The Ninety Percent Rule: Introduction - What the Deuce?

Every fire starts with a spark of some sort, and the ninety percent rule is no exception. It began to form about ten years ago when I had the pleasure of following a lady in her car as we both approached the same intersection. A two-way stop sign controlled the junction with a major arterial and the stop signs only applied to our direction of travel. The gal ahead of me stopped at the stop sign in what some might call a "rolling" or "California" stop. After making this half-hearted offering to the stop sign, she began to pull into the intersection when she abruptly slammed on her brakes in order to avoid a collision with another car. The other car traveling along the arterial didn't have to stop, only side street traffic did. I'm fairly certain this is commonly referred to in the driving world as yielding the right of way. When the vehicle on the busy arterial passed through the intersection, the woman driving the car ahead of me, who had narrowly avoided causing an accident, flipped off the other driver. I did NOT see that coming. I had just witnessed one of the most unbelievable, jaw-dropping moments of unrighteous indignation I had ever seen. Sometimes I tell myself I imagined that angry finger, but sadly, I didn't. That incredibly ignorant, self-absorbed woman, who failed to thoroughly check for traffic in the intersection, virtually ignored a stop sign and very nearly caused a collision, sincerely believed she acted justifiably. In her mind, and "how" is completely unfathomable to me, the other driver in some way had violated her rights at that intersection and her extended finger was well-founded. If either person had the right to hang a bird at the other, it certainly was not her. With my jaw resting comfortably in my lap, I headed home in shock. I didn't know it yet, but a spark glowed ominously in my mind's tinder.

Now I'm pretty sure everyone has witnessed something similarly asinine while cruising the streets of America. After all, aren't such events, or possibly too many speeding tickets, the impetus behind learning defensive driving? Wikipedia defines defensive driving as, "a form of training for motor vehicle drivers that goes beyond mastery of the rules of the road and the basic mechanics of driving. Its aim is to reduce the risk of driving by anticipating dangerous situations, despite adverse conditions or the mistakes of others." Defensive driving assumes the worst about all other drivers which makes it inherently pessimistic. Approach that intersection very cautiously because another person will ignore their stop sign and plow into you. Leave some space between yourself and the next car because that person up there is eating a cheeseburger/putting on makeup/talking on the phone, whatever, and will soon swerve into oncoming traffic or rear end another car. Simply stated, assume all other drivers on the road are idiots and are about to do something completely asinine that will cause you bodily harm or even kill you; all for failing to assume they are idiots. Personally, I call this sort of pessimism-realism.

People generally utilize an analogy about half a cup of water to determine a persons general outlook on life. The optimist looks at the cup of water and gratefully declares it half full, while the pessimist unappreciatively calls it half empty. The reality is that the cup is partially full and neither description changes anything about the quantity of water currently found in the glass. Also, what if it holds poison instead of water? Does it really matter if one is optimistic or pessimistic regarding the amount of poison in the glass? The reality is that both people will soon be dead if they drink it and, I suppose, the optimist will find something wonderful about being dead. Realists recognize, accept and deal with things exactly how they are and leave all the moralizing about full or empty to the optimists and pessimists. To a certain extent, the same concept of defensive driving realism is applicable to every day life.

Over time and through many experiences, the spark in my mind's tinder grew into a flame and eventually a theoretical fire I call the ninety percent rule. The ninety percent rule goes beyond mastery of the rules of social interaction and the basic mechanics of living life. It aims to reduce life's risks by anticipating dangerous situations created by the mistakes, misinformation or ignorance of others. Just like slowing down for that intersection keeps the driver who runs the stop sign from plowing into you, approaching human interaction cautiously lessens the likelihood of being pummeled by stupidity.

That being said, before stating the ninety percent rule, I feel compelled to give an indication of what lies ahead; a general lay of the land. Out of fairness, I want to inform readers about what to expect so they may decide beforehand whether or not to stop reading these essays and avoid more potential harm. For example, "stupid" is a tough word to swallow. I know many parents who, along with the basic four-letter words, teach their kids that "stupid" is a bad word. Few things humble a person more than a 3-year old child informing them they have just used a bad word. And in case that wasn't embarrassing enough, they turn around and tell their parents and any other adults who happen to be in the vicinity. The cold, dead glares that precede statements such as, "we don't allow our children to use that word," should cause any decent person to blush. Nonetheless, I'm writing this treatise on the assumption that no 3-year old will be reading it and that those people who do read it can grasp general concepts regardless of how thick or thin their skin may be. I plan to use four-letter words like "stupid" whenever necessary because, according to the ninety percent rule, it's necessary A LOT.

As I affirmed previously, the ninety percent rule is the concept of defensive driving for life. Every other driver on the road will, at any moment, do something really stupid; so anticipate. By definition, ninety percent includes an awful lot of people. I recognize everyone has those "what the .....?" moments now and again, and that is not what the ninety percent rule is about. I call it the ninety percent "rule" not the ninety percent "exception to the rule". The ninety percent rule predicts consistent idiocy for ninety percent of people at a rate of about ninety percent of the time. Anyone who wishes to dicker about whether it's really fifty percent or seventy percent can do so on their own. I think it's ninety percent. I really wish it wasn't so. I'm absolutely convinced life would be much easier if only ten percent of people were idiots. I am equally convinced that most of that ninety percent just doesn't know they fall into the ninety percent category. I believe anyone who falls on the wrong side of the ninety percent rule has the potential to change and join the ten percent. They just need to take a little time for self analysis and try to recognize their own stupidity; Stupidity recognized becomes stupidity avoided. My ninety percent rule essays will address many divisive and potentially offensive topics such as stupid questions, arrogance, hypocrisy and the death of a horse. They will also touch on ways to recognize and hopefully overcome general stupidity, but the common thread throughout will be the ninety percent rule. Ninety percent of people are idiots. Let me prove it.

