In all things, balance is admirable, even desirable.

That’s a hard thing to accept, because so often we’re so wed to our own causes, our own positions, and our own prospective, to realize that the middle ground is probably the best place. If two people are arguing, then, the best resolution is the solution that falls squarely between them.

This isn’t to say that when arguing people shouldn’t stick to their guns. Peoples perspective and positions, causes and desires make them individuals, and allow the discourse to function at the peak of its (admittedly) limited ability. But, there’s no avoiding the discourse.

But people shouldn’t give up their sides of the argument, or dive to the center (a political point in reference to the “two” party system), that creates a completely and largely irrelevant kind of discourse.

Hey, arguing isn’t necessarily bad; having differences of opinion is healthy. And the last time I checked, that was still legal in this country. Although lately, I’ve been wondering.

-- (That’ll make sense to people who see As American As Apple Pie.)

Having beaten that to death several times, allow me to offer the actually interesting part of this post.

I’ve been hearing about the 9/11 commissions, for months. She’ll testify. She won’t testify. She’ll just ‘talk’ to them. They testified together. He testified and then He testified and they both said the same thing.

Which of course lead me to ask: I wonder what this means? I wonder how this will affect the election? Does it even matter? What are we learning from this discourse? And on, and on, and on. While I’m not fond of participating in the discourse of American Politics, or even fond of commenting on it, I do take some pleasure in listening to NPR regularly, and just listening to what’s said, and how it’s said. I have no desire of being a pundit, but within the confines of my car, it’s a fun mental exercise.

For the past two days I’ve been hearing ‘live’ testimony to the 9/11 commission. It’s really dry stuff. Even for NPR. And I could have been analyzing what was being said, how they were saying it, their ulterior motives, and all of that. And I might have been able to confirm something I already knew, or even gotten something new.

But I didn’t do that. I just listened to what they said. And there was a kind of beauty to it. Not in the normal, Monet flowers, or Michelangelo’s David sort of way, but in a tragic thunder and windstorm blowing over the barn sort of beauty.

And then I realized that I was just kind of tired, and that I was really listening to a guy describing the complexities and differences between Staircase A, in the North Tower, and Staircase B in the South Tower for a good ten minuets.

So I realized that if I could find a kind of touching beauty in the description of a staircase, that perhaps, I could find beauty in other things too. If the last two years have taught me anything, it’s that my artistic goal, if I have one, is to communicate that simple beauty.

Must enjoy fruitful arguments, and life’s simpler pleasures.

--From Apple Pie

Having realized this directive, I have to say that it’s hard to find those essential moments that have beauty, because I know that they’re everywhere, but if you go overboard and take pleasure in the rhythm and organization of a touch-typist’s skill, or knitter’s craft. I mean it’s there, but its easy to go overboard and get too touchy feely.

On the other hand…

To be Continued…