And vice versa. I won't say the Republicans are 100% perfect in this, but I also feel that any president who starts his term by saying "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you." can't really claim a huge mantle of "bi-partisanship." Most of the stuff the Dems have been pushing have been expansions of government, and they have not been willing to compromise on that at all. He's still not admitting that his policies are a large part of his problem, just that he hasn't "explained them well enough."

Remember what the libs said in '08? Elections have consequences. This is a big one and the people have spoken. They don't like the direction things have been going, and the majority want a change.

Actually, Obama is pretty much everything that the leftists accused Bush of being, but on steroids. Welcome to the true New World Order.

Ummm... That happens naturally. My grandmother's house before she sold it in the 70s. had a well that in order to use drink it you had to light the tap on fire first. After it finished, you could then drink it. Lots of fun. So, it's not just because of evil corporations. Unless you consider Mother Nature one of those evil corps.

I'm not so sure I agree. By that logic, I pay for a voice line in my house, plus DSL. Should I get phone free with DSL? After all, it's all just data. Voice = text = data. They are all the same, and yet we have traditionally paid different rates for them. I have more issues with cable companies and the outrageous fees they charge for so called premium channels that they still play commercials on!

Sick of it all, but I'm not about to give up my DirecTV... So I guess I'm just a hypocrite. :)

Jesus, what a stupid idiot. I won't go into all the different ways this story is full of idiocy, most of the previous posters have covered that all very well. But seriously, if no one at CNET is looking to fire this moron, then the whole site can just go away. I don't think I'll bother reading anything more from them, since they apparently hire trained monkeys to write there reports.

Actually, judges in PA must retire at 72. No exemptions. Forced retirement happens quite often in the real world, it's just in Washington that the crypt keepers can keep in power until the plug is pulled. See Robert Byrd, 102 years old and has been in power in Washington for 50 years. That's wrong. Maybe if they couldn't hold on to power for a 1/2 a century some of these people might be a little bit more in tune with who and what Americans really are.

It's a joke. Who cares? Specter was pretty much a lock on most votes for the Democrats anyway. He was just a way for them to get a Republican to vote with them and then scream about how great they are at "bipartisanship." LOOK! A REPUBLICAN SUPPORTS US! Ignore all the others that stand by their principles. He's been pretty much a schmuck who basically votes to please Philly and Pittsburgh. The rest of us he thinks can all go hang.

He's 79. Have you ever noticed politicians all want you and me to retire by 72 at the latest? But they're supposed to keep getting into office until they're dead? And in some cases afterward? We need to have an age limit on politicians and judges. Over 70 and they should ALL be forced out of office. That's a law that really needs to be passed.

If he was that, he would have arrested them for probable cause. Instead he just let them know that the rest of the world didn't need to hear about their activities.

Incorrect. Which is the polite way of saying, "You've got your head up your ass." The rules are stated. The rules are clear. If you choose to break them, do not come crying when you are punished for that offense. Don't like the rules? Work to change them. But break them at your own peril. As educators, by law, these people are "in loco parentis" to the children under their care. As such, they DO have the right to set these rules. And by the way, if she had just admitted to the breaking of the rules, there would most likely not have been any other actions than a suspension or detention.

As for your friends, if your college has rules regarding cell phone usage and your break them, you may be told to leave. If you choose not to do it you may very well be having a discussion with the cops. For the exact same charge probably, although they might tag on defiant trespass for your refusal to leave. For that matter, go to the opera and start talking on your phone during the performance, then refuse to leave and say you didn't do it, and see if the cops don't end up being called. The school didn't have that option with the child, since they couldn't by law just throw her out the door. They tried to get her out of the school by calling parents. She impeded that. She did everything she could to circumvent a simple rule.

By the way, where do you get "years of abuse and neglect?" Nothing I see about that in all of this. Or is it just that when anyone breaks the rules, they must be victims? Because we all know that people that are arrested must all be victims, right?

And your vibe would be wrong. I personally do not agree with the rule that this girl is accused of violating. However, there is both a right and a wrong way to vent your problems with it. Had she for instance just admitted she had the phone, and then fought either legally or through the school board to get it changed, that's great. That I can be 110% behind. However, after breaking the rule to then repeatedly lie about it, which she should have known was going to get found out, was not only stupid, but totally destroyed any credibility she may have. As for telling authority to "fuck off," I don't think that is the proper way to handle the issue. If it were, I would just tell the IRS to "fuck off" because I don't agree with personal income tax. Guts to stand up to authority isn't the issue. Had she had guts to stand up to authority, she would have simply admitted she had the phone and then worked to fix things. Hiding, lying, refusing to tell them how to contact parents, etc., isn't having the guts to start up to authority. It's a spoiled little shit figuring that because she's a kid she can do whatever she wants and never have to pay a price.

