Tag: integrity

I encountered the phrase “humble dependence” in a book I was reading this morning.  Though in the context of the text it was meant to refer to a relationship between God and man or woman, I couldn’t help but wonder  aloud about our own human dependencies.  Are any earthly dependencies, regardless of the context or the situation, truly humble, deferring to superior judgment and guidance?  For example, how much of any romantic relationship in which we are a part is not founded on some degree of purely selfish need?  I myself know that the fear of being alone has driven me to make decisions based on impulsive short-term need, rather than long-term good sense.  Even if we are aware of it, even if we have the therapy bills and scars to prove it, and even our self-awareness is evident to all, is there still not a degree of self-interest involved as we search for others or engage in our own journey?

This is going to be short as there is not much to say about it, but the Dog thinks it needs to be said. Integrity is something the Dog strives for, but does not always achieve as well as he would like. It is in this spirit that he would like to offer the text of an e-mail that was sent this afternoon.  

What is integrity?  It is a word that has been bandied about a lot recently during our National process of choosing leaders to be elected to the highest Political Offices of our Country.  Who has integrity?  Who does not have integrity?  Is integrity in our Politicians a good trait?  A bad trait?  An impossible trait?  Who is to say whether any certain Candidate or any person, for that matter, has integrity or not?  Can a person have integrity on one issue and not have integrity on another issue and still have Integrity?

So many questions.  Not such easy answers.

Let’s have a look at the word Integrity.

In discussions on behavior and morality, one view of the property of integrity sees it as the virtue of basing actions on an internally-consistent framework of principles.

This scenario may emphasize depth of principles and adherence of each level to the next. One can describe a person as having integrity to the extent that everything that that person does derives from the same core set of values. While those values may change, their consistency with each other and with the person’s actions determine the person’s degree of integrity.

Considering this description of Integrity, an Internally-consistant framework of principles would have to be viewed as a trait belonging to an individual.  Therefore, MY degree of integrity to MYSELF may be close too 100% if I stick to my internal principles at all times.  However, someone other than myself might see me as not having integrity because they do not understand my internal set of principles and therefore only have the ability to judge me by my words and actions.

If you haven’t looked at lordradish’s diary Peter Welch (D-VT) gets an earful about the war. People are pissed., definitely check it out. In it, I gave pause for a moment when I got to this point:

Welch wanted to clarify his voting history on Iraq. I don’t have the specifics on what he said. He laid out his history on the votes on Iraq so far, and why he voted the way he did on them. Two things… he did clarify one point about something that I don’t think many people know. Voting to allow a vote on something is not the same as voting for something. There was a particular vote that Welch voted to allow to the floor, only to vote against the actual measure itself. Some had misconstrued voting to allow a vote as a support of the bill itself.

Emphasis mine.

The point is an excellent one — we need to track the votes, and accurately discern the nature of them, if we are to have any credibility when holding pols responsible.

There’s more…make the jump.