It serves as a great commentary on majorities and mob-behavior, but isn’t so dense as to lose its audience in the process of coming to its conclusions. While at first glance it appears to lean towards espousing the rights of the working-man and the downtrodden, Ibsen soon arrives at the larger, more pertinent point, regarding the nature of “truth” in society. Without question, there is a dystopian vein, a-la “Brave New World”—granted, one is a play and the other a novel. 

Anyways, my point is that this is a work that is very much accesible, with timeless meanings; I’d recommend it hands down to anyone looking for a good bit of intellectual stimulation.

And yet, in my opinion, appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, based on (what appears to be) the current criterion, is a bit of a wash.

Yes, it’s true that by having Hillary in the cabinet, Obama can rest a little easier than, say, if she was consistently out there criticizing his every policy move, plotting a run in 2012. It is also true, however, that even if Hillary does take the job, it would be prudent of her to perform her best, ensuring a solid Obama presidency, in order to maintain her own following and build up a considerable amount of political capital amongst Democrats (once again.) That way, four or eight years from now, whenever Obama has faded out of the White House, the opportunity will be hers. So, yes, Obama may be able to box her in for a time, but its not as though he’s going to be keeping her down forever.

Others contend that picking Hillary for what is arguably the most visible cabinet position, means that he can appease the Democratic base in addition to returning the favor for her campaigning during the general election. Such reasoning echoes the sentiments regarding Hillary as Obama’s vice presidential pick, and yet, as we know now, that never quite panned out. What makes people feel that this time may be different? Once again, the buzz phrase lately has been “political capital”, and the need to get things done immediately.

Now, before I move on, let me make myself absolutely clear. I’m sure Obama and his transition team aren’t oblivious to the two concerns stated above.

No, what I’m concerned about, I guess, is the gentle slide from the grand, sweeping notion of real change into the new governing mode. While talk of a “team of rivals” makes things interesting, I fear that Obama is playing the game a little too much, with this decision to appoint Hillary (should it move forward.) 

Because, really, what is the purpose of the Secretary of State? We know it’s not to look and act nice. We also know that the appointment process is merely a blip in one’s overall tenure; we should not as concerned as we are with “healing of the wounds” and appeasement that will come with Hillary’s appointment. Rather, we should look towards Hillary’s stance on actual policy when assessing her merit for the job. Ultimately, members of the global community, whilst initially enamored with Hillary’s personality, expect to get down to business at some point.

To be brief, our government cannot obtain the much-needed progress in this climate of perpetual campaigns, making decisions solely through that lens. In the same way that the Hillary appointment is being sold on a rather superficial basis, we must remember that Barack Obama’s very presidency could very well risk falling into the same trap. Yes, much of the world is enamored with his election. Soon, however, the world will quickly move on. This, I think, is where the real chance is for Obama to display the “change” that I myself heartily supported in the campaign.

It’s a cynical point of view, perhaps. And, I’m well aware that to govern, takes a degree of pragmatism. But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t push the envelope.

A few weeks ago, I was looking for a good news podcast on the iTunes Store. There was no shortage of short, curt headline news spots from the usual suspects like CNN, NBC, and FOXNews. But I wanted to find something at least a half-hour long, with both news and discussion.

Enter Democracy Now!.

Though a bit under the radar, the broadcast is superb. Each episode begins with a ten minute summary of the day’s news, with Amy Goodman along with another forty or so minutes of discussion about some of those stories anchored by Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. The two make a conscious effort to bring a global perspective to the issues, discussing not just the most newsworthy headlines, but in fact those that have an impact on the world stage. Criticism and punditry is minimal – a godsend in an age where, increasingly, the anchor seems more important in the show than the stories themselves! It’s not too different from NPR, I must say, which I’m also a fan of (particularly Talk of the Nation).

Anyways, on ending this little blurb, let me say that if you’re looking for a good, informative podcast, look no further than Democracy Now!. It’s an hour well-spent.

Various radio stations and satellite broadcasters carry the Mon-Fri broadcast; you can find listings here. Alternatively, you can download the podcast (iTunes or Democracy Now!). More options (video, streaming, etc) at Democracy Now!

A while back – about five years ago, to be exact – in a little ole’ English class of mine, I had a teacher that made us, as a class, read this book entitled “Stargirl” .

Certainly, at the time, it was hard to see how the book’s timeless meanings were at all related to the life of a 6th grader. Youngsters at the outset of our junior highschool adventures, we still had a lot to learn – not to mention questions to answer, and an essay to write.

Nevertheless, it was one of those books you never forget. Yes, I’ve been through my own fair share of books over the years, but Stargirl has always stuck out for the many meanings it encapsulates.

So here’s my little plug for Jerry Spinelli’s Stargirl – pick it up sometime, if you haven’t already. You won’t be dissapointed =).