The Ninety Percent Rule: Chapter 1 - Dedicated to Unbelievers and Infidels Everywhere

Hurry! Get all the 3-year olds out of the room and quit being so sensitive. Every time I present my ninety percent rule to one of my friends, or a deserving acquaintance, I get one of two general reactions. The first is immediate buy-in and the second is rank denial accompanied by a lecture on pessimism. Nonetheless, proof abounds.

Take, for example, sitcoms. Almost every one of them bludgeons viewers with a ubiquitous "laugh track." The mere presence of a laugh track begs the question, "just how stupid is the average American television viewer?" Certainly, television executives everywhere are driven by ratings. Basically, high ratings tell the executives to "run with it" and low ratings tell them to unplug the life support. Based on a ratings tenet, laugh tracks must really be what viewers want to see/hear when watching TV. Nothing else explains how insulting it is to "tell" viewers where to laugh. "Hey viewer, we know this is going to be way over your head, so here's a little hint about when to laugh and what you think is funny." The existence of laugh tracks proves that ninety percenters must make up the majority of Nielsen households. If they didn't, and all the intelligent viewers found offence in such an obvious slight on their intelligence, then these laugh track sitcoms would fail miserably and intelligent, versus banal, humor would reign silently supreme. On the other hand, if the forty percent rule is really more descriptive of the American viewing audience than the ninety percent rule, the Writers Guild must be comprised of ninety percenters. A bunch of idiot television writers so unfunny they feel obligated to punctuate their lousy jokes with a condescending laugh track and too simple to figure out viewers don't like them. I'll let you be the judge, but I'm pretty certain one of the two groups--if not both--relies heavily on ninety percenter membership.

Sitcoms, however, are just one symptom of the overall disease. I recently happened upon America's Funniest Home Videos for the umpteenth time. Most, and for the sake of continuity I would argue ninety percent, of these videos simply aren't funny. The videos consist mainly of pets and kids doing really stupid things or men getting smacked in the testicles by pets or kids, interspersed with an occasional grandma falling into or off of something, due to the antics of pets and kids, and later needing hip replacement surgery. A quick Google search revealed that this show made its television debut in 1989 and on April 23, 2009 ABC announced they had renewed it for an incredible twentieth season. Really? This show has assailed human intelligence for twenty years. This fact alone should prove my earlier point about Nielsen households and ninety percenters. It should also illustrate the opposite about network executives. Unlike TV viewers, they are wealthy geniuses. Network executives give America exactly what it wants--a bunch of extremely inexpensive, sophomoric reality shows. Then they mockingly deride those TV viewers as they deposit enormous checks into banks they could easily afford to own.

Unfortunately, reality television isn't the only drivel out there. I don't want to fail to give TV game shows some credit. In 2005 NBC gave us Deal or No Deal that challenged average Americans to pit their wits against a tricky nemesis named mathematics. In 2007 Fox gave us Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? which seriously called into question the quality of public education. Time Magazine in January of 2000 had the following to say about game shows in America nine years ago:

-----One of the keys to the success of these shows is the decision to use sub-Jeopardy! questions. "People feel 'I'm better than them,' while in the '50s you may have felt more comfortable saying you had never seen such a smart guy in your neighborhood as you saw on a quiz show," says NBC West Coast president Scott Sassa. Herb Stempel, the one who blew the whistle on the old Twenty-One, has a less upbeat take. "They want the people in the audience to pat themselves on the back and say, 'Gee, I knew the answer,'" he says. "The whole culture is getting dumbed down."-----

Here is a television executive who acknowledges game shows are being dumbed down to help viewers feel they are smarter than they really are. They truly are giving America what America wants. I argue that ninety percenters reign supreme in television viewing America, and since 99% of American households have at least one television, then ninety percent of people must be idiots. The jury is still out on the Writers Guild.

It's not just television entertainment that paints a stark, sad picture of ninety percenters. It's ALL OVER American culture. On August 1, 2007, the W35 Bridge, a major interstate thoroughfare in St. Paul, Minnesota, collapsed into the Mississippi and thirteen people died as a result. Shortly thereafter, a coal mine near Price, Utah caved in trapping six miners inside. Media coverage quickly put the bridge story on a back page while the mine story made endless headlines for weeks. Now don't get me wrong, both of these stories were, and are, tragedies, but which of the two is more relatable to every day life and should be to the general public as well? In the town where I live, I drive over a bridge crossing the Columbia River several times a day. The thought has certainly crossed my mind, "what would I do if, while crossing this bridge, it suddenly plummeted into the icy currents of the Columbia?" I honestly can't recall the last time I thought about what I would do if the seam of coal I was working suddenly precipitated a cave-in. In a move that defies all logic, ninety percenters demanded, and received, more information on a mine cave-in that couldn't affect them less, and less information on a bridge collapse that could happen to any one of them on any given day as they crisscross America's many highways.

News coverage is still more telling than that. In 2007 Anna Nicole Smith died suddenly in a hotel in Florida and actual news suddenly died at the same moment. I don't mean to sound cold, but what contribution did this woman make to society? Is her death really so important that all other news and information needed to be preempted for a solid week? Anna Nicole provided nothing that actually mattered to most Americans' lives--unless you consider large breasts and marrying an 89-year old oil tycoon for his money accomplishments. Regardless, news outlets couldn't report enough about her, let alone the custody hearings over her poor baby daughter that continued on for a good month.

Similarly, Micheal Jackson's passing, in 2009, virtually stopped hard news reporting. Unlike Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson at least left behind a musical legacy, along with ethical questions about plastic surgery, as an excuse for the nauseating amount of press attention surrounding his demise. While I think "Don't Stop 'Till You Get Enough" is a great song, important questions like, "Where is Bubbles the chimp?" and "Where is MJ's body now?" called for serious, around-the-clock, investigative reporting. Now I admit a musical legacy is a wonderful thing to give to the world, but important events didn't stop happening while the world listened to all their favorite MJ hits on their iPods. In fact, Kim Jong-il, in North Korea, threatened both Japan and Hawaii with nuclear missiles that same week. Apparently, entertainment stories rivet Americans' attention like nuclear holocaust never could. Well, they at least rivet ninety percenters while everyone else is left with no choice other than to turn "the news" off.

In addition, look at the rise in popularity of shows like Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight. Now we have to add TMZ to this list of truly horrid tabloid TV programs. This sort of information once belonged only in supermarket checkout lanes or the "society" page of the newspaper. Every "hard" news channel from CNN to Fox, and every newspaper from The New York Times to the "(insert your town here) Gazette" dedicates entire hours and pages to "entertainment" news (oxymoron). At CNN demand got so high producers decided to fill up spin-off network Headline News' three hour prime time as well. In fact, entertainment news has become so popular an entire cable network, E, has been built up around it and Barbara Walters' once hard-hitting interviews revolve more around getting celebrities to cry than asking world leaders insightful questions. Once again, America speaks and gets what they want--pure crap.

I truly believe the preponderance of evidence points to the ninety percent rule's undisputed existence. If anyone reading this still doesn't accept my assertion that ninety percent of people are idiots ninety percent of the time, at least concede a fifty-one percent majority and consider the underlying premise even more seriously. Society can only benefit when ninety percenters become ten percenters. Who knows, after determining which side of the ninety percent rule they fall on, ninety percenters just might gain the most benefit of all.

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.