Thinking About Wildlife

So, I’ve just found out that, because my husband is twenty years younger than I am, I am technically known as a “cougar”. I guess the people that coined that term are thinking that the value of a young guy lies only in the challenge of prowling for them.

But here’s what I’m thinking:

I’m thinking that a twenty-something-year-old man is worth keeping for the long run. It’s nice to have someone around that doesn’t have to find a magnifying glass to read the expiration date on coupons. One that doesn’t need products for erectile dysfunction, baldness or prostate shrinkage. And one that won’t be going to the bathroom in the middle-of-the-night when I have to get up to go the bathroom in the middle-of-the-night.

I’m also thinking that I can be living at the poverty level and have gained fifty pounds, and will still want to show up at my high school reunions. When your husband wasn’t even born yet when you graduated from high school, you go to your reunions. In fact, it’s an absolute must.

But most of all I’m thinking that, by robbing the cradle, I’m making an excellent long-term investment in home health-care. Marrying my future orderly seems more affordable than what I’d have to pay as my portion of assistance from Medicare. Because you can’t trust your children to take care of you. They’re the reason they had to go and invent nursing homes.

Thinking About Crossing the Line

So, I’ve been reading a lot about a lot of legislation coming from California regarding the ethical treatment of illegal immigrants. They’re thinking that the best way to handle the immigration situation is to continue to throw our tax dollars at it.

But here’s what I’m thinking:

I’m thinking that, because most of the state of California is busy with rehab, protests, plastic surgery and growing pot, they prey, I mean they rely, on illegal Mexican labor to do the rest of the work there. The Californians most likely have a hidden agenda as well for wanting our tax money to go towards benefits for illegal workers. It is so they can sleep at night after paying them their less than minimum wages. Prescription sleeping pills are getting too costly.

I’m thinking our immigration policies indicate a future where the U.S. demographic figures will be including most of the population of Mexico. When it comes to defending the U.S.-Mexico border, America has bitten off more than they can chew. As we are the world leader in obesity rates, this is really quite a feat. The next policy the INS should try is zero-tolerance. We certainly haven’t minded using that policy with our schoolchildren. But California may fight back. There will be no civil war number two, though, we’ll just all be a completely different country. Because you know the saying: As California goes, so does the rest of the country. They’ve been leading us to new legal definitions of illegally-defined activities for years.

I’m thinking that America can solve the immigration problem completely, and probably take a nice chunk out of the federal deficit, by simply buying Mexico. The southern boundary line of Mexico, connecting it to Guatemala and Belize, is only a third the size of the U.S. border. Think of how much we could save just on the material costs of the Wall. And we could use cheap Mexican labor to do the patrolling. In fact, we could probably get a sweet package deal if we took the rest of Central America along with it. I think we could successfully guard that teeny border connecting it to South America. And it would bring us closer to our drug dealers in Columbia. Maybe cheaper transportation costs will drive the price of cocaine down enough so the needy can get off the crack and meth and switch to a drug that’s a habit of highly successful people.

But most of all I’m thinking that acquiring Mexico will add so many miles of American beachfront property for resorts and gambling casinos, we’ll never have to pay taxes again. Legalize pot and prostitution there and the Northern Mexican border will still be the most frequently crossed border in the world. Only this time, going the other way.

Thinking About the Holidays

So, with all the busyness going on with preparing for Christmas, everyone’s thinking Christmas is the holliest, jolliest time of year.

But here’s what I’m thinking:

I’m thinking, I’m more thankful than ever to be Jewish during the Christmas season. I just spent a jittery month existing on leftover Halloween candy, and then went right into the few weeks of nightly sleeping sickness from various turkey-based leftovers. I don’t need an even bigger holiday now, I need to catch up for a while. Luckily, when you’re Jewish you can pick and choose what parts of Christmas you want to participate in. Christmas pageants, going caroling in 20 degree weather? No thanks, we’ll be being Jewish that night. Christmas party with open bar? Sure, we’ll be there with Jingle Bells on, and even take care of the star for the tree.

