Is it still cool to be a slacker?

I think of 'slacker' in the Burroughsian zen-pop sense of "eliminating all unnecessary steps from a routine." This is an efficient computer-program-logic-approach to every day life. A good slacker wouldn't do anything without a good reason. This in itself would seem to be good reason to be a slacker, though this formulation would indeed be unpopular to many in the personal orbit of the individual slacker.

Where the appelation 'slacker' usually fits in is in the sense of the work-place, where the good slacker would not do anything just to give the appearance of being busy. Indeed, if there were nothing to do, the slacker would do nothing or be content with "the rich inner life". This would in fact give the slacker an appearance to all other concerned that he/she really is a slacker, a lay-about, a do-nothing. These here slackers might tend to sleep late when there is no pressing reason to awake or, to be awake. Yes.

I know it was cool during the 90s to be considered a slacker: a Reagan-era backlash and antidote, I think. Now, post-9/11 its not as clear that this should or would be considered to be "a good thing" (in the post-Martha Stewart incarceration sense). One should presumably either be enlisting to fight in Iraq or be out demonstrating against the current hard right wing US regime. Where is the slacker's place in this dynamic? To be "cool and aloof": detached, I think. Slack on, slack on, slacker!