The Era of Underachievers - What do Napoleon Dynamite and Michael Moore have in common?

Recently, while at an organizational seminar for the Coalition for Christian Outreach, some compatriots and I went to see the uber-hilarious movie Napoleon Dynamite. The story about a town stuck in the past, and 2 brothers who lead pretty pathetic lives and don't achieve much. The main character, Napoleon Dynamite, does, for the most part nothing. Yet, what he says and what he does make me laugh, and many friends and students that I know find it hilarious. I think this appeals to our culture, and particularly the younger generations for a couple of reasons to be explained later.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, I saw Michael Moore speak on Wednesday night, and I saw students go religiously crazy over ridiculous statements and broad generalizations, that are anything but honoring to an academic community that should know how to think critically about things. Michael Moore has made a ton of money asking questions, and is in many ways forming a new sort of american dream. This started with people like Tom Green and the guys from Jackass, but Moore has risen to a new standard. He has made "documentaries" that ask many questions, but insult and berate people while he does it. He has made an art out of controversy, and uses is for a cause (which is what separates him from Tom Green and Jackass). He is not a self promoter by any means. If anything, he makes desultory comments about his body and dress. He swears by his blue-collarness, and never mentions his college education. This all leads me to think that he is playing down any sort of sophistication he may have, which leads to my next point.

The age of underachieving. As I see college students come and go from the college experience, I see more and more the desire to do as little as possible, but still be rich and popular. I think this is the draw to Napoleon Dynamite, and what Michael Moore reinforces in his "success". This also combines with a man Sabrina (my wife) heard speak recently at a conference. He spoke of the "echo-boomers" who were raised in an overprotected home and never had to do anything, but reaped the results of their parents hard work. A characteristic is that they go to class, and expect to get a good grade because they attend and do the work. NOT if they do the work well. They have been rewarded through their life for being where they are supposed to be, not for doing much at all.

This is Napoleon. He is a pathetic kid, that does nothing except learn to dance and talk slow, but we love him. Why? Because he ultimately achieves stardom through doing a dance that has no bearing on life, other than getting Pedro his friend elected. There is no real purpose for his dancing. There is no purpose to anything he does. Yet he has achieved success.

I see our culture moving to a place where the people that we look to are the people that achieve the least but get the most recognition. It is a scary thought. We will feel the best about ourselves when we do the least.

I am also currently reading a book by Maureen Stout that discusses the self-esteem movement in the school system, and it fits this description perfectly, and that will be what I discuss next.

Till next time,
DEW

A dose of reality, the best courtesy to give someone

Just a thought as I was preparing to go to work this morning. One of the best courtesies you can offer in your own home is to have a plunger available in the bathroom. It saves everyone a little embarrassment. It saves the user of the bathroom the embarrassment of having to admit to the homeowner that the toilet is clogged, and it prevents the owner from having to deal with someone else's excrement.

I have said my peace,

DEW

Michael Moore, oration, and anti-intellectuality in the University

Last night, I had the opportunity to hear Michael Moore speak to the university community at IUP. I have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11, nor have I seen its counter, Fahrenhype 9/11. I try to understand what is said, and see through possibly errant logic. The majority of people at the event on the other hand, seemed to agree wholeheartedly with the words of Moore on his "Slacker Uprising Tour".

Bush bashing flowed like water out of a fire hose, and every time, most people stood up and clapped loudly, seemingly expressing their pleasure. My mind traveled to religious revivals where after every statement, hallelujahs and amens are on the lips of followers. I then wondered if it was at all similar to Nazi rallies where anyone in opposition was quickly mocked and cursed. The sad part as I continued to imagine similar situations, is that I imagine that the Republican and Democratic National Conventions were probably no different. Dissent quickly shared from the speaker, who then harnesses the congregations attention and applause with sarcasm and bitterness toward the opposing party.

The feeling that scared me last night was the ethos of anger that rested like a mist over almost all in the building. People were yelling at each other because of disagreements and perceived lies or misappropriations. The chant of "WHY?! WHY?! WHY?!" chimed out as Moore thrust his fist in the air in defiance to Bush's decisions.

Some of Moore's questions are very legitimate. Why do we care more about countries with oil than we do about those without? Why do we quickly look over Iran to Iraq? Why did we leave Afghanistan so quickly? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? All these questions deserve to be answered.

Now, for a bit of reason. One common response to the conservatives shouting from the corners in support of Bush was: "If you support the war, here is a draft form. Go fight it!" To say that if one supports George W. Bush, one supports all of his policies is ludicrous. If this were the case, moderates (who make up most of America) could vote for no one. I did not support the war, but I do not support abortion either. I am left with no candidate. I support Bush in his pro-life position, but support Kerry in his position against the war. A vote for Bush would not mean that I suddenly have changed my mind and am pro-war, pro-outsourcing, and pro-free market enterprise. Nor does a vote for Kerry mean that I am suddenly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-big government in all areas of life. What Moore's statement does is further polarize an issue and makes any response seem feeble. The sad part is, the argument is flawed.

Another statement frequently made: "Hold Bush accountable to his actions: VOTE HIM OUT!" (capitals added for the emotional emphasis in Moore's voice). This seems fine and dandy, but it is the only option he gives. What if instead, states rallied together and gave the Senate a majority of Democrats, which would make Bush moderate his stances on any issue he actually wanted to pass? This is not an option to Moore, but may be to moderate America. Unfortunately moderate America has a hard time finding a voice in our culture due to our love of controversy.

