Idealism+Pragmatism=...Beautiful Music?

This is the second year I've had the privilege to be a member of the wonderful New Trier High School Symphony Orchestra. This orchestra has been well known for years because of its ability to play very advanced pieces of music and with great professionalism. I remember last year we had very long, difficult pieces to prepare in a short amount of time, but it does not compare to what we have on our belt this year.

On November 13, we are performing two very hard, LONG pieces; one of the pieces, "Carmina Burana", is 25 movements. Then, in December, we are playing three new songs that we have not even gotten the chance to practice yet... Things are not looking good so far.
After rehearsing the hour long "Carmina Burana" that we are not close to being done with, our conductor stopped us and gave a speech at the end of class that really made me think of our AS theme, dreams vs. reality.

"The pieces I chose for you to play this year symphony orchestra are extraordinarily difficult to perfect in the small amount of time we are given. We have a few weeks until we begin rehearsing the entire 'Carmina Burana' with the choir which we are not ready for, we still have to finish Tchaikovsky which we are no where close to, and on top of all that, we have the three pieces to play in December that we have not even looked at. When I decided on the pieces we would play this year, I truly believed that you guys could pull it off, but right now I'm not so sure, maybe I was being a bit idealistic. From now on, I'm no longer going to be Mr. nice guy up here on the podium...It's time to be more pragmatic folks."

After this speech, you could tell our conductor was disappointed, the symphony was disappointed, and things were going to get a little more realistic around here. Although this was quite a...saddening speech, i could not help but give off a little bit of a smile. I knew what was REALLY going on here, and I realized it applies directly to the discussion in AS class of the balance that pragmatists and idealists create.

Every year in symphony, it does seem nearly impossible to play the pieces we play in the amount of time we are given. Each year, no matter how prepared we are, my conductor gives this same speech every time; and although it looks bleak for symphony orchestra this year, I am 100% confident that it will turn out as it always does- nearly perfect.

Here we see the black and white of a balance between pragmatism and idealism that combine to make the New Trier Symphony Orchestra great. First, we are idealists, deciding to pursue pieces that don't seem possible to play in the amount of time we have to rehearse. Then, we are given "the speech" by our pragmatic conductor that tells us to wake up and smell the coffee, explaining the realistic situation of where we stand in terms of being prepared. Soon, everyone in symphony freaks out, starts practicing the pieces of music like crazy until they can perform them almost perfectly. Then, for the next few weeks of rehearsal, the symphony and our conductor dream of accomplishing our goal by the upcoming concerts, while still maintaining a realistic vision of what we must do in order to succeed. When the concert arrives, we are a fully prepared combination of pragmatism and idealism.

"You say you want a revolution... You better free your mind instead"

(Look closely at the picture. How does Jude (left) and Lucy (right) represent idealism and pragmatism?)


A perilous time is most frequently a time when people make the choice to dream or face reality. In an extreme sense, Idealists are created during these times because they are convinced that the only escape from peril is to act and dream in ways that will bring about extraordinary change. Pragmatists often focus on accepting that radical change will not affect the situation and that people must come to terms with that in order to realistically deal with their problems.

Last night, I watched a great movie called Across the Universe; this film is a love story that takes place during the 1960s, where the U.S. was experiencing a true time of peril. The U.S. was involved with the tragic Vietnam War during this time, as well as the long-lasting battle for civil rights. The war and the riots and protests within the country created a time of peril for American citizens. The two lovers of the story, Jude and Lucy, then experience separation as one dreams of change and the other focuses on the truth of the situation.

Before Lucy and Jude separate, there is a great scene that portrays the creation of an idealist and a pragmatist. Lucy yells at Jude explaining that their country is "...in the middle of a revolution." She tells him that she would "lie down in front of a tank" if that would bring her brother home from the war. Jude replies by saying, "well, it wouldn't." Jude makes the point that no matter what Lucy does, it won't help solve the country's problems. The next scene goes further into Jude's pragmatic style of thinking as he sings the Beatles' song "Revolution." I could talk about the meaning of how that song applies for hours though...

So, the two lovers are then split as Lucy leaves Jude to commit herself to a radical anti-war protest group, and Jude returns back to England. Lucy begins to rethink her choice of radical idealism, however, as she sees the war unaffected by the protests and sees people getting hurt. Lucy later discovers the leader of the anti-war protest group that she looked up to assembling a bomb. She understands that her dreams of ending the war this way are not realistic and are becoming dangerous.
Jude reads about how dangerous the rioting has become in America, and there is a sense that he believes now that some type of change is necessary. He returns back to America and in the last scene, we see the two lovers' idealism and pragmatism combine.

The lovers are then reunited in the last scene, as both abandon their idealistic and pragmatic philosophies. This scene represents how a country united is the most powerful way to deal with times of peril.


