Curtsy Feministing.

I’m hereby banning the use of the word “illegals” to refer to human beings on “Alas,” with exceptions for sarcasm (i.e., someone using the term to mock anti-immigrant attitudes). A database search shows that many posters here have used the term — not all the time, but on occasion. I’m confident it’s a habit we can break.

I’m not banning “illegal immigrant” or even the vile “illegal alien,” although I hope most “Alas” comment-writers will choose not to use these terms, out of respect for my sensibilities (you are a guest here, blah blah blah) if nothing else.

I myself will try to use “undocumented immigrants.” This seems to me to be less logical than my preferred term, “unauthorized migrants” (which is the most accurate term, with the least derogatory implications), but “undocumented immigrants” has come to be the consensus term among most people defending the interests of undocumented immigrants.

* * *

In our last discussion on this, Robert, Ron, and Sailorman offered a variety of arguments in defense of “illegal alien” and/or “illegal immigrant,” and against “undocumented immigrant.” None of the arguments were persuasive.

1. The appeal to accuracy.

First was the argument that “illegal alien” is the most accurate term. But in fact the term carries two inaccurate connotations in regular English usage. (It is accurate in legalese, but since “Alas” is not a legal journal legalese isn’t the relevant criteria.)

The term “illegal” implies that a felony has been committed; but being an undocumented immigrant is not a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. The term “alien” implies “strange,” “adverse,” and “hostile” — not to mention “non-human” — according to Webster’s. None of that is accurate.

Furthermore, we don’t use the word “illegal” to refer to people who commit misdemeanors, except in the case of undocumented immigrants. We don’t call teenagers out after a legal curfew “illegal teenagers”; we don’t call a speeding driver an “illegal driver.” For that matter, even in the case of felonies, we don’t call the person “illegal.” The action is illegal; the person is not. Referring to the person as illegal is inaccurate.

So neither the term “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” can be defended on the basis of superior accuracy.

2. The argument from necessity.

It was implied that not using the term “illegal immigrant” will somehow prevent us from discussing what immigration laws should be, and how our laws and practices should address undocumented immigrants. As Robert put it, “the existing [alternative terms] are pathetic jokes that attempt to win the argument by defining it out of existence.”

This argument is so stupid that I don’t know how to respond to it. Consider this sample dialog:

SUE: I think the police should round up undocumented immigrants and feed them cupcakes.
NANCY: They can’t do that without a warrant.

See? Perfectly easy to argue policy one way or the other. This is because “illegal immigrant” is not, in fact, the only term that can be used — hence the debate over which term to use. If I decide to use the term “big” instead of “large,” that doesn’t mean I’ve defined the concept of “large” out of existence.

3. The argument from indifference. (”So what if the term I used is insulting to the people I’m talking about? Why should I care?”)

In response, I’d argue that undocumented immigrants are people, and needlessly insulting or dehumanizing them is wrong simply because needlessly hurting people is wrong. There is no policy approach towards immigration (including undocumented immigration) which cannot be argued for while avoiding the term “illegal immigrants,” or the vile “illegal aliens.” There is therefore no need to use these terms when discussing policy.

If that doesn’t sway you, then consider the practical implications. Many politically engaged Latin@s are insulted by the terms “illegal” or “alien.” Needlessly alienating large numbers of Latinos and Latinas is poor strategy if you actually want to have your policy preferences on this issue enacted.

4. “This argument is just semantics.”

Well, it’s certainly true that this is a semantic argument, and that people choose words based not only on literal meaning, but also based on subtext. For instance, while not all who use the term “illegal aliens” hate immigrants, among immigrant-haters the use of the term (or its shorter form “illegals”) is commonplace. That’s not a coincidence; immigrant-haters recognize that these terms are dehumanizing, and that’s why they prefer to use them.

So yes, it’s a semantic argument. But “semantic” doesn’t mean “illegitimate.” It’s perfectly legitimate not to want people referred to with terms that both they, and those who hate them most, recognize as dehumanizing and insulting.

The Iranian government is run by Shiites, and hates Sunnis. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group, spends most of its time trying to kill as many Shiites as possible. Obviously, these groups are interchangeable, right?

AMMAN, Jordan — Sen. John McCain […] said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. […] Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

Thank goodness McCain had a former Democrat standing by him to correct his embarrassing gaffe.