Possibly my last and most appalling reflection on the evening was the following: A local bar was having a boycott of Moore by giving free drafts for unused tickets, and was the starting point for a march to the Fieldhouse where Moore was speaking for protest. During his speech, Moore, prodded by students, called the bar and asked if the Moore protest was still going. After finding it was done, he said, "That's too bad, because I really hate that Motherf*&$#% !" This caused the crowd to go wild once again with more ardor than ever.

I have seen this type of reaction before, and it was to Ben Folds, one of my favorite musicians, playing at Penn State a few years ago. Ben Folds being brilliantly satirical, dropped the F-bomb once, and got the loudest applause of the evening. He then continued to egg on the audience by saying it over and over, which warranted more and more applause. I think he was doing this to show the audience how dumb they really are. "LETS GET EXCITED ABOUT THE F-BOMB!" Idiocy.

Overall this is a sad commentary on the university. Granted, these students do not represent students everywhere, but the point is, why do people get so excited when someone curses in a speech, as if it is something they have never heard. It make a crowd easy to manipulate, and they seem to really care about the fact that a speaker is willing to "rebel" and curse. If you are going applaud something, applaud well thought out argument, peaceful speech, and bridge builders. Students want to hold onto something, yet they don't realize what they show themselves to be. The university needs to find itself as a place that fosters understanding and critical, peaceful discussion, where we try to dig out truth under the piles of dirt that have been cast on us by fully subjective information claiming to be objective.

-DEW

If I see and hear, do I know? - Reflections from the AIDS Quilt

Last night, after weeping in my wife's arms as I thought about the death of my father, I went to sleep, slumbering away the tears, knowing the pain would be softer overnight. As I was praying with students in the HUB at IUP, I watched people move into a room that held sections of the Aids Quilt. After finishing the corporate prayer, I chose to move through the room with the quilts. Names were being spoken softly as people trod silently through the exhibit. Boxes of tissues on the ground were ready to catch falling tears, and I found myself revisiting my pain, although it was for others, not for myself this time.

Feeling what I did made me wonder if what I was feeling was real. Do I know the pain these people go through? Does seeing the pictures, the words, the articles from life give me insight into the losses? Does hearing the names being read and the sobs from the corners help me understand what is happening?

The AIDS Quilt is a powerfully personal demonstration of the loss of humanity through a horrible disease that is devastating the world. I urge any readers of this to visit the aids quilt, see the faces, read the words of longing that are written, and reflect on what you feel. Many people have died and are dying of AIDS, and they are humans like you and I, and the AIDS Quilt bring you closer to caring and understanding the sadness of life that exists with a terminal disease, especially if you ever meet someone who is HIV or AIDS positive.

Grace and peace to everyone,
DEW

faith, politics, and why I am still undecided

A week or two ago, NPR's Morning Edition called up the pastor of Graystone Presbyterian Church, and asked if he would be willing to put together a panel of people to talk about faith and politics in America. I was privileged to be a part of the panel, and was happy to share my thoughts about the current election, as well as how I understand politics in the light of Christianity. While I may not have been quoted much, the experience was priceless.

If I brought you into my process of discernment for how I will vote, it would be pages, so I will move to my latest thinking... Abortion is a key issue, not only of life and death, but of social justice. As Christ calls people to care for the widow and the orphan, he is calling us to care for the weaker and disadvantaged people in society. If there is anyone weaker in society or anyone less protected by law, it is the unborn baby. Clearly, I think that abortion is wrong, so what next, a Bush vote instantly? It is not that easy.

Over the past eight years, abortion rates have been declining. In the past 8 years, we have had both William J. Clinton and George W. Bush in the White house, and they hold different views on the legislation of abortion. Clinton did not pass any legislation limiting abortions even thought he said it should be "safe, legal, and rare." By not passing limitations on partial birth abortions, I find inconsistency, but statistics show that while he was president, the number of legal abortions in America decreased, which any person with a conscience should say is a good thing. If Clinton passed no legislation limiting abortions, why did the rate decrease?

Many times we treat abortion as only a moral issue. Is it in fact also economic. Of course it is with the effects. Anyone should be able to see that if abortion is outlawed, we will have more teen pregnancy, resulting in more possibilities for adoption, which will cost us more tax money. I have no problem paying more taxes to keep children alive. On the other side of economics, my question is this: Does a economic system that is beneficial to the poor and not increasing the income gap create a society that is more likely to bear children rather than aborting them? This unpacked- If people have less money and a pregnancy happens, I logically think that the pregnancy would cause more financial stress, and increase the likelihood of abortion being a viable option. On the other hand, if the economic status of America is one that is lifting people out of poverty, getting more resources into the hands of the poor, people may feel they have the potential to afford having a child, and abortion becomes less of an option. So what?

So, if we pass legislation outlawing abortion, we need to provide people with the means of supporting a child. If abortion is kept legal (which it may be regardless of who is appointed as chief justices), we still need an economic system that does not simply "trickle down" to the poor, but one that provides a river of jobs that pay sustainable income, an understanding of financial responsibility, and accountability to decisions.

Now, I admit that in all of this, I have done no research, and much of what I posit here depends on the demographics of abortions. What is the average age of women who have abortions? Is the primary factor financial? Is it convenience (which is the most selfish of any reason)? Are the majority performed in inner cities, suburbs, rural areas, et al?

Any way, these are my thoughts on the issue which continue to keep me undecided in this presidential election.
-DEW