I’m thinking that Christmas is an odd sort of holiday, what with being based on Jesus, who was a nice Jewish boy by all accounts. So, at the Second Coming, won’t you guys feel a bit slighted when, at the Christ household, they are lighting the menorah, instead of a tree, and will most likely be asleep, all snug in their beds, by the time you’re bundling up to leave for Midnight Mass?

But, most of all, I’m thinking we’re lucky that our holiday lasts for eight days. So, when we see “Happy Hanukkah” on TV, and realize it began the night before, we can still get our cards out to everyone before it’s over. That’s good news, because any more guilt than we’ve already got from our mothers could push any nice Jewish girl right over the edge.

Thinking About Odds and Evens

So, there’s always some kind of noise in the news about how bad gambling is. As there are always two sides to every story, I can guess what makes them think that.

But here’s what I’m thinking:

I’m thinking that winning at gambling has a much better shot than we think. Follow my theory of 50-50:
First, every event can have only two outcomes, polar opposites of each other - on/not on, win/not win. Ones or zeroes like the binary system – if it’s good enough for the basis of all technology, it’s good enough for this blog.
Also, each contestant should be considered separately, and not weighted against the field. The reason this should be done is because unlimited random variables surround each contestant in an equal amount – an infinity’s worth. The result is that the probability of a related outcome creating a loss (i.e. because another horse outruns them) becomes exactly equal to the probability of anything else creating that loss (like a volcanic eruption, a jockey having menstrual cramps, the planetary alignments, or just some idiot walking across the track).
Conclusion: Since every horse (or Nascar driver, political candidate, whatever) has an equal chance of winning or losing, anything that pays better than even money (1 to 1) becomes lucrative. The best part is that, as it works out, you’ll be right half the time. Unless, of course, the Lord was also born a gambling man and really does play dice with the universe. Then all bets are off.

I’m thinking, though, that since probabilities are only proven when tested over time, we may never be able to have a clear answer on the gambling issue. Like they say, we always have more time than money, and you gotta pay to play.

I’m also thinking my 50-50 theory throws the saying, “the odds are always with the house”, right out the window. So when you see a profitable gambling establishment you know their money isn’t coming from the tables. Besides the markup they get from the soft-drinks, they are probably using the theory of 50-50 to remit their taxes. They take the pile of money they owe for taxes and split it up - one dollar to the government, one dollar back to the house, one for them, one for me…

But most of all I’m thinking that they can stop working on a solution to the chaos theory. This theory tries to find an order in random sets of data. Well, I’ve done it and everything is a 50/50 proposition. It’s actually been summed up quite well already – “You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.” But can someone please explain to me that if the best we can possibly do results in only a 50% chance of success, why is losing still so damned disappointing 100% of the time.

Thinking About Fuel

So, America has leapt onto the corn ethanol bandwagon, thinking that it will swiftly conquer our oil dependency.

But here’s what I’m thinking:

I’m thinking it’s all a great big show, given that corn is one of the least efficient crops for biofuel. And, at the same time that we are aggressively replenishing our oil reserves. I guess America figures that if we just wait it out, continued global warming can be a boon to the biofuel industry. As the warmed waters rise, deserts will be irrigated and huge tracts of polar areas will be de-iced – think of all the new farmland that will be available without any deforestation. And we helped.

I’m thinking we’re drilled in too deep. We’ve been sucking up to oil-rich nations as far back as when the nation’s capital was relocated from New York. It’s no coincidence that Washington, D.C. is located in the middle east. All our politicians have known to invest in oil from way back. Why else would they give the okay to a trillion-dollar war over it that could take a hundred years or so? The generous hearts they usually show only to their prostitutes?

But mostly I’m thinking that we suck at agriculture. The last time the U.S. relied on crops, we used imported slaves. We’re still paying for that. Then, we paid farmers not to farm so we could eat imported food. We’re still paying for that, too. Recently, we used illegally imported Mexican labor. We’re now paying for a multimillion dollar fence to keep them away. Well, all but the skinniest, who are able to squeeze right through it. Anyway, in the future we’ll have to harvest crops using former NASA employees, disgraced clerics and those whose lives were ruined by YouTube videos. It’ll be expensive, too, but at least we’ll have an ample supply.