There's a bright golden haze in the blog.: 2009

Hello all. How are you, I'm good, thanks.

I'd like to bend you ear a little bit about the expenditure of political capitol on the Iran situation by the Obama administration and, as an extension, why the rules of the game HAVE NOT changed dramatically under his watch and why that is.

First, I think its important to keep in mind that there was/is a historical precedent to what is currently happening, not only in Iran (several times) but also in places all over the world. Situations, political and not alike have been dealt with in ruthless ways since the beginning of time and since the beginning of time people have been indifferent to it. The contemporary era is no different.

There is a nuance today that did not exist 100 years ago though, the existence of a hegemony (USA) with the unquestionable power to intervene militarily if it so choose....in a quick manner or at least a people who believe this is true (which says something to the political climate of this country). That is a framework to start with a people who believe that as an endgame they could just invade. As someone great (not American) put it with great power, comes great responsibility. So, you might ask, perhaps we should begin to think about how America has spent this leverage that they have wielded. A regression analysis in this context would reveal,I believe, the reactionary and seemingly arbitrary nature of the American people body politic. When it comes to Geo-political military action, the American people are always ready to weigh in.

Though the shockingly low voter turn out in recent elections by major demographics would give most the impression that indifference runs rampant here, anyone who watches MSNBC would understand quite the opposite is true The difference is the American people need the right spark to get involved. Passion is selective.

Whether its the combustible nature of the situations or the historical role that war has had in our society there is never a shortage of American opinion on military action, it seems. The arbitrary trends that I mentioned previously, that I believe we would find in our analysis would not manifest in when say, deciding the response our government receives in regards to, say, regulation of tire wheel well widths (something that contributes mightily to vehicle safety, the same vehicles that are the leading cause of death for many segments of our population) but rather they would appear in arbitrary way. You might think people would care about the previous regulation because it affects many american deaths, but the relationship between deaths and policy to get Americans to care is correlative not causation. So what is it, if deaths, money or the like do not necessarily ensure that something will enter the national dialogue?

Suggesting, of course, that the media has something to do with it, seems at this point, to almost be a scapegoat. Instead, lets look at the data and see if we can draw some gross conclusions. Here are some global situations America has cared about recently.

Cared:
-Iraq
-Iran
-N. Korea, I guess.

...and with some trivial omission the list ends there. However, the list that went uncared for is staggering long rife with vacuous political situations and human suffering with death counts in the thousands. Ranging from Darfur to pockets of Oceania, why does America care and how do you get them to do it? (This article speaks nothing to does getting America to care mean something positive happens, that is another topic altogether).

*****

In this first installment I'd like to discuss "death fatigue." A straightforward concept that revolves around status qous.

Most Americans accept several things as true, and perhaps everyone does. Yankees are overpaid, there will traffic, etc. Has sub-human conditions on certain pockets of the world fallen into this category? Consider the following.

Currently there are many regimes that teeter on toppled, remaining in power only by threats of violence, several civil wars rage on the continent of Africa and the sub-continent. Additionally, even within the G8 there are shadow casting threats of things to come. China not only engages in some of the most wide scale human rights violations on record but also runs their country with something between an iron fist and a curtain, with Internet sites blocked and state controlled media...they clip on America's heels well-funded and future thinking. Russia's primary leadership remained in place, despite Putin's eligibility sunset, a push that put them squarely within the context of Iran, opposition leaders were jailed or targeted, but this does not cause the FOX news hysteria that so many other crisis do.

So what's the deal?

Death fatigue plays a large part. Americans have accepted certain things as true and no amount of media coverage can make them sexy again. Otherwise, the media could invent stories that sell papers (and believe though they try they fail by enlarge, newspapering is NOT that easy) Take for instance the faded star of celebrity, is it front page news if Burt Reynolds is on a beach somewhere (there is probably a better example out there) in contrast with Brad Pitt or someone comparable?

The Geo-political situation is analogous. Is it front page news when CHINA does something UNDEMOCRATIC? Of course not, this is a status quo, that story is faded. Unfortunately the same is true for the more dire situations involving loss of life and liberty to more extreme degrees.

However, if Burt Reynolds scores a hit movie, then his beach side activities may be more intriguing...or, for instance, if Patrick Swayze starts a very public battle with cancer, suddenly the populous cares.

Iran is no different. Holocaust an illusion manufactured by the west? Old hat. Protests in the streets of a locked down country? That is something new. Thailand tigers being murdered or doing murdering? I'm sorry but as far as our populous is concerned that is Burt on the beach pre- career surging hit...no one cares, but once something happens to spark our red, white and blue imagination we can start to care about other things. In Iran this country has a renewed interest in the Shah, for example.

It is time for the American people to realize they drive what is on the media with their clicks and boredom, and this author will join the chorus of people begging Americans to look at themselves in the mirror and make the dedication to care about a life the same no matter the context. Faded or not.

Either that, or we should realize the same thing media exec's have known for years, sex sells. Maybe if the Obama administration can involve bikini's in Health Care reform we might get through the House.

****

This is the way it was....before Change We Could Believe In. Obama did change some things, essentially riding the same wave that allowed post-everything artists to get away with pushing borders. Obama was/is post politics and can claim anything divisive as politics of the past...and has. However, as much might as that gives him he still has to pay the same piper that every past president has....the American people. Political capitol is the, as I will talk about it, the amount/capacity a president has to "force," or lead the country in unpopular or unclear directions by saying essentially "I've got this," or "Trust me, we need this."

Obama, as wielder of reform and even, perversely, by inheriting such a dire situation has earned and De facto claimed an unprecedented amount of political capitol. (RE: Leveraging reform expenditures on health care reforms and the American people going WTF?) The downside: we are in unprecedented bad times. For a democratic to earn this leverage, someone before them had to screw things up, and we did that in spades.

There are situations that must be remedied to continue to OPERATE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and not all of them are going to be popular as we have seen and there may be more lurking of the next corner (anything can upset a shallow recovery). Thus, Obama can not spend his political capitol on a matter that is of not direct importance to the business of getting this country afloat (he has to get results to stay in office and he, and everyone else, knows this). That is his presidency will be measured.

So, because Iran does not directly threaten America at this juncture (i.e. they do not foreclose homes) it is unlikely you will see actions past a public admonishment. Sad, and this author wishes for an opportunity to see this president govern in a time where desperation is not the Modus Operandi, but alas, that day is not today. GIven the right time, he could move on this situation in a heart beat, something that would be fun for even the slightest advocate of human rights.

In the meantime, I guess we'll keep hoping for nurses in bikinis.