I knew I would get some angry feedback
after a recent column. But the vitriol turned out to be in response to a
completely different topic.
Two weeks ago, I discussed people who
bring so-called Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) onto airplanes. I opined that
I did not think it was such a good idea to be forced to share a cramped row of
seats with someone else’s pet alligator or Shetland pony. If a person needs a
pet to feel comfortable, fine, but what about me, who now has become rather
UNcomfortable as a Pit Bull sitting in the middle seat next to me is staring at
my jugular vein and licking its chops?
So, I figured my rather flippant way of
describing pets would cause many animal lovers to send me angry email notes.
Well, I did get a lot of reader replies, but they were overwhelmingly in
support of my point of view. One person said, “The only ESA I need to make me
comfortable on a plane is some Emotional Support Alcohol.” Hmm, OK.
The only note I received in favor of
animals on planes came from a gentleman who pointed out, “I’d rather fly on a
plane full of 4-legged animals than the 2-legged [jerks] that are usually on
the flight.”
That’s a good point. Comfort pets on
planes rarely get drunk, argue with the flight attendants, smoke in the
restroom, or spend 10 minutes trying to cram a duffle bag the size of a Ford
Fiesta into the overhead compartment.
It turns out the column that did produce
angry feedback was printed in the newspaper three weeks ago. In it, I discussed
my fear of driving in snow and I made a few snarky comments about TV
weatherpersons who excitedly hype every snow flurry as if it were a
life-threatening blizzard.
Speaking of blizzard, I received a
blizzard of email notes, each and every one angrily denouncing the way local TV
stations go into BREAKING NEWS EMERGENCY CRISIS MODE every time there might be
a little snow. The reader responses castigated local TV stations in general,
and one weather forecaster in particular, whose name may or may not rhyme with
Zott Zaney.
People complained about schools being
cancelled frequently based on faulty forecasts; about the way every molecule of
bread and milk disappears from store shelves the day before a predicted storm;
and the TV stations’ annoying habit of interrupting regular programming at a
really crucial moment of “General Hospital” to give another breathless update
that it might snow in 18 hours.
The most interesting note I received was
from a fellow who used to own restaurants in Connecticut and cited TV
weatherpeople as a major factor in his decision to shut down his business. He
said there were countless Saturday nights when the majority of his customers
called to cancel their dinner reservations because the weather forecast was so
dire. And then it turned out to be some scattered flurries that didn’t even
coat the roads.
This former restaurant owner mentioned
one particular “Zaney” TV personality as the prime “weather terrorist,” and
insisted that weather forecasters cause more damage to the economy than
Al-Qaeda terrorists. I took his comments with a grain of salt, since he seemed
especially agitated while typing his email note. I’m sure if he had a chance to
calmly and rationally ponder this issue, he would back off a bit and agree that
weather forecasters aren’t that bad, and they only impact the economy like a
ten-day power outage.
Overall, there was a lot of anger
filling my email inbox. I wish people would be more polite and less impulsive,
you know, like our Commander in Chief.
No comments:
Post a Comment