Okay, that’s unfair, because some Democrats — including Texas rep Silvestre Reyes — who is only the fucking chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, so it’s not like his job requires him to know anything about Iran, Iraq, or al Qaeda — are likewise ignorant of the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. (Although neither Clinton nor Obama would have made McCain’s asinine error). Republicans like Terry Everett and [the late] Jo Ann Davis don’t know the difference, either, even though they lead intelligence committees. Neither do the FBI’s leading counterterrorism officers.

Our foreign policy is run by soundbite-vomiting nincompoops who adeptly advance careers — often, like McCain, selling themselves as foreign policy experts — but don’t give a shit about doing their jobs well. And our media lets them get away with it, by and large, because without the mother bird politicians vomiting soundbites, what would baby bird reporters ravenously eat?

Politicians aren’t ordinary citizens. These aren’t shoe salesmen with blogs. These are people are entrusted to take the time to make informed decisions, because ordinary citizens are too busy working for a living. It’s appalling — worse, disgusting, and in a better world impeachable — that after so many years of war and so many hundreds of thousands of lives lost, leading politicians haven’t taken their responsibilities seriously enough to learn the fucking A B Cs.

P.S. “Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.” — Senator Trent Lott.

UPDATE: McCain’s people are now claiming that this was just a slip of the tongue, which McCain corrected immediately. But he only corrected it because he had Lieberman there whispering in his ear — and he made the same slip of the tongue the previous night on a right-wing radio show.

So I was dinnering with some cartoonists (and a couple of normal people) the other night, and we got on to the subject of an argument I had on another occasion. Asked what the argument was about, I had to admit it was about fat advocacy.

But I really hesitated to admit it.

To steal a phrase, “I hold what most people consider unorthodox views about fat (i.e. that it’s not some kind of full-body malignant tumor).” And — as I admitted at dinner — I sometimes hate to talk about my views on fat, because doing so tends to get other people to classify me with the folks who wear tin foil hats to fend off the aliens. It’s not a comfortable feeling.

I went into it a bit anyway, and tried to make it funny. But it’s a problem. I have to get over my fear of being seen as a nutcase crank, I guess.

Please feel free to use this thread to post whatever comments and links you’d like. Self-linking and self-quoting is encouraged.

* * *

Take this observation test.

* * *

Bean pointed this out to me… A musical that was rehearsed and performed with the permission of the mall, but none of the customers and only the necessary mall staff had been warned it was going to happen. (More info here).

I love stuff like this. You should also check out the surprise musical “Teach!,” if you haven’t seen it.

* * *

A comparison of the same scenes from Star Wars, both in American comics and in manga. The result: Manga does it a hundred times better, mostly because of the space restrictions of American comics.

Brett Favre, who I infer is a football player of some accomplishment, cried when announcing his retirement. And anti-feminist radio host Laura Ingraham commented:

“All these years, and I didn’t know there was a woman quarterback in the NFL,” said Ingraham to start her Friday show that aired on replay on Monday at 2:00 a.m. on Newsradio 620 WTMJ.

“Brett Favre…we’re watching this in the studio, obviously retiring from the NFL, great quarterback, handsome 38-year-old man, he gets up there and he does this press conference that was frankly one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen.

“That’s a great message for young boys. ‘Get up there and act like a girl and start blubbering like a baby.”

When I first heard about this, I thought it was a disgusting example of anti-male sexism. But on reading her actual words, what’s striking about it is how perfectly Ingraham merges anti-male and anti-female sexism; note how she uses the terms “woman” and “girl” as insults.

As Jill says, what an asshole.

I’ve seen too many Democrats arguing “I will not vote for Clinton/Obama in the general election, because I don’t like the way Clinton/Obama supporters are acting, because I’ve come to hate Clinton/Obama, because Clinton/Obama is running a sexist/racist campaign,” etc etc.

It is not the case that one candidate is being supported by dastardly people while the other candidate’s supporters have never acted with anything but kindness and decency. If you (”you” meaning either Clinton supporters or Obama supporters) can’t see that both campaigns and their supporters have at times acted badly, then with all due respect, you’ve lost perspective.

