Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Jul
28
The "Not a Breast Cancer Blog" Blog
Filed Under Politics | 13 Comments
You’d think it would be easy to resist turning this into The Breast Cancer Blog, all Breast Cancer, All the Time. I’ve got shreds of magazines, newspapers, printed out articles, city newsletters, trade publications and ancient Chinese secrets all around me, full of talking points on everything but breast cancer.
Problem is, you can only ignore what you can ignore. And even then, that ignoring sinks deep into your soul and affects everything else you do, whether you realize it or not. This growth might be organic, much like a benign tumor, but it can infest and strangle you like a sapsucker on a tree nevertheless.
So, I’m thinking about starting a separate blog to keep up this side of my thoughts, but for now, I’m posting this stuff here, because I just don’t feel like starting another blog.
There are those people who might find it appalling to be as open as I may be about my circumstances. But maybe in some way you’ll turn your head and peek through slatted fingers to read the posts, despite yourself.
Others might find it a relief, living through it the same way as I am.
But my real hope? The real reason I want to post these posts? Is that I’m praying for people who live what I’m living to tell me what it’s like for them, how it’s gone or how it goes for them.
Here’s where I describe getting my first MRI, as ordered by the physician’s assistance to the breast cancer specialist I see once a year.
Here’s where I mention that it’s cool to be hot when you’ve got the breast cancer family history I have.
Here’s where I describe the incredible guilt I felt over not taking better care of myself after I learned that a woman I barely knew had died of breast cancer at the age of 47 just as I’d left town to go east for Passover.
Here’s where I rag on silicone implants.
Here’s where I thank God for four year old boys who want to see if my boobs are real.
Okay – so let’s get started.
So – I went for a mammogram after the person I didn’t really know died. I was late in getting it done, and I hadn’t seen the breast cancer specialist for over two years. My fault. I admit it. Nothing else I can say. Not gonna lie.
Now, I did get my mammogram last year, I just didn’t do the breast cancer specialist appointment, and the mammo was normal (as it was this year too). The one issue that evolved was with insurance (any surprise there?). My OB/GYN wrote a requisition for a routine mammo but the specialist’s PA wrote a requisition for a diagnostic. I didn’t know the difference and figured I’d go with the diagnostic. I did ask about the difference when I arrived for the appointment, but they didn’t really explain it to me – maybe they weren’t sure either? Or I didn’t ask the question properly.
So, naturally, it’s not until the bill arrives that I learn that the diagnostic isn’t covered completely by insurance. Now, I’ve been getting mammograms since I was 28 and I have never paid for one (thank you – that’s how it should be in my opinion). So this was a shock to me – why did I have to pay?
Well, diagnostic mammos require a radiologist to look at the films on the spot and then re-take images then and there if they see something that they don’t like, like a shadow. And in fact, that’s what happened, though no one really explained that to me (this was two years ago, btw).
So I make a lot of calls and eventually realize that we just have to pay it, but that this year, I have to figure out which mammo I really need – because I don’t care if I have to pay for it. With my family history, I want the right one done.
So, in December, I got the requisition from my OB for the routine. And I contact the specialist’s office and they say it’s up to me. So I go for the routine. And I had that done and it was fine.
But, after I had the mammo done this year, I had my yearly (which I skipped last year) appointment with the specialist’s physician’s assistant, who is excellent and with whom I’ve met a few times since seeing the specialist (which started in 2002 when I turned 40). And she talks to me, checks me out, shows me the mammos from over the years (that was fascinating – to see how and why your breasts start to sag, physiologically? wild) and so on.
And then she says, well, you know, with your history etc., you should get an MRI. Insurance may not pay for it, but they might. We don’t know from case to case.
Okay – I’m lucky and I’m desperate – I am not turning down the MRI requisition and I will find the money to pay for it. Because I just want to know when I’ve got the damn thing.
So we schedule it, I go for it, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago.
And then I wait for the results. Which I got today.
