Curmudgeonly thoughts while mowing the weeds:
I have given up on television weathermen. I can forgive occasional wrong forecasts; even saints and columnists make mistakes. And I can excuse false jolliness -- Willard's shoes are large, even in absentia.
But I can't overlook:
* What the weather boys do to the language. Foe example, "thunderstorm activity." Very seldom will you meet a thunderstorm that's inactive. If the weather guys mean heavier-than-usual rain, they should say so. For another example, "partly cloudy." The uncloudy parts must be sunny, no? So why not look on the bright side, literally?
* How their sexy technology doesn't do the job. I have no respect for those multicolored radar maps that supposedly indicate where it's raining or snowing at that very second. It ain't so, Gordon, Bob and friends. Many are the times I have looked outside when Accu-radar said my house was under a monsoon. Nary a drop. And seldom do we care what it's doing at 6:15 or 11:15 p.m., anyway. Tomorrow is the issue.
* How they refuse to tell you what the heck it's going to do tomorrow until the end of their spiels. Every single day, you get the forecast for Bismarck, N.D., before you get Washington's. It wouldn't even make me happy if the order of presentation was reversed. The only people who care about Bismarck hereabouts are people who have family there, or people who are going there the next day. How many can that be? Just show the national map, without commenting on every small city in creation, and get on to what most of the audience really wants to know.