Horizon

I ain't voting for him either.

Not exactly his finest hour, but I can't help but think that the only result of making a big deal out of this will be that public figures will be even less candid about their pasts than they are now.

Not so much performing surgery on cats, but lying to animal shelters in order to get the cats seems like a serious ethical lapse. And he wasn't a kid, but was in his mid-twenties. Still, he came clean 16 years ago. If anything, this demonstrates the value in being candid about your past.

If anything, this demonstrates the value in being candid about your past.

Why? As far as I can see, if he'd never said anything about the catnapping it never likely would have become public knowledge.

Generally, these things somehow always become public knowledge. Better to out yourself than be outed in the middle of a campaign.

But he did out himself - years ago - only to have the damned thing dog him (if that's the appropriate expression in this case) still. I think if I were Bill Frist I'd take away from this a lesson in not being so forthcoming next time.

Hm. Just having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic there. Let's see:

1) It's good for politicians to be honest with the public about their past.

1a) Presumably because this allows the public to make more informed choices.

2) If the public reacts negatively to such a revelation, politicians will presumably stop being so forthcoming.

3) Therefore, the public should refrain from reacting negatively to what politicians reveal about their past.

4) Therefore, it is not important for politicians to talk about their past.

I don't know, I'm obviously missing something here.

I think 1a) is where you start going awry here. Candor isn't just about "informed choices". It's about creating a public atmosphere in which people don't have to be relentlessly on message; where an admission of human failing can be acknowledged without it becoming an endless 'gotcha' item. I don't think dragging up an ancient sin like this informs anybody. It's not that "the public [media, really] should refrain from reacting negatively"; it's that the public [media, really] should exercise some common sense when choosing which cases to react negatively to.

I don't think dragging up an ancient sin like this informs anybody.

Oh, so you are just saying that you don't think Frist's torture of animals as a young man is relevant, then? That's something worth arguing, I suppose.

Watergate did not destroy Nixon. The cover-up of Watergate did him in. That's the lesson politicians should have learned.

Oh, so you are just saying that you don't think Frist's torture of animals as a young man is relevant, then? That's something worth arguing, I suppose.

So far as I understand it this was a question of vivisection, not dangling cats over naked flames for the hell of it.

Watergate did not destroy Nixon. The cover-up of Watergate did him in.

Who's been covering anything up?

So far as I understand it this was a question of vivisection, not dangling cats over naked flames for the hell of it.

I agree that this is not necessarily a big deal. I wouldn't consider something like this, so far as I can tell from the article, to be a deal breaker necessarily.

But calling it vivisection doesn't make much difference to me. If Bill Frist had been torturing cats (assuming he did not anaesthetize or kill them first) to cure cancer, or because Harvard Medical School leaves its students no other choice, then that would be one thing. But it does not appear that he had a very compelling reason to do what he did, and if that is so then his behavior is sketchy regardless of what you choose to call it.

Whether this reflects importantly on his character is something I think everyone has the right to judge for themselves. But if the media were a good citizen according to you I suppose very few people would have that opportunity.

Finally, based on this article, it does not appear to me that we are witnessing a media frenzy. It appears to be a political move on the part of an animal welfare organization that precipitated this article, not a scandal-hungry media. Perhaps I am wrong about that. Has this been plastered across the headlines?

Who's been covering anything up?

You have suggested that the lesson politicians can take from this is that they should keep their skeletons in the closet. The lesson of Watergate was that the real danger to a politician is the inclination to run away from the truth. This isn't a story that's going to sink Frist, mainly because he's already owned up to it and said he had been wrong.

I agree with Bobby. Much as it's hard to face, animal research probably is necessary. The lying is the really disgusting part -- and, sickeningly, the pretenses of affection he must have put on in order to induce well-meaning shelter staff to trust him with those cats.

I agree with Bobby. Much as it's hard to face, animal research probably is necessary. The lying is the really disgusting part -- and, sickeningly, the pretenses of affection he must have put on in order to induce well-meaning shelter staff to trust him with those cats.

Thing is, no-one's really disagreeing with this. The guy freely and without pressure admitted what he did a long time ago, and that it was indefensible. The question is whether folks are really being responsible digging this up years after the event as if it's hot-off-the-press news.

The lesson of Watergate was that the real danger to a politician is the inclination to run away from the truth.

While I think the lesson is correct, and that it applies here, I don't buy that it follows from Watergate at all. Nixon's stonewalling didn't win him any friends, but surely if he'd come out and admitted to orchestrating a burglary when first charged, he wouldn't have gotten off any lighter.

Not that I was around then.

From Article One of the Articles of Impeachment (July 27, 1974):

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

There were two other articles, but I think the first demonstrates what upset people at the time. Nixon may not have been personally responsible for the break-in itself; he was not only responsible for the cover-up, he actively participated in it.

Thanks!