%s1 / %s2

We're working on a new version of PRX. Want a sneak peek?

Playlist: The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: The Anthology

Compiled By: Susan Cook

Caption: PRX default Playlist image

Crossing the River often brings us to questions about right and wrong. The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry brings sixty seconds worth of questions that surprisingly can bring moral encouragement or at least affirmation that questions about right and wrong are always well worth asking.

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry:In the First Place, Why Would A Corporation Let a Veteran Legislator/Franchiser have Huge Debt?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:15

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks questions about right and wrong in sixty seconds about pressing matters of the day. Because the Maine legislature now debates rules to oversee mining including open pit mining which relies on machines not human beings to get the job done, today we ask why a major gas station corporation whose brother corporation seeks to build an open pit mine would allow a veteran legislator and franchisee of one of their gas stations to build up $250000 in debt in the first place?

Deadmouse22014_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry- Why Would A Major Corporation Whose Brother Corporation Seeks Open-Pit Mining Rules Let Their Franchising Veteran Legislator Build Up $250000 in Debt
-Susan Cook-
The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks questions about right and wrong in sixty seconds about pressing matters of the day. Because the Maine legislature now debates rules to oversee mining including open pit mining which relies on machines not human beings to get the job done, today we ask why a major gas station corporation whose brother corporation seeks to build an open pit mine would allow a veteran legislator and franchisee of one of their gas stations to build up 1500000 in debt in the first place. Because the debt was later forgiven by the brother corporation to the mining corporation, why wouldn’t  they make the veteran mining-rule committee legislator pay as you go- one gas, donut ,  gator-ade or soda consumption billing cycle at a time. Isn’t it wrong to let a creditor build up bills- knowing later on he’ll be voting on certain mining rules as if waiting to spring the trap.

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Today, More Men Who Act like Unwanted Pregnancy Has Nothing to Do With Men?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:32

The Sixty Second Moral asks questions about what is right or wrong in 60 seconds more or less. So, today, we ask, will there be yet another man who acts as if unwanted pregnancy has nothing to do with men, is just the woman’s situation, an indifferent man for whom the fate of the conceived after birth is not his responsibility, the day-to-day care, feeding, clothing, childcare, medical care, not his problem. Will there be yet another man who doesn’t know that childbirth is a privilege wrung from adequate prenatal care, earned by people and societies who actually give children housing, feeding, clothing, education, sustain quality of life , clean breathable air, and yes, his tax bill may be higher.

Newyorktimesclintonsusancook_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry:
Today, will there be yet another man who acts like unwanted pregnancy has nothing to do with men?

Today will there be yet another man who acts as if unwanted pregnancy has nothing to do with him, is just the woman’s situation, an indifferent man for whom the fate of the conceived after birth is not his  responsibility, the day-to-day care, feeding, clothing, childcare, medical care, not his problem. Will there be yet another man who doesn’t know that childbirth is a privilege wrung from adequate prenatal care, earned by people and societies who actually give children housing, feeding, clothing, education, sustain quality of life , clean breathable air, and yes, his tax bill may be higher. Will there be another man who conceived an unwanted pregnancy hanging up on the mother who calls to tell him the child is born and breathing now and will need money for safe warm housing, to be fed with food stamps, or the 5000 dollar nest egg the mother put aside from money from the sale of the snowmobile to buy safe childcare, away from negligent caretakers, selfish alcoholics, addicts , sexual or physical abusers, or pedophiles who harm the child or the mother? Will the men for whom childbirth is just more narcissistic self-indulgence finally grasp healthy children’s care and healthy mothers mean his taxes may be higher?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Whose Responsibilty Is It To Refuse Sexploitation

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:14

Today’s Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks when men engage in sexploitation whose responsibility is it to refuse to sanction or accept as ‘just the way it is’ and not immoral. Now, when men in public life , men who are, say running for President of the United States, is it the responsibility of the wife of the potentially elected to shout out ’ Hey, he’s sexploiting.’ Or in private, personal relationship is it her responsibility to seek medical intervention to heal her marriage.

