What is it? One definition states: A. The adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty, and B. The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished. Yes, the first one is what one expects; it is the second definition, however, which is the more relevant, and perhaps needs to be fleshed out. For, isn’t that the true basis for the meaning of the word? That there is a “wholeness” between the words one speaks and the actions one takes. Take the following hypothetical: A former president (who will remain unidentified) who was almost kicked out of office for an indiscretion committed in the oval office (yes, yes, it is hard to guess who that might be, these days — but here is another hint: There were, in the salacious context of the entire affair [sic], multiple “Speakers of the House” who took the post, then subsequently resigned because they, too, were outed in retaliation by the White House) goes around the country lecturing at high schools and colleges on the following subject: “The importance of Fidelity in a marriage.” Would you go to such a lecture? Would you allow your son or daughter to listen to the ex-president? Why, or why not? Does it matter who the speaker is? Why does it matter? Isn’t the truth of what he says, true — regardless of who delivers the lecture? Would it make a difference if someone else gave the lecture — say, some old geezer who has been married to his wife for 75 years? If so, why? Perhaps because the penumbras of...
Hong Kong Customs arrests company director suspected of supplying baby hair and body wash with false trade descriptions Hong Kong Customs recently arrested a female director of a trading company s...