Okay, so, who do I talk to about getting this word "retard" redefined? I really think it's high time that this word started being used properly.
Trouble is, "retard" used to refer to people who were "mentally retarded" -- i.e., suffering from some sort of learning disability. As with most afflictions, increased understanding of the underlying problems has led to that phrase falling from grace, in favor of a set of more specific (and less condemnatory) diagnoses.
These days, it's almost never used in that sense. Nowadays "retard" refers to individuals who, while technically unhindered in their capacity to think or learn, suffer nonetheless from a sort of voluntary mental retardation, preventing them from thinking rationally on certain topics.
Case in point: Pro-war Reeps will vehemently denounce any suggestion that the US military presence is feeding into the insurgency . . . or that the people of Iraq might feel that they are defending their country by attacking Americans.
That is, they will vehemently denounce such a suggestion if it comes from any American.
On the other hand, if such a suggestion comes from the Iraqi government that our troops are ostensibly there to support, these very same Reeps will let it go unchallenged, and even argue in favor of giving amnesty to those who continue to murder our troops on a daily basis.
However, returning to the first hand again, the moment it's suggested that if it's acceptable to give amnesty to those who are killing our troops, perhaps those troops should be withdrawn, Reeps will once again become outraged and start bemoaning the cowardice of those who want to "cut and run" in Iraq.
So, at the end of the day, Reeps are totally willing to support forgiving those who kill our troops, but totally unwilling to take our troops out of harm's way.
And they accuse anybody who finds that paradox unacceptable of not supporting our troops.