But that’s not nearly as bad a loss of perspective as that of a Democrat or liberal who would support Clinton in the primary but not Obama in the general, or vice-versa. Many of Obama’s supporters have been sexist, and many of Clinton’s supporters have been racist. But McCain’s supporters are worse. Much more importantly, McCain’s actions in office would be worse for women of all races and for people of color of all sexes.

To pick just one example, consider the UN Population Fund, usually referred to as UNFPA, which funds reproductive health care in many countries that no one else in the world is providing the same care in. You can read more about the UNFPA on this post on my blog. It is virtually certain that either President Clinton or President Obama would restore UNFPA funding, and that President McCain would not.

Reproductive health care saves lives, especially in the developing world. A lot of people in wealthy countries have forgotten that childbirth used to be very dangerous, and still is in some places in the world. (For that matter, it’s still quite dangerous for women of color here in the USA). There are also thousands more women who will live without access to care, but who will suffer from horrible, treatable conditions like fistula, and whose lives would be improved if increased UNFPA funding means they get more health care.

My argument is that refunding UNFPA is a zillion times more important than how Clinton supporters are mistreated by Obama supporters on Kos, or vice-versa on Taylor Marsh. It’s even more important than sexist garbage spouted by Jessie Jackson Jr. in support of Obama, or racist garbage spouted by Ferraro in support of Clinton.

And UNFPA is just one example. I could make a similar argument for judicial appointments, for the EPA, for FEMA, for labor rights, and for a hundred other issues, many of which don’t get much play on blogs. On all these issues, Obama and Clinton are flawed, but McCain would be far, far worse. And given the overall racist and sexist bias of our society, the harms of a McCain presidency wouldn’t be gender-and-race neutral. I don’t see any anti-racist or feminist advantage in refusing to vote against McCain.

Clinton and Obama are both too right-wing for my preferences. Nonetheless, they’re both incredibly smart, and they’d both be better presidents than McCain. I greatly respect many supporters on both sides. I also respect some of those who can’t support any Democrat at all, like my friends in the Socialist and Green parties.

But I can’t respect any Democrat who’d support Clinton or Obama in the primaries, but not vote against McCain in the general election. To me, that’s the ultimate example of having taken ones eyes off the prize.

EDITED TO ADD:

Shorter Ampersand: Whichever candidate you’re supporting in the primary, I want you to know I’m prepared to support the other candidate and hate you bitterly and without reservation for not agreeing with me, you traitor.

(A lot of this post was rewritten from my comments on Tom Watson’s blog.

(Comments from Democrats, progressives, leftists and liberals only please.)

I will be among several political cartoonists exhibiting their work this Saturday at Holocene in Portland this weekend to raise money for the McKenzie River Gathering (MRG) Foundation. Several Cartoonists With Attitude will be represented, including local folks like Barry, Matt, and Shannon. Also Alison Bechdel, Tim Eagan, Jim Siergey, and many other great toonsters. Hope to see some local PDX folks there!

Update: I see that Kevin has totally plagerized this post. I can’t beleive that someone would be so lazy as to just cut and paste the text of someone else’s post and try to pass it off as his own. Next time I see that guy I’m gonna punch him one right on the snout.

From my inbox:

Whoo Hoo!  We did it!!  BIG VICTORY in the Senate yesterday.  Last night, just before 9 pm, the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve restoring $100 million for the Violence Against Women Act into the Senate’s budget
proposal.   Thanks to everyone for your HUGE response to yesterday’s action alert.  We’ll have to keep on top of this as the appropriations process gets underway - but we’re
off to a great start!

NOW- we’ve got an important deadline in the House of Representatives!  Today is the last day for your representatives to sign on to the “Dear Colleague” letter urging full funding for  VAWA.  Let’s keep our momentum going!!

ACT NOW!

Use our easy to use tools to CALL your Representative  and ask them to sign on!! 
It’s easy!  We provide their name, phone number, a script and a feedback form.  You  provide the commitment to making a difference :)

and/or  SEND an email today!!

Your CALL is especially important since today’s the deadline. Please CALL if you can!!

In case folks wonder, I definitely didn’t mean this as a reference to Bob Hayes; that it might be read that way didn’t occur to me until two seconds ago, as I started to post the cartoon on “Alas.” I just used “Bob” because it’s a funny-sounding name (see: Black Adder), and because it’s only three letters long and so requires so little word balloon space.

