Elizabeth Spiers Is Complete Garbage, 2

Much to my delight, Slate readers who bothered to sign up for their "Fray" discussion forum or whatever that is have ganged up on Ms. Spiers in style for her unthinkably bad airport horror story article. (I almost left a hate message right on the article but was too lazy to sign up--I would have been the first. Instead, you people get this. I need a better hobby.)

So far there are 125 separate threads. And though not all of them give Spiers the evisceration she deserves, it's a pretty good ratio. My favorites include Extremely Misleading, Strap the White Jacket on Her (my new favorite put-down: " Next time you want to go on vacation, stay home"), World's Worst Writer, one of the worst articles in the world, You're an idiot! and here's the winner for it's title alone: ignorant "writer" crashes into computer.

The overwhelmingly negative feedback provoked a response from Spiers, who basically repeated herself, only now she was more defensive and maybe just a bit less smug.

- To be clear, I am smug(ish) about my initial assessment of the airline (and even then, only in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, which is to say, not in any serious sense), my experience with which was much worse than the small bit I recounted here. I am not smug about the deaths of 200 people. Only a sociopath would be, whatever the reason. It might have been bad syntax on my part, but the notion that I'm gleefully celebrating a horrible disaster is absurd on the face of it.

See? Less smug. Now just smugish. I feel so much better. And--my God--her experience might have been even worse than the nightmare first described? May God have mercy on us all.

She tries to focus everyone on her real thesis (we just didn't get it, you see), which is nothing more than that TAM is a crummy airline. I'm not interested in whether or not this is the case (other people take issue with even this), just the morally bankrupt way in which each piece of evidence is presented equally--a long line is no better and no worse than a fiery crash and explosion. And I think I'm being generous here. She does lead with her own idiotic ramblings, only touching on the crash here or there when she feels like it (she seems to claim that this is because she takes for granted that everyone reading would know the crash was worse and that she also thinks the crash was worse, and that we really come to Slate for the mindless white upper-middle class navel-gazing, which actually might not be too far off the mark, unfortunately).

The only regret I have about skimming through the responses to the article (besides the depressing realization that there are people out there who will defend anything) is that she seems to make one of her strongest critics backpedal, when he says "I never implied that you equate lost luggage with people getting killed." Let me be very clear. I am also not implying that Elizabeth Spiers equates lost luggage with people getting killed. I am saying that Elizabeth Spiers equates lost luggage with people getting killed. No implications necessary. Elizabeth, if you are able in your own mind to make the distinction between you waiting in line and other people exploding, then this is a good sign. It shows you have the moral and emotional maturity of a seven year-old, at least! The next step is to become a less abysmal writer, so that someone reading your article will actually be able to tell.

Elizabeth Spiers, I do not hope that you die in an airplane crash. That would be monstrous of me. And besides, I can wish you plenty of misery and despair while sparing my conscience by simply hoping that you have to wait in a long line the next time you go to the airport, since I'm not sure which of the two horrifies you more. But if you do die in a plane crash, you don't have to worry. You see, because I have this thing us humans call "empathy," you can be damn sure I won't feel smug about it.