In my long-form review of Tina Brown covering an ish of her magazine from Feb., I said that "morally porous" was the keyword. Then I mailed that piece off to some email address of her's. (note: editorial at the daily beast.)
Well you know these high-class intellectuals really must read their emails, this because Tina's column has now sported the word "moral" again, in her issue with the rainbow halo above the president, you see, and then, I also got the impression the word was there on May 14th (that issue). In response to my sending her a copy of my post about her February column, obviously. It wasn't. Yet "moral" was there, again, as an underlying theme. Nothing about Clint Eastwood this time, in a column about countries that put writers in jail.
I paid for the May 14th ish, by the way, so I am now a paying customer, of hers or of her magazine. Of somebody's. But one of the wonderful things about language is that it is an unstoppable force for certain things like getting to know who an individual is. This is particularly so in a literate, as well as free, society.
In a free and literate society, no one hides. (Language, therefore, is a beast.)
(this post updated: May 27th, and 31st)