Tactics Used in Immigration Raids Were ‘Militant,’ Union Alleges

I got a theory… … that when I read reporting on an event, I should end up knowing more about it than I did when I started.  The more more, so to speak, the better. 

I already knew that there was a raid.  Now I know that the union is complaining that workers were “denied access to telephones, to bathrooms and legal counsel” and that ICE says that ICE didn’t do anything illegal or otherwise wrong.

Okay.  How long does the union say that workers at the plants were detained before being given access to those three things?  Five minutes, say, so the targets of the raid couldn’t slip out of the bathroom and run away?  Five hours?  Five days?  Doesn’t it make a difference? 

And what’s the truth?  Forget the union PR — what does Billy Olson, a meat plant worker who has never so much as had a speeding ticket or any unpleasant encounter with the cops before ICE raided the place that he worked, say about what happened? 

I didn’t know before I read the story; I don’t know now.

I also don’t know what the union means by the word “militant”.  In journalistic parlance, “militant” is a politically-correct word for “terrorist,” almost always used to refer to putatively religious terrorists, almost always Muslims or Hindus or Jews (one just doesn’t hear about Unitarian militants, for some reason — now, there’s a story for you, Abdi:  the Unitarian Jihad!  Google for it). 

Is the union suggesting that the ICE used the same tactics as such “militants”?  If so, how? 

Didn’t learn that from the story, either.

Are you serious? “I also don’t know what the union means by the word “militant”.  In journalistic parlance, “militant” is a politically-correct word for “terrorist,” almost always used to refer to putatively religious terrorists, almost always Muslims or Hindus or Jews”.

Uh, no.  “Militant” refers to an aggressive nature in service to a cause.  It doesn’t refer to a specific religious group, connote physical violence, or imply an exhortation to terrorism.  It applies equally to folks who call for the banning of certain books and the little ol’ lady librarians that oppose them.

Buy a dictionary, Joel.  Militant <> terrorist.

Try not to squint so hard to find hidden message between the lines.

Sometimes there aren’t any.

The difficulty… … with much of the article isn’t the meaning between the lines, but the lack of meaning in them.

I got a theory… … that when I read reporting on an event, I should end up knowing more about it than I did when I started.  The more more, so to speak, the better. 

I already knew that there was a raid.  Now I know that the union is complaining that workers were “denied access to telephones, to bathrooms and legal counsel” and that ICE says that ICE didn't do anything illegal or otherwise wrong.

Okay.  How long does the union say that workers at the plants were detained before being given access to those three things?  Five minutes, say, so the targets of the raid couldn't slip out of the bathroom and run away?  Five hours?  Five days?  Doesn't it make a difference? 

And what's the truth?  Forget the union PR — what does Billy Olson, a meat plant worker who has never so much as had a speeding ticket or any unpleasant encounter with the cops before ICE raided the place that he worked, say about what happened? 

I didn't know before I read the story; I don't know now.

I also don't know what the union means by the word “militant”.  In journalistic parlance, “militant” is a politically-correct word for “terrorist,” almost always used to refer to putatively religious terrorists, almost always Muslims or Hindus or Jews (one just doesn't hear about Unitarian militants, for some reason — now, there's a story for you, Abdi:  the Unitarian Jihad!  Google for it). 

Is the union suggesting that the ICE used the same tactics as such “militants”?  If so, how? 

Didn't learn that from the story, either.

Are you serious? “I also don't know what the union means by the word “militant”.  In journalistic parlance, “militant” is a politically-correct word for “terrorist,” almost always used to refer to putatively religious terrorists, almost always Muslims or Hindus or Jews”.

Uh, no.  “Militant” refers to an aggressive nature in service to a cause.  It doesn't refer to a specific religious group, connote physical violence, or imply an exhortation to terrorism.  It applies equally to folks who call for the banning of certain books and the little ol' lady librarians that oppose them.

Buy a dictionary, Joel.  Militant

terrorist.

Try not to squint so hard to find hidden message between the lines.

Sometimes there aren't any.

The difficulty… … with much of the article isn't the meaning between the lines, but the lack of meaning in them.