Thursday, August 7, 2008

Not All Who Wander Are Lost




Somehow I find this oddly comforting (I found it here):

In a world where everyone is expected to be “something” when they grow up, there are those mavericks among us who’d rather not. Our society assumes that we are to always be definitively doing something, to be productive, to be involved— but only in ways that society considers acceptable and meaningful. Even in our leisure time we are often active and busy doing something distinctive, just to be doing something, because there is a subconscious impression that we should.

An implication to achieve permeates our environments, merely for the sake of achieving (which is to say, blindly), instead of because we will or wish it. Social respect and admiration are only attributed to people whose achievement results in status, recognition or approval. And those who at least strive to achieve are granted more value than those who don’t.

However, some errant individuals prefer to just be… left alone, unburdened by the dictates of social obligation. Resisting the societal compulsion to contribute, participate and succeed in order to fit in or appease, these aberrant few with a propensity for disobedience choose not to comply.

Achievement is revealed to them as a false god, and they refuse to be imposed upon by its capricious demands. Since their education exceeds their inclination to achieve (at least in conventional terms), they are commonly referred to as “over-educated under-achievers.”

Lacking ambition, over-educated under-achievers don’t much care about common conceptions of “success”, accomplishment or status. Their Nietzschean prerogative for irreverent prevarication towards responsibility is often perceived as apathy, immaturity and negligence. Yet when they apply themselves, they ideally choose to do so out of enlightened self-interest, not obligation or coercion. Whatever does not directly relate to or involve them frequently gets dismissed and neglected. Adopting a kind of non-interference policy, they typically remain uninvolved and uncommitted.

Through an attitude of discrimination, indifference and detachment, over-educated under-achievers create and cultivate in all things-- as much as possible-- a stress-free zone around themselves. Why work hard when hardly working will suffice? Why expend effort unnecessarily on anything they think is non-essential effort? Why arbitrarily expose themselves to such attrition? It is simply a matter of self-preservation, to be more selective and conserve energy for that which they think is worthwhile to them, for them.

Sometimes, over-educated under-achievers avoid responsibility due to fear of failure and/ or success, but these occurrences are the minority. If they fail, they might incite disappointment from others and themselves, and maybe ridicule. If they succeed, then they set a standard of achievement that others will expect them to sustain or exceed, and perhaps provoke envious contempt or resentment, and encourage people to use them. Most of them are not afraid of risk, they just don’t want to be bothered by unnecessary involvement.

Anyone discovered to be not conforming to the will of society is denounced and devalued as useless, a waste, offering nothing significant to the world.

People who don’t do what they are “supposed” to do are chastised.

Anyone who is acting in a capacity and degree less or other than what they have been proven capable of are said to be not fulfilling their potential.

If you don’t contribute to society in ways that are known or recognized by the majority rule as being valuable and appropriate, you are labeled as a failure, a slacker, a loser.

But such things are not important to over-educated under-achievers. They have no ambitions to be anything in particular… only to become, to do what they will, according to their own aspirations and estimations. If they do happen to satisfy conventional expectations of responsibility, it is volitional, coincidental and accidental… because it suits them and not because this is expected of them.

The reason over-educated under-achievers usually work low status, low pay and low expectation jobs is not necessarily that their experience or college degrees ultimately proved less useful than anticipated in the practical world, nor that there was nothing available to them. Not necessarily that they are afraid, lazy, or incapable. It is primarily because these individuals have no desire to pursue anything in particular, so they may be more flexible in committing their attention and time to many things, or no things.

Employment is just a way to acquire or maintain something else. For them, attaining and exercising power is nothing but a means to an end, never simply an end in itself.

Career and business do not interest over-educated under-achievers. Investing one’s self in any vocation or avocation is fully conditional and negotiable.

Although they aren’t ambitious in a strict sense, they are passionate and creative about uncertain things that attract their wandering attentions and affections. If they went to college they mostly did so for the experience, to study a subject because it interests them, not for fame and fortune, nor to have a job. If they got a job in a subject that interests them… bonus, but glamour wasn’t the main incentive.