Freedom comes with responsibility, without responsibility it's not freedom it is anarchy.

I do want to make a note here. Everyone keeps talking about "the police being called." From my reading of the report and article, they didn't. There is actually a police officer assigned to the school, (in my area, they call them "School Resource Officers"). These officers are assigned to stop problems in the schools such as gang related issues, behavioral problem issues that have to be escalated, and other security related items. It's not like the teacher called the local station and when the cops showed up told them to arrest the kid. The cop was already there, to be used for just this type of situation.

Consequently, the police were involved from the beginning, as is the policy at most schools that have this type of resource available. Having them involved stops the possibility of charges being filed against the teacher or principle for doing their job. This officer actually (according to his own report of course) seemed to be quite professional. He investigated the incident until he determined that she was willfully lying repeatedly to staff. He then repeatedly attempted to contact parental units, and was thwarted by the child.

As for the charge, complain to the legislature. Disorderly conduct is the catch all that is used by all police forces when they don't have something that fits into any other category. I would say it would be construed as disorderly conduct because her repeated actions in covering up her initial violation of the student code violation disrupted work for the teacher, the principle, and the officer. Had she simply come clean at the beginning she probably would not have had nearly the same problems, and most likely would not have been charged at all.

Actually it's adults acting like children, probably because they never got smack down as a child.

Reminds me of a time when I was sitting with an old friend in a coffee house. The friend was a former DEA undercover, who looked about 10 years younger than he was, so they would send him into schools to bust drug dealers. We're having our coffee while the group of teenagers behind us is talking about the pot they scored next door in the alley. After listening to them for about 20 minutes or so, my friend casually leaned over and said, "You know, I don't care if you want to screw with your own mind, but you do realize that everyone here could hear every word you said?" When they replied, "So what?" He pulled out his badge, flashed it, and said, "Cause you never know when they guy next to you works for the DEA. You get one pass, next time be a little brighter."

I had never before seen people piss their pants in public before, but MAN did they move getting the heck out of there.

As a former bail bondsman, I can state 100% yes. Bail is intended to make someone show up. Therefore, there must be a way to stop the person from disappearing. If I have a millionaire and a homeless person both asking for bail, the millionaire is usually a better risk. Even if he runs, I can usually get my money from his possessions (he may flee with some, but houses are a stone bitch to move, so that at least is left behind, as well as his 3 or 4 extra cars, big screen TV, etc. etc.) On the other hand, the homeless man has nothing that keeps him in the town. It's fairly easy for him to pick up stakes and move south for the winder, losing me my money. He doesn't have any possessions that will be left behind for me to sell and recover my cash. He is a substantial risk.

Bail (at least from a bondsman) is an insurance policy. In fact, in my state, you had to be a licensed insurance agent to write bail. I wrote a policy to the court stating that if the person failed to show, I would pay the outrageous sums required. My "fee" was the premium for writing the policy, just like your auto or house insurance payment. If you don't have a fixed address and no job, try to get auto insurance. It's a little difficult isn't it? Especially if your credit is wacked.

I would write bail for a person like this, provided a co-signer could be found that perhaps owned property, definitely had a real job that would be a hassle to disappear from, had long standing ties to the community, etc. But the routine calls I would usually get saying "You gotta get my baby out of jail!" when they have no job, no property, no money. Sorry, not going to happen. Call when someone with something to lose wants to sign on the dotted line.

Bail is actually a public service, since those who provide the bail have removed a person from the jail, where they are eating government food, sleeping in a government bed, and peeing in a government pot, and puts them back out where they can earn a living and continue to pay taxes.

Apparently you did not read the criminal complaint. The student was "known to the security officer" as a problem , and had "negative contacts" with the administrators in the past. Sounds to me like a problem child, who continued to act out, from a broken home, had repeatedly ignored the rules, assuming that she could skate out of all trouble. And since it was school she probably could, but in this case, they decided to file the charges. Finally she is forced to have a little accountability for her actions.

Not only did she lie about her actions, she repeatedly gave false numbers to the school for contacting her parents, and wasted several hours of the school employees time. She ought to be billed by the school district for the amount of time wasted by her.

Treat teenagers like adults they act like adults. Don't and they will always act like little children.

Going with your fridge analogy, why should it be a bad thing for a grocery store to connect to all the fridges it knows about in order to tell them about new products?

Because SPAM doesn't need to be refrigerated...