The plates the NY DMV deems too offensive and derogatory.I have a feeling a certain 3,000 people who dies on 9-11 and almost 4,000 troops who have died since, might disagree.
Another example of how at least the New York bureaucratic elite are in the grip of the Stockholm Syndrome. I first articulated this when NY decided to alight the Empire State building in green to pay tribute to Ramadan. Now, the DMV says “GETOSAMA” the plates violate their regulation that prohibits “obscene, lewd, lascivious, derogatory to a particular ethnic or other group or patently offensive.”
New York DMV Bans ‘GETOSAMA’ License Plates
HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. — Retired New York City police officer Arno Herwerth hit a major roadblock this week when he tried to dress up his ride in patriotic style.
Arno, a 21- year veteran of the NYPD, wanted to add vanity license plates reading “GETOSAMA” to the 1993 Ford Aerostar he had already hand-painted red, white and blue. But New York’s DMV red-lighted the anti-Usama bin Laden plates, banning them under an agency regulation that prohibits anything “obscene, lewd, lascivious, derogatory to a particular ethnic or other group or patently offensive.”
What’s really offensive here is:
1. The worry about hurting the enemy’s feelings (as you said, Tammy)
2. The micro-management of the DMV (and anyone believes that they could handle the bureaucracy of licenses for illegals?)
3. Osama is still alive.
Tammy, I’m listening to you on the radio right now describe Huckabee’s position on abortion, and for the first time I have to use the word ‘hysterical’ to describe you. You are willing to throw Huckabee under the bus for this, and yet you are giving Rudy a complete pass on gun rights (the subject of your last segment.)
The Federal government has said that the States cannot — cannot! — protect the lives of unborn children, and you are completely hysterical that the Feds might not be able to use OUR TAX DOLLARS to kill those unborn babies.
Calm down. Just like Global Warming, there is still plenty of debate to be had around the issue of abortion.
Two comments if a I may.
First, Tammy is right. Huckabee is a Liberal and I’ve thought so from the get go. I don’t think Rudy is on a gun control crusade. We must look at who is going to do the most to protect our FREEDOM in all areas. The border, the war, our privacy, our property, our schools. I really hope that one day abortion will stop being a political issue at all. But it’s become like the race issue for Jackson and Sharpton, they need it to stay in business.
Second, maybe that good man can get a new license plate “NYDMV-FU”
Can you imagine it is 1943 and the DMV objecting to a GETHITLER license plate? What sick times we live in.
The DMV prohibits anything that’s “obscene, lewd, lascivious, derogatory to a particular ethnic or other group or patently offensive”.
To what group would this be derogatory?? Al Quaida is the only one. NY doesn’t want to offend Al Quaida and its sympathizers. nice.
The future of this country looks gloomy. If only there was some place sane on this earth to live. Australia intrigues me.
Which scenario do people believe: that the American govt does not know where OBL is, or that it knows exactly where he is? Which scenario do you find scarier?
Erin Nemo, my own hunch is that it falls somewhere in between: Uncle Sam knows roughly where OBL is, but not exactly. He’s somewhere on the Pakistani side of the Northwest Frontier, the border with Afghanistan. And it’s not that Musharraf knows exactly where he is either: Pakistan’s central government and military have never exercised effective control over that area. Neither did the British (see Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King,” later adapted into a deliciously cynical dark comedy starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine).
Thank you, Dave J, for your thoughts. I told friends in 2002-2003 that Osama was in NWFP–in fact, in written correspondence–, and I am well aware of Pakistani history and geography. I don’t know specifically if OBL is still there. He may not need to confine himself to Pashtum territories or to outlying regions: he could be in a city. Quetta, for example. Even Karachi. Or in another country altogether: a Pakistani (but totally Westernized) friend of mine suggested an entirely other country which was not an implausible or impossible suggestion at all.
The purpose of my original questions was to raise the issue of who benefits from his freedom and how and why. What are the dangers of capturing him? What are the dangers of letting him go free?
What would the Americans lose in catching him and what would they gain? Or do they even have this option? Have they simply been flummoxed by the Silk Road?
All this does is give me one more example I can give to people when they ask me why I moved out of NY.
back to original topic…..
It seems that the NYDMV is afraid to offend in individual that is responsible for murder?
Might I suggest a better choice for the vanity plates?
—> GETNYDMV
The NY DMV hasn’t murdered anyone yet, so they’re fair game, according to their own logic.
Okay, I’ll shush up now.
This is a strange decision indeed. But what I wonder, was this considered offensive to:
A) Muslims
B) Osama bin Ladin
C) People named Osama (as an “other group”)
D) Other
Playing Devil’s Advocate, I know, but perhaps they considered a GETOSAMA plate simply “offensive” to the “group of people named Osama” or something. Otherwise, it just makes no sense. Had he asked for GETBUBBA would it have been rejected for similar reasons? Are the people who request these plates required to explain what the letters mean first? Anyone know?