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry-Whose Responsibility is it When
Men Engage in Sexploitation
-Susan Cook-
Today’s Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks when men engage in sexploitation whose responsibility is it to refuse to sanction or accept as ‘just the way it is’ and not immoral. Now, when men in public life , men who are, say running for President of the United States, is it the responsibility of the wife of the potentially elected to shout out  ’ Hey, he’s sexploiting.’ Or in  private, personal relationship is it her responsibility  to seek medical intervention to heal her marriage and partner- who she recognizes as having a psychological  illness - as any man who engages in blatant sexploitation particularly if he won‘t take responsibility for his own sexploitation?  Or as our Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks,  does the responsibility for calling the public office candidate out on sexploitation  lie squarely with the public-the voting public- the political comrades of the potentially Elected to  speak out-if they really think sexploitation is a moral problem?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry- The Republican Bible Scripture on Bringing up Marital Infidelity

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:18

Today's Sixty-second Moral inquiry brings quotations from the Republican Bible on Adultery which ask 'Why Shouldn't the GOP Presidential Candidate Bring up a former President's Marital Infidelity'

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty-Second Moral Inquiry
The Republican Bible Scripture on Bringing up Marital  Infidelity

-Susan Cook-
Book of Ohbedliah
1. From the Mount, former Speaker of the House Newt Spake, he of spotless Calista since 1993 who informth his wife Marianne of their marital breech in her hospital bed, not with Newt.
2. ‘Thou-Shalt-Not go to Bill’s infidelity to Hillary Clinton , proclaimed Newt , he who cornered Bill, of Arkansas to the brink of impeachment. Thus, Calista emergeth from shadows, she white as shining light who lay with Newt, he, red as a herring.
3. Newt Quit. Thus  begat Representative Robert L. Livingston of Louisiana. Go to the House and be elected as Speaker, spake Newt. Having coveted his neighbor’s wife many times, outside his marital bed, Livingston too, elected quickly, then quit.
4. Thus begat Speaker Hastert who gave false testimony about molesting young boys .  Thus spake Newt, Do not go to marital infidelity.

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Is Using Verbal Abuse to Drown Out Others a Violation of Freedom of Speech?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:09

Today’s sixty-second Moral Inquiry asks ‘What’s the difference between verbal abuse, which uses words to hold power over others by intimidating, threatening, discounting, demeaning, insulting, harassing and freedom speech which protects the power of others to speak without fear of intimidation, threat, discounting, demeaning insult or harassment? If words are used as verbal abuse to silence others, isn’t that the opposite of freedom of speech?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Is Using  Verbal Abuse to Drown Out Others a Violation of Freedom of Speech?
-Susan Cook-
Today’s sixty-second Moral Inquiry asks ‘What’s the difference between verbal abuse, which uses words to hold power over others by intimidating, threatening, discounting, demeaning, insulting, harassing and freedom speech which protects the power of others to speak without fear of intimidation, threat, discounting, demeaning insult or harassment? If words are used as verbal abuse to silence others, isn’t that the opposite of freedom of speech? Doesn’t that take away the freedom of speech of others away by intimidating and harassing them? If a boy in a crowd shouts loudly ‘Boo‘ to drown out a speaker, isn’t that using verbal abuse  to stop others from using their Freedom of Speech?  Isn’t verbal abuse not only an abuse of other people but a violation of freedom of speech of others because they cannot safely speak?
Today’s sixty-second Moral Inquiry asks ‘What’s the difference between verbal abuse, which uses words to hold power over others by intimidating, threatening, discounting, demeaning, insulting, harassing and freedom speech which protects the power of others to speak without fear of intimidation, threat, discounting, demeaning insult or harassment? If words are used as verbal abuse to silence others, isn’t that the opposite of freedom of speech? Doesn’t that take away the freedom of speech of others away by intimidating and harassing them? If a boy in a crowd shouts loudly ‘Boo‘ to drown out a speaker, isn’t that using verbal abuse  to stop others from using their Freedom of Speech?  Isn’t verbal abuse not only an abuse of other people but a violation of freedom of speech of others because they cannot safely speak?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry:Isn't the Individual Candidate Who Won't Listen Just Like Congressional Politicians Who Refuse to Listen?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:02

