I've commented in the past about how we all think we recognize effective advertising, and that we might all be fooling ourselves if we don't have the appropriate formal background. Given that, I am not sure this is a good spot, but I suspect that it is.
I also like the back story about how it was developed by a guy, who was not commissioned to do so, but he cared about the cause and loaned his creative efforts to the task for free.
If you don't live or work with me, you may not have yet had the opportunity to grow tired of my self-righteous opinions. This blog is for you.
Showing posts with label seatbelts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seatbelts. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Friday, May 1, 2009
What's in a motto?
Contributed by Auggie
-----------------------------
I see where New Hampshire is still the only state in the nation without a mandatory seat-belt law for adults. As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to passing a law is the state motto which is "live free or die". Ok then. I'm not sure that wearing a seat belt falls within the spirit of the motto, but like any law, bill of rights etc., one can twist the meaning any way they want to make the point they want.
State Senator Peter Bragdon engages in a little extreme extrapolation (see earlier post Non sequiturs), when he argues "Some of the most serious accidents happen while people are walking. Should we require people to wear helmets while walking?" Again, if I had the opportunity I would return the insanity and say "So Pete, why do you have any traffic laws at all? Who has the right to tell you how fast to go or when you should stop?" And you wonder why it's called the 'Peter Principle'?
Look, I don't really know if seat belt laws make a difference or not because they are difficult to enforce. But I just find it bewildering that a state motto would influence a law making decision. Remember, the motto doesn't necessarily describe the state's culture - it was made the motto by government officials, and now it's being used by officials in their decision making process.
-----------------------------
I see where New Hampshire is still the only state in the nation without a mandatory seat-belt law for adults. As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to passing a law is the state motto which is "live free or die". Ok then. I'm not sure that wearing a seat belt falls within the spirit of the motto, but like any law, bill of rights etc., one can twist the meaning any way they want to make the point they want.
State Senator Peter Bragdon engages in a little extreme extrapolation (see earlier post Non sequiturs), when he argues "Some of the most serious accidents happen while people are walking. Should we require people to wear helmets while walking?" Again, if I had the opportunity I would return the insanity and say "So Pete, why do you have any traffic laws at all? Who has the right to tell you how fast to go or when you should stop?" And you wonder why it's called the 'Peter Principle'?
Look, I don't really know if seat belt laws make a difference or not because they are difficult to enforce. But I just find it bewildering that a state motto would influence a law making decision. Remember, the motto doesn't necessarily describe the state's culture - it was made the motto by government officials, and now it's being used by officials in their decision making process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)