Maybe they initially intended or hoped to find a job in a field of interest, but changed their mind because they lost interest or couldn’t find an available job.

Perhaps they did it because they didn’t really know or care what else to do. Ironically, over-educated under-achievers under achieve because they are over educated. Their formal (and informal) education tends to consist of impractical or unconventional subjects, which have limited utility & appreciation within mainstream society. In school and out, their focus and fascination are often in obscure areas like the humanities (i.e.- philosophy, history, literature, film, theater) or sciences (i.e.- archeology, paleontology, sociology). Therefore, they are generally more motivated by, and concerned with, making a life than making a living.

Essentially, whether as an unintentional side effect or deliberately or both, they are predominately incompatible with affectations of the ordinary world.

Like a duck with a broken wing approaching the inevitable edge of a waterfall abyss, the over-educated under-achiever struggles against an omnipresent force that perpetually threatens to disturb its calm, peaceful place.

In the wisdom of fools, they tempt and defy their own destruction within an unsympathetic society, by which they paradoxically achieve their ultimate salvation and victory. And while their narcissistic, nihilistic behavior largely dissociates them from the mainstream world to some degree, exceptions are occasionally made for those regarded as worth their time and effort.

The cheese does not always stand completely alone.

Monday, July 28, 2008

English Spoken Here



The Euro is alive and doing well in America. Let me explain. 

My son, Andy, and I spent a couple of days messing around Moab, UT. I have always considered the scenic wonders of the Colorado Plateau as being uniquely American. In many ways the geographical expanse that encompasses Utah's five national parks is truly amazing. Delicate Arch in Arches National Park is particularly iconic. If you look at a map, you will notice that Moab lies right on the Colorado river nestled between Arches NP and Canyonlands NP.

Naturally, Moab has a bit of a tourist-trap feel to it, but it isn't too bad . . .yet. We arrived in town on Thursday in the early afternoon. After getting a room at a motel, we headed downtown to roam the stores and get a bite to eat. The first thing I noticed was how many people were speaking foreign languages and how few were Americans. 

Now, I've been to points south (in Utah) many times. The dearth of spoken English on this trip was VERY noticeable. All over town small family groups wandered from store to store checking out the offerings of cheap "Indian" jewelry and Moab tee-shirts. In fact, the number of families was very noticeable. In the past, foreigners tended to be in groups of adults. This summer most of the groups were comprised of a father, mother, and two or three kids. Actually, it was kind of cool.

Nothing changed when Andy and I headed out to the national parks. Our first stop was Canyonlands NP. My guesstimate is that only one in five family groups were Americans. I'm not kidding. I heard German (there were lots of Germans), French, Spanish (and I'm guessing it wasn't Mexican Spanish, either), Italian, Portuguese ( I think those folks were from Brazil), Scandivavian speakers, and a few Slavic languages thrown in for good measure. It was amazing.

We spent two nights in the motel. A continental breakfast was offered each morning. On Saturday, the last day we were there, Andy and I were the only English speakers in the moderately large room dedicated to breakfast. At least I couldn't discern anyone else among the thirty-odd guests speaking English.

A very favorable exchange rate with the Euro probably spurred Europeans to finally take the plunge and make that trip to the good old USA. And the high gas prices are probably keeping Americans away. The boonies of Utah are finally smack dab in the middle of  the world economy, and business is bustling.





Saturday, June 7, 2008

Body Bags



I was nine years old. It was October. The routine of the fourth grade had barely entered the comfortable stage for me. School that year was held in Fort Defiance, about six miles away from our home in Window Rock, Arizona. My brother, Steve, and I rode the same school bus back and forth from home. He was in the ninth grade. On the day I have in mind, Steve was already on the bus when I boarded.

"We're at war with the Russians," he said gloomily as I slid into the open seat in front of him.

My stomach lurched in response to a pang of terror.

"It has finally come to this," I thought.

