Words are similar to carbon fiber technology. The word can be delicate in appearance and apparently light-weight but deceptively strong, resilient and powerful in its capacity to move ideas and whole thought processes once engaged in company with dogma and philosophy. Take the following as an example. This is the condensed definition of INTEGRITY as offered by Merriam-Webster: integrity (n): the quality of being honest and fair: the state of being complete or whole
The full definition states Integrity is: 1; firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values i.e; incorruptibility; 2: an unimpaired condition i.e.: soundness; 3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided i.e.; completeness (Merriam-Webster Online)
Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.
Barbara Killinger offers a traditional definition:
“Integrity is a personal choice, an uncompromising and predictably consistent commitment to honour; moral, ethical, spiritual and artistic values and principles.”
“In ethics, integrity is regarded [by whom?] as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to (in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue) and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs”. (Wikipedia-2013)
This is of interest if you have a love of words, their use and placement, and the manner in which you construct thought. It’s been my personal experience to be a person in love with language. Language expresses our thought processes; our emotions and indicate our drives surreptitiously and without us realizing it at times. Please take a look at two individual statements in the citations indicated.
#1. Merriam-Webster states in its initial and abridged definition: “integrity (n): the quality of being honest and fair: the state of being complete or whole”. Then it fleshes out its definition with: “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values i.e; incorruptibility (?) (the question mark is mine.)
Now; please look at the citation from Barbara Killinger (a PhD. Specializing in the psychology of Workaholism). After looking at the italicized quote drop to the citation asking the simple question [by whom?] This moves the word’s appearance from the general statement of “soundness” or “completeness” to a statement concerning an individual’s personal character.
A tragedy of the greatest import was acted out in Benghazi, Libya. Four men: the American Ambassador, one of his staff and two former SEAL Team members and private contractors were murdered by Arab combatants. It’s been the Obama Administration’s contention from the very beginning of this incident, a video insulting Islam, Mohammed and Allah caused this violent attack. The Obama Administration’s been obstructive and uncooperative in developing and delivering specific intelligence to Congressional oversight and investigation.
This has always been the posture and position of the Obama Administration: smack in the middle of the road, fighting any attempt at getting past the obstructionism to see what the truth is.
In this battle to assure the American people stay as deeply placed in the shadows erected by the barriers emplaced by Obama and his ilk stands the NEW YORK TIMES (NYT); that scion of news gathering proclaiming with tongue buried deeply in cheek: “ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT”.
In light of the NYT’s efforts to manufacture news by representing their “investigative findings” concerning the Benghazi Incident and bolster Hilary Clinton’s pre-campaign efforts to distance herself from her lies and duplicitous actions after the facts began indicating her malfeasance (as seen by her political opponents) is nothing new.
The NYT’s slogan should now be: “ALL THE NEWS ‘WE SEE FIT’ TO PRINT”.
The NYT has long been the bastion and bulwark of leftist, progressive politics since the late 19th Century. The hierarchy (composed of personnel earning stately salaries allowing them to espouse socialist/ Marxist policies while personally removed from the economic issues they claim enmity towards) move the participants from the realm of street prostitution to that of well-bred, well-kept courtesans
To call the publishers, editors and reporters of the NYT whores would be a disservice to whores world-wide. While regularly victims of their personal delusions, there are some things whores won’t do.
The NYT has been the willing mistress of the Democrat Party for over a century. Their slavish adoration of the Clinton Clan is obvious; especially since this garbage was wrapped with the questionable personal truthfulness of the person authored the story and the NYT’s shredded fish-wrap indicative of its once supposed integrity.
The NYT maintains its status of: incorruptibility as an unimpaired condition and soundness. It maintains the quality or state of being complete or undivided. Their incorruptibility is intact because they refuse to accept any fact conflicts with their personal slant on any topic from foreign policy through economics through opinion. It almost never strays from its adherence to progressive dogma.
It’s only the view of the NYT (as it’s only the view of the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party) matters. No other thought process need apply for residence in the dogmatic kennel confining these mongrels’ thinking.
The shame in the matter is seen in Killinger’s statement: “Integrity is a personal choice, an uncompromising and predictably consistent commitment to honour; moral, ethical, spiritual and artistic values and principles.”
The NYT, Hilary Clinton and Obama have NO concepts of a “consistent commitment to honour; moral, ethical, spiritual and artistic values and principles.”
Thanks for listening.