The Unholy Conservative Obsession with Productivity

Hate is Only One Emotion

Published on December 19, 2004 By TaBoo Tenente In Politics

Freedom and productivity. Let's agree that both are important concepts. Yes? I'm glad.

Before we go on, though, hand-in-hand, skipping harmoniously through a field of daffodils, let's define these important concepts:

Freedom: The state of being at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint; or the power to determine action without restraint.

Productivity: The state of having power to generate, create, produce.

Are we still braiding daisy chains for each other? Maybe, maybe not. When either becomes an individual obsession, it affects the freedom and productivity of other people. The flock should say "That's baaaaad," but the conservative obsession says, "Fine. Go to hell."

We might as well discuss the issue of illegal immigration to our fine, free, productive nation:

Hell-bound Liberal: Hey, you understand that freedom allowed YOU to immigrate here in the first place, not to mention provided the motivation for you to immigrate here, right?

Frothing, Obsessed Conservative: Hey, why not bring up ancient Greece, or biblical Babylon while you're at it? Let's confine ourselves to the last 5 billion years, okay?

HBL: Er, 1960's too antique? 70's? 80's? It doesn't matter, really, FOC. This nation is made of immigrants,both legal and other, both arriving before we declared independance as well as after the sexy disco decade died. Just because you got in line before someone else did doesn't make you unique.

FOC: So you don't see a difference between legally immigrating and illegally slithering across the border?

HBL: I see two major differences. First: illegal immigration is a synonym in the conservative lexicon for Mexican immigration and legal immigration is a synonym for as rich as- or in business with- or sleeping with- and at the same time praying to the same God as- you; second. . .no, actually, I just see just one major difference. That's the one.

FOC: Another flaming conspiracy theorist, huh? Just because the rules aren't perfect, you want to see some ig'nant slave-driver hidden in some master room, playing with a switchboard, changing rules for different folks.

HBL: Well, then, you tell me the difference between your type of immigration and the illegal type of immigration.

FOC: Are you a moron? The "illegal" type does not have to play by the rules, does not pay proper taxes while absorbing jobs, and requires disproportionate amounts of federal funding.

HBL: So their inalienable right to pursue freedom and productivity limits your inalienable right to pursue freedom and productivity?

FOC: Add "illegal" between "their and "freedom" somewhere, and "legal" between "your" and "freedom" somewhere in the statement above, and you're on to something. And get this! These illegal immigrants want us to speak their language instead of the other way; they want us to sacrifice our beliefs for the sake of theirs! What a trip!

HBL: Just to recap: their "illegal" pursuit of freedom is different from your own "legal" strategy. The "illegal" pursuit limits our freedom, costs us money, is unproductive, and is a drain on our economy.

Okay. You scrooge. You tight-fisted, short-sighted, hypocritical, nepotistic conservative obsessed mother of Joseph's aunt and uncle, and the dog, too, whatever his name was before Jose accidently ran him over with your John Deere while tending your personal putting green.

I was watching a Chris Rock routine last night, and he was discussing affirmative action. To paraphrase: "Don't get me wrong. I don't want to get into Harvard at the expense of some white boy with a better test score than I have. But if we tie. . .fine by me! I mean, Christ! He's had 400 more years to study for his frickin' SAT's than I had!"

I can't imagine that it makes productive sense to spend so much money keeping desperate people out of our country, instead of a short-term system of financial assistance. Think about yourselves: suppose you have a family. Suppose you don't have any money. Are you going to sit around, waiting for either your corrupt government to get its economy together, or the next government to the north to ease up on the reactionary hatred toward people it doesn't know?

Right. You'd pack a light bag, maybe a few sips of water and some beef jerky, a flashlight or something, and try to feed your damn family. Perhaps you'll manage to sneak your children past the frothing border vigilantes. Perhaps you'll try to sneak a little federal money to buy some frickin' rice. Perhaps you'll try to enroll your kids (you asshole) in school. You'll get a job. You'll work your frickin' ass to the tailbone. You'll love this country more than any other human being on this planet, and, given enough time, you'll be more devoted, more productive, more obsessed with freedom than anyone else, ever.

By the way, when I use the word "you" I mean the word "you". Yep.

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments (Page 1)

RazorFeather

on Dec 19, 2004

The problem with your observation is that it isn't pure. You've slanted the position to make the conservative look like a demon, while at the same time making the liberal point of view look angelic.

