Anyone with a smart phone can snap a picture of the “Occupy Wall Street” protests and turn it into a game of “spot the hypocrisy.”  Here you have people protesting the evils of capitalism and corporations and yet they sport smart phones, wear designer clothing, and take coffee breaks at the local McDonalds or Starbucks.  Their phones, clothing, and coffee all come from large corporations trying to make a profit.  Even the title of their movement, “#OccupyWallStreet,” shows the hypocrisy or cluelessness of this movement.

What does the pound sign (#) mean in “#OccupyWallStreet?”  Is it that thousands of people happen to have purchased a glitchy smart phone with a bad keyboard?  Is it the symptom of bad public education?  No, this is a Twitter tag.  Anyone who uses Twitter can insert that tag into their post so it can be easily found and grouped with other posts on a similar topic.  And for those who don’t know, Twitter is a website that allows people to post and receive messages from their phone.  Twitter has become the lifeblood of many modern protests such as ones held in Iran, Egypt, and now this crusade against capitalism.

And this is where the irony comes in.  Twitter is not some sort of charitable institution or government agency.  It is a FOR PROFIT business (and a very successful one) that makes money by selling its message database to search engines and making other deals to give companies “top billing” in searches.  I find it funny that the Occupy protesters are using the technology from the very type of company they want to eliminate.  Going further, they send tweets on smart phones made by, you guessed it, large corporations like Apple, Motorola, and Samsung.  But that’s where the protester’s reliance on “greedy corporations” ends right?  Nope, those phones need to run on the infrastructure created by AT&T and Verizon, again large corporations.  And let’s not forget that Twitter’s existence was made possible because of the Internet.  And while the Internet has its roots in government, it was corporations that turned it into a tool that connect billions of people worldwide.

But I’m pretty sure the irony of this is lost amongst the “Down with capitalism” and whatever other mush these people can fit in 140 words or less.

I was flipping through the channels the other night and came across an episode of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” on NBC.  I stopped watching this show regularly years ago because of its overly biased political nature and backhanded commentary on the Bush administration.  It looks like they have not given up on their old tricks, but without evil conservatives in power their new target are people fighting for secure borders and better immigration enforcement.

In the small scene I watched, detective Fin is following up a lead on a missing persons case by talking to an ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) officer.  Because the missing person was pregnant, he was checking to make sure she wasn’t trying to take advantage of the government’s “anchor baby” loophole where someone born on US soil from a non-citizen parent is a US citizen.  The ICE agent explains how people come into the country illegally to have their baby who then can receive all the social and political benefits provided by the tax payers (he says something about “sucking off the government teat”).

What does detective Fin say next?  He says, “Spoken like a true racist.” What was the agent’s response?  Nothing!  He just shrugged his shoulders and moved on with his next line.

How does speaking about the anchor baby loophole make one a racist?  The agent didn’t mention anyone’s race.  In fact, the plot revolved around a white, European immigrant.  So where exactly is the racism?  The writers for “Law and Order: SVU” need to get themselves a dictionary and look up the word “racist.”  I think they will see that discussing shortcomings in our immigration policy does not fit the definition.

Why is this so worrisome considering this is just a fictional drama?  In part because this was on a popular show that many people watch.  And while it if fiction, it plants this idea that someone is a racist when they talk frankly about the loopholes in our immigration policy.  How are we going to have any true reform if we cannot bring up sensitive topics without some people immediately playing the “R” card?

I just got my yearly Social Security statement. Enclosed was a short leaflet with an article titled "Will Social Security still be around when I retire?" The article states that the funds for Social Security will be depleted by 2037 under the current law. But what really angered me was this statement: However, this does not mean that Social Security benefit payments would disappear. Even if modifications to the program are not made, there would still be funds in 2037 from taxes paid by workers to pay about $760 for every $1,000 in benefits scheduled. So basically, the government will withhold $240 for every $1000 I should receive. Would you ever own an investment portfolio that had a 24% management fee and offered a near 0% interest rate? I can't believe I am forced into a system that takes more money away from me (percentage wise) than what I lost in the financial meltdown of the last two years. I just got my yearly Social Security statement. Enclosed was a short leaflet with an article titled "Will Social Security still be around when I retire?" The article states that the funds for Social Security will be depleted by 2037 under the current law. But what really angered me was this statement: However, this does not mean that Social Security benefit payments would disappear. Even if modifications to the program are not made, there would still be funds in 2037 from taxes paid by workers to pay about $760 for every $1,000 in benefits scheduled. So basically, the government will withhold $240 for every $1000 I should receive. Would you ever own an investment portfolio that had a 24% management fee and offered a near 0% interest rate? I can't believe I am forced into a system that takes more money away from me (percentage wise) than what I lost in the financial meltdown of the last two years. And yet, this inefficient, near-criminal behavior is just seen as "business as usual" for the U.S. government. I could have put this money into a savings account. That would at least earn a little interest and not put my capital at risk. I could go to Las Vegas and gamble with it. If I lost 24% at the blackjack table I would be doing as well as placing that money with the government. At least in a casino there is a small chance of making a profit. Heck, I would have come out in better shape just putting the money under my mattress! When we are done taking on the government over cap-n-trade, socialized medicine, and out of control spending we need to launch a revolution on Social "Screwturity."