Now just to be clear on things, I have watched this woman’s antics ever since it was first announced that she had been picked as John McCain’s running mate (Sarah who?). Being a reasonable man I decided to give this lady the benefit of the doubt until she removed all doubt, etc, etc.

Well, she did–remove all doubt that is. I’m sorry but the woman is clueless. Not only is she clueless but she’s dangerous as well in that she’s causing all sorts of things to happen–all the wrong things. But this time it’s personal.

Because of her I had a comment banned from USA Today on that very same article. Why? Because I dared use the word ‘retarded’ in my comment even though earlier comments had also included the word ‘retarded’. Sometime during the first comment that used the word and my comment, USA Today decided to flag the word ‘retarded’ as inappropriate as per their comment policy.

This was one of the first comments on the article:

Retarded is a word that has absolutely nothing to do with those challenged mentally or physically. Do Republicans ever take a break from being upset by anything a Democrat say??

Now this was my second comment that was much later in the stack:

I had to substitute an ‘*’ for the ‘r’ in ‘*etarded’ in my previous comment (as the word refers to the timing of an engine) due to it being flagged as inappropriate by USA Today’s comment policy.

Uh-huh. Better tell all mechanics at my local auto garage not to use that word anymore (despite the fact that there isn’t any other word for it, mind you). Otherwise they might be sued?

My first comment, the one concerning engine timing, seems to have gone missing.

This means, and I’ll say it again, that somewhere between the first comment above and my first comment, USA Today changed their comment policy to include the word ‘retarded’ as inappropriate.

The real problem I see here is that Rahm Emanuel’s use of the word had nothing to do with folks who are mentally or physically impaired (or is it challenged now, I forget). He used it in reference to an idea that came up in some sort of weekly strategy session he had walked into. And he didn’t say the idea was retarded, he said it was F****ing retarded (just to keep things in perspective). To wit:

The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul.

“F—ing retarded,” Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.

WSJ article

And what makes the whole ridiculous issue even more of a farce is that the Chief of Staff had said this behind closed doors, not in public–and back in August! This means that one or more of the attendees of the weekly strategy session had finally managed to complain to the press about how the Chief of Staff had called their idea “F***ing retarded”.

Nice to know our government employs adults, isn’t it?

Okay, maybe old Rahm could have been a bit more “politic” about his choice of descriptive adjectives but hey, maybe he’d had a bad day or something. Who knows? It happens.

The point is that ol’ Palin just had to jump up on that soapbox she carries around with her (which she stores alongside the chip she keeps on her shoulder) and yell and holler about how it demeans the mentally impaired and blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc, when she was the one who made the comparison in the first place.

Well, fine then.

You would think that all her bellyaching wouldn’t have an affect on my personal browsing/commenting experience now would you? I mean, from the very first moment I went online so many years ago through to present I’ve never had a comment flagged as ‘inappropriate’–ever.

I have now though. Thanks, Sarah.

This?

Or this?

About even I figure.