Welcome to The Conversation


"My objective in creating this arena in cyberspace is to pool the wisdom of an underground of intelligence. I do this in the belief that shifting our paradigm -- from outer-direction to inner-focus -- could be a function of an alignment in thought, and that this alignment can be produced by cross-connecting my comments and yours."
-Suzanne Taylor, Founder of Mighty Companions-

Suzanne Taylor

"Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
Rains from the sky a meteoric shower
Of facts...they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
Is daily spun, but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric..."
Edna St. Vincent Millay

The Conversation Develops:

As you take part in The Conversation, your edited remarks will be added here. Let us know what you think!

FROM: Tasnim Fernandez, 1/19/99

Clinton should resign rather than remain in office, bloodied and beat-up.

FROM: Monica McGuire, 1/22/99

I would have LOVED to have seen the non-defense of Clinton that you suggest.

All along, I think the whole matter could have been very worthwhile if Clinton had just told the truth, or admitted that he was using legal loopholes such as 'I mislead people.' I have found fault with most of our Presidents for the same reason. (I am one who thinks that we only have one political party of combined R's & D's - they put on a show of their differences, but their main game is to keep power by not allowing other political parties any room to catch a foothold.)

I think that most politicians are a breed apart and that the more we look at that honestly, the better off we would all be. Do we want our political offices to hold so much power and fame that most of the office-holders are the kind of people who cannot remain faithful to their spouses? Apparently, we have always had that. If only we could get honest and look at that whole picture, we might not wind up dwelling on inane, repetitive, political/legal jargon.
. More on Clinton:
  "Clinton & Karla Faye," January 29, 1998
  "Benefit of the Clinton Conversation," September 19, 1998
  "The Miracle of Y2K," November 18, 1998
  "Reflections from a Pro-Impeachment Liberal Democrat," December 15, 1998

Suzanne Taylor

January 18, 1999

It is Tuesday, January 19, 1999. The Clinton defense opens. One lawyer rises and says, "There will be no defense. The President did what he did. Now you must decide what to do."

FROM: Jerry Brown, Mayor of Oakland, CA, 1/19/99

The case presented so far makes a strong prima facia case that the president committed perjury and engaged in a scheme to defeat Paula Jones's right to have her legal claims adjudicated on the basis of truthful testimony and available evidence. Your advice would probably ensure conviction.

Suzanne Replies:

And wouldn't it be refreshing to focus on the "real" argument, which is about what we think of as Constitutional? Are crimes to be measured by their consequences, irrespective of the criminal conduct -- the pattern of criminal conduct -- of the perpetrator? We have a real clash of underlying realities going on, which is more significant than the surface noise involving this guy hiding behind the letter of the law, don't you think?

FROM: Fernando Mata, 1/19/99
One thought is to contact every single congressperson and say: I will never ever vote for a Republican or Democrat again.
Suzanne Replies:

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That's the best laugh I've had in a long time.

FROM: George Snoddy, 1/21/99

To offer no defense would be the wisest thing the Clinton defense team could do because there REALLY IS NO DEFENSE for his actions. This man has lived a life of deceit from the first time he said he did not inhale. I was a 60's child and if I noticed someone in my group pretending to inhale my suspicions would be strongly aroused. Well, he did inhale anyway and then told us that completely ridiculous lie.

This man is not ready to change and should be impeached since he is not man enough to take his ego off center stage and serve his country by not hurting it. President Clinton is unfortunately an exact representation of the people of this country (present company excluded). This country is saturated with spiritual babies who do not understand universal law. Some day they will of course as we all must when we reach spiritual understanding.

The whole social fabric of our country is really what is on trial here, not Bill Clinton. God is exposing our sins to give us an opportunity to change. Everything is being questioned. I am praying that wisdom will somehow prevail and we can make as smooth as possible transition to the next level of understanding we seem to be moving into. Some of us are actually starting to go sane. We see through the illusion of this world built on greed and hate and we see the Kingdom of God coming first to our minds then to the physical realm. The children of this world who do not yet understand have to be shown the way by the souls who know. If they will not listen then they will simply reap what they have sown.

God Bless you and keep up the good work.
Suzanne Replies:

I was so moved by what you said. There is a directness that I'm starving for in how you expressed yourself. So much has come into my email from my supposed allies -- including the likes of Neale Donald Walsch and Thomas Moore, idols of our camp -- that's repulsive to me, that I find myself being cautious in how blatantly I speak my mind. No point to getting one's vote cancelled. So, I am refreshed, as I am somewhat ashamed of my cautiousness by what you sent. I don't need to sway the majority to keep alive, but I do feel the need for some echo that lets me know I am not alone. We are all in this together, whether we know it or not, and I so appreciate your help in keeping me from drowning in muddy waters.

FROM: Jim Conn, 1/27/99

For me this is real simple: having illicit sex and covering it up is not a high crime and does not threaten the democracy or the constitutional system of government.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution did: Johnson

The Watergate break-in did: Nixon

Illegal $$ to the Contras did: Reagan

Drugs for guns by the CIA did: Bush

But wanting to cover up the embarrassment of an affair? I don't think so.
Suzanne Replies:

In life, you never can know what will happen to you, the only thing you have control over is what you do next. Whatever the fairness of what has occurred, what does a person do next? That's a place of creation, where truth of being can forge the way. That is where selflessness and honor and all the other noble emotions can be spotted, and their absence detected, too.

