Comments too hot for the Sacramento Bee (part 2)

I left the following comment on the SacBee story "Health care plan facing opposition" by Aurelio Rojas. I believe I've waited long enough and I can safely say that it was not approved. (In the original comment, both links were tinyurl links in non-HTML format).
In November, the author of this article discussed one of Arnie's advisors, one Arnoldo Torres. Unfortunately, Rojas didn't disclose that Torres also serves on an advisory council to the Mexican president. He's even listed on a Mexican government website (

Perhaps the SacBee should look into whether Arnie's plan was influenced by Torres, or whether his plan was directly influenced by the Mexican government.
As usual, I'll write to ombud *at* for an answer that will probably never come.

Previously: Comments too hot for the Sacramento Bee

UPDATE: I usually read these things, so either I missed it the first time or they recently added it, but before the comment form, in tiny, tiny print, it says:
...A comment cannot contain potentially libelous language, foul words, hate words, personal attacks or web links, among other things...
Pretty much every statement of fact is "potentially libelous", but, since nothing in the comment is in fact "potentially libelous", I think we can rule that out. Could the stuck-in-the-19th-century dimbulbs at the SacBee be objecting to the tinyurl "web links"?

UPDATE 2 (WTF EDITION): Someone named "bricko" has posted and had approved a variant of my comment. I don't know whether that's a reader of this post or someone from the SacBee.