Today's Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks "What's the Difference Between Politicians Who Refuse to Consider What Politicians in the Other Party say and an Individual Candidate Running for Office Who Refuses to Listen to Any of the Politicians in His Own Party Trying To Tell Him What To Do"?Is It Possible that the Congressional Refuse-To-Listen Politicians Led the Individual Candidate to Think Not Listening is the Right Thing To Do?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: What’s the Difference Between  Politicians Who Refuse to Consider What Politicians in the Other Party Say and an Individual Running for Office Who Refuses to listen to Any of the Politicians Who Are Trying To Tell Him What To Do?
-Susan Cook- 
If Politicians in Congress refuse to listen to politicians in the Other Party in Congress doesn’t that show a disrespect for other opinions and meaningful dialogue? If an individual  Candidate running for office refuses to listen to what any of the politicians in his own party say and will not take their advice, doesn’t that show a disrespect for other opinions and meaningful dialogue? Even when the politicians in one party trot a member who appears to disagree with them and seems to be listening to the other party’s politicians, how come she never convinces any of the politicians in her own party to go along with her? Isn’t the Individual Candidate who won’t listen just like the  politicians in Congress who won’t listen? Really aren’t they- all of them - the Individual and the Congressional politicians just disrespectful  of healthy discussion?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Is Apple's Refusal to Open the I-phone An Egocentric Worldview

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:14

Today's Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks 'Since Apple claims they refuse the order to open the San Bernadino murderer's I-phone to respect the civil liberty privacy, has Apple noticed they ignore civil liberties by anchoring their business firmly in China- one of the world’s worst human rights violators and Apple doesn’t say a word to protest Chinese violations ? .Does Apple get it that because they don’t say a word about Chinese human rights violations, they passively support a government that doesn’t let adolescents refuse orders to open I-phones? If the order were in China , Apple’s big boss, little boss and medium bosses would be in jail by now, and wouldn’t have an I-phone or its software in their pocket to worry about until their jail sentences end?'

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry- Is Apple's Refusan to Open the I-phone an Egocentric Worldview

-Susan Cook-

As Apple refuses to open the San Bernadino murderer’s I-phone , is Apple seeing right and wrong like a 15 year old egocentric adolescent ? Doesn’t Apple’s argument ’We can make the software for just this case, but hackers will steal it and make it viral‘ sound like moral bankruptcy where right and wrong are all about what the adolescent wants when he wants it ? Since Apple claims they refuse the order to respect the civil liberty privacy, has Apple noticed they ignore civil liberties by anchoring their business firmly in China- one of the world’s worst human rights violators and Apple doesn’t say a word to protest Chinese violations ? .Does Apple get it that because they don’t say a word about Chinese human rights violations, they passively support a government that doesn’t let adolescents refuse orders to open I-phones? If the order were in China , Apple’s big boss, little boss and medium bosses would be in jail by now, and wouldn’t have an I-phone or its software in their pocket to worry about until their jail sentences end?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry:What's the Difference Between the Political Candidate as Demigogue and the Political Candidate as Demigod?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:21

Today’s Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks :As politicians one-up each other, what’s the difference between the candidate as demagogue- who openly appeals to popular passions and the demi-god -the candidate who implies right-hand access to God?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry : What is the Difference Between the Political Candidate as Demagogue and the Politica Candidate as Demi-god

 

-Susan Cook-

Today’s Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks : As politicians one-up each other, what’s the difference between the candidate as demagogue- who openly appeals to popular passions and the demi-god -the candidate implying right-hand access to God?

Does the candidate claim God’s direct influence on their candidacy- saying the candidate will be the best President of the United States God ever created- as if God creates with one eye on the ballot box? Does the candidate exaggerate events in their own lives by affiliating them with God’s intervention- for example- the timing or place of either their own birth or that of offspring - like the influence God had on Jesus being born in Bethlehem? Does the candidate promise direct policy-making by God in the Presidential cabinet - through the federal executive branch that is the demi-god President -elect . Or is the candidate a strongly spiritual human being but one who does not imply direct electrical stimulation of the brain from God like a demi-god would?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Where Is the "Good" Donald Trump?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:22

This civil liberty loving country listens with astonishment to Donald Trump, ignore religious freedom and propose that no Muslims be allowed into this country until our representatives figure out what the heck is going on. Today’s Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks, whither the good Donald Trump?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry

Where Is the Good Donald Trump?

 

This civil liberty loving country listens with astonishment to Donald Trump, ignore religious freedom and propose that no Muslims be allowed into this country until our representatives figure out what the heck is going on. Today’s Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks, whither the good Donald Trump?