A refresher course in Miller cancer situses 101:
1) Maternal Grandmother: dead of breast cancer at age 52
2) Mother: diagnosed with breast cancer at age 44, double mastectomy, no radiation or chemo, alive and well
3) Maternal grandfather’s sister (my mother’s aunt, my great-aunt) deceased with breast cancer, in her 70s
4) Maternal grandfather’s sister’s daughter (my mother’s first cousin): deceased in her 50s of bone cancer
5) Maternal grandfather’s sister’s granddaughter (my mother’s cousin’s daughter, about my age): diagnosed with breast cancer in her early 30s, has treatment – I forget what exactly
6) My mother’s brother: currently undergoing chemo for his fourth diagnosis of cancer in the last few years (with his third and fourth occuring since Jan. of this year)
In 1998 or 1999, my mother tests negative for the known gene mutations and the genetic counselors we consult say that there’s no reason to test me (if my mom doesn’t have it, then it’s extremely unlikely that I would). We proceed to have a third child, which was contingent on whether I had the gene or not and, if I had the gene, I would have entered a head to head study on the preventative benefits of tamoxifan versus relaxafin.
My risk factors: all these relatives, Ashkenazic Jew, didn’t have first child until age 31, breastfed for about 6-7 months each child, normal onset of menstration.
My Gale score was either 1.5 or 1.7 which, I was told, put me in the 20-30% likelihood of getting breast cancer (this is when I was 36 or 37) which is far higher than the average woman with no risk factors, but still lower than the highest risk group. And thus, when I applied to be included in the Cleveland Clinic’s three year study of MRI/Mammo versus Mammo only? I was rejected because my risk was not great enough.
Talk about good news/bad news.
So, fastforwarding again, I schedule and get the MRI. They tell me that the results go to the specialist, not to me (whereas the mammo results do come to me, in addition to the doc calling if I have to go back – which I’ve had to do a couple of times over the years). And that they’ll be available by the end of the week. I think for sure I’ll get a call or I will remember to call. They only call you when there’s something bad, right?
Well, that was actually two weeks ago today, when the results should have been ready. And no one had called and I had it on my lists, but since no one had called, I kept putting it lower on the list. Until this afternoon when I was on a call-making frenzy. And I decided to call to get the results.
I got passed around a couple of times and eventually the nurse got on the phone with me. And, you know it’s tough for them when they’re reading the actual report to you because you know, they’re just not sure what the hell else to say, right?
“It says here, I’ll just read it to you, “plateau curve lesion on the left breast” “second look ultrasound and spot compression mammogram recommended.”
Chitchat, repetition of the same info and then these things:
“It’s quite common.”
“The spot compression can kind of hurt (or be painful – I forget which she said).”
To which I reply, “Well, yeah. Not much of a choice, now, really, huh?”
And then you get the “really, most of the time everything turns out to be benign.”
Yeah, I know, I know. Most of the time.
And then I say, you know, I’d just be so relieved if it was something, and I feel embarassed for even saying that but the fact is, I feel that way. It’s like a timebomb, going for these tests every year, get felt up every six months, pressed and compressed once a year.
Sure – compared to dying? No big deal. The fact that I have health coverage? Better yet. That I’m alive and raising my family? Excellent.
But you know what – when it’s you, it just doesn’t matter.
And that’s what the nurse said before we said goodbye.
Now that’s a good nurse.
Follow up procedures scheduled for a week from Monday. In the meantime, I get to vascillate between wishing I do, praying I don’t and obsessing about living with the uncertaintly for hopefully a really long lifetime.
(sorry for no hyperlinks; too late and frankly, I couldn’t find anything on plateau curves that I could understand; however, if someone knows something about MRI terminology, feel free to chime in)
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:37 pm July 28th, 2006 in Politics | 13 Comments
Print This Post
Jul
28
UPDATEDx3: Five women injured, one dead after man opens fire at Jewish Federation
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has good photos and coverage here.
UPDATEx2: More from Malkin here. Thank you.
UPDATEx3: AP report says assailant held a gun to the head of a 13 year old to gain access to building.
______
Why the hell am I just finding out about this now? Jesus effing Christ. It is NOT what he would do, I am sure.
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s report:
Six women were shot – one fatally – this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man who told a witness he was upset about “what was going on in Israel.”
Police spokesman Rich Pruitt said there was one shooter, who was apprehended without incident outside the Jewish Federation building at the corner of Third Avenue and Virginia Street.
“We believe it’s a lone individual acting out his antagonism,” said David Gomez, who heads the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts in Seattle.
Authorities did not release many details, but said the FBI said the alleged shooter was between 30 and 40 and agents were investigating the incident as a hate crime. When asked at a news conference if that meant the alleged shooter was Muslim, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said: “You could infer that.”
One woman was killed in the attack, police said.