No matter how unfair it may be that Clinton got to this juncture, there he is. So how does he do? TERRIBLE! Wagging fingers, legalistic dodges, phony contrition, jovial indifference. Do you think this is the level of consciousness of someone who's fit to lead the world?

Jim replies to Suzanne, 1/29/99:

Is anyone fit to run the world, the country? Not as far as I can tell. So either someone runs the country who is not fit or no one runs the country.

If we are going to have someone run the country, we have to choose from among a lot of people who are not fit to run the country. And the question suddenly becomes VERY relative. We are now in the arena of relativity. And we have to set criteria from the perspective of what is relatively better and relatively worse. That's why this situation is not a moral issue or a religious issue or a matter of perfection, but a matter of politics.

If you want purity or perfection you have to play something other than in the political realm. Pick a moral cause and pursue it. Pick a spiritual way and pursue it. But not everybody will agree to 100% of what you choose to pursue. No problem, for you.

But government, politics -- another matter. It can never be pure because it is composed of human beings who aren't pure but who must instead govern or lead or set public policy when people profoundly disagree and are not pure. Different world. Relative world.
Suzanne Replies:

What an unexpected response, although an understandable one. You may know that one of the tenets of the esoteric wisdom tradition, where things like the Bailey books live, is that the world has been unsafe for higher consciousness -- burning of witches sort of thing -- so that spiritual types congregated in religion and philosophy, leaving the rest of the professions devoid of light. And that it is just now that aware folks are starting to populate other arenas -- for instance, business, where there is so much "organizational development" going on. They point to government as not having started to stir yet.

My pragmatism, however, doesn't leave room for Clinton. He happened to get caught, and now that we've seen the show, doesn't he make you sick? Can you stand the thought of looking at him for two years? Ugh. The way it looks to me is that knowing what we know about him, in letting him stay we cement our agreement about how low our standards are. Can we afford that?

Are you throwing in that glorious towel that you waved for us for so many years as the pastor of the astonishingly life-giving Church in Ocean Park, where, in fact, Jerry Brown used to hold court asking for more accountability from government? I prefer to think of the Clinton affair as a chance for us to sweep away some cobwebs in the grand remodeling of reality underway, and although it may not be a clean sweep, better he go out with the trash.

Thanks for being one of the good guys.

Jim replies to Suzanne, 2/1/99:

Sweep away the Clinton cobwebs and you get the right wing self-righteous who think that polluting the earth is their God given right and will only hasten that great day when Jesus returns. These people also believe that punishment is cathartic and therefore socially valuable - a way of thinking I discarded in the raising of my own child not to mention the process of social change.

In the messy real world, there are standards that some people think are necessary to the purification of American values that I am grateful Clinton stands in the way of. The Council of Conservative Citizens (an updated KKK) for example which Trent Lott and his cronies belong to. Henry Hyde as victor in this drama does not excite me either, having watched his callous second hand slaughter of the innocent in Central America during the 80's.

You want more of this? You got to remember who runs the ethos of Government in this country. The white male South. And even the updated, smoothed out version ain't much to write home about. Certainly doesn't come close to my understanding of, say, Thich Nhat Han's politics of compassion. But then, nothing in Washington does. So why pick on Clinton?

He got caught. Isn't that enough?
Suzanne Replies:

It is enough. Whatever is happening is acceptable.

Why pick on Clinton? It's not about what finally happens to him; it's that everyone is in high activation. People are becoming societal participants. A big wake-up is underway.

I can't see why I should have a so-what attitude about Clinton. He's the subject now -- like a kid's game, it's his turn to be it. His play is something I want to change. Other people don't pay attention and go inside. It is all God. We worship in different ways.

I so agree with your across the boards disgust. Don't you think the whole playing field can be helped to be uplifted? Have you given up?

It's somewhat unknown territory now, this global town meeting underway. Seems like I was born to speak up. Trying to figure out how. Always think it's a matter of putting a few brave souls together. We meet in the miracle.

Just one more Clinton view. Not a word in his budget speech today, in which he portrayed the possibility of a rosy 2,000, in keeping with the American Dream, did he mention Y2K. It's more than sex, and his duplicity scares me.

I much appreciate your point of view. More is always invited.

FROM: David Langer, 1/28/99

I like it. Especially the did what he did, rather than did what you've said. In a sense, isn't that what this is boiling down to, anyway? He admits to doing what he did. He doesn't admit to doing what they say he did. And it's really up to the Senate to determine what to do? To determine if whatever this is rises to the level of removal. Sooooo interesting. Especially on the day of the State of the Union address. Isn't it truly theater of the absurd?
Suzanne Replies:

"When all else fails," his defense says, "it's not impeachable anyway." I'd like to see them start from the second clause, and get off defending "all else" altogether.

Return to The Conversation main page
for a list of concurrent conversation topics.

Home | Mighty Companions | TheConversation.org | Suzanne Taylor
WebRadio Show | Human Being Society | Lex Hixon | Crop Circles
Contact Us | Site Map