Brownies

Although I recognize television is a huge time waster, I really enjoy watching it. Don't judge me. I bet if Karl Marx had lived in the twenty first century he would have named "media" the opiate of the masses. When one watches a lot of TV, they're bound to see a few commercials. I can still see some guy walking down the street eating peanut butter and bumping into a ladder where some other guy is eating chocolate. You got your chocolate in my peanut butter! You got peanut butter on my chocolate! Wait a minute, chocolate and peanut butter taste great together. Why didn't we come up with this a long time ago? Ah, compromise; Is there anything you can't accomplish? Secular progressives want "conservatives" to compromise on everything and for many years I believed compromise could resolve most political conflict. I don't believe that anymore.

Don't get me wrong, certain situations, such as mixing chocolate with peanut butter or reconciling competing needs for and potential uses of public areas/properties, call for compromise to work its healing magic. Basically, compromise works great when used within the actual parameters of government as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Morals and values, however, do not fall into this category. An object lesson, which was mostly lost on me in my youth, has since become immensely valuable to me as an adult and will hopefully serve to illustrate my point.

One evening our youth activity involved baking brownies. We mixed up the dry ingredients, added eggs, milk, all the usual stuff. As we prepared to pour our concoction into the baking pan our leader said, "hold on a minute. I think you guys forgot one of the ingredients." Now I'm not a huge chocolate fan, but I do love brownies and we certainly did not want to risk ruining brownie bliss by leaving some crucial ingredient out. All eyes turned to the little plastic baggie in our leader's hand.....A baggie of dog poop. "Surely a little bit wouldn't hurt," he suggested; Yeah right. Kids are dumb, but not that dumb. No one wanted to add ANY poop to the batter. That night we learned we were the brownies. We might tell ourselves that one little lie is no big deal, just one puff on a cigarette can't hurt much or a bit of language and nudity won't detract from an otherwise uplifting movie, but that lie, cigarette, language or nudity is dog poop.

A large part of the secular progressive agenda (despite their claims to the contrary) challenges traditional morals and values or promotes lifestyle choices that, when chosen, severely impact those morals and values; Positions such as unfettered abortion, gay marriage, restorative justice for child predators and sex education that stops at free condoms for everyone in middle school. As I briefly mentioned in my last post, I do not believe government in general, and specifically the federal government, should have any part in dictating morals any more than they should dictate religion. Nonetheless, left wing activism has consistently politicized moral issues for over forty years. Pandora not only opened the lid but ripped it right off the hinges. Imagine the outcry if the federal government dictated that prayer was an essential component of broader prosperity, better health and greater fulfillment in life. Yet secular progressives find nothing wrong with government dictating the same thing about mandatory availability of the morning after pill.

Back to poo. One ubiquitous part of almost any secular progressive analysis of opposing arguments includes an accusation of right wing or conservative "extremism", quickly followed by an appeal to adopt a more "moderate" stance. They're reasonable. They understand the importance of emotions and empathy. They don't expect "right wing extremists" to change all at once, just reciprocate and be a little more reasonable. Be a "moderate"--which is code for "compromise". Put a little poo in your brownies. I doubt you'll even taste it.

I feel abortion most easily exemplifies how social brownies get tainted with compromise. In the beginning abortion is illegal. Soon, opponents are asked to be reasonable and accept some extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest and risk to the mother's life. Next, reasonable means abortion for simply not wanting the pregnancy or, perhaps, in lieu of the condom that dude didn't wear the other night when that one chick was, like, soooooo drunk. Then reasonable becomes not even informing parents that their fourteen year-old daughter is about to undergo a medical procedure with massive psychological and life altering ramifications. Now, Sweden legalizes abortion for something as petty and selfish as the baby's gender and anyone who thinks that is not reasonable is now a "right wing extremist".

Obviously it is up to each individual to decide for themselves how much poop they like in their brownies. Well.......obvious to anyone who doesn't buy into a secular progressive nanny state, but come on! In the first place, where is the compromise on the part of secular progressives? In the second place, what is a "moderate" view on abortion anyway? Just abort part of the baby? When it comes to morals and values, the problem with "moderate" is that such concessions don't really satisfy secular progressive demands. They don't want to be reasonable about abortion; they just want to wear out and erode the opposition until they get exactly what they wanted in the first place with absolutely no concessions on their part. They are the uncompromising extremists. They want completely unrestricted abortion for anyone at anytime for any reason and will not relent in any way until they achieve that goal. A new concession only leads to another demand. All too soon there is hardly any brownie left in the turd getting crammed down the right wing "extremist's" throat.

The call for compromise and moderation never abates. President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. She believes a judge should base decisions on empathy. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Classic secular progressive mentality (see Moralless Airs of Moral Superiority). Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, says he will, "quietly root for her." Rush Limbaugh, radio talk show host (and in my opinion, tedious ideologue), suggested, "I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I could be convinced she does have a sensibility towards life." Both men appear capable of ignoring her track record of being overturned regularly and her self proclaimed liberalism because she might, just might, be secretly pro life. Again, compromise, be reasonable, find moderate ground. Maybe Sotomayor was right about certain groups arriving at better conclusions than others (sarcasm). As for me, I think this is an example of sprinkling a little brownie into the poo batter. I've eaten my fill of secular progressive poop. I want my brownies untainted. Mmmmm, brownies do sound really yummy right now. I think there might be some vanilla ice cream in the freezer.