Sunday, October 24, 2010


An Ohio high school cheerleader was placed on suspension from her squad Tuesday for an alleged picture of underage drinking that was posted on Facebook.

Bree Vargo, a 16-year-old junior, was suspended from the Cardinal High School cheerleading squad after someone sent a photo from Facebook of her with a beer bottle positioned under her mouth to school administrators.

"I just sat there and cried, I didn't even know what to say, just I don't know, I wanted to leave school, I didn't want to be there," Bree said.

The picture was taken at an Oct. 2 wedding reception for Bree's older sister. Bree and her mother, Susan Vargo, said that the photo is misleading. They explained that the angle the photo was taken makes it so the viewer cannot tell the beer bottle is really being held by the woman next to her.

School officials stated that Bree admitted to having a beer in her hand at one point. Her parents are angry because a meeting took place without their permission and without them being present.

“I was there when the picture was taken. It was a completely innocent picture,” said Bree’s mother, Susan Vargo, adding that Bree and her 22-year-old sister were switching drinks in a mock toast.

“I don’t condone drinking, let alone underage drinking. There’s absolutely no tolerance — (that) behavior is not acceptable.”

Vargo said that an off-duty Geauga County Sheriff’s deputy was present per a stipulation by the wedding hall when alcohol is present.

Cardinal Schools Superintendent Paul Yocum said the district’s athletic handbook indicates any possession or use of alcohol or drugs results in a two game/three week suspension for the first offense. It was Bree’s first such offense.

“She said, ‘I wasn’t drinking. I was holding it for somebody,’” said Yocum, adding that simply possession, not just consumption, falls within that violation.

Yocum said every high school deals with instances of underage drinking though the district tries to educate students through its D.A.R.E. program and health classes.

The Facebook photograph and note was sent to the district’s athletic director, Yocum said.

The athletic director, high school principal and dean of students met with Bree and then suspended her on Tuesday. Yocum said it is common practice to meet with a student for such a violation and then inform the parents.

Regardless of what the handbook says, Bree’s mother said she and her husband should have been present for the meeting.

“It upsets me greatly, but apparently they have the right to do that,” Susan Vargo said. “Unfortunately, her suspension is not going to be overturned. This is going to go on her school record.”

Susan Vargo said they have contacted an attorney to see if anything can be resolved.

This is an example of these schools reaching into the student’s lives outside of school.

Remember I mentioned that in yesterday’s blog.

If you don’t remember, shame on you! Go back, reread it and tell ten of your friends to follow my blog.

I believe that Susan Vargo has EVERY RIGHT to allow her daughter to consume alcohol under her supervision, and that is no one’s business.

Not the police, and certainly not the school’s.

And where does Cardinal High School get off holding a meeting and discussing topic like that with a minor without her parents present? Might that not be intimidating for a young girl? Might she possibly get railroaded?

On the one hand, she’s enough of an adult to represent herself in a proceeding overseen by several high-level school employees, but on the other hand she’s not old enough to hold a bottle of beer in a photograph.

In my high school days, my parents were called for far less. Which got me into trouble at home. Coincidentally, that was at Cardinal O’Hara High School. Maybe it’s a “Cardinal” thing.

I had a discussion with a coworker recently, who was at a grocery store with her fourteen year-old son, and the cashier asked her who the beer was for.

Yes-you can buy alcohol in supermarkets in AZ-take that my Philadelphia friends!

My coworker made it a point of assuring the cashier she would never serve alcohol to a minor.

Again-none of their business how you raise your own child in your own home. I would have walked out and left the entire grocery order at check out (without paying, natch!) and gone down the street. In Phoenix, there’s a supermarket every hundred yards. They need her business more than she needs them.

I was at a retirement party for my aunt as a teenager and there was a toast being made. My father asked for glasses for me and my younger sister. The waitress said she could not serve minors. My father said, “You’re not-you’re serving me. I’m serving them.” The manager came over and gave approval. A different time, a different world.

Now I would agree that it would be irresponsible for my father to let two minors get sloppy drunk. But if a responsible parent wants to give his or her children lessons on responsible drinking, I encourage that.

But ya know what really has me PISSED? Read the comments attached to the second story….