Was it when he was a young buff real estate agent ready to spend his 200,000 dollars to purge New York City of unsightly low-rent buildings, visiting Club 57 , the good Donald Trump watching- not taking part- merely watching beautiful top models engaging in physical action on benches in the middle of the room? Was it when he gave a member of a religious minority a chance to make big money ? Was the last time Donald Trump described as good- not just good- but the best good--when his second bride-to-be Marla proclaimed- much as Donald Trump does now about other things- that Mr. Trump was not just good- but the best she had ever known at a physical action similar we presume to the one he witnessed as a younger man? Is this whither the ‘good’ - the Presidential Donald Trump?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: What's Wrong With Politicians Placing Political Gamesmanship Above Honoring the Public Trust?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:03

TheSixty Second Moral Inquiry asks questions about what is right and what is wrong. Today's Sixty Secnd Moral Inquiry asks what is wrong with politicians placing political gamesmanship above honoring the public's trust? When did political gamesmanship become more important to Senators, Congressional representatives and state legislators than respecting the public trust? Is it wrong, as Gallup polls tell us has happened, to destroy the public trust just so the “politicians” will be winner of the day at political gamesmanship?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: What’s wrong with politicians placing political gamesmanship above honoring the public’s trust?
-Susan Cook_ 
Today’s sixty- second moral inquiry asks what is wrong with politicians in Congress and  state legislatures  placing  political gamesmanship above upholding the public trust?  What’s wrong with the Senate President or the Speaker of the House telling legislators or  Senators and Congressional representatives they have to  vote the way the leadership tells them. What’s wrong with politicians deciding to deceive the public and undermine trust by going along with what their Caucus wants instead of remembering that the public voted them into office because the public  wants them to be trustworthy? When did political gamesmanship become more important to legislators than respecting the public trust?  Is it wrong , as Gallup polls tell us has happened, to destroy the public trust just so the “politician” be winner of the day at political  gamesmanship? 

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: What's Wrong With Targetting Individuals?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:11

In many parts of the world, torture, harassment and persecution are used to target individuals who criticize , believe, have secrets or religions (like Tibetan Buddhism by the Chinese ) disliked by those in power. It happens everywhere even in this country. Thus the Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks: What’s wrong with targeting individuals because of what the individual criticizes or believes?

Jesuischarlie2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: What’s Wrong with Targeting Individuals?
Torture,  harassment and persecution are used to target individuals who  criticize , believe, have secrets  or religions (like Tibetan Buddhism by the Chinese )  disliked by those in power.  Thus the  Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks:  What’s wrong with targeting individuals  because of what the individual  criticizes or believes? Not convicted criminals but individuals ?  What is dehumanizing about demanding people do and think what you tell them to, or suffer physically ,  psychologically or be held up for public humiliation in the media? Doesn’t the consequence of targeting  start with the entitlement to target the individual in the first place ? Just because one party or executive  or government has power today,  if the entitlement and permission to target an individual is there doesn’t that  mean that tomorrow  if the power shifts that individual  could be you  unless the utmost priority is treating the individual with dignity and respect  also known as human rights? 

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How Can You Tell When Political and Moral Ground Are Too Different From Each Other?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:04

With the election season over, the next phase of elected politics has settled on our plates like a bowl of jello. How can you tell when the age-old moral question “What is right or wrong- civil liberties-style-?” is still high on the legislative agenda? When it’s camouflaged under a political party claim “You are us and we are you and…“ thus leaving you to complete in your own mind the sentence the party wants you to fill in without you first asking “How so?“

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty-Second Moral Inquiry:  How can you tell when political and moral ground are too dofferent from each other? 
 
 Today’s Sixty-Second moral inquiry asks ”How can you tell when political ground is so different from moral ground that they can no l onger be in the same legislative caucus room?”  The next phase of elected politics has settled on our plates like a bowl of jello. How can you tell when the age-old moral question “What is right or wrong- civil  liberties-style-?” is still high on the legislative agenda? When it’s camouflaged under a political party claim  “You are us and we are you  and…“ thus leaving you to complete in your own mind the sentence the party wants you to fill in without you first asking “How so?“ When all the cry  “We need to be on the same team” is just a way to stop anyone from asking questions that might lead them to discover they don‘t want to be because the team does not ask “Is this right or morally wrong?“

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Why Not Mangle the Information If You Can?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:04

The Sixty-Second Moral Inquiry asks questions about what is right and wrong. Today's Sixty-Second Moral Inquiry asks: Why not mangle,`distort the information, if you can? If we all have the ability to think, isn't it each person's responsibility to find out for themselves? Why not pick and choose the facts you like and the facts you don't, selectively leaving out the ones you don't?

