We have already had a bit of good news from the new owners in that they will be dropping the price of parking at Dodger Stadium from $15 to $10. Good start, now how about rolling back ticket prices to a level that most families could afford?

My brother mentioned that the new owners were very interested in getting feedback from the fans on how they might try to improve things going forward. This is good to hear in the wake of last year’s attempted murder of a man at the stadium by gangster types who just about beat him to death in the parking lot. That man will never be normal again. As you can imagine, that single event brought attendance down to all time lows. Then the ongoing spectacle, Divorce McCourt didn’t help things much either.

The fact that the organization is asking for suggestions from their fans is encouraging to me that maybe, just maybe, Dodger Stadium will make an attempt to get back to being a delightful place to take the family on a summer afternoon or evening once again without fear of getting hassled by thugs or hearing F-bombs being shouted out all around your young kids.

My brother sent his letter. I sent mine, which I have reprinted below. If you would like to let the Dodgers know how they might improve things, their e-mail address is: fanbox@ladodgers.com.

Dear Los Angeles Dodgers,

As a life-long Dodger fan I’d like to add my voice to the many people, columnists, broadcasters, and concerned citizens alike who have commented on the vicious beating of a man last year at Dodger Stadium by gangbanger types. This horrible event has led to families and other peace-loving fans to stay away from the ballpark in droves.

Things really need to change at Dodger Stadium; and it’s not about the beer, it’s the whole experience. As far as I’m concerned, the culture at the stadium has been growing worse year by year … now it is downright dangerous. What used to be a peaceful day or evening at the ballpark in times past, has become an assault to the senses that has little to do with baseball and more in keeping with a rave party with its loud thumping noise, flashing graphics, and kiss cam-dance cam nonsense which encourages the people in the stands to “act up.”

Last year’s television ads for the game were designed in dark, angry, gang-like style with shots of players glaring out directly into the camera in a challenging, menacing way. Clearly created to appeal to the gang mentality. That’s not what baseball is all about.

When I go to a ball game I don’t want loud, thumping hip-hop noise blaring throughout the field while electronic strobe images are flashed around the stands. I want to see a baseball game, not experience a rock concert light show. All that is distracting and takes away the baseball experience. Dodger Stadium is a lovely, peaceful place to see a ball game, but not with all that going on.

Until things improve, until Dodger Stadium goes back to that beautiful relaxing place on the hill that it once was, my family has decided to watch games in the comfort and the safety of our own home. We don’t need the crazy lights and pounding music and scary punks shouting vulgarities all around us. Vin Scully is the only voice I want to hear during the game.

I write a weekly column for The Tolucan Times community newspaper in Toluca Lake. My column also goes out to various web sites on the internet. I would love to be able to tell my readers one day that Dodger Stadium is back in all its wonderful family-friendly glory. It would make a tremendous difference to this city and to our family knowing that once again we can take the kids to a ball game and actually sit back, relax, and enjoy the experience.

Sincerely,
Greg Crosby

Our country has become strongly divided between those who want big government to take care of their lives for them, and those who want as little government interference as possible. By and large, the Democratic Party is the party of large government encroachment while the Republican Party is for smaller, less intrusive government. People think that when the government gives something to them for nothing, it is free — but it isn’t. What many don’t seem to get is that whenever government gives you something, it always comes with a price. Usually that price is less freedom.

When the government pours money into something, like local schools or a particular industry, it ends up controlling that entity. Government becomes like a silent partner, only not so silent. It can tell you how to spend that money, it can tell you what kind of curriculum can be taught in your local school, it can tell you what kind of car you must drive, and, ultimately, if government controls health care, it can tell you what medical procedures you are allowed to have.

Whether it’s a school, or a car company, or an individual, once control is given over to the government that entity or person suddenly becomes dependent on government, not unlike a drug addict becomes dependent on his drug supplier. It is a vicious cycle – the more people depend on entitlement programs and other handouts from the government, the more powerful government becomes.

As we await the Supreme Court’s decision (expected sometime in June) on the constitutionality of Obamacare, America’s first step into socialized medicine, it might be a good time to reacquaint ourselves with some words of wisdom on the subject of socialized medicine by President Ronald Reagan. The following is from a recording he made called Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine:

“One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project…. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.”

Reagan goes on to explain what happens under a government controlled health care system:

“The doctor begins to lose freedom…. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then doctors aren’t equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him, you can’t live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it’s only a short step to dictating where he will go…. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your child won’t decide, when he’s in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.”

That recording was made around 1961, five years before Reagan was elected governor of California and almost twenty years before he became president. But his words then have never had more profound meaning than they do for us today, at this pivotal time.

There is another quote from Reagan from another speech which I find quite sobering:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Let us all hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing for us this June.

“The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show.”

Tribune Broadcasting has introduced a relatively new cable station in LA called Antenna TV. I think it’s new; anyway, I’ve only been aware of it for a few months. The channel specializes in broadcasting old television shows such as Leave it to Beaver, McHale’s Navy, Adam-12, Three’s Company, and Dennis the Menace – in other words, the usual stuff that has been rerun for decades on local stations across the country.

However (and this is a big however), there is one particular show that they run late at night that makes everything else they broadcast look like just so much pap in comparison – The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show. This is classic television in the truest sense, and more than that, it is comedy that was both classic and way ahead of it’s time. Sophisticated stuff that has not become dated one bit in over 60 years.

George and Gracie started out as a double act in vaudeville; George the straight man and Gracie the dizzy dame, the act became more sophisticated on radio and in the movies, but once they hit television they were at their best, in my opinion. The show originally ran on CBS from October 1950 to September 1958 and went into reruns there after. It was in rerun that I first watched the show as a kid, and even then, I loved it.

