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.

Censoring

I've wrestled about whether or not I should blog a facebook experience I had last week and just could not seem to make up my mind. Today I enjoyed a second similar experience and can no longer justify not blogging it. Although, both incidents involved different people, they both illustrate unique facets of the same point--secular progressive closed-mindedness and deep rooted need for mindless sycophancy.

The following Facebook interaction took place on May 26, 2009:

UNNAMED1-- just got back from San Diego and had a lovely time at (Jack) & (Diane's) wedding. California itself was great, but their Supreme Court sucks.

XXXX at 1:01pm commented:
Thank goodness you had time to get some legal observations in....

Mr. Geisel commented around 1:10pm:
"Power to the people" which the profile owner, UNNAMED1, removed almost immediately.

UNNAMED1 at 1:12pm then responded to XXXX:
What's a vacation without legal observation? :)

Later that evening Mr. Geisel commented:
"censored for political views? :-(" UNNAMED1 similarly removed this observation from the page.

I then received the following e-mail:

Hi Theodore.

As you may or may not know, I do a lot of volunteering here in New York working for marriage equality and have many gay and lesbian friends who were absolutely devastated by the decision today. I took you comment "power to the people" to mean you were in support of Prop 8, but right now I have friends who are in loving, committed relationships, some with adopted children, who feel that the "people" (i.e., a small majority in California) took away their rights as a minority.

While I'm happy to debate you all day on my public page about differing views on economic policy, I just didn't want my friends, who were told today that their relationship is less valid than mine, to see any comments that would make them feel worse. I think that you can understand that it was a personal, not political, "censoring".

Best,
UNNAMED1
------------------------

After some deliberation, I decided that e-mail was a humongous pile of self righteous, holier-than-thou crap. That e-mail practically called me a callous jerk for making such an insensitive comment and insinuated I lacked empathy for homosexual "victims" and therefore had no right to be opposed to judicial activism on behalf of same sex marriage. I could not ignore it and penned the following response:

UNNAMED1.

I don't even remotely see it that way. By taking the issue into the political arena it is no longer "personal" but political. Therefore it is political and not personal censoring. More to the point, I understand exactly how it feels to have a minority use things like judicial activism to take away rights from myself and others. I also understand exactly how it feels to have a small majority of Americans vote for a President that is taking away the freedoms of my children and their children. You have probably had similar feelings, but it hasn't silenced you any more than I should be silenced.

The beauty of the Constitution is it allows states, and individual citizens living in those states, to make these decisions for themselves. I am grateful New Yorkers can do what they think best and Californians can do what they think best. While it is horrible that your friends in NY may feel offended by what took place in CA, I and many of my friends are just as personally offended by actions to legalize homosexual marriage in many other states. We believe those actions diminish the sanctity of what we feel is an institution that builds up and strengthens society.

Regarding economic debate. First, in addition to social consequences, decisions legalizing homosexual marriage DO have ECONOMIC consequences as well. Second, I agree social/moral issues probably shouldn't be the focus of political debate because I believe such issues, like religion, should not be dictated by government. They should not be politicized. Unfortunately, the milk has already been spilled and the law of entropy won't allow us to put it back in the bottle.

Allow me to illustrate point two. I hate that my tax money supports something as abhorrent and morally vacuous as abortion for non life-threatening purposes, but there is nothing I can do about it. Judicial activism has ensured that choice is taken from me and I am now obligated to obey the law of the land. I do find it extremely interesting how the same idiotic small activist group (the Supreme Court) and faulty reasoning not only declared that blacks were not people and therefore had no protected rights (Dred Scott v. Sandford) but that fetuses too are not people and are similarly devoid of rights (Roe v. Wade). How can logic so obviously wrong before be so obviously right now? (rhetorical question).

I see your activism and follow your links all the time as they come along Facebook. It often seems like gloating from your side of the bleachers. I'm ecstatic to be able to now cheer from my side. I hope you can understand that.

Best Regards, Theodore Geisel

-------------------------

I think the above interaction illustrates beautifully just how closed-minded the secular progressive mentality really is. Only one valid point of view exists; the victim's point of view. If a person isn't either one of the victims or sympathetic to the victims' perceived plight, that person must be an oppressor and will quickly find themselves relegated to the moral low ground in the secular progressive's mind. Any argument a morally defunct oppressor could possibly make against the victim's viewpoint is either insensitive or invalid by virtue of coming from an oppressor. Either way, there is no need to listen any longer. Simply marginalize the oppressor's argument and move on.

Speaking of moving on, it's time for interaction two. I beg the reader to allow me some license here because I will have to do my best to paraphrase. I no longer have access to the verbatim conversation, but the conversation itself really isn't the point. The point is I no longer have access to the conversation. Interaction two occurred something like this:

UNNAMED2--is so glad his home state NH shares his views on gay marriage. if only NY would get with the times!

XXXX commented something about how proud he/she was of UNNAMED2 for courageously voicing his opinion on such a controversial topic on Facebook.

UNNAMED2--stop it. you'll make me blush. if only something as obvious as equal rights could be solved by simply posting something about it on my Facebook page.

Mr. Geisel commented: "where is the dislike button?"

For those readers who are not familiar with Facebook, when someone posts something on Facebook, all of their friends can either comment on the post or click a button to "like" the post. Well what if I don't like or agree with the post? I, and for that matter, the person who posted, may not want to launch into a big discussion about it. Worse yet, silence could be misconstrued as support for the post. I just want to click on "dislike" and move on. Facebook should be heaven for secular progressives.