Harborview Medical Center spokeswoman Pamela Steele said five victims were taken to the hospital, all women ranging in age from the 20s to the 40s. Each suffered gunshot wounds to the abdomen, knee, groin or arm. Three were in critical condition. Two were in satisfactory condition.
One of the women in satisfactory condition is 20 weeks pregnant and was shot in the arm. Doctors believe she will be OK.
 |
||
The gunman, armed with what police said was a large caliber, semi-automatic handgun, forced his way through the security door at the federation after an employee had punched in her security code, Marla Meislin-Dietrich, a database coordinator for the center, told The Associated Press. “He said ‘I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,’ before opening fire on everyone,” Meislin-Dietrich said. “He was randomly shooting at everyone.”
There were about 18 people in the Jewish Federation building at the time, police said.
Fighting has raged in the Middle East since Hezbollah, a Shiite group based in Lebanon, went into Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others. Israel retaliated by striking targets in Lebanon and has sent troops into the southern part of the country. Since the conflict began, more than 400 have been killed in Lebanon and more than 50 soldiers and civilians have been killed in Israel.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Seattle, issued a statement Friday night.
“The Muslim community of Greater Seattle area watched in horror as news broke of a shooting at the Jewish Federation building … We categorically condemn this and any similar acts of violence … We pray for the safety and health of those injured and offer our heartfelt condolences to the family of the victims of this attack. We also hope that the perpetrator of this crime is brought to justice.”
Authorities received a 911 call at 4:03 p.m. with reports of shots fired at the Jewish Federation and a possible hostage situation, Assistant Seattle Police Chief Nick Metz said at an early evening news conference.
Officers converged on the scene and took a man into custody at 4:11 p.m., Kerlikowsek said. Shortly before that, the alleged gunman had been talking to a police dispatcher, the police chief said.
Witnesses to the afternoon shooting and people who work at the Jewish Federation described a chaotic, terrifying scene.
Kami Knatt works at the federation’s Holocaust center. As she exited the building, she saw a wounded coworker fall down. Knatt took her sweater off and tried to stop the bleeding.
“I asked her ‘Are you OK?’. She said, ‘No, I’ve been shot.’ I kept saying it’s going to be OK.”
The victim told Knatt: “I’m going to black out, I’m going to black out.” Knatt replied: “You’re going to be alright.”
Several workers and victims ran toward a nearby Starbucks. There was a small pool of blood outside the coffee shop.
Nathaniel Mullins, 43, was turning onto Lenora Street with his 19-year-old daughter when he heard police say, “Get back! Get back!”
Mullins said he saw two shooting victims. “They were covered in blood,” he said.
“We were scared, heck yeah. It shook me for a moment.”
Zach Carstensen, who is the director of government relations for the Jewish Federation, said he heard shots and screams.
“People started running and I started running with them,” Carstensen said.
Asked whether he thought his office had been targeted because of the conflict in the Mideast, Carstensen said he wasn’t sure. “We’re all a little shaken,” he said.
Sam Peterson, 18, who lives in an apartment on Third and Blanchard, said she was walking to the Lenora Apartment Building when she heard at least one gunshot.
She saw a blond woman “drop to the ground. She screamed.”
Immediately after the shooting, a SWAT team searched the federation building, looking for any other victims, anyone hiding or any other possible shooters, Pruitt said.
Police blocked off several city blocks to investigate. The suspect’s vehicle was recovered near the shooting scene, Metz said.
“This is a sad day in the city of Seattle,” Mayor Greg Nickels said at a late evening news conference. “This is a crime of hate and there’s no place for that in Seattle.”
Kerlikowske said police officers throughout the city were being asked to step up patrols of synagogues and mosques.
“We are protecting mosques because there is always concern about retaliatory activity,” he said.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle was established 1926. According to its Web site, its mission is to “ensure Jewish survival and to enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide.”
Rabbi Daniel Weiner at Temple De Hirsch Sinai in Seattle, said his congregation was planning to meet in Bellevue this evening anyway, but was waiting for police to advise them on whether to go ahead with the services.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle is a fund raising and fund allocation organization.
“It is the Jewish version of the United Way,” Weiner said. He said he is at a loss to understand why people in that building would be attacked.
“To delve into the mind of a clearly troubled and disturbed person is impossible,” Weiner said. “It is heartbreaking to think of what is transpiring.”
The Jewish Federation building has tight security, with gates and buzzers, puzzling many who go there as to how the gunman entered.
“The whole thing is an incredibly terrifying thing,” said Vicki Robbins-Silverman, a member of Seattle’s Jewish community and retired military wife. “It’s unbelievable.”
