Reply to Paul and hopes to clarify my use of "intellectual integrity"

Hi Paul.  You make some excellent points.  I am not sure we disagree.  I was not intending to change the discussion, but perhaps I was talking about a different side of the same tree - or maybe I was just muddling my words - it would not be the first time.  When I say intellectual integrity, I mean commitment to the part of the code which says something like "I should not ignore evidence that is presented to me."  I am bound to let my intellect (poor as it is) examine whatever I encounter and not just dismiss it because I don't "like" it.  Of course, as you have pointed out, integrity does imply a pre-existing code or set of principles (another "definition").  I agree.  I was trying to say the commitment should be to principles rather than specific political positions.  I think we agree on this also.  I did not mean for my phrase "intellectual integrity" to signify intellectualism at all.  By intellect, I simply mean someone's mind.  Sometimes that mind is fuzzy; which I instantiate not infrequently.