The point I wish to make is that my desire to "dislike" gay marriage apparently proved to be too much for secular progressive UNNAMED2. I arrived at this conclusion when within thirty minutes or so after commenting, I had one less friend on Facebook. Rather than take a chance on hearing from someone who didn't parrot his opinions back at him, UNNAMED2 chose to close his mind and further insulate himself in his group think world. New York hasn't learned to share his views on gay marriage and he obviously hasn't learned about New York cynicism. He'd rather suck down some ice cold kool-aid served up by one of his sycophants. Hey! What's that weird aftertaste?

Moralless Airs of Moral Superiority

According to Wikipedia, "progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating progress, changes, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are." What a beautifully elegant representation of a bunch of hogwash. This definition implies that things must constantly be in flux in order for "progress, changes, improvement or reform" to take place and that the status quo is inherently flawed simply because it is the status quo. Progressivism also implies that all other political and social ideologies wish to simply "maintain things as they are." Therein lies the beginning of a belief in moral superiority.

I find a couple problems with progressivism that just don't allow me to accept it as a viable political or social model. The first is that it is rooted in a tautological concept. A logical tautology is a non clarification where all instances are true such as defining a color, red is red, or where a statement covers both the false and the true condition and therefore cannot be proven to be either false or true. For example, he will either win or not win. Thank you Mr. Obvious. The progressive movement, like eugenics, is rooted in evolution and natural selection. All change, whether good or bad for the individual, propels the group towards a better condition because the current condition is flawed. All changes to a flawed political/social system, whether good or bad for individuals, propel society towards a better condition because the current system is flawed. Natural selection is a tautology and therefore can never be proven or disproven. Why didn't they survive? They weren't the fittest. If they were the fittest, they would have survived. They will either survive or not survive. Again, thank you Mr. Obvious. The only real philosophical difference between evolution and progressivism is that evolution leaves survival decisions up to "chance" while progressives decide for themselves who should be the fittest. They apparently either know better than everyone else because they are "enlightened" or they have experienced life in a way that somehow uniquely entitles them to politically engage more than those who haven't had their same experiences. Should the poor or the rich survive? How about the white male v. any other gender or minority? We, the progressives, will decide based on our empathetic, enlightened world view.

The second problem for me is the lack of absolutes. Specifically, the lack of MORAL absolutes in a political/social sense. If one believes that change is inevitable and the status quo is flawed there can never be an absolute end, goal or moral with the exception of change itself. I find this reasoning faulty. Allow me to illustrate. A person is either pregnant or not pregnant, dead or not dead. These are absolutes. There just aren't degrees of pregnancy or death. Webster's defines moral as, "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principle or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong." I find that progressivism accepts the first half about conduct, eg. political correctness, but not the latter half about right and wrong, eg. abortion.
What is a moderate stance on abortion? Does a fetus have rights or not? Lines must be drawn and absolutes established if a law is to be applied fairly.

Superiority is, "the quality or condition of being superior." When I put "moral" and "superiority" together, along with their definitions, I understand moral superiority to mean having a better understanding of right conduct and distinctions between right and wrong than others who just aren't as smart. Maybe 'arrogance' and/or 'intellectualism' could sum it up. Progressive superiority stems from empathy, "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." Progressives attempt to frame most debates in terms of empathy. We should all feel sorry for (insert predetermined "fittest" group here) and if you don't, then you are a (insert pejorative, ad hominem term here). This is the essence of a progressive air of moral superiority. The irony is that aside from advocating that the status quo is always flawed, change is always a desirable goal and their point of view is the only qualified, legitimate one in any debate, they have no moral absolutes. A moralless absolute air of moral superiority and I'm not going to let that oxymoron shut me up.

Regarding Term Limits

From 1990 to 1994 I struggled to pay for my higher education through a series of unfortunate and unpleasant job choices. One of the first was doing telephone surveys during the 1990 midterm elections. I believe desperation drives people to do things they would normally avoid and only desperation could have driven me to apply for that job. I also suppose desperation led that company to hire just about anybody; including me. However, the fact that I accepted that job offer incontrovertibly proves a person can be possessed by the devil, an alien or some other being from another dimension.

Only two good things came from that experience. First, I paid for my tuition. Second, I learned that most people aren't logical; they are misinformed, uninformed, disengaged or just plain emotional. It didn't matter what state I surveyed, almost everyone I talked to thought the country was, "headed in the wrong direction," and, "disapproved of," or, "strongly disapproved of," the job Congress currently did. The odd thing was most of them thought their incumbent Representative or Senator did an outstanding job! That makes no sense at all and I doubt that outcome has changed one bit in 2008. The only way I can explain it is by choosing one of the non-logical descriptions I mentioned earlier.

In my opinion, what happens is Congress pleases most of their local constituents so they can get reelected and completely misses the bigger national picture. For example, a simple emergency measure becomes a 500 page behemoth full of earmarks. Congressman A tells Congresswoman B that the only way he'll vote for a bill to help people in her state X who are suffering from natural disaster Y is if he can get some money to build a bridge with his name on it back in his state Z. The obvious solution, of course, is term limits. However, that poses a problem.

During the 1990s, 23 states put measures on their ballots to limit terms in Congress. They all overwhelmingly passed. Unfortunately, in 1995 the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, ruled that states could not impose term limits on their Representatives or Senators. The only way term limits will ever become a reality, is if Congress passes legislation to limit their own terms. While Congress readily legislates themselves raises, I'm pretty certain they aren't going to limit the length of their own careers. Regardless, they still have to get reelected every two to six years and that's where the Tea Party comes in. If we remove incumbents, we limit terms. There is nothing Congress or the Supreme Court can do to stop that. This has to be a populist, grassroots initiative and that requires everyone to tell everyone else about the Tea Party. We may be too late for the 2008 election, but there WILL be another election in 2010.