A few weeks later and the campaign had changed gears replaced by the image of an officer with chips glasses and the far less offensive(?) tag line of "big brother's watching you", or something to that effect.
The change could have come about as a result of the campaign of a group of self-righteous do-gooders, or as a part of the natural course of the advertising process, doubling as a sobering reminder of the ineluctable realization of a future Orwellian totalitarian world regime. Regardless, the original had left an indelible impression on me. Are men the only offenders when it comes to speeding violations? My personal experience would indicate otherwise, but anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much these days. Advertising is a far more trustworthy source of truth. If there was any correlation between speed and the girth of one's manly appendage, I was certainly at a loss to make any logical connection.
Zoom out to a god's eye view of proceedings. From a healthy distance things can sometimes become more clear. Ask Bette Midler. Everything of any significance in the world is tied to sex. I'm reminiscing about a now defunct billboard, because someone (my parents), somewhere (their house?) had sex. Therefore I can forgive the totally random po induced - look up Ed DeBono - provocation of an advert, perhaps the amalgamation of its disparate parts aren't so unrelated after all. Everything's related.
Where am I going? What is chance? What is random? In the free will vs. destiny argument, which one comes up trumps. Chaos is just a special kind of order. Maybe it's all arbitrary. Maybe there's no such thing as a non-sequitur, so it's perfectly valid to tie speeding violations back to phallus size. But sex isn't the only topic tied to everything else, sex would be Kevin to the universe in a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon. If there are no non-sequiturs, then if I start talking about whether God is handsome or ugly or well hung or if he speeds then everyone else needs to just roll with it.
To (mis?)quote Stephen Hawking: if the universe was infinite all points would be central, because each point would be the same distance from its boundaries (but if it were infinite it wouldn't have boundaries right? You get the idea). Does the abundance of central points devalue centrality in any way? Does the fact that everything is connected and related devalue connection and relation? Speed and sex are unassailably tied (you don't want it to be over too quickly) and so is everything else.
After all this the only thing of which I am certain is that from this morass of words we can safely conclude that I have mastered the art of speaking without saying anything and that I feel that I'm justified in saying anything without fear of reprisal. It's all connected anyway.