If anyone wants to come to America to get a job, then good for them. However, there are legal ways to become a citizen. Hell, there are legal ways to get to America as an immigrant worker.

Illegal immigration also comes from China, and plenty of other Asian countries. The come over in the containment boxes used to ship things from Asia to Cal. Any immigration not done through the proper means is illegal.

So their inalienable right to pursue freedom and productivity limits your inalienable right to pursue freedom and productivity?

Actually, instead of adding illegal and legal in there, you can just cancel that whole thing out. Especially that whole inalienable right to pursue freedom and productivity part. Citizens of the US have the rights that our people have fought for. So if Joe Mexicano walks across the border on a Saturday evening, he doesn't have an " inalienable right to pursue freedom and productivity".

I could extend this topic further, but I do not have the time.

On angel's wings,

RFeathers

Dr Guy

on Dec 19, 2004

By the way, when I use the word "you" I mean the word "you". Yep.

I wish you did not have to say that, but I understand why.

And you must have had a great time writing this! I got a bunch of laughs out of it. For a Liberal, you did do a pretty good job! Ilike that! Keep it up! We can use the humor!

O, BTW. While I am conservative, my wife is Hispanic, and her mother came from Guadelajara. Not legally either. So I am not the FOC. I see both sides.

But thanks again for a great dialogue in the first person!

dharmagrl

on Dec 19, 2004

Being a British national who immigrated to the US legally, it annoys me a bit that people who don't follow proper procedures are being offered the same privileges that I paid close to a thousand dollars for.

Having said that....I really do understand people's reasons for coming here, and their using any means necessary to get here.

TaBoo Tenente

on Dec 19, 2004

i am a liberal. and not every conservative is a foc. part of my point here (and you can read the rest of my articles to see where i am coming from) is a simple response to several foc posts made on this site. the left stole christmas. . .liberals want to sleep with illegal immigrants. . .liberals wipe their bums on the constitution. . .so on, so forth. it is absurd to label "all liberals" then reject being grouped with foc. but so it goes. liberals have enough problems with their ideology as it is without using it to oppose the anti-alien position. the anti-alien position is the problem i'm discussing now, and if you want to revisit my problems with certain liberal positions, check out my takes and get back to me (rubes of hickville. . .step to the left, to the right are two articles i wrote about such issues). for now, let's talk aliens.

as far as the response to inalienable rights, not fighting for them or something, blah: blimesophistry. while you may be right from your obsessively legal standpoint, on the sad, practical level we exist at these days, nevertheless, fighting or not fighting certainly has nothing to do, ideologically, with the concept of inalienable rights. inalienable rights. inalienable rights. inalienable rights. say it again: inalienable rights.

okay?

generally I don't take an absolutist stance like this one, and it was not my intent to offend. i was venting. i am venting. and i have more venting to do. the general direction of my venting blows toward those obsessed with article titles like "Liberals only like to scratch itches on Mexican butts" or "Because of liberals, my 6year old virginal daughter is addicted to crystal meth" or "Just yesterday I saw a liberal shoot santa claus in the nuts with an air rifle". come on now, people: let's take a little responsibility for our words, here. sure, it's glittery, flashy thing to say "If you don't order your bigmac in english, you might as well roast in hells stinkiest sweathole" but are you really making a lot of logical sense? maybe it makes things easier for you to blame the world's problems on liberals or conservatives, but you ain't getting any closer to the truth, baby. if you've written one of the articles I quoted here, but are in a huff about this one then maybe you should step up, step back, take a breath, do the hokey-pokey and turn yourself around.

we're just people, huh? here in good ole u s of a we're all immigrants. we all ran away from something, and came here looking for something (duh, but i did it first, tha's ancient, you know, er, history=BLAH. that's what that is. blimesophistry and you know it).

legal shmegal, okay? you got in on a loophole, too. what was that you said? you said i haven't killed enough people to earn my inalienable rights?

say it again: inalienable rights. inalienable rights. inalienable rights. say it with me: inalienable rights.

uh-oh. some pinko flamer of a liberal banned the constitution of the united states? let's get it back, you and I together, then we'll get some marshmallow, flame a nice campfire, toast those mallows nice and golden toasty, and we'll read the declaration of independence and the constitution together:

inalienable rights. inalienable rights. inalienable rights.

