Over at The Word Unheard, USMC Vet dissects, in detail, the recent slanders of the U.S military by the President of the U.S. Newspaper Guild. She was not misquoted - quite the contrary, in fact:
"Journalists and those in the journalism industry earn their livelihoods and practice their trade on the intellectual and purposeful use of language and precise choice of words. Being a professional, Linda Foley’s words were precisely chosen for a reason: To convey the message she desired."
Leftonics translation:
USMC Vet deconstructs the central narrative behind U.S. Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley's multireferential but unidimensional discourse on U.S. military policy. By critically interrogating her ontological binarism, pathic and non-discursive character, the machinic catalysis of her thought is revealed, removing us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforcing us in our dismissal of the "we" criticised previously.
Of course, my Leftonics skills were picked up from flipping through a Leftonics-English dictionary while riding in a friend's truck. Anyone who believes they can supply an alternative narrative is welcome to add their own signifiers in the so-called "comments" section - which of course is really a hyper-signified mechanism for the perpatuation of the oppressive patriarchic establishment.
But I won't tell if you won't.
Foley has a simple case of Theyism, which couldn't be more common in her crowd.
Example: Once upon a time when Senator Joe Biden was running for POTUS, he gave a standard Sixties nostaglia speech, invoking the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK. "They may have killed our heroes, but they couldn't kill our dream."
Reporters were crammed in the room buttock-to-puffy-buttock, yet not one of them asked, "Senator, who is They?"
Imagine anyone being so silly as to ask who THEY are.
EVERYONE who visits this site should read what USMC Vet has to say on the latest outrage by Linda Foley, and be certain to cite the following from his well researched and thoughtful post in any follow-on discussion you have in the blogosphere or out:
While more journalists were killed in 2004 than in 2003, 2003 remains the centerpiece of the misguided argument for murder. Beyond 2003, look further into the numbers to see where Foley’s ‘outrage’ should more appropriately be placed by looking at the numbers of journalists killed in the past 11 years (courtesy Commission for the Protection of Journalists):
1992: 42
1993: 57
1994: 66
1995: 51
1996: 26
1997: 26
1998: 24
1999: 36
2000: 25
2001: 37
2002: 19
2003: 37
2004: 56
Where was Linda Foley’s passionate outrage in 1992?
Where was Linda Foley’s passionate outrage in 1993?
Where was Linda Foley’s passionate outrage in 1994?
Where was Linda Foley’s passionate outrage in 1995?
Where was Linda Foley’s passionate outrage in 1999?