Some folks here may remember my online comic, Hereville, which was on hiatus for a few years. This past October I restarted Hereville, which is the main reason I haven’t been as involved on discussions on “Alas” recently (and that’s the way it’ll be from now on, alas).

Anyhow, I want to let folks know that the first Hereville story, entitled “How Mirka Got Her Sword,” is complete — written, drawn, colored, and, earlier today, sent to the printer. Although of course there are some things about it I don’t like — some of the drawing on the early pages makes me wince — on the whole I’m very proud of this comic. I think it’s a significant step forward for me as a cartoonist.

It’s being serialized online at hereville.com, where a page appears every Wednesday. Right now it’s on page 17; the full comic is 57 pages long, so it’ll take until December 2008 to complete serialization. (The second Hereville story will begin being serialized in January 2009.)

For those of you who don’t want to wait, I’ll also be selling “Hereville: How Mirka Got Her Sword,” as a PDF file, as a CBR file, and as a printed, full-color comic book. The electronic downloads will cost $4 $5 each, and will be available quite soon — maybe later this week, maybe next week. I’ll post an announcement.

The paper version, which will cost $11.95, will premiere at my table at the Stumptown Comics Fest at the end of April. In May I’ll begin selling copies by mail. I plan to accept pre-orders for the printed comic beginning next week in order to help defray the printing costs. I know $12 is pricey for a 57-page comic book, but: (Full-color) + (small print run) = (expensive!).

I’m sorry that I can’t spend the time on “Alas,” or in the blogosphere, that I used to. But after a three-year period of “cartoonist’s block,” when I drew only rarely, it’s almost organismic-ly wonderous to feel driven to spend nearly all my free time creating comics.

If you listen to audio lectures, this one is interesting. It’s a presentation by Professor Joan Wallach Scott, of Princeton. Scott talks about her book, Politics of the Veil, which criticizes France’s policy forbidding “conspicuous signs” of religion worn by students in public schools (despite the facade of neutrality the policy is unquestionably aimed at Muslims). You can read a chapter from her book here, and the Nation’s review of it here.

Journalist Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who has sworn never to return to France because of the virulent anti-Muslim racism she encounters there, critiques much of Scott’s presentation. Both speakers are excellent.

One thing that I found interesting is that, although France is often admired by US liberals and loathed by US conservatives, the French approach to multiculturalism is in many ways similar to that advocated by American conservatives (that’s my interpretation, not Scott’s). Like US conservatives, the mainstream in France considers “multiculturalism” to be a terrible idea, and instead wants law and institutions to pressure immigrants to assimilate fully to the majority culture. Also, in the US, many conservatives have suggested that the government should have a “colorblind” policy, and so stop gathering demographic information about race and ethnicity; I hadn’t realize that this is actually the law in France.

From CBrachyrhynchos, in the comments at Feministe, and then quoted on Faux Real:

Portly Dyke’s post wasn’t so much about not voting, it’s about this whole idea that we should circle the wagons and not call Clinton or Obama to task when they reveal how they will be road blocks for progressives.

And I’ll agree with Portly Dyke. I’m not a Log Cabin Democrat willing to put partisanship over basic human rights and decency. When Obama and Clinton reveal their anti-progressive stripes, I’m going to call them on it.

I’ll make the claim now. With the way our two-party system is set up, partisanship is incompatible with liberalism and progressivism. We may make the pragmatic choice to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. But we should make it clear that our obligations are to social, economic and ecological justice, and the honeymoon between Democratic politicians and the left ends five minutes after they are sworn in.

Queers are being murdered. Kids are being murdered. And I’m sick of mewing about compromise, partisanship, bipartisanship and baby steps. I’m sick of having “lesser of two evils” thrown in my face every time I point out that the Dem’s shit really does stink. I’m sick of how presidential politics has become the litmus test when I want to change the entire fucking system: the congress, the courts, the statehouse, city hall, the trustees, the board of directors, the school board, the teachers, ceos, middle managers and line managers, the stockholders, the store shelves, the media producers, distributors, and audiences.

Obama or Clinton may be the best we can do this election cycle, but they ain’t the best we can do.