"Revolution"
The Beatles

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

Constitutionality 101

“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Urbina said this week, after ordering 17 detainees of Guantanamo Bay Prison to be released.

Guantanamo Bay Prison is located in an area of Cuba that the U.S. controls. Captured foreign nationals from the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 have been imprisoned here. These prisoners did not receive due process, thus, creating an issue that has been debated for the last few years.

The Constitution says that all U.S. prisoners have the privilege of Habeas Corpus, or a fair trial. President Bush, however, said that Guantanamo Bay Prison is in Cuba, so U.S. law does not apply there. It can also be concluded that the President believes these prisoners should not receive due process because the "perilous times" that we face create an entirely different factor and we must bend the rules a bit in order to protect our country.

In AS class, we are discussing under what condition a leader's authority should be extended during perilous times. There are many Americans who believe that Bush acted correctly by extending his power in this situation, and there are many Americans who are outraged. I believe that Judge Urbina said it right, however, when he stated that it is time for the court to "...shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention."

Constitutionality...

The U.S. Constitution was created as the ultimate check and balance system for our country. It is a set of rules that creates limits for our country's actions, so that we may always maintain a democracy. When a leader, like President Bush, extends his power over the Constitution like this, it gives an alternative idea to the prompt, "Under what condition should a leader's authority be extended during perilous times?" Instead of answering under what condition should power be extended, this situation offers an additional idea: The limits of power extension.

The release of the 17 detainees of Guantanamo Bay Prison shows that a leader's authority must only be extended during perilous times until it changes our form of government. By denying the Constitution, we are denying our democracy. Because Bush extended his power over our Constitution, he has crossed the line of power limitation.

"The Past is Never Dead"... or are the Dead Never Past?

This week, we had to read the packet entitled "F.D.R. And the Framing of the New Deal." As I read, it was remarkable how many times I wrote the word "parallel" next to the margin. The political and economical clashes during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the economical crisis we face now are similar in so many ways. The feelings, the causes, the effects, and so much more stood out to me, but there was one line in the packet that made the most realistic parallel to me:

"F.D.R. kept popular attention focused on the need for change, rather than on the tougher and riskier question of what kind of change" (726).

After reading this line, I truly realized the validity of the statement, "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (William Faulkner). Past events aren't just present, but the people of the past are present!! The line about F.D.R. and his focus on change relates so much to the modern day election between Barack Obama and John McCain.

We are in a time of economic crisis just as America was back in the 1930s. The election today between Obama and McCain is one of the most important ones that our country will ever face, just as it was between FDR and Hoover in 1932.

I would primarily like to examine the parallel between Barack Obama and F.D.R. in 1932. I could make an argument about the idea that McCain parallels Hoover, as two Republicans who would bring about no change when dealing with the economic crisis, but that itself is an entirely different and controversial story.

Senator Obama's campaign slogan is well known now as "Change we can believe in." As the quote I took from the packet explained, F.D.R. also led a campaign focused on a "...need for change." As peril takes over America now as it did in 1932, in the midst of the depression, the citizens look to change, new ideas, or anything that can save the country. Obama, just like F.D.R., is an inspirational leader who says that he can make this change if he is elected.

The second part to draw a parallel to between Obama and F.D.R. is the idea of what kind of change they will make. Obama and F.D.R. both propose to make change if elected, but do not say exactly what they are going to do. Here we are now, in the midst of a similar economic depression/recession, and Obama is beginning to take an advantageous lead in the polls as F.D.R. had. The significance of this is that not only does this parallel the two men, but parallels a common theme of human nature.

This common theme shown is that in a time of crisis, people will look for immediate change. The situation we are dealing with now, as well as those that did in the 1930s, is a situation where there is no easy solution. A secure, lengthy solution is not always what we look for. We simply wish to believe that the person we elect to lead our country will bring about some type of change that will save us from these dangerous times. It is obvious then that American citizens would begin to favor Obama/F.D.R. during these perilous times, for they themselves represent change. Obama and F.D.R. did not have precise, laid-out plans at first to deal with the economic crisis; but the fact that they emphasize change, however, gives faith to the people.

This parallel is a very deep one, and it is one that could potentially make voters realize who to vote for in the upcoming election. I would therefore like to end with a quote that is also from the "F.D.R. And the Framing of the New Deal" packet that can really provoke the reader to draw one last parallel to Obama and F.D.R. It is then up to the reader to determine whether or not this parallel is true, and if it is what we NEED during this time in our country's history.

"But F.D.R.'s unfailing optimism and utter unflappability gave millions of Americans new faith that things would improve. The most famous line in his inaugural address--'We have nothing to fear but fear itself'--was catchy nonsense. In 1933, there was plenty for Americans to fear in addition to fear itself. But F.D.R.'s magic made people believe it" (726).