A dispatch from Washington about a bartender who has a charity that helps Cambodia begins:
WASHINGTON — Sambonn Lek, bartender at the St. Regis hotel near the White House, has shaken and stirred for movers and shakers since the Carter administration. At 66, he leads a disappearing fraternity: barkeeps who know their regulars' names and favorite cocktails, and when they drink so much of the latter that they forget the former, find them a ride home.
The Times stylebook entries under "former" and "latter" advise avoiding using them in ways that force the reader to glance back. That would have been wise for some editor to enforce here. The argument for allowing it through, I guess, is that it's clever, I guess, or funny. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that what was causing me to slam on my brakes as a reader here wasn't just the "former...latter' formulation, but the idea of a bartender at what the Times article says is a Marriott-owned St. Regis hotel near the White House serving customers so much to drink that they forget their own names. Maybe I am reading it too literally, but if this is actually happening with any sort of regularity, wouldn't it be better for the bartender to cut them off before they reach that point, rather than getting credited by the Times for finding them a ride home or for being some kind of philanthropist?
Smartertimes is not exactly the Women's Christian's Temperance Union. Not even close. But if some guy or company is regularly facilitating or enabling customers drinking so much that they forget their own names, maybe skip the flattering profile of their philanthropy?