Silverman had visited the Jewish Federatoin only on Wednesday to pick up a friend, and found it “creepy” watching the building known for its community services surrounded by turmoil.The Jewish Federation houses a community Jewish newspaper and various member agencies, including the Washington Holocaust Educational Resource Center, the Jewish Education Council and other community services.
Word of the shooting quickly ricocheted around the world. Silverman heard from a relative in Los Angeles who saw it on television. In Israel, Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post newspapers had the story on their online front pages, just below stories about the fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iantha Sidell, past board chair of Seattle’s Jewish federation, went to Harborview after the shooting.
“This is just a disaster,” she said. “We value every life. I don’t know what we’re going to do about it. We believe in life.”
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:37 pm July 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jul
28
The "Not a Breast Cancer Blog" Blog
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
You’d think it would be easy to resist turning this into The Breast Cancer Blog, all Breast Cancer, All the Time. I’ve got shreds of magazines, newspapers, printed out articles, city newsletters, trade publications and ancient Chinese secrets all around me, full of talking points on everything but breast cancer.
Problem is, you can only ignore what you can ignore. And even then, that ignoring sinks deep into your soul and affects everything else you do, whether you realize it or not. This growth might be organic, much like a benign tumor, but it can infest and strangle you like a sapsucker on a tree nevertheless.
So, I’m thinking about starting a separate blog to keep up this side of my thoughts, but for now, I’m posting this stuff here, because I just don’t feel like starting another blog.
There are those people who might find it appalling to be as open as I may be about my circumstances. But maybe in some way you’ll turn your head and peek through slatted fingers to read the posts, despite yourself.
Others might find it a relief, living through it the same way as I am.
But my real hope? The real reason I want to post these posts? Is that I’m praying for people who live what I’m living to tell me what it’s like for them, how it’s gone or how it goes for them.
Here’s where I describe getting my first MRI, as ordered by the physician’s assistance to the breast cancer specialist I see once a year.
Here’s where I mention that it’s cool to be hot when you’ve got the breast cancer family history I have.
Here’s where I describe the incredible guilt I felt over not taking better care of myself after I learned that a woman I barely knew had died of breast cancer at the age of 47 just as I’d left town to go east for Passover.
Here’s where I rag on silicone implants.
Here’s where I thank God for four year old boys who want to see if my boobs are real.
Okay – so let’s get started.
So – I went for a mammogram after the person I didn’t really know died. I was late in getting it done, and I hadn’t seen the breast cancer specialist for over two years. My fault. I admit it. Nothing else I can say. Not gonna lie.
Now, I did get my mammogram last year, I just didn’t do the breast cancer specialist appointment, and the mammo was normal (as it was this year too). The one issue that evolved was with insurance (any surprise there?). My OB/GYN wrote a requisition for a routine mammo but the specialist’s PA wrote a requisition for a diagnostic. I didn’t know the difference and figured I’d go with the diagnostic. I did ask about the difference when I arrived for the appointment, but they didn’t really explain it to me – maybe they weren’t sure either? Or I didn’t ask the question properly.
So, naturally, it’s not until the bill arrives that I learn that the diagnostic isn’t covered completely by insurance. Now, I’ve been getting mammograms since I was 28 and I have never paid for one (thank you – that’s how it should be in my opinion). So this was a shock to me – why did I have to pay?
Well, diagnostic mammos require a radiologist to look at the films on the spot and then re-take images then and there if they see something that they don’t like, like a shadow. And in fact, that’s what happened, though no one really explained that to me (this was two years ago, btw).
So I make a lot of calls and eventually realize that we just have to pay it, but that this year, I have to figure out which mammo I really need – because I don’t care if I have to pay for it. With my family history, I want the right one done.
So, in December, I got the requisition from my OB for the routine. And I contact the specialist’s office and they say it’s up to me. So I go for the routine. And I had that done and it was fine.
But, after I had the mammo done this year, I had my yearly (which I skipped last year) appointment with the specialist’s physician’s assistant, who is excellent and with whom I’ve met a few times since seeing the specialist (which started in 2002 when I turned 40). And she talks to me, checks me out, shows me the mammos from over the years (that was fascinating – to see how and why your breasts start to sag, physiologically? wild) and so on.
And then she says, well, you know, with your history etc., you should get an MRI. Insurance may not pay for it, but they might. We don’t know from case to case.
