Some news to cheer and jeer

While the stock market falls like a lead balloon and lawmakers bicker back-and-forth about what to do next, I have turned my attention to a couple of other issues that are flying under the radar.

First is a situation in West Virginia where a man was charged with battery on a police officer last week. But this wasn't any old type of battery. The man didn't punch the cop or kick him. Oh no. This man lifted his leg and "passed gas loudly" and then fanned gas toward the officer.

The whole thing started when a Clarksburg, W. Va., man was pulled over for driving without headlights. He smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and failed three sobriety tests before he was handcuffed and taken to a police station for a breathalyzer test. This is where it gets interesting though. The man said he had an upset stomach at the time, but police denied his request to go to the bathroom when he arrived at the station.

"I couldn't hold it no more," he said.

That was unfortunate for the officer who said, according to the complaint, "The gas was very odorous and created contact of an insulting or provoking nature."

If they start charging people for passing gas there is going to be a whole lot less jail space. Every bully from first grade through junior high would be in juvenile court, not to mention those not so skinny individuals who have nowhere for their gas to go. Would husbands be charged for spousal abuse for letting one slip under the covers? If you passed gas in a crowded place like church would your whole pew be brought in for a lineup?

These are serious issues folks. Like what would be the punishment? Would the sentence be worse depending on how bad the smell is? Do you have to collect the evidence in a glass jar? And if my dog commits the crime, which he's been known to do, will he have to be put to sleep?

Fortunately, after a couple days the charges against the West Virginia man were dropped, saving us a whole lot of time and effort trying to prosecute the many flatulent felons that undoubtedly would have been charged.

With that decided I turned my attention to another issue in Idaho. In this case, a poor cheerleading coach at Idaho University quit after her cheerleaders were forced to replace their uniforms after they were deemed too skimpy.

The outfits that drew controversy, halter tops and short black skirts with white trim, were similar to what an NFL cheerleader might wear and the cheerleading coach said that each girl tried on the outfit to get a custom fit. "If a girl wanted 3 inches added to the skirt, then the girl got 3 inches added to the skirt," the coach said.

First, I didn't realize there was a cheerleading outfit that wasn't revealing. Let's be honest. This isn't high school we're talking about, it's college. Turn on any college football game on Saturday and you can't go five minutes without a shot of a scantily clad girl jumping up and down for the camera.

Aren't the outfits part of the allure of cheerleaders? Pretty, athletic girls wearing their little cheerleading outfits while cheering on their team is what we men have grown to love. Is there any other reason to go to a Rams football game anyway? The cheerleaders steal the show.

But now these staunchly, ultra-conservative cheerleader-haters are trying to change the way cheerleaders do their thing. How dare they!

As a fellow colleague of mine suggested in a blog, I think we should boycott potatoes if these uniforms don't return. No more potato chips or potato salad and no more french fries either. How can we eat these things when these women are being denied their right to wear what they want? As a matter of fact, they should show the decision-makers at their "university," if it can really be called that, by wearing something even skimpier. That'll show us, I mean them. Not to mention it will get our mind off of all of this bailout business. Go team!