Ponypicture_small

The Sixty-Second Moral Inquiry asks questions about what is right and wrong. Today's Sixty-Second Moral Inquiry asks: Why not mangle,`distort the information, if you can?
If we all have the ability to think, isn't it each person's responsibility to find out for themselves? Why not pick and choose the facts you like and the facts you don't, selectively leaving out the ones you don't? Why not act like they're the only facts in town? Why bother getting the whole story, asking, calling "So what is this about?" Why bother looking at the past if it means that the facts show a reality that you prefer not to acknowledge? Even if the facts (if you're not told to keep it to yourself) give a picture like one you never ever saw before, one you'd rather not see, even if it's your job to come as close as you can to the truth, that wild horse that once you catch him, see that the world is a far better place with that wild horse, truth in it?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How Can You Tell If You're Being Disrespected?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:08

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks questions about how to know right and wrong. Today's question: How can you tell if you are being treated disrespectfully?

Thesixtysecondmoralinquiryhowcanyoutellifyourebeingdisrespected_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry's focus today to think explore right and wrong? 
We asks: How Can You Tell If You’re Being Disrespected?   You’re a thinking, feeling human being but just because you feel it in your gut, it doesn't make that enough to say "Hey, I'm being disrespected!". Groups gone viral (infected by someone‘s entitlement) stop asking questions. So, have you been asked questions and have your answers been accurately and completely repeated to others OR have they been distorted, edited? Have you been told "You don’t have any facts. No more public statements" "Let it lie" from an Attorney General-type or an aspiring lawyer? You don’t need  witnesses who take a no-perjury oath before your facts are treated respectfully. Human decency is obvious! Next, have those being disrespectful given themselves permission without once calling, tweeting, emailing, or texting,  as if you are invisible? And finally, is there one person anywhere in the universe really, who sees it  is disrespect, who feels it in the gut and doesn't need a lawyer to know disrespect is about what is  right and what is wrong.  

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How Do We Know What Human Rights Are?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:00

Sometmes exploring what is right means finding the right question to ask. Today's Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks the question: how do we know what human rights are.

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How Do We Know What Human Rights Are?
-Susan Cook-
Today's Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How do we know what human rights are? No, we don't begin by asking is it liquid, solid or a gas or are they written only in a book. So we ask: Will the fundamental dignity of the person be compromised? Will the basic view that all beings deserve respect even the ones you don't like or disagree with or feel better than be tossed aside? Is basic respect for the person’s integrity at stake? Will the person not even be given an opportunity to voice the view or tell the account of events but rather be left off the email list or the Facebook message or the tweet or the letter to the editor? Even if the person lives in a little teeny country nobody cares about, are there things happening to that person that neglect respect, dignity, integrity of body or soul you ignore and refuse to include under the term “human rights”? 

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How To Tell The Difference Between Mudslinging and a Reality Check

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:01

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry asks questions about what is right. Thinking about what is right sometimes means finding the question that needs to be asked. Today's moral inquiry asks: How do you the tell the difference between mud-slinging and a reality check when criticizing a politician's' actions? Daily, political life begs this question, and certainly former Congressman Weiner's cyber-sex (that's what it is called) activities do. So, what questions might we ask in our moral inquiry?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How To Tell The Difference Between Mud-slinging and  A Reality Check
                                                           -Susan Cook-
Asking questions about what is right , today's moral inquiry asks: How do you the tell the difference between  Mud-slinging and a reality check when criticizing a politician's' actions? Daily,  political life begs this moral question, and certainly former Congressman Weiner's  cyber-sex (that's what it is called) activities do. First of all, are the politician's  critics telling him something about reality that he might have missed or didn't know that the public already knows?  Are Mr. Weiner's critics referring to facts about what he's done that both political party's know of and can corroborate? Is there a reality about the offensiveness in his actions? Offensiveness as something that one would feel very very uncomfortable explaining to children under, say, the age of 10 or wouldn't want them to know. Is the criticism because the politician's actions are  just plain disrespectful to the public who first and foremost hired him  and the politician seems to have forgotten? 