TaBoo Tenente

on Dec 19, 2004

dharma,

thanks for your note. i agree. i don't blame you for remembering your own $1000. immigrating can be a lengthy process; my thought is that it is a lengthier process for "undesirables", or people in dire straits. most illegal immigrants (not all, okay?) are in dire straits. you would do as they do if you faced similar situations.

and in this case, when i say "you" i mean "we".

TBT

Dr Guy

on Dec 19, 2004

it is absurd to label "all liberals" then reject being grouped

You are very right, and the rest of your post is very accurate. However:

inalienable rights. inalienable rights. inalienable rights.

That only Applies to US Citizens. Are you implying that it transends the US? If so, then you are admitting that there is a higher power, i.e God.

I am not going to argue your issues until I know what you mean. But I support you in whatever venue you chose. I love a good debate.

cactoblasta

on Dec 19, 2004

If so, then you are admitting that there is a higher power, i.e God.

Not really. Those rights are in the UN treaty on human rights, to which the US is a signatory. So theoretically the US has a responsibility to recognise those rights as universally inalienable.

Dr Guy

on Dec 19, 2004

Not really. Those rights are in the UN treaty on human rights, to which the US is a signatory. So theoretically the US has a responsibility to recognise those rights as universally inalienable.

No they are not. But similar words are. So again, do you ascribe to a higher athority? Or to just the supremecy of man? And I know that was not towards you Cacto, but you are a worthy one to answer.

cactoblasta

on Dec 19, 2004

I'd like to think that humanity as a whole chooses to embrace universal human rights, and particularly the rights to freedom and to productivity (although I can't imagine many would prefer the right to productivity over the right to be lazy and lie around all day eating peeled grapes and drinking 100-year-old wines), but my cynicism suggests this is more a "should be" than an "is". You're completely right Dr Guy, there are no inalienable rights because if anything the evidences suggests that rights are alienated and shattered everywhere by people. A right is only inalienable until someone takes the simple step of denying it, and that's an easy thing to do. They're also not protected by any angelic or demonic deity.

But do I think we as people should grant such rights to people outside our group? I lean towards yes, but as always it depends on the situation. At any moment in time there are around 20 million displaced people on this planet. A country like my own could never offer them rights on my soil without being utterly destroyed in the process. Could the US? Perhaps. Can the US handle the population boost from the illegal immigrants on its soil at this current time? I think yes, so the question is really why shouldn't you let them stay? The costs of keeping them are fairly minimal, as they contribute a small amount to the local economies and have a medium cost in the short-term (ie 2 generations or less). If US culture is so fragile that a few Spanish speakers will overthrow it then it's far more fragile than recent history would suggest.

I don't know if this was the sort of clarification you wanted, but that's my opinion at least.

Draginol

on Dec 20, 2004

It is through increased productivy that we have the free time to sit around websites complaining about it.

drmiler

on Dec 20, 2004

Reply #9 By: cactoblasta - 12/19/2004 11:41:30 PM
I'd like to think that humanity as a whole chooses to embrace universal human rights, and particularly the rights to freedom and to productivity (although I can't imagine many would prefer the right to productivity over the right to be lazy and lie around all day eating peeled grapes and drinking 100-year-old wines), but my cynicism suggests this is more a "should be" than an "is". You're completely right Dr Guy, there are no inalienable rights because if anything the evidences suggests that rights are alienated and shattered everywhere by people. A right is only inalienable until someone takes the simple step of denying it, and that's an easy thing to do. They're also not protected by any angelic or demonic deity.

But do I think we as people should grant such rights to people outside our group? I lean towards yes, but as always it depends on the situation. At any moment in time there are around 20 million displaced people on this planet. A country like my own could never offer them rights on my soil without being utterly destroyed in the process. Could the US? Perhaps. Can the US handle the population boost from the illegal immigrants on its soil at this current time? I think yes, so the question is really why shouldn't you let them stay

Because they are here illegally. That means they broke the law. Without laws all of us become part of a virtual "tower of babel". You break the law, take a hike! That is US law! I believe that if you checked into it your country says the same.

