I wish I had a penny each time I've heard the phrase, "Can't we all just get along?"

The short answer is: No, we can't. At least, not until you agree with me.

I said that to a Sultan store owner recently and his jaw dropped. Then I said to him: "Hey, just think what 'Can't we all just get along?' actually means. Anyone echoing that thought is essentially denying me the right to my own opinion and rejecting human nature"

During the August 7^th council meeting, Councilman Dusty Boucher made the following statement:

"To those of you who tonight, I think, represent yourself in such a way that you don't see 'sides' but rather you see right and wrong…I commend you. To those who stick with the perceptions of sides, you get nothing from me but, uh, uh -- I'm just going to ignore you. I don't think you represent Sultan."

To Councilman Boucher I say: How can you "ignore" those you are sworn to represent?
To Teacher Boucher I say: How can you teach your students to think independently without promoting different perspectives?
To Dusty, Ed Boucher's son, I say: Well done! You're doin' your daddy proud.

At the very least, defining "right" or "wrong" requires that people take sides. Taking sides, having a perspective different from others with the freedom to define what is right or wrong, what a truth or a lie is, or even if there is no truth at all but only perspective, is also how we define ourselves as human beings. Advocating any other behavior is to endorse a sort of aberrant "Stepford Wife" life. Like it or not, Man is contentious by nature. (Hey, don't complain to me. Take it to the Man Upstairs, perhaps using Margaret Skogland as your go-between.)

The key to "getting along" is not only allowing alternate and perhaps-alien points of view, but encouraging new ideas and discovering ways to obtain and incorporate the ideas of many to craft better solutions for all, and while never an easy or entirely satisfactory process, is necessary. That is what has been missing in Sultan's government. To do otherwise is to invite critical egg-throwing. But to willfully ignore a large constituency by beating them into silence guarantees the destruction of your goal. No matter how much power you think you have. One of my ex-husbands used to say, "There is no such thing as a small enemy." He's right. If you ignore the termites of opposition, they will eventually bring your house down upon you.

Here's a question for you: Who is advocating that we all "just get along"? Hm-m-m, that one's a head-scratcher, ain't it? Let me see if I can sort it out. Are they the folks who are desperately trying to have their voices heard to redress past deceitful activities of a small but powerful group in town? Or are they the folks whose motivations have been exposed by the recent and widespread public airing of their wrong-doing?

Another question: What do folks on the -- sorry, Dusty -- "other side" of the government accountability issue have to gain by asking that we all just "get along"?

Answer: They gain an advantage in the perspective of people who are still uninformed, making them look conciliatory while simultaneously labeling the other "side" as troublemakers.

Accusing the other "side" of wrong-doing or being contentious is as old as Man. It's far easier and more effective to repeat that cliched mantra than it is to find a cure for Sultan's ills. It's also the cheapest trick in the politician's little black bag: The best defense is a good offense. But that wheezing wizard's pouch is looking a trifle frayed in Sultan these days. It's tough trying to put the cat back in the bag once it's running hell-bent to freedom.

Nonetheless, I am hopeful at recent "signs" as published in Sultan's Pantheon to Truth and Rowe's Mouthpiece, the Sky Valley Weekly News. It's possible that there may be a thinning of Rowe's crew. It seems as if one or two of them, at least -- if not actually rowing for the other shore -- have at least gotten their toes wet to test the water.

As an example, Bart Dalmasso's recent offer to represent for 90 days any prospective Willow Run homeowner who wishes to sell their home is one such. ("Here's your hat, what's your hurry?") Although I'm afraid Bart's offer was soundly thrashed and trashed in our ittakesgrit.org discussion forum, it nevertheless indicates a slight softening of a previous hard core position. Likewise, his editorial praising the efforts made by volunteers on his "side" while inviting those on "our side" to participate. While the piece was somewhat self-serving, I'm hopeful it's an indication that some folks in town are finally beginning to smell the pungent sea change of reality. How could they not?

Perhaps the most striking example that our "side" is making a bit of headway is Margaret Skogland's wonderfully-refreshing revelation of religion and government, weighing in on Sultan's proposed change in form of government. Anytime someone pulls the bible out to prove a secular point, it signals they've pretty much run out of logical arguments to support their position.

Skogland states that our American government was conceived as "One nation under God," and that God has placed "appointed leaders" for us to follow; i.e., Rowe and our mayoral system. She argues that it's Man's position to blindly accept those leaders because, according to the bible, our leaders do not necessarily "have to be Godly men and women" because God "…is the one who sets the Kingdoms in place. Therefore, he will deal with them." But then she negates her own point by indicating that the battle for Sultan is "a battle between good and evil," without defining which "side" is evil. Is Margaret saying that Rowe has been "chosen" and that his administration has a divine stamp of approval? Does it mean that we should follow Rowe -- or any other future mayor, should there be one -- blindly over a cliff? Does this mean that Man has no Free Will because everything's preordained? And if so, does that mean if I see someone getting beaten to a bloody pulp I shouldn't try to stop it?

Talk about new perspectives: Margaret not only takes the cake, she should own the whole darn bakery.

Skogland's reference to "good and evil" brings us back to Dusty's assertion that there are no "sides" in Sultan, only right and wrong. Dusty, who among us is in the position to judge what is right and what is wrong, do you think? The problem is that each "side" will identify the other as "evil" or "wrong," so who decides? (Perhaps that's why the bible also says: Judge not, lest you be judged.)

Bottom line, I agree with the gist of what Bart and Margaret have said.

Yes, we certainly do need more volunteers. There can never be enough folks out there who care so much about a goal or project that they give time and money freely by thinking about others rather than themselves or personal financial gain.

Yes, it is a fight of "right and "wrong" and to a certain extent, "good and evil."

And, yes, Margaret, we certainly do "need a revival in the Land of Sultan."

Can I have an "Amen"?

Previous G.R.I.T. Editorials