With Friends Like These

The Waterbury Observer and Friends mini-newspapers provide a useful forum for community news and cultural calendars. The Observer is the more popular of the two for its innovative “The Best Of” series where readers vote on the best businesses or politicians. Both publications contain articles about local events, profiles of politicians and helpful advice on day to day living. There are also opinion pieces which by nature not everyone will agree. In this space there has been criticism of one of the Observers columnist (Peace and Blame) whom, from the position of advocating peace and disarmament, blamed America as an international aggressor at the same time giving true belligerence the benefit of a doubt. It is not an uncommon mindset and diverse opinions are always welcome if anything so that it could be dissected and debated.

Friends on occasion takes it a step further in its criticisms and goes so far as to cross the line of decency. On two occasions where teenagers met tragic deaths Friends found it fitting to question the integrity of the parents which was utterly useless and just plain mean. Whether or not the parents were at fault it served no public interest other then to add public chastisement on top of horrific anguish.

In the June 08 issue of Friends a curiously anonymous article entitled “The best and worst of Greater Waterbury: People can be fine or waste our precious time” Friends informs us on two people who ought to be on the “worst of” list. Why a worst of list? Well first of all this is meant as a dig to the Observer citing that if your going to list the best of things it “smacks of discrimination to some...They argue, convincingly, that without the one there can’t be the other,…” Oh really? It doesn’t occur to the friends of Friends that by not balancing a best with the worst is not discriminatory but by doing so is just poor taste. Just to be clear lets just point out the obvious and note there isn’t any “they”. Mr. Anonymous should jettison the faux objectivity. Just come out and say there ought to be a worst list and take the credit. Whats to worry the article is anonymous.

For the first of Friends victims thankfully the lack of clarity gets in the way of any embarrassment they may have intended:


Without further suspense, herewith is the first installment of the Worst of Greater Waterbury,…The honor of the first person selected, after serious skull-searching, is Jacqueline “Jackie” Ford, one of the brightest stars in the constellation of the Department of Children and Families’ Brass City’s locale.
Daily, Ford ventures forth promoting the adoption of children neglected or abused, bringing them together with potential new parents.
Dealing with the media is not Ford’s forte. However. Reaching her via telephone can be nigh impossible, and her tune of yesterday could change, without notice, tomorrow.
But being a bureaucrat, the Fords of this world have naught to fret.


And? The writer gets so caught up in look-how-cute-I-can-write that whatever it is that makes Ford the worst is not mentioned. Why was she being contacted in the first place? What are we suppose to think, how dare she “naught to fret”? At some point matching neglected children with adopting parents has made poor Ms. Ford one of the worst people in the city. Couldn’t the writers skull contain a better (or worst-er) candidate?

For the next honoree is a pizza and deli owner who was once on the Observers Best list but not anymore. Who is the pizza deli owner and what is his establishment? We're not told: “The engaging, fairly young entrepreneur, intentionally, one must assume , has incited the passions of more than one lesser creature. There’s a rumor afoot that fists almost flew in his shop, twice.” Since the deli owners new designation as being the worst is based on rumors Friends thought it best to keep names out, presumably.

But there is more to the story: “An ongoing run around he subjected a salesman to for several years ended with shouts that featured a waitress hastening to her employer’s aid. She was bid to mind her own business, a command the winsome shrew instantly dismissed, to nobody’s shock.” Did a salesmen have an argument with the owner and a waitress helping her boss somehow? Why is the waitress a "winsome" shrew? The story goes on: “Unlike the tormentor in the above anecdote was a veritable bear of a person in the same neighborhood, but who did not consume the salesman’s time?” Same neighborhood, what happened to the shop? If the “veritable bear” wasted no ones time why does he fit in to the story? “He’d always come to the telephone, invariably politely and in a good mood, a greeting much appreciated.” Unlike the naught-to-frets of the world. “Although his invitation to get back to him boosted the salesman’s spirits as a seraphim might have, the predictable outcome over long period was a frustrating squandering of time. Finally, the solicitor tossed in the towel.” in an attempt at deciphering this a deli owner wasted the time of a salesmen, got into an argument where by his waitress (a shrew) tried to help. In the meantime some big guy in the neighborhood was nice and was polite on the phone. In the meantime the salesman just gave up. Right? Now does this sound like one of the worst people in town?

In short Friends two worst persons award goes to a bureaucrat for reasons we’re not told and to a person we don’t know whom, from a business we don't know where, for reasons we can’t understand. The best guess here is an attempt at vindictive pay back. The writer was rubbed the wrong way and by being so consumed in anger resorted to old fashion muckraking. Fortunately emotions got in the way of coherent writing. Stick to the calender guys.