NY, a blue state, is true to form – read this entry from the ModernConservative blog:
“How the left’s agenda trumps genuine concern for human suffering
By Christopher Cook
Reading today about two instances in which the left is silent in the face of terrible oppression (one from Michelle Malkin and one from Captain’s Quarters), I was reminded of a unfortunate characteristic of the left.
Over the years, I have noticed—and have heard some very smart thinkers remark on—a very disturbing pattern.
Simply put, the left gets completely outraged at conflicts in which the side perceived to have more power is from the groups and ideologies they “dislike,” but they remain silent when the side with the power comes from an ideological position they support. You can reverse those components too—they are outraged when they “like” the victims and silent (or worse) when they don’t. It doesn’t matter how brutal the conflict is, or who has a better claim to use force in their own defense—the only thing that appears to matter is group identity.
1. Sudan
For years, the left was silent on the slaughter in Sudan. The perpetrators were Sudanese Muslims, and they were killing—and selling into sexual slavery—over a million black animists and Christians from southern Sudan.
The reason the left was silent? The perpetrators of this horror are allied with America’s enemies, and the left has a habit of supporting America’s enemies (a disturbing pattern that began a half-century ago).
Moreover, the victims were Christians—a group the left tends to dislike. Therefore, this conflict did not rate concern, outrage, or protests from the left.
Contrast this with the sudden haste to decry the horror taking place in Darfur. What’s the difference here? Why decry this and not the other horrors taking place in Sudan? Apparently, because the victims in Darfur are Muslims and the victims in southern Sudan were primarily Christians.
Think I’m being too harsh? Let’s continue.
2. Former Yugoslavia
We took the side of Muslims against Christians. There were debatable U.S. national interests at stake, and there were alleged human rights abuses taking place. There was a Democrat president. Thus, the left could side with a group towards which they tend to tilt (expansionist Muslims) and with a Democrat president to fight against a group that they don’t like: Christians. Ignoring the objective rights or wrongs of the sides we took in those conflicts for the time being, we can still say that, by and large, most on the left were supportive of that conflict.
Now, contrast this with Iraq.
In Iraq, there were genuine national interests at stake. There were confirmed human rights abuses taking place on a scale that dwarfed anything happening in the former Yugoslavia. The people in power were enemies of America—they were shooting at American planes and they even tried to kill a Republican former president. Against them stood America, with a Republican as commander-in-chief. All of these facts, put together, allowed the left to feel quite comfortable ignoring the human rights abuses, the oppression, and the atrocities. They opposed the war. Some of them even tried to rehabilitate Saddam or claim that his regime was one of happy children, laughing and flying kites.
3. Terror famine of Ukraine
Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for his correspondence work from the USSR, in which he denied that Stalin was intentionally starving out millions of land-owning peasants in Ukraine (which Stalin was doing because they were land owners).
To this day, there are still people on the left who deny this. Years ago, my landlord in Venice, CA, denied it to my face, saying “some people may have died, but it was not intentional.” (This was a dear, sweet man, he truly was. However, he was on the left, which means he was running the left’s software [Leftism 4.0â„¢], and saying such things is a likely consequence of running that corrupt software package.)
Why deny the terror famine of Ukraine? The perpetrator was on the left, and the left likes the left. The victims were land owners, and the more extreme people on the left don’t like land-owners very much. Thus, the left was generally silent on the forced starvation of millions in Ukraine.
4. Israel
A tiny little democracy—the only country in the area with universal suffrage, women’s rights, religious and social pluralism, etc.—vs. dozens of oppressive, intolerant states pledged to the little democracy’s destruction. With whom does the left side? Israel’s enemies.
The why here is a complex question. Big rallies for left wing causes always seem to include Palestinian and other Islamist flags, signs, and groups. Rallies for Islamist or anti-Israel causes are often organized by left-wing and Communist front groups.
As many wise observers of this issue have said (including the likes of Dennis Prager and others), the new home for anti-Semitism is on the left. And it’s hard to conclude otherwise, when they are silent in the face of genuine oppression taking place around the world, but seem quite ready to vilify this tiny nation—which gives away land and bends over backwards not to kill civilians—locked in a struggle for its very existence against intractable enemies.
I think that the anti-Semitism here is real, but it may be a sequela (secondary consequence) of the fact that Israel is America’s ally and Israel’s enemies tend to be generally (or specifically) opposed to the United States. The left prefers the latter; hence the opposition to Israel. (Notice that the left’s dislike of Israel really heated up after 1967, which is right around the same time that the U.S. relationship with Israel really began to tighten.)
