

In the prologue we are introduced to Bianca a wide eyed six year old.

Bianca, You Animal, Shut Up!

Our problem in understanding forced schooling stems from an inconvenient fact: that the wrong it does from a human perspective is right from a systems perspective. You can see this in the case of six-year-old Bianca, who came to my attention because an assistant principal screamed at her in front of an assembly, "Bianca, You Animal, Shut Up!" Like the wail of a banshee, this sang the school doom of Biana.  Even though her body continued to shuffle around, the voodoo had poisoned her.

Invite your friends to read along with us. No purchase necessary!

To Join Visit:

After much contemplation I’ve decided to hold a second reading of Gatto’s book. The book is a difficult one to get through alone but it holds so much information that I really feel it should be required reading for all parents.

If you have friends or family who simply do not understand why you homeschool or friends who’s children are still in school but simply not doing well, this is a great way to help educate them. Is book will provide an education on the American educational system like no other can.

John’s book gave me wings. It explained to me all the things that I knew was wrong with the public school system but just couldn’t quite put my finger on.

If you have not read "The Underground History of American Education," you are not fully educated. Don’t miss out on some lively discussion and encouragement while we tackle this informative book together.

The entire book is now available online, though after you read it, you may want a copy for your library. I pull mine out regularly.

See you on EduTalk.

Arizona Raw Dairy Alert

We’ve been sidelined by something totally unexpected. The initial contact deciding if we could bottle raw milk has just rescinded their decision. We are trying to avert legal action. If you want to continue being able to buy organic raw milk in Arizona, this is what needs to be done.

Will you help?

Where We Need Your Help … The UDA does care about their public image. What can you do?

Telephone calls, faxes, letters, visits and picketing to Keith Murfield,
President; Scott Benson, CFO; The Executive Committee and Board of Members of:

United Dairymen of Arizona,
(Broadway & Hardy)
2008 South Hardy Drive
PO Box 26877
Tempe, Arizona 26877
Phone: (480) 966-7211
Fax: (480) 829-7491

Stating the following:

  • Why you need raw milk and raw dairy products?
  • How raw milk and raw dairy products have helped you.
  • Why you can’t consume pasteurized dairy products.
  • Emphasize the lack of availability and costliness of having raw dairy shipped because you need it.
  • In-state production would improve their public image
  • Wouldn’t it be a politically correct move to support growing numbers getting back to nutrient-dense, natural food sources?

For those needing to know the rest of the story…

What You Need to Know … Our farmer, like most small farmers, belongs to a co-op who buys their milk. That co-op is the United Dairymen of Arizona or the UDA. In order to be part of the co-op, farmers have an exclusive marketing agreement with the UDA. No milk can be sold to anyone without the permission of the UDA. While the milk never leaves the farm, we had arranged with the UDA for the raw milk that is bottled, to be counted and reported to the UDA by the farmer.  Then, we are billed for it.

The Problem … The farmer received a newsletter Wednesday, the 30th
stating in two sentences that the UDA 21-person Board of Members had decided 25 March 2005 to disallow any milk from the UDA to be sold for bottling raw milk or making raw dairy products.  Neither the farmer or Crème de la Moo was contacted. We continued bottling and distributing. The farmer was called on Friday, April 1st telling him if he continued to bottle, the UDA would sue him. (Our farmer, Phil Roberts, has served on the Board for over 10 years, no one contacted him, included him in the meeting or would return his calls after he learned of their decision.)

What’s been done to rectify the situation … We have been advised by our attorneys and Aajonus in California who has been fighting these battles for many years. While we have legal precedent to hold the UDA to their original agreement, we are trying to resolve this amicably. We met with the UDA this morning to plead our case.

We have met:

  • Their liability concerns
  • We’ve informed them that the people who need raw milk 90% of the time can not drink pasteurized milk.
  • We’ve implored them to be reasonable given that this is a misunderstanding notwithstanding the liability we have with our investors and contracts with stores.
  • We’ve shared with them the myriad diets, authors and entities now advocating organic raw milk.
  • We’ve given them a 14-page report, "A Very Brief History of Milk as Medicine" (raw milk, of course) that was used to help overturn Los Angeles County’s 38-year ban on Grade A Raw Dairy.
  • We’ve informed them that each batch of milk is being tested prior to bottling. Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures in California has been doing this and has had his milk on the market for 4 years without incident.
  • We’ve informed them if they won’t permit this, then someone will come along and do it without them. Wouldn’t they rather be a part of it and improve their public image by making it available?
  • Finally, we’ve asked that they will grant us temporary permission until the board can review the new evidence for the necessity of organic raw dairy availability in Arizona.

We hope to have temporary permission to continue bottling tomorrow until the board reconvenes.  With your help, we should have that and get the board to reverse their decision by the end of the month.

Thank you so much.

Judi Dawn
Crème de la Moo
(480) 275-8227

Related Articles

California Legislators Pulling a Fast One?

Am I the only one who gets annoyed with the games being played year after year in Sacramento?

Recently, I received notification from the California Legislative website that a bill I had been monitoring was amended. So, of course I checked it out, to see what our good legislators have in store for us lowly citizens.

Now I really don’t intend to single out any one legislator for reproach, so just for examples sake, we’ll look at AB 324 submitted by Assemblyman Mountjoy, merely because this was a bill that I have been monitoring. Not because I have anything personal against it’s contents.

The original bill, a placeholder, stated the intent was to provide that a correctional facility may not deny a clergy member access to the facility because of specified actions by that clergy member. The bill had several inherent flaws, which I shall not address.  Needless to say, it was poorly worded and would have created more problems than it solved.

The problem I have with this particular bill is that it was totally gutted and now addresses faith and morals based programs. This bill is not typical in that it still relates to correctional facilities, for that I credit Assemblyman Mountjoy.

I made a few telephone calls of inquiry to find out just how this works and was informed by Assemblyman Mountjoy’s office that the changes, in fact all changes of this nature, must be germane and approved by the appropriate rules committee. Mountjoy’s office also said that every rule can be waived for cause.

If every rule can be waived, why then do we even have rules? What is the purpose of the rules and who if anyone actually abides by them.  I was told that the majority party makes the rules and decides who can break them.

This doesn’t seem quite right to me. Do we have rules of convenience? Which are waived for any reason if the majority party likes it that way?

Curious about how it all works, I placed a call in to the Assembly Rules Committee, to speak with Leo Lopez at (916) 319-2000, who was unavailable and has yet to return my call.

Placeholder bills are problematic because the bill is often changed and not always germane. This is even more the case, the closer it gets to the closing of the legislative session.

Drastic bill changes allowed during the waning hours of a legislative calendar year are often terrible pieces of legislation, poorly written, which have not been properly scrutinized by the public. They slip in under the radar and those who are adversely affected by such a bill, often have no knowledge of it’s contents.

One advantage I can see for eliminating this practice, would be that fewer bills would be introduced each calendar year. If the bill could not be converted into another piece of legislation, there would be no need for placeholder bills. 

I would like to see the number of bills reduced to a manageable number. With between 4,000 and 5,000 bills introduced each year in just the State of California, there is no way each legislator has read and understands exactly what he’s voting on.

Am I the only person in California concerned about the practice of using placeholder bills and excessive waiver use by the Senate and Assembly Rules Committee’s?