Okay – I’m lucky and I’m desperate – I am not turning down the MRI requisition and I will find the money to pay for it. Because I just want to know when I’ve got the damn thing.
So we schedule it, I go for it, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago.
And then I wait for the results. Which I got today.
A refresher course in Miller cancer situses 101:
1) Maternal Grandmother: dead of breast cancer at age 52
2) Mother: diagnosed with breast cancer at age 44, double mastectomy, no radiation or chemo, alive and well
3) Maternal grandfather’s sister (my mother’s aunt, my great-aunt) deceased with breast cancer, in her 70s
4) Maternal grandfather’s sister’s daughter (my mother’s first cousin): deceased in her 50s of bone cancer
5) Maternal grandfather’s sister’s granddaughter (my mother’s cousin’s daughter, about my age): diagnosed with breast cancer in her early 30s, has treatment – I forget what exactly
6) My mother’s brother: currently undergoing chemo for his fourth diagnosis of cancer in the last few years (with his third and fourth occuring since Jan. of this year)
In 1998 or 1999, my mother tests negative for the known gene mutations and the genetic counselors we consult say that there’s no reason to test me (if my mom doesn’t have it, then it’s extremely unlikely that I would). We proceed to have a third child, which was contingent on whether I had the gene or not and, if I had the gene, I would have entered a head to head study on the preventative benefits of tamoxifan versus relaxafin.
My risk factors: all these relatives, Ashkenazic Jew, didn’t have first child until age 31, breastfed for about 6-7 months each child, normal onset of menstration.
My Gale score was either 1.5 or 1.7 which, I was told, put me in the 20-30% likelihood of getting breast cancer (this is when I was 36 or 37) which is far higher than the average woman with no risk factors, but still lower than the highest risk group. And thus, when I applied to be included in the Cleveland Clinic’s three year study of MRI/Mammo versus Mammo only? I was rejected because my risk was not great enough.
Talk about good news/bad news.
So, fastforwarding again, I schedule and get the MRI. They tell me that the results go to the specialist, not to me (whereas the mammo results do come to me, in addition to the doc calling if I have to go back – which I’ve had to do a couple of times over the years). And that they’ll be available by the end of the week. I think for sure I’ll get a call or I will remember to call. They only call you when there’s something bad, right?
Well, that was actually two weeks ago today, when the results should have been ready. And no one had called and I had it on my lists, but since no one had called, I kept putting it lower on the list. Until this afternoon when I was on a call-making frenzy. And I decided to call to get the results.
I got passed around a couple of times and eventually the nurse got on the phone with me. And, you know it’s tough for them when they’re reading the actual report to you because you know, they’re just not sure what the hell else to say, right?
“It says here, I’ll just read it to you, “plateau curve lesion on the left breast” “second look ultrasound and spot compression mammogram recommended.”
Chitchat, repetition of the same info and then these things:
“It’s quite common.”
“The spot compression can kind of hurt (or be painful – I forget which she said).”
To which I reply, “Well, yeah. Not much of a choice, now, really, huh?”
And then you get the “really, most of the time everything turns out to be benign.”
Yeah, I know, I know. Most of the time.
And then I say, you know, I’d just be so relieved if it was something, and I feel embarassed for even saying that but the fact is, I feel that way. It’s like a timebomb, going for these tests every year, get felt up every six months, pressed and compressed once a year.
Sure – compared to dying? No big deal. The fact that I have health coverage? Better yet. That I’m alive and raising my family? Excellent.
But you know what – when it’s you, it just doesn’t matter.
And that’s what the nurse said before we said goodbye.
Now that’s a good nurse.
Follow up procedures scheduled for a week from Monday. In the meantime, I get to vascillate between wishing I do, praying I don’t and obsessing about living with the uncertaintly for hopefully a really long lifetime.
(sorry for no hyperlinks; too late and frankly, I couldn’t find anything on plateau curves that I could understand; however, if someone knows something about MRI terminology, feel free to chime in)
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:37 pm July 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jul
28
Low-income schools to benefit from Microsoft antitrust settlement
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
California schools could receive hundreds of millions of dollars in school technology funds made available through an antitrust settlement with Microsoft Corp., the state Department of Education announced Wednesday.
More than $400 million will be poured into the education department’s coffers, said Jack O’Connell, State Supt. of Public Instruction. Schools in districts with state-approved technology plans — and with at least 40% of their students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches, a low-income indicator — would be eligible for funding.