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How You Can Tell If a Government Is Becoming Corrupt

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:02

Remember the sixty second moral inquiry asks questions about what is the right thing to do. Today, we ask "How can you tell If a government is becoming corrupt? Let us ponder Illinois, the political corruption hotspot. Let us imagine that each now jailed politician stood and said loud and clear, "I only have one rule and that is if you have to cry, go outside." And several at the meeting jumped up and said, "No. You have the rules in the Bill of Rights, in Civil liberties, in the Constitution, Federal and State laws. Are you following those rules?" Which no one asked or did. So, what are questions of moral inquiry when it comes to government corruption?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

             The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: How  Can You Tell If A Government is Becoming Corrupt?
                                                          -Susan Cook-
Today's sixty second moral inquiry asks, how do you know when a government or its leaders are corrupt or becoming corrupt? Let us ponder Illinois, the political corruption hotspot. Let us imagine that , each now jailed politician stood and said loud and clear, "I only have one rule and that is if you have to cry, go outside." And several at the meeting jumped up and said, "No. You have the rules in the Bill of Rights, in  Civil liberties, in  the Constitution, Federal and State laws. Are you following those rules?" Which no one asked or did. So,  government corruption questions?  Do the politicians and their government employees  put winning elections to keep their own jobs ahead of every other ethic? Telling the truth? Respecting constituents? Honoring human dignity and fairness in the legislative process?  Is information distorted or kept secret?  Is bribery, the money kind or “you do this for me/I’ll do that for you” accepted? If someone asks these questions, does the asker become targeted as "the problem"? 

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: A Woman of Her Word

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | :59

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry:A Woman of Her Word

Moral inquiry means asking questions about what is the right thing to do. So, the sixty second moral inquiry for today is: As a woman continues the long difficult climb from making seventy something cents an hour for every dollar men make, can she still be a "woman of her word"? Must she make compromises in order to make what a man make?

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry:
A Woman of Her Word
-Susan Cook-
Moral inquiry means asking questions about what is the right thing to do. So, the sixty second moral inquiry for today is: As a woman continues the long difficult climb from making seventy something cents an hour for every  dollar men make, can she still be a "woman of her word"? Must she make compromises in order to make what a man makes, in things like, telling the truth, personal integrity, reliability. There's respect for the dignity of  others, making sure information you share is accurate, and of course speaking in a way that honors the position she holds, not using language that's offensive or false or insulting. Yes, it is unjust that women in this country earn seventy something cents for every dollar a man makes, but will she be able to keep ethical integrity as she levels the paying field? Be a woman of her word?

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Why?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:30

Everyday the world can ask again what’s right or wrong , not just smugly proceed, go along on its merry path, answers tucked under its arm, as proof of right and wrong. In This President’s era, every single day presents a new Presidential moral challenge. Which moral question is at stake is a daily dilemma. It is ours to ask.

Soudabscookjrnolanbest2_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry- Why
-Susan Cook-
When I was a Teaching Assistant in the moral development course in graduate school, the entire class spent an entire semester asking questions about right and wrong. Moral Inquiry. Asking the questions was at least if not more morally provocative sometimes than answering them. The rest of the world then and now, often acts as if the questions are already answered, as if asking again or thinking up new ones idle distraction.  But moral development means that everyday the world can ask again what’s right or wrong , not just smugly proceed, go along on its merry path, answers tucked under its arm, as proof of right and wrong. In This President’s era, every single day presents a new Presidential moral challenge, rising from that day’s particular policy or decision. Which moral question is at stake is  a daily dilemma.  But this  is our country and as ever, asking moral questions is moral grace if not courage. That’s why we have The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry.

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry: Does False Equivalence Lead to Minimizing the Real Problem?

From Susan Cook | Part of the The River Is Wide series | 01:24

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry "Will the real problem of sexual predators using positions of power to target women be ignored if false equivalencies prevail?"

Testimony8232011_small

The Sixty Second Moral Inquiry:

Doesn't False Equivalence Lead to Minimizing the Real Problem

 

-Susan Cook-

 

As women identify men who have targeted them with unwanted sexualized or in fact criminal sexual acts, will false equivalence lead to minimizing and overlooking the real problem? Does equating putting a hand on a women's bare back with the same sexual predatory acts of Weinstein, Charlie Rose, the Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore minimize the real problem of the abuse of power that sexualizes relationships that are supposed to be professional- not sexual? Does it mean that sooner or later women or men speaking out against sexual exploitation will not be listened to because no one's talking about the same problem anymore? Sexual predators are seen in the same light as a man putting his hand on a woman's bare back? White, powerful men now join African-American men and females of any race in that one allegation may bring jail time, character defamation or cultural or professional exile - much like The Red Scare of the Fifties did. Respect for Civil liberties means we can't lose sight of the problem of racist, sexist injustice when men of color and women of any race are treated unfairly. Will the abuse of power of real sexual predators be ignored if a new abuse of power "The (anonymous) Court of Public Opinion" accepts  false equivalence and the real problem of sexual predation minimized?