I've come to realize -and perhaps it is naive of me for not seeing this earlier- as to why the AIG bonuses story is as big as it is.

I'm one of those guys that is constantly saying: "Why isn't the media devoting more time to global warming, or poverty, or the chaos in Africa? Why aren't we talking more about the rise of China or the history of American intervention in the Middle East that lead to the birth of Al-Qaeda?"

For the longest time I used to think that the media didn't do this for bogus political reasons or because of corporate sponsorship. Now I'm beginning to realize that they don't do it because they are lazy.

Stories like the AIG bonuses are easy to produce, because -ultimately- there are only two sides to the story. You are either for the bonuses or against them. The idea of these guys making millions of dollars after crashing the economy lights something up in the reptile part of our brain. The part that gets offended easily and wants some kind of primitive retribution and tribal justice. "It's not fair! It's not right!" is usually the rallying cry of the reptile brain.

Even President Obama said the bonuses were a moral and ethical issue.

For the media, stores like this makes for 'engaging television' and easy journalism. You don't have to cover a story. Only the reaction to the story. Honestly, how much time has been spend understanding why we are where we are with AIG versus the outrage of the bonuses? Ask yourself: what angle of the story is actually more important in the long run?

You can see the same thing with the Octo-Mom story. People were either supportive of it or against it. They spent hours talking about the 'ethical and moral' implications of having so many babies.

Considering all of the true moral and ethical quandaries we are in as a civilization, are these the best examples we can come up with? No. But they are the easiest to put on television. Why? Because these kinds of "dilemmas" are easy for people to understand.

And that's the thing. Rick Santelli had a point recently, that the outrage of the bonuses makes no sense because they represent 1% of the money given to AIG. His thesis: Why the outrage over 160 million when we just handed over 160 billion? And he's right.

But arguing about the bigger issues -like if a bailout for AIG was even required in the first place- requires a nuanced argument, with subtle details of law, economics, capitalism and principle. It means that people have to actually UNDERSTAND the issue before they can have an opinion on it.

(Why is it -for example- that no matter how complex an issue is, the media always reduces it to a two sided argument? (Think Israel vs Palestine). Is it because they are corrupt? No. It's because they are lazy. Explaining the Mobeus strip that is the Middle East is too hard. Making it a story about settlers vs terrorists is much easier.)

Why is it that we have spent more time now talking about the AIG bonuses than we did about the idea of, the implementation of, the management of, and the laws of giving AIG a BAILOUT in the first place? Because the latter requires actual thought and discussion. And the easier it is for people to have an opinion on something -and the faster you can present an argument so they can have one- the more will follow the story and be 'engaged' in it.

Looking back, I can see this happening constantly. Remember the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal? Why was that so big? Cause it was easy for people to have an opinion on it.

Gays in the military? Gay marriage? Abortion? Same thing. Reptile brain reactions to all of them.

Global warming? The role of a central banking system in democracy? The role of government in supporting a capitalistic system and what limitations should be placed on IT as well as the markets in general? Good luck seeing CNN give any of those issues any time. Too complicated. Not sexy enough.

The trouble is, of course, that the most important issues we face as a society, a people, and a species, aren't easy to understand. It requires us to educate ourselves in various schools of thought and subject matters. It means that we have to silence our reptile brain and use our higher functions to actually have an INFORMED opinion.

What is going on on Wall Street and on Bay Street and in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and everywhere else is epic. It's a complex, almost Homer-esque tragedy playing out, and there are no Cliff Notes or Coles Notes to skim off of.

For decades, those in power have been distracting us -and we ourselves- with these simple yes or no 'issues'. Obsessing over them, we have failed to educate ourselves on the real issues that matter, and the stories that we must decode and understand.

The AIG bonus story is big for sure. But not for the reasons you believe it to be. Ultimately, our society won't feel it one way or another if those jerks get their bonus money or not.

No, this story is big because we are so stupid as a country and as a people, that this is the only part of the narrative that we truly 'get', and therefore, the only part of the story that we have an actual opinion on.

Next time you have an opinion on something, I mean REALLY have an opinion on something, odds are likely you have an opinion on a subject that is totally irrelevant to your life and your country. Not because your opinion doesn't matter, but because the issue is most likely so simplistic that it is ultimately irrelevant. It may make you feel good to have an opinion, but so what?

I'll never be able to watch the news the same way again.