…
The money comes from a $1.1-billion antitrust settlement approved by a Superior Court judge in San Francisco in 2004. Two-thirds of the funds unclaimed by California businesses and consumers were designated for California public schools, said Richard Grossman, one of the lead attorneys in the case against Microsoft.
…
The vouchers will be distributed through the department’s Education Technology K-12 Voucher Program, and must be used within six years of their issuance. The per-pupil voucher amount could range from about $100 to $150, O’Connell said.
The department will put out a request for applications online starting in mid-September, O’Connell said.
Schools could use the funds for a wide range of needs, O’Connell said. “If a school district’s goal is to have a laptop for every student, this funding could be used for that purpose,” he said.
Do people think this will make as big a long-term impact as one might hope such an investment could, should or needs to?
How should it be tweaked? Enhanced? Cutback?
Does it support the pursuit of such antitrust lawsuits in the first place?
Sounds like it’s just a CA thing, done in a state court. Anyone know why it wasn’t done in federal court, given the interstate nature? Are the CA antitrust laws more easily enforced than federal antitrust laws? Am I forgetting a federal antitrust suit against Microsoft that did or would yield similar results?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:43 pm July 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jul
28
Low-income schools to benefit from Microsoft antitrust settlement
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
California schools could receive hundreds of millions of dollars in school technology funds made available through an antitrust settlement with Microsoft Corp., the state Department of Education announced Wednesday.
More than $400 million will be poured into the education department’s coffers, said Jack O’Connell, State Supt. of Public Instruction. Schools in districts with state-approved technology plans — and with at least 40% of their students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches, a low-income indicator — would be eligible for funding.
…
The money comes from a $1.1-billion antitrust settlement approved by a Superior Court judge in San Francisco in 2004. Two-thirds of the funds unclaimed by California businesses and consumers were designated for California public schools, said Richard Grossman, one of the lead attorneys in the case against Microsoft.
…
The vouchers will be distributed through the department’s Education Technology K-12 Voucher Program, and must be used within six years of their issuance. The per-pupil voucher amount could range from about $100 to $150, O’Connell said.
The department will put out a request for applications online starting in mid-September, O’Connell said.
Schools could use the funds for a wide range of needs, O’Connell said. “If a school district’s goal is to have a laptop for every student, this funding could be used for that purpose,” he said.
Do people think this will make as big a long-term impact as one might hope such an investment could, should or needs to?
How should it be tweaked? Enhanced? Cutback?
Does it support the pursuit of such antitrust lawsuits in the first place?
Sounds like it’s just a CA thing, done in a state court. Anyone know why it wasn’t done in federal court, given the interstate nature? Are the CA antitrust laws more easily enforced than federal antitrust laws? Am I forgetting a federal antitrust suit against Microsoft that did or would yield similar results?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:43 pm July 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Jul
28
Low-income schools to benefit from Microsoft antitrust settlement
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
California schools could receive hundreds of millions of dollars in school technology funds made available through an antitrust settlement with Microsoft Corp., the state Department of Education announced Wednesday.
More than $400 million will be poured into the education department’s coffers, said Jack O’Connell, State Supt. of Public Instruction. Schools in districts with state-approved technology plans — and with at least 40% of their students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches, a low-income indicator — would be eligible for funding.
…
The money comes from a $1.1-billion antitrust settlement approved by a Superior Court judge in San Francisco in 2004. Two-thirds of the funds unclaimed by California businesses and consumers were designated for California public schools, said Richard Grossman, one of the lead attorneys in the case against Microsoft.
…
The vouchers will be distributed through the department’s Education Technology K-12 Voucher Program, and must be used within six years of their issuance. The per-pupil voucher amount could range from about $100 to $150, O’Connell said.
The department will put out a request for applications online starting in mid-September, O’Connell said.
Schools could use the funds for a wide range of needs, O’Connell said. “If a school district’s goal is to have a laptop for every student, this funding could be used for that purpose,” he said.
Do people think this will make as big a long-term impact as one might hope such an investment could, should or needs to?
How should it be tweaked? Enhanced? Cutback?
Does it support the pursuit of such antitrust lawsuits in the first place?
Sounds like it’s just a CA thing, done in a state court. Anyone know why it wasn’t done in federal court, given the interstate nature? Are the CA antitrust laws more easily enforced than federal antitrust laws? Am I forgetting a federal antitrust suit against Microsoft that did or would yield similar results?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:43 am July 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
