Things were coming together now they're falling apart

This would normally be sports friday, but i think it's going to end up being more of a gripe fest (although there is one sports-related note i plan on covering).

But first, it's time for the wednesday weigh-in. I did it this morning since July 4 was Tuesday and i was scared to see what the scale said wednesday morning. You'll be pleased to see that setting my goals low paid off.

I started last week at 195, with my target being to weigh no more than 195.3 this time. And, as luck would have it, i ended up actually losing weight, tipping the scales at 193.6.

Since the next weigh-in is less than a week away, I will again aim low.

Current weight: 193.6
Next week's target: no more than 194

*****

An abbreviated Sports Friday
I've been meaning to write about this for a while, but kept forgetting about it until the discussion came up on Mike and Mike this morning on ESPN radio.

The question: Is the plural of RBI RBIs or just RBI?

Fill-in co-host Buster Olney says it's RBI, which is a very popular notion these days (and, as he said, the NY Times style).

His argument: RBI stands for runs batted in, so to add an "s" to RBI pluralize it is redundant.

Mike Greenberg says it's RBIs.

His argument: RBI has become its own word in a way.

My thoughts: I agree with Greenberg, but for different reasons.

My arguments: Things that are inherently plural can be singular. RBI is not so much "runs batted in" as it is a category with which to enumerate runs batted in. Sort of like the word "band" is singular for "multiple people playing instruments together." More than one band is still "bands," despite the idea that the very nature of a single band implies multiple components.

And, furthermore, to take a look at Olney's argument that RBI is by default plural since it is runs batted in. That would make it impossible for someone to have 1 RBI. Since English does not allow you to have one runs batted in or one bands playing a concert or one plates of spaghetti or anything else of that sort.

*****

I hate television news programs. I think the reason I like the Colbert Report so much is that you could take it from Comedy Central and put it on any other channel and have no trouble believing that it's an actual news show.

I guess now would be as good a time as any for a bit of disclosure, just to let you know that i'm willing to talk about this without any unnecessary accusations of professional jealousy.

[Begin bit of disclosure, just to let you know that i'm willing to talk about this without any unnecessary accusations of professional jealousy.]

I covered the police beat at my last job, which means that the majority of my spot-news coverage involved things that would lead to rubber-necking by the general public. I, with my trusty reporter's notebook, and Matt, with his trusty digital camera, were endlessly subjected to questions from people wondering if we were with the local tv station (i don't think i need to describe to you, dear reader, how much different a digital camera looks than a television camera). While that is not really the tv station's fault, there were other issues.

News was always easier to get when the tv station was around, and largely for no other reason than the reporter was a reasonably attractive female. Ah, yes, starting to sound jealous, aren't I? well, here's another story:

One day I got an e-mail from a fellow in New Orleans who was a serial killer enthusiast. A week or two later, I drove to New Orleans East to interview him. I didn't write the story for a couple of weeks. The day it ran in the paper the local news pretty much read it on air, without feeling the need to credit me or the paper.

[End bit of disclosure, just to let you know that i'm willing to talk about this without any unnecessary accusations of professional jealousy.]

So, now you know all the possible professional reasons why i wouldn't like tv news, i'd like to continue my rant from the view of me as a television watcher.

In short, television news believes that I am helpless. TV programs and stations are "on my side" and frequently tout their crack news teams constantly digging up corruption, and they're doing it for me.

Anderson Cooper, (who i only watched because Courtney made me) is the poster child for tv news personalities i can't stand. There was an interview the other night about new orleans and Ray Nagin, and Cooper must have said "keeping him honest" a gazillion times.

(brief side note: i am by no means a Nagin apologist, but a guy on there was ripping him for not just coming out and saying some places won't be rebuilt because people need to know. As i recall, Nagin said that very thing several months ago and got chewed out for it.)

Here's the thing, tv news: i don't want you on my side. I'm OK, i can make my own judgments. Just tell me the news and I'll take it from there. I don't need you beating in my brains with cries of a corrupt system and then shamelessly patting yourselves on the back for sensationalizing everything. There is no boogieman in my closet and if there were, I'd notice it. And if i don't notice it, shame on me.

I think i could handle the poor quality of television reporting if it weren't coupled with the mundane chatter between anchors. Yes, i realize it has a lot to do with timing issues in the show, but it would be nice if they would talk like real people and not like, well, tv people trying to stretch to commercial.

and while they're at it, they can shove that doppler radar up their collective asses.