Here is an explanation of the school homework policy:
Students should not spend more than 90 minutes per night. This time should be budgeted in the following manner:
☛ 15 minutes looking for assignment
☛ 11 minutes calling a friend for the assignment
☛ 23 minutes explaining why the teacher is mean and just does not like children
☛ 8 minutes in the bathroom
☛ 10 minutes getting a snack
☛ 7 minutes checking the TV Guide
☛ 6 minutes telling parents that the teacher never explained the assignment
☛ 10 minutes sitting at the kitchen table waiting for Mom or Dad to do the assignment
LONG TERM ASSIGNMENTS
These are given the night before they are due, you understand. This explains the name "long term." It is a long term commitment to time that begins at 9:30 PM and ends at 11:50 PM - or later, the night before it is due. It is important that the whole family is involved in the project. It is imperative that at least one family member races to Walmart/KMart for posterboard, and that at least one family member ends up in tears (does not have to be the student).
One parent needs to stay up and complete the project. The other parent needs to call the school and leave a message that the student is out sick. It is not necessary to have the student's name on the assignment.
THE MOTHER OF ALL LONG TERM ASSIGNMENTS:
While most "LongTerm Projects" are, say 2-6 weeks in reality - ending of course, the night before they are due... this one is, depending on how you look at it - four years and seven or eight months total, or two years and 4 or 5 months...
That's how long Paul Gallegos has been working on his "get Palco lawsuit." Once the judge threw his case out - with prejudice, he had to decide whether or not to appeal that decision. The PR machine kicked into gear, screaming about "the right to lie," but it died down, and almost looked like Gallegos was going to let it die a quiet death. But that would not satisfy his handlers, so he ended up filing his appeal, and recently filed his reply brief, which was due to the First District COURT OF APPEAL September 20th.
Which is why on September 17th - the following plea was sent to 127 other DAs and DOJ, EPA and others around the state in an unrelated email chain:
9/17/2007 2:28 PM
I have some questions re our appeal on the PALCO lawsuit:
Can anyone cite any case that stands for the assertion that applying for a timber harvest plan is "lobbying" and/or "petitioning government" under Noerr-Pennington? What about any authority that says it isn't?
It seems absurd to me that submitting false information in seeking regulatory approval is lobbying or petitioning government and is, therefore, protected from prosecution under the noerr-pennington doctrine. Any thoughts and/or assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
I am in a bit of a deadline... Thursday... so if you can provide any help before then it would be appreciated,
If anyone wants to see our opening brief and their response I would be happy to fax it. Please only ask if you want to assist in this inquiry though.
Your assistance is appreciated.
You can't blame this one on the dog.