PRESS RELEASE States Warn Drunk Drivers: Over the Limit. Under Arrest.
WASHINGTON, Dec 17, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The Governors Highway Safety Association strongly supports the national "Over the Limit. Under Arrest." holiday drunk driving enforcement crackdown. According to GHSA Chairman Vernon F. Betkey Jr., "State highway safety agencies are aggressively participating in this year's effort. State law enforcement partners will be making a very visible enforcement presence by increasing their drunken driving checkpoints and saturation patrols. GHSA members are also purchasing paid advertising and conducting a variety of awareness events to remind drunk drivers that there's zero tolerance this holiday season. Those citizens who may selfishly consider driving drunk should know that they will be pulled over and the consequences will be severe."
The holiday season is too often a deadly time on our roadways. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in December 2007, 992 people were killed in crashes that involved a drunk driver or motorcycle operator with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher -- above the legal limit in every state and the District of Columbia.
State efforts will complement NHTSA's $7 million dollar "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit." advertising campaign. The holiday crackdown is organized by NHTSA and supported by GHSA, MADD and The International Association of Chiefs of Police as well as countless local organizations.
A sampling of state holiday crackdown efforts are posted online at:
State drunk driving laws are also posted online at:
Did you note the sentence, "killed in crashes that involved a drunk driver or motorcycle operator with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher"?
O.K. No big deal right? Ummm slow down. Now ask yourself why, in an article dealing with "drunk Driving", was a distinction made between "motorcycle operators" and "drunk drivers"? Are not those who "operate motorcycles" drivers too? Why not further differentiation such as "Truck operators" or "SUV operators"? After all, is not operating "any" type of motor vehicle while under the influence dangerous?
Towards the end of this essay "Politics and the English Language", having argued his case, George Orwell (Author of 1984) muses:
Thus forcing the use of Newspeak, according to Orwell, describes a deliberate intent to exploit this degeneration with the aim of oppressing its speakers.
“ I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions. ”
The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it can't be thought. There is substantial argument in favor of this notion, in that most humans think by carrying on a dialogue in their heads.
Think "Politically Correct" speech. Think words that can not be said today because of their political/social ramifications (for a good post on how the words liberal and conservative have been perverted see here). Of course the inverse of the last two sentences above can also be true. Adding a phrase in certain constructs can influence how one thinks about what is being communicated. For example, motorcyclists are not to be viewed as "drivers" but as "operators".
Also the way the sentence is constructed, "involved a drunk driver or motorcycle operator" subtly re-enforces negative thought patterns towards motorcyclists. How would you think about the sentence
were it written as follows, "involved a drunk driver or a drunk motorcycle driver"? That would be redundant right? It would also stick out like a sore thumb. So now ask yourself why didn't they just say, "involved drunk driver's"?
Though this may seem minor and picky, in actuality it is a skillful way to manipulate the way the public thinks. It is how the public has been convinced that Motorcycle Helmets are the cure for motorcycle fatalities. Decide what it is you wish to communicate, then decide how to unobtrusively communicate it often enough until it becomes reality or truth.
Neuro-linguistic programming views meaning as only existing within a given context, a view known as cultural relativism which is axiomatic in anthropology. Because of this, NLP states The meaning of communication is the result you get – it is not message sent, but message received, and willingness to set aside preconceived interpretive frames, which is most significant in communication.
From First Directions in NLP:
There is the joke about the two psychoanalysts meeting in the street. One says to"it just may not be what you intended. " On the other hand, as those on Madison Avenue or a good car salesman are aware, it might be exactly what was intended. They just want you to think it was YOUR idea.
the other, "Good Morning. How are you?" And the other thinks, "I wonder what he
meant by that?" One NLP presupposition sums this up
The meaning of the communication is the response you get. There is no such thing as failure in communication - you have succeeded in communicating something, it just may not be what you intended. You always communicate something because the receiver has to make some meaning of it. The responses you get give you valuable pointers about what to do next. They are your teachers.
This is done subtly by people who study this stuff. Not just in writing but in all forms of communication. Ask yourself why a beer manufacturer will pay big bucks to put a little sticker on the side of a race car going around a track at 200 MPH? After all are you going to pay that much attention to it? How long will you see it (how many cars will have it on them)? Consider the following from "Drinking in America":
A large majority of Americans either do not drink or drink infrequently. For this majority alcohol is an unimportant consumer product. According to the National Survey on drug use and health about 46 percent of adults 21 years of age and older report that they did not consume any alcohol in the past month and an additional 26 percent report drinking once a week or less.Now somebody is pumping up the profits of the brewery's. Even in a recession they don't go broke.
They are not wasting time and money on the dudes and dudettes aren't going to use their product. But they do know their customer. Someone like me, who doesn't care for car racing, but let me sit there and watch them cars zipping around the track long enough and sooner or later I'm gonna be thinking, "damn, a beer would be good about now."
The way communication is received is dictated by life experience, life programming and how your brain is hard wired. Those who wish to regulate us understand that. We might suggest that those who do not wish to have every aspect of their life regulated pay close attention to what is being communicated.
Now I reckon we should add, we are not advocating for driving anything while under the influence.
Just in case somebody did not hear what we meant!Add to Technorati Favorites