TaBoo Tenente

on Dec 20, 2004

draginol:

of course you are right. my problem isn't productivity, but obsession with it. productivity is not the ultimate Answer; it's just part of the answer.

dr. guy, i can't admit one way or the other about a higher power, because i don't know any answers to that question. i am always searching though. im no atheist, and spirituality is very important to me.

however, i didn't come up with the term "inalienable rights". the declaration of independence, written for the colonies by thomas jefferson states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

jefferson wasn't the originator of this concept, but the declaration of independence was ratified by our founding fathers in its original text (minus a criticism of british culture and an attack on the slave trade--even though jefferson did own slaves). the UN has adopted a similar treatise. inalienable rights are for everyone, not just legal citizens of the united states.

and cacto is right: it's just a concept. it doesn't really mean anything. it's just an ideal, part of a system of beliefs that, though somewhat simple, and undeveloped in the declaration form, has represented a unique and even awe-inspiring image. im a young guy, barely 30yrs old; but i like to imagine that there was a point in our short history where many people throughout the world looked to us for hope. it doesn't seem so farfetched that if a pres of the usa one hundred years ago said "we're making the world safe for democracy" then someone might have believed him. now, im not so sure.

there is always a practical side to running a country. but at some point we have to accept that we aren't holding the flag for a sacred ideal anymore. this is still a fantastic place to live; we're just a little more selfish, more provincial than we used to be.

TBT

TaBoo Tenente

on Dec 20, 2004

dr miller:

you make it out like we're so clean, so honest, so law-abiding. i don't know you or your history so there's no point in suggesting that you've been anything less than an upstanding us citizen.

it just seems hypocritical to label an immigrant illegal. the system is pretty tight these days, but most legal us citizens had to storm the castle to get in, as well. your family included, most likely (though not certainly). your profit loss for allowing immigrants to cross the border and eek out survival for their families until they can afford to pay some taxes is not so severe. there is a short term deficit created by federally funding support; i dont know the exact figure, but i think it's something like 30 billion dollars. but these people are working hard to feed their families. that 30 billion seems like a ridiculous number, but it doesn't just vanish into the void. first of all, these are human beings with human children. second of all, these immigrants are your most ardent, fervent patriots, and sometime in the not-so-distant future, they will be productive patriots, too. some of them are slovenly criminals, you say? well, it's true for us white, legal fellas too.

we're all just human. they arent destroying our economy, these immigrants, any more than we did when we immigrated.

TBT

drmiler

on Dec 20, 2004

Reply #13 By: TaBoo Tenente - 12/20/2004 3:07:39 AM
dr miller:

you make it out like we're so clean, so honest, so law-abiding. i don't know you or your history so there's no point in suggesting that you've been anything less than an upstanding us citizen.

it just seems hypocritical to label an immigrant illegal. the system is pretty tight these days, but most legal us citizens had to storm the castle to get in, as well. your family included, most likely (though not certainly). your profit loss for allowing immigrants to cross the border and eek out survival for their families until they can afford to pay some taxes is not so severe. there is a short term deficit created by federally funding support; i dont know the exact figure, but i think it's something like 30 billion dollars. but these people are working hard to feed their families. that 30 billion seems like a ridiculous number, but it doesn't just vanish into the void. first of all, these are human beings with human children. second of all, these immigrants are your most ardent, fervent patriots, and sometime in the not-so-distant future, they will be productive patriots, too. some of them are slovenly criminals, you say? well, it's true for us white, legal fellas too.

we're all just human. they arent destroying our economy, these immigrants, any more than we did when we immigrated.

I never said I was sqeaky clean, but what you saying is that we throw out our laws. I'm sorry but I can not agree with you. There are ways to enter the country *legally* and these people have *chosen* to by-pass that. According to federal law they are supposed to be deported back to the country of origin for those offenses. They want to stay? Fine. Do it the right way. And BTW your missing the point. If we *were* so clean and honest, then we wouldn't need laws now would we?

kingbee

on Dec 20, 2004

That only Applies to US Citizens. Are you implying that it transends the US? If so, then you are admitting that there is a higher power, i.e God.

inalienable in the context of the doi as well as its definition means rights that are inherent or intrinsic, irrevocable and non-transferrable. since 'all men' are endowed with inalienable rights, the fact of american citizenship isnt a consideration. governments are, according to jefferson, instituted and exist to 'secure' (as in formaly proclaim and ensure those rights) and fail when they are 'destructive' of them.

they transcend any government including that of the us (our constitution does not 'give' us rights; it provides a legal framework that enumerates them and guarantees them specifically to us citizens--in that way it's a contract between the government and each citizen)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!