I don't remember when I became fully aware of the very real danger we were all facing that October of 1962. When I say "all" I mean every blood pumping man, woman, and child on the planet. The United States and Soviet Union were eyeball to eyeball with each other, bristling with nuclear tipped war machines that, if unleashed, would spell a certain end to life as we knew it. And the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the situation came to be known, was the second gut-wrenching confrontation with the Soviet Union in less than two years. The other was when the Soviets built the Berlin Wall, dividing that city physically and apparently permanently. [Of course, the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, in large measure due to the influence of a Catholic cleric, Karol Jozef Wojtyla from Poland.]

Over the years I, like many of you, have experienced gut clenching world and national events. Right on the heels of the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, was the assassination of President John Kennedy. That was a dark day. It was a Friday. I was sick and stayed home from school. My mom had just walked over to the post office, which was across the street from our house. Just moments after she stepped out, Walter Cronkite's voice came over the display of CBS's special bulletin screen, announcing that President Kennedy and Governor John Connally had both been shot in Dallas, Texas. Within less than an hour it was clear that the president was dead. In that instant, life as we knew it changed. America was different after that day. I could feel it, even as a ten year old boy.

For me there have been other disconcerting events since those tumultuous days of the early 1960s: the escalation of the Vietnam war; the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy; the discombobulating year of 1968, when it felt like the United states was coming apart at the seams; Watergate; a couple of Arab/Israeli wars; and the loss of two space shuttles.

Nothing in the intervening years, however, even came close to the Cuban Missile Crisis and President Kennedy's assassination for conjuring up fear and anxiety until that bright, sunny day in September, 2001. September 11 was nearly a full 38 years removed from the death of President Kennedy. And now it has been nearly seven years since we were glued to our televisions, watching the events unfold in New York City. I was on my way to work that day, just coming to 2700 West as I drove eastbound along 5400 South in Salt Lake City, when a segment of NPR's Morning Edition was interrupted. That first report was very sketchy. Just like other big events in our instant-news society, the facts quickly began to build. Within a half hour it was clear our world had changed, again with horrible violence.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the enemy was identified. It wasn't some lone gunman or a vast super power; it was an organization made up primarily of Arab Islamic extremists. And that point of view was shared by most of the world. If you'll remember, countries all over the planet offered aid and support when the president made the decision to go after Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, using America's military might in Afganistan. Even former Soviet republics allowed American bases on their soil so that the United States could project offensive operations into Afganistan. To me that was astonishing. The Bush administration reacted quickly, and within weeks of the American invasion, the Afgani Talaban regime fell, and Al Qaeda was on the run.

In my view, the president was spot on in his initial response to the events of 9/11. I remember coming out of one of my classes at the University of Utah (I was taking classes at the time to get my teaching license). As I took a shortcut through the Marriott Library to where I parked the car, President Bush was addressing Congress, telling of his plans to strike back at Al Qaeda. The library had television sets placed out in the foyers and lobbies so students could see his address. I felt a swelling of pride as I saw this man--this president, for whom I did not vote--boldly stating the position and intentions of the United States of America.

Barely one year later, unfortunately, the Bush Administration began beating the drums of war, this time against Sadam Husein's Iraq. In August of 2002 the war rhetoric began. Over the ensuing months the war language intensified. Personally, I felt like I was being marketed to--like I was being sold something. I did not like that feeling. I was wary. I said it then, and I say it now, it was the wrong war, the wrong enemy, and the wrong time. I noted in my journal the opinion that my grand children will be living with the negative aftermath of this war on their respective wedding days. I hope I am wrong. 

During the run-up to the current Iraq war, I had an instructional assistant, John, working with me at school. He had recently retired from active duty in the Air Force and was then in the reserves. Early one day just after the Christmas holidays when I arrived at school, John was already in the room.

"Well, it looks like we're going to war for sure. Being in the reserves, I may not make it to the end of the school year before I'm called up." [He was right.]

