Perhaps it was banned because the network executives had their heads up their asses and felt that it hit a little too close to home. That would be my guess. Maybe there’s a [...]]]> Even though I shan’t be watching the Super Bowl today, I thought I’d note the occasion by posting this banned ad:

Perhaps it was banned because the network executives had their heads up their asses and felt that it hit a little too close to home. That would be my guess. Maybe there’s a subtle, subliminal sexual connotation there. There could be very flexible men out there who get a sexual thrill out of placing their head inside their own anus.

There’s a third, much less likely explanation. It may have been banned because it degrading to men. In advertising and sitcoms, men, particularly married men, are usually portrayed as completely clueless idiots. You rarely, if ever, see women portrayed in that manner because if they did, women’s groups would pitch a bitch about it being sexist and degrading to women. Portraying women as stupid and clueless is sexist while portraying men that way is high comedy. Yet men don’t complain. The wife says, “That’s just like my husband.” The husband smiles sheepishly and says, “Yes, Dear. You’re right.” Maybe we are clueless idiots.

For what it’s worth…

Power, control and wealth or peace, enlightenment and salvation? Which is the primary motivation for religion? I often view organized religion as the former with a little of the latter on [...]]]> Sorry if the following is a bit lacking in cohesion. I’m just working with some rough ideas which may or may not eventually be polished.

Power, control and wealth or peace, enlightenment and salvation? Which is the primary motivation for religion? I often view organized religion as the former with a little of the latter on the side for the sake of appearances. That’s my general perception based on what I’ve observed in my own experiences and in history. That’s just an observation, not a condemnation. There are religious groups and individuals that practice their faith and religion in very positive ways and I admire them for that.

I have nothing against religion or faith. Recently, I’ve found that my own faith is finding a stronger foundation. Conscientious faith, balanced with reason and intellect, can be very beneficial while blind faith, sustained by fear and ignorance, can be very dangererous. I find religion, particularly Christianity and its innumerable denominations, quite fascinating.

I think a religion should provide guidance in the search for truth rather than a set of iron-clad, no-room-for-deviation, set-in-stone rules for everything you do and for attaining what someone has told you is the truth. You shouldn’t follow a particular spiritual path just because someone else follows it or someone has set you on that path and told you to follow it while looking straight ahead, ignoring everything on the periphery.

Instead, you should follow the spiritual path that suits you. If the path you’re on isn’t leading you where you thought it would take you or you discover another path that looks more promising, feel free to change. Whichever spiritual path you choose, it will ultimately lead you to the same destination.

• “Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.” — Buddha
• “Say nothing of my religion. It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.” — Thomas Jefferson
• “It is a fine thing to establish one’s own religion in one’s heart, not to be dependent on tradition and second-hand ideals.” — D. H. Lawrence

Personally, I find ideas to be much more useful than beliefs. I feel that, ultimately, we are responsible for our own souls and must choose our own spiritual path. Its not a responsibility to be taken lightly nor casually entrusted to someone else. For what it’s worth…

Did you know the human brain can only process up to 150 active relationships? We can only care about that many people at a time. No wonder no one gives a shit about Haiti. Compassion is a limited resource, and most of us are tapped out.

… I [...]]]> My nephew Joshua posted the following on Facebook yesterday:

Did you know the human brain can only process up to 150 active relationships? We can only care about that many people at a time. No wonder no one gives a shit about Haiti. Compassion is a limited resource, and most of us are tapped out.

… I have developed a theory: The only way people can ever reach a point where we stop war from happening, and actually help our fellow man in a truly Altruistic way (or to even take part in the global world we have created), we need to evolve into a species that actively manages a lot more relationships. Until then, the further away people seem, the more abstract and they will be to us and thus the more unimportant they will be.

He’s referring to Dunbar’s number which is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person. This number has been cited as the population of an average village in the Domesday Book, the ideal size of a church congregation and the average size of a company in the Army.

Examples of meaningful relationships might include:

• people you can go to in moments of great distress
• people you trust and on which you could rely
• people of which you know immediately the position in your overall social network

This may at least partially explain why in smaller social groups (small towns, smaller military units, families, clubs, etc) there are feelings of comradery, fellowship, and intimacy that you generally don’t find in larger groups such as cities, big corporations, and larger military units. My own experience seems to bear this out. I’ve always had a preference for living in small towns, working in smaller companies, and serving with small military units. In this smaller groups I have generally felt more at ease, more comfortable, more empowered and more connected to others in the group.

Is compassion a limited resource? I don’t know, maybe it is. Certainly, the resources available to an individual to put his compassion into action can be limited. How do we decide who gets those resources? Modern technology brings the plight of other human beings around the world into our awareness almost instantaneously and nearly constantly. It can be overwhelming and desensitizing, maybe to the point where we become apathetic.

Industrialization and technology have moved us from self-sustaining villages and tribes to vast collections of people who have no real relationships to one another. Within these masses we form small groups in which we forge tenuous loyalties, relationships, and bonds of compassion. I may be pessimistic in believing that, as a species, we are not likely to evolve to the point where people can form lasting social relationships with large numbers of other people. Occasionally, there is some event or catastrophe that brings diverse groups of people together in a common bond but it’s usually temporary, lasting only until the crisis passes, everyone loses interest, forgetting why the bond was originally formed, or people once again become self-absorbed in their own interests.

Not much over 100 years ago, society was largely agrarian and most people lived in self-sustaining small towns and villages. Technology and industrialization have caused us to live in closer proximity to one another and made us more interdependent but our technological advancements have not brought us closer as people. The abundance of information has not made us any less ignorant or more tolerant. We live in a world where anyone’s opinion can be propagated as fact, ignorance is embraced as knowledge and what passes for truth is wholly dependent on how well one manipulates the popular media.

I think we’d have to expand our capability for active relationships by more than a hundred-fold and I’m not sure that would be enough. Our brains may very well have the potential and we could possibly realize that potential once we convince ourselves that doing what’s right must come before what’s profitable and that peace is more honorable than war. Utopian? You bet your sweet ass it is!

For what it’s worth…

Are they nuts? [...]]]> Lately I’ve been hearing an ad on the radio promoting a beauty product that alledgedly makes women look years younger. The ad features “testamonials” that have men saying the product made their wife or girlfriend look 10 or 20 years younger, implying that these men actually made these statements to their significant others.

Are they nuts? Never, ever tell your wife that something makes her look 10 years younger. Such a statement implies that you thought she looked old before she did whatever it was that she did. Worse yet, it may infer to her that you prefer younger women. This is a test you can’t study for. Your best bet is to simply tell her she looks great. However, since I’m a man, there is no way I can predict how a woman will take any comment made by a man so you’re on your own. Good luck. We’re all in this together.