The Rule of Threes (Or, How to Spot a Coincidence)
Posted By 美國人 on June 29, 2009
So, the death of Michael Jackson got me thinking.
We have this thing called “reverence”. It can be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:
1. Deep or due respect felt or shown towards a person on account of his or her position or relationship; deference. Now rare or Obs. b. Deep respect and veneration for some thing, place, or person regarded as having a sacred or exalted character.
c. In phr. to have or hold (a person or thing) in (great, etc.) reverence.
d. In phr. to pay,
do, or
make reverence to, to show respect or veneration for (a person or thing) by some action. (In early use implying sense 2.)
2. A gesture indicative of respect; an obeisance; a bow or curtsy. (Cf. prec.)
We tend to bestow more of this upon someone after his or her demise. Even when someone is of “questionable” morals, immediately follow his or her death, that person is lovingly placed on a pedestal and, for all intents and purposes, did no wrong. Mother Teresa is a good example of this. I think I’ve mentioned that before.
I don’t know why he died. I don’t care why he died. Cardiac arrest is extremely vague. It basically just means his heart stopped. To put it in perspective, technically, both Heath Ledger and Ted Bundy both died of cardiac arrest. Hell, my father died of it. I’m pretty sure even that if the sacrifice victim in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom wasn’t lowered into a pit of molten hot magma he would’ve died of cardiac arrest. If I had to put money on it, I’d say it had something to do with Jack-O’s intense prescription drug abuse. Drug addicts experience weakening of the heart? No way! Yes, way.
Perez Hilton, whom I don’t care for and have no reason to defend, is coming under a lot of fire for his skeptical post about Jack-O’s condition:

What’s wrong with that? The blogosphere is apparently quaking with terror over this if you believe Mashable, but why? Jackson did it before, just like Perez says. He was exhibiting the same behavior this time. Why is that insensitive to point it out? Perez was doing what he should be doing as a celebrity blogging whore: showing and telling.
Good for you, Perez.
But now we have another interesting phenomenon to deal with: the rule of threes. They say (and when I say “they” I mean the superstitious morons who actually believe correlation equals causation and there’s no such thing as coincidence) that these sorts of things happen three times in quick succession. So, with the addition of Billy Mays, voila, we have our three.
Yeah, I don’t buy it, either.
To tell the truth, I’m more upset about Billy than the other two. Sure, Farrah was hot back in her heyday and I’m sure if I were a pubescent boy when that ubiquitous poster was released, I’d feel a lot more broken up about losing her. As it so happens, I was not. I was more infatuated with Kathy Ireland back when she was an SI cover model. But honestly: a bug bazooka. How cool is that?
You know what would clean that really, really well? A ShamWow.
I still have no idea what sha’mon means.

I think people are more likely to give a vegetarian shit than an atheist because there’s no clause in the social contract that says you cannot be intolerant of what people eat. Even at our wedding, we had three vegetarians out of 60 guests, and we devoted 1/6 of the menu to them. If you have a group of 60 people and 3 of them are atheists (which is about the national average; if you throw non-religious, agnostic and Buddhist/etc in with that group, it’d be more like 12 or 13 out of 60), what are the chances that they’ll be considered at all? Pretty slim, I’d say.