"It sure looks like Bush is heading us off to war, but how can you be so sure?" I asked. "He keeps saying he hasn't made any decision yet."

"I have a buddy who is in logistics. They move military supplies around the world whenever there is a military buildup. So far there is a lot of stuff going into Kuwait. That may not be more than a show of American might. It could all be for political effect," John explained, "but my buddy says that recently they moved a huge amount of body bags to forward positions in the Gulf. That's really unusual if we were only flexing our military muscle."

"Why's that?" I asked.

"Because my buddy says that body bags are one of the very last things moved forward when we actually go to war," John replied. "They go forward even after stockpiles of small arms ammunition. According to my buddy, when the body bags go in, the decision for war has been made."

At that very time, the Bush administration insisted that no decision had been made. Of course, my story here is totally anecdotal. But it sure made me stop and think. The President was saying one thing, and the actions of his administration said another. Again, with all the talk of weapons of mass destruction and an Al Qaeda/Iraqi link, my gut told me that we were being sold a bill of goods.

I openly acknowledge that, as I write this, things seem to be going better in Iraq. By contrast, just two years ago the level of violence was unbelievable. But at what cost are things better? I mean, is the world really that much better off without Sadam? And what did he have to do with the threat of terrorism against the United States? To my mind, the answers to both questions are not favorable.

I'm not convinced that Iraqi citizens are better off.
I'm not convinced that a policy of preventative war is in the United States' interest--ever.
I'm not convinced that the debt incurred to fund this war passes even the most basic cost/benefit analysis.
I'm not convinced that the falling dollar and rising oil prices are not tightly linked to America's war debt situation.
I'm not convinced that pushing the definition of torture to its very limits does not severely restrict America's ability to take the moral high ground in the future.
I'm not convinced our fighting forces were given what they needed to maximize their safety.
I'm not convinced that the Bush administration had a clue about what to do after achieving certain military victory.
I'm not convinced the hit to American civil liberties (remember the Patriot Act?) is worth it.
I'm not convinced that our own governance is more stable now than before the war.
I'm not convinced that our military, especially the Army, is in good shape.
I'm not convinced that the returning wounded veterans are receiving a fair deal.
I'm not convinced that our oil supplies are more secure.
I'm not convinced that the strategic position of Israel is better now.
I'm not convinced that the Israeli/Palestinian peace process can be revived.
I'm not convinced that America's financial position in the world has benefitted from the war.
I'm not convinced we are less vulnerable to another, more devastating attack.
I'm not convinced that America's moral position in the world is better off.
I'm not convinced that our ability to take care of our own citizens' needs has been enhanced.

I'm not convinced at all that this war is worth it.

Do I support our troops? 
A resounding YES!

Do I support this president's policies surrounding his decision to go to war and his level of statesmanship and leadership (or lack thereof) in the prosecution of the war? 
A resounding NO!

Abraham Lincoln, in a different time and in a vastly different situation, said something like this about the Civil War:

I feel like I have a tiger by the tail and we're chasing each other around a tree. I dare not let go because, if I do, it will kill me, and I fear I cannot continue to hang on much longer out of sheer exhaustion.

The United States is in a similar position. Now that we are in this mess we have to see it through because letting go and pulling out unilaterally would be highly disastrous. Yet, hanging on like this will, in my opinion, erode America's moral, military and economic strength at home and around the world. We are less secure now than before 9/11. More importantly, the shining light on the hill is many lumens dimmer than it was on September 11, 2001. It's time for a change. It's time for truly principled leadership. That's why I am decidedly in support of Barack Obama for president of the United States of America.


Saturday, May 31, 2008

Guilty Pleasures

Here are some things I like, which are often hard to explain in our PC culture (political and religious).

1. Twangy country music--Dwight Yoakam is a particular favorite.
2. Fruit Loops
3. The taste of beer
4. Beyonce
5. Alf
6. Handguns
7. Real Time with Bill Maher
8. The Sopranos
9. Bill Clinton
10. The prophet, Martin Luther King, Jr.