"She should be suspended!!!! "

"I don't know about this. I get that she was holding the drink for someone else, but I can see what the school is saying. The school board cant believe that she was holding the drink for someone else. "

"Blame the parents for allowing even this joke to take place, not the little girl. Maybe the parents feel they are entitled and rules don't apply to them but thankfully the supt stuck with the rule. Great teaching moment for all kids, regardless who you are or think you are, rules apply to you too. "

"Maybe if kids were more respectful of the rules, bullying would not occur so this incident is a perfect example of rules are rules, follow them, and that means everyone "

What the hell is going on in Ohio?

Stop worry about what Bree may or may not have been drinking and check the Kool-Aid you have apparently been guzzling.

Is this Salem?


Nazi Germany?

These people are ready to burn this kid at the stake for HOLDING A BEER BOTTLE! Are you kidding me?

Even if the young lady were (GASP!) drinking a beer, am I the only one left in American who seems to think that is normal behavior for a teenager and not the end of the world?

And sadly, the people who left comments miss the real point. The issue isn't whether Bree had a beer. The issue is that the school's authority over Bree ends at the sidewalk in front of school and after school hours is replaced by parental authority.

Were all the protestors at Kent State out-of-state students? Are you people really this lame?

It's no wonder you guys bent over when Bill Clinton shoved NAFTA up your butts and then cheered when Hilary said on the campaign trail she'd pull it out.

Where will these so-called defenders of the rules draw the line at intrustion into their homes?

Maybe the schools should be allowed to search their houses at will to make sure the ”environment” is safe for their child.

Oops, I forgot. We already have Child Protective Services for that. Don’t want to tread on their turf.

Parent in this school system should be outraged at this overstepping of authority, and furious that it was allowed to happen without their input.

Links to the full news stories I read and summarized for this post:

And thanks to Stephen T. McCarthy who mentioned hearing this news item on the radio.


  1. From the article:
    >>...Vargo said that an off-duty Geauga County Sheriff’s deputy was present per a stipulation by the wedding hall when alcohol is present.

    And once again, America, we see your tax dollars hard at work in the community. Y'all know what "an off-duty...Sheriff's deputy" means, don't you? It means some punk out-of-uniform was being paid OVERTIME DOLLARS to supervise a bunch of people at a private wedding reception - a wedding reception that already had lots of adults present.

    And yet, when some dumbass politician proposes an additional tax on the citizens in order to increase public safety with the hiring of more "greatly needed" policemen, the same retards who posted comments that approved of the school authorities stepping well beyond their proper boundaries and intruding into the private affairs of one of its students and her family - those same retards (and plenty more like them) will vote "Yes" to raising taxes in order to hire more police officers!

    AMERICA! You get exactly what you deserve!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  2. Interesting...I'd assumed the bride's parents would have paid...tradition and all.

    A teenager's job is to get drunk and have sex.

    A single person's job at a wedding is to get drunk and have sex.

    Either way you look at it, this girl had an OBLIGATION to America to at least get drunk.

    Now I am all for different points of view, but I cannot stomach that Cardinal High School is undermining the United States of America!

    I suppose I should add that I do not know for a fact that the taxpayers footed the bill for the off-duty officer's overtime wages, however, I assumed that to be the case as it seems most logical to me.

    If the wedding hall is insisting that an off-duty officer be present (and obviously, therefore, earning time-and-a-half overtime pay) it is the city (i.e., the taxpayers) who is getting stuck with the bill. The reason I have made this assumption is because a wedding reception is expensive enough as it is, and if I were being required to add to my expenses the price of an off-duty officer as well, I (and I believe most persons I know) would simply find another location to hold the wedding reception where the unreasonable demand that I also provide an expensive off-duty cop is not being forced upon me.

    But, if the wedding hall insists on this provision, I imagine the police department is only too glad to provide the off-duty cop at the city's (read: taxpayer's "hidden") expense. You know, like the police department agrees to provide the cop "free of charge" (there's that "FREE" stuff again!)

    That's an agreement that the off-duty cops (receiving a steady stream of extra pay every time there's a reception), the wedding hall owner, and the father of the bride can all get behind, right?

    Now, my reasoning of this situation may be wrong - I admit that - but knowing the way things usually work, unless it's drastically different out there in Ohio, I'll bet I've got this figured out right. But, maybe not - who knows?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'