You Know You’re Off The Clock, Right?

Had a flash of inspiration earlier about how to best illustrate the current dust-up between Patrick Frey, i.e. Patterico of Patterico’s Pontifications, and Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom. Back during the initial marketing campaign for Miller Lite, there was a clever variation from the usual theme of ex-jocks and making it obvious from the beginning what product the commercial was pushing. It showed in sequence two young British lords riding in carriages, ignoring the pleas of their assistants not to go through with their plan which was quickly revealed to be a pistol duel. Once at the location, the duel master asked both gentlemen if they wished to go through with this. The answer was in the affirmative as one spat out “tastes great” to which the other replied with equal venom “less filling.” The final scene was the duel master dropping a handkerchief signifying it was time to turn and fire as the gentlemen’s assistants hung their heads, not wishing to look. What made the ad work was waiting until the very end to reveal what it was about. But I digress. Anyway, perfect illustration. Alas, can’t find it online.

Noting that 99.999999999999994% of the world hasn’t the foggiest who Frey and Goldstein are, let alone what the conundrum is about, a bit of background. Frey’s day job is deputy district attorney. Goldstein lists collegiate English professor on his resume. This comes into play as the story evolves.

Back in the dawn of antiquity otherwise known as earlier this year, while President Obama basked in the glow of his honeymoon period with the public at large the annual gathering of conservative movers and shakers, or at least those wishing to be included among same, known as CPAC took place. The headline speaker was Rush Limbaugh.

During the course of his discourse, in reference to Obama’s policies Limbaugh said “I hope he fails.” This set off quite the tizzy in numerous circles, with many in conservative punditry immediately choosing the yea or nay camp. Those who supported Limbaugh applauded the blunt honesty of his statement, while the assembled disapprovers expressed dismay concerning what they viewed as a setback to efforts at bridge building along with lack of decorum. After all, isn’t all political talk the stuff of tea and crumpets time? But again I digress.

Frey was of the nay camp, whereas Goldstein took the opposite viewpoint. The two started discussing their difference of opinion on their respective blogs and in comments left on the other. As neither was inclined to back down and any offer of agreeing to disagree, had such taken place, would have been met by the other party saying “I never agreed to that,” the conversation gradually deteriorated from spirited to unfortunate. Frey in particular seemed bound and determined to make this the hill he would die upon (please forgive usage of that hackneyed cliché, but it fits), and the whole mess became way too personal.

Recently, Frey called out Robert Stacy McCain over a statement he made several years ago that on its surface states opposition to mixed marriage does not constitute racism. As one who’s read this modest waystation on the information superhighway knows a McCain fan I am not, but this seems way out of line. Accusing someone of racism is nasty business; one often loaded with more of a CYA attitude than anything genuinely designed to take out (or call out) the trash. The logical course of action would be dropping McCain a line: “Hey, if I’m reading this right you’re saying this. Is that what you believe? Or am I reading this wrong, and if that’s the case what do you believe and why does this read this way?” You know, seeking clarification one on one in private. Which would be the Scriptural way. However, not a whole lot of Bible believing in play here. Or at least application of Biblical principles. Anyway, Goldstein came to McCain’s defense, Frey fired back, and here we go again.

At the core of Frey’s argument, assuming you can wade past the personal vitriol long enough to get there, is that words must be taken primarily, if not solely, at face value. Goldstein’s contention is it rests on the listener to make at least some effort to determine the speakers and/or writers intent in order to properly interpret the words. I agree with Goldstein. Certainly there can be no abrogation of responsibility on anyone’s part for what they say. However, surface value is but part of the equation. It is never the sum. To believe otherwise is to willingly blindfold yourself, grab any given part of an elephant, and from that alone accurately describe the animal as a whole.

What can be taken from this brouhaha other than another example of Men Behaving Badly? For one, the inability of some to punch out and go home at the end of the day.

As much as can be inferred from his words, Frey comes off as someone who can’t stop being a lawyer. He refuses to let go or give in no matter how any given debate is going. There is an inexorable compulsion to get in the last word at all cost. Finally, Frey cannot back away from, or admit any error with, an original assumption. Traits which one suspects serve him well in court. However, out among the general populace… not so much. As to Goldstein, I’ve duly noted the high advisability of saving myself promised embarrassment by never going one on one against him when arguing semantics. Or at the least knowing enough to say “yeah, you’re right.”

None of this has any great impact on life for the aforementioned 99.999999999999994% of us, while the remaining 0.000000000000006% are either the individuals directly involved or have no lives period. That said, it does serve as a useful albeit messy reminder of why taking your job home with you isn’t always such a hot proposition.