5. Colombia
While it is by no means front-page news, the left is quietly opposed to Alvaro Uribe, the popular and successful president of Colombia. Uribe is an ally of of the U.S. and friendly with our current (and oh-so-hated) president. Uribe is fighting on our side in the war against narco-trafficking. He is a supply-side, center-right politician. AND…..drum roll please……he is fighting against LEFT WING guerillas. Put it all together, and the left dislikes him.
Granted, Uribe’s forces are not squeaky clean by any means. FARC and ELN are worse, but the forces and paramilitary allies of the Colombian government are not choir boys at all. Still, the left doesn’t care a wit about what FARC and ELN do. They’re on the left, and Uribe is on the right. That’s all they need to know.
Contrast this with the left’s fondness for Hugo Chavez. Chavez can expropriate businesses and dismantle democratic and free institutions, one-by-one, in Venezuela, but since he’s on the left, his activities are just fine with folks on the left. (Oh, and he gets big bonus points for being so rude to President Bush.)
Or, if you prefer, contrast this with Castro’s Cuba. Decades of systematic oppression in Cuba mean not a jot to the left. Many of the left are not only silent, they’re actually quite fond and supportive of Castro.
6. Zimbabwe
One of the most disgusting thugocracies on the planet. Mass starvation. Operation Murambatsvina (essentially, Operation “Take out the Trash”), in which millions of poor people were forcibly relocated. Some of the worst hyper-inflation in world history.
Dictator Robert Mugabe sends machette wielding thugs to slaughter white farmers. Then, he takes those farms and gives them to his family, cronies, and allies. The farms are mismanaged, and a nation—once a net exporter of food—plunges into starvation.
The left is silent. The “perpetrators” of this horror are black. The victims are both white and black, but it began with the murder of white farmers and the appropriation of their farms. The left cannot bring itself to side with those white “descendants of oppressors”; therefore, they are largely silent on Zimbabwe.
They’re also silent on the Congo, where nearly three million have died in constant brutality. Why be silent on this? Well, it primarily a black tribal conflict. No left-wingers, Islamists, or enemies of America to support. No center-right politicians or U.S. allies to oppose. No religious or ethnic groups they like vs. religious or ethnic groups they dislike.
Continue playing this game at home, folks. Take a conflict in the world. Look at the “perpetrators” and “victims” (perceived or genuine). Ascertain the political alignment, or the ethnic or religious identity of the parties involved. Then, determine whether the left takes a side or is silent.
See a pattern?”
http://www.modernconservative.com/blog/653_Selective_Outrage.html
It continually amazes me that the city which was attacked on 9/11 is the city which is against fighting terrorism, is the city which supports illegal immigration so that terrorists can enter the country at will, is the city at the top of the list to be nuked out of existence.
Someone should remind the NY DMV the federal government is offering a $25 million reward to GETOSAMA.
hey ripper, love that name, it was my first dog’s name. don’t leave the country yet, i’m going to win this fight with dmv and hopefully visit our troops with my plates so they can shove them up osama’s a**!!!!!!!!
i’ve heard that interpretation before- “group of people named osama”- would ‘getadolf’ during ww2 be mistaken for a group of adolfs? in america and new york especially, everyone knows who i’m referring to. dmv won’t offend al-qaeda, that’s it.
i remembered one more thing while discussing this with my brother. when i was on the phone with the dmv supervisor who pulled my plates, he made the comment that ” spitzer doesn’t need any more trouble”, obviously referring to illegal aliens and driver licenses. so, i was a first hand witness to how these plates were approved and then pulled. both acts were done while on the phone with me. the supervisor stated “we don’t issue offensive or political plates” when i said these are not offensive to anyone, he said “you’d be surprised”. then, came the spitzer comment. i was being super polite, so i guess he didn’t mind telling me what was on his mind. he then stated “i’ll have to talk to curt”- curt, is our patriot at dmv, he more than happily approved the getosama plates the week before. i hope he is okay………….i don’t think i’ve mentioned the spitzer comment before, it really does complete the reasoning behind the decision. now, i think dmv is just against going back on their original decision. it’s this attitude that keeps new york from getting 9/11 memorial plates, in my opinion.
i’d like to publicly call my state senator a coward. actually, this is probably a dead thread, but it feels good to say it, anyway. i asked a simple question: do you agree with my plate and should i have the right to have it on my vehicle? after getting no email response, i walked into flanagan’s office with the ‘getosama’ plate and asked the same questions to his staff………. no answer other than “he will probably have no comment” siting litigation etc. except, i got the same response prior to the lawsuit. too bad he just got elected, but it will give me time to run against him. men who have no comment should not be leaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i just learned, a guy i used to work with in the nypd has been issued ‘getosama’ plates. excellent!