In the show George and Gracie played themselves. Even the sets were designed to look like their real-life residence, often using an establishing shot of their actual house in Beverly Hills. The show’s announcer, Harry Van Zell played himself as did their son Ronnie. They spoke of real friends of theirs, real places they would frequent, such as Chasen’s and Romanov’s, and the Friar’s Club. All this contributed to the believability of the show.

George broke through what is called “the fourth wall” in the show, turning to talk to us, the audience at home, about whatever was going on in the show’s story. It worked beautifully as a device and it also gave Burns the opportunity to do a monologue each week. As far as I know Burns and Allen were the first to do this on TV, and I don’t even think it has been done since. Frankly, I don’t know if anyone could pull it off today the way Burns and Allen were able to.

Gracie was wonderful. Her character was the basis of the entire show of course and all the plots came out of her crazy convoluted logic. She was much more than what we would call today, ditsy. In her own way she actually made sense once you followed her cockeyed reasoning. She was also adorable. George always said that he learned early on that he couldn’t berate her, push her around, or come on too strong with her in the act because the audience wouldn’t stand for it – they absolutely loved her.

One other thing about Gracie – she never stepped out of character. She was always the “performance Gracie” and to my knowledge she never even did an interview when she wasn’t doing her dizzy dame routine. Few performers have been as protective of their public persona as was she. Harpo Marx comes to mind as one other example. To this day, no one outside of the immediate family and friends can tell you what his voice sounded like.

During the course of the eight-year run, the TV show had remarkable consistency in its cast and crew. The episodes were produced and directed by Frederick de Cordova (who would go on to direct most episodes of NBC’s The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson). In addition to cast members Harry Von Zell, Bea Benadaret (a terrific comedienne in her own right, who made the transition from the radio show), and Larry Keating — the writing staff consisted of Sid Dorfman, Harvey Helm, Keith Fowler, and William Burns (George’s brother). The Associate Producer was Al Simon, the Director of Photography was Philip Tannura, A.S.C., and the Editor was Larry Heath.

For all of us past the age of 60 who remember The Burns and Allen Show it is a rare treat to have them back into our lives once more. For anyone who has never seen the show, I can only say you must watch it to appreciate what true comedy is all about. No vulgarity, no double entendre, no low class humor. As a matter of fact, “class act” is a perfect way to describe George Burns and Gracie Allen. TiVo or DVR it and sit back and prepare yourself for situation comedy as you’ve never seen before.

And when it comes to “out of the mainstream” American religion, John Kennedy was thought to be exactly that as a Catholic back in 1960. And no big deal is made on the fact that our current president, Barack Obama, went to Muslim schools in Indonesia. And, as an adult, he attended services for over twenty years at a Chicago church that espoused the Black Liberation Marxist theology under the leadership of Jeremiah Wright, a man who is an adamant hater of America, Israel, and “the white man.”

Both of Obama’s children were baptized at that church by the man who said “God damn America!” and said the US was to blame for the September 11th attacks, and claimed that the AIDS virus was invented by white America to kill black people. I don’t seem to recall any Mormon preachers spewing that level of hate.

But to the liberal press Black Liberation Theology is just fine. It’s those wicked, sneaky, dangerous Mormons we have to worry about. They are the real hate mongers, the real threats to America, right behind the Amish and the Quakers. It’s like saying “don’t worry about that escaped grizzly bear, but beware of kittens, and puppies.”

The press is also giving Romney a bad time because he happens to be rich. Rich is bad, you see. Romney is too rich to be able to identify with the vast majority of Americans, they say. The liberal press says that he’s out of touch with the poor because he has been too successful. No, no, we can’t have any of those successful rich guys running for president, can we? Or CAN we? Let’s think about this for a minute, there just might be a double standard at work here.

Why wasn’t being rich a bad thing when John Kerry was running for president? Excuse me, what about the Kennedys? John, Bobby, and Teddy were pretty rich, remember? And President Franklyn Delano Roosevelt wasn’t exactly born in a log cabin either. Hmmm … maybe it’s only the rich REPUBLICANS who are bad? Yeah, that’s it! Rich Democrats like FDR, JFK, John Edwards, and Nancy Pelosi are upstanding wonderful people; it’s those pesky, rascally Republicans that are bad. But then again, as far as the liberal media is concerned, ALL republicans are bad, rich or poor, right? So, there you go.

Another thing the liberal press jumps on Romney for is being too “stiff.” Really? Obama isn’t exactly mister loosey-goosey either. I know the press likes to portray Barack as a cool dude, but the pomposity and stiffness always seems to seep through to me. There is an unusual guardedness to his bearing and an attitude just shy of nasty. He always looks like the know-it-all uptight professor, not at all an easy to talk to regular guy. President Clinton was loose, (maybe a tad too loose). President Reagan was loose and totally comfortable in his skin. Even George W. Bush was pretty loose. Obama is not.

Okay, let’s recap…. Mitt Romney is too Mormon and too wealthy and too stiff to be president. What else is wrong with him? Oh yeah, he can’t connect with women; he doesn’t know what they really want. Well, no kidding. Does ANY man know what women want? That has been the mystery of the ages, the question that has bedeviled mankind for more than five thousand years. What do women want? I mean besides the ability to get into their skinny jeans. It’s more than chocolate, wind chimes, bottled water, and scented candles, I can tell you that.

If anyone knows just what it is that women want, please drop me a line, I’d love to know. I’ll also pass it along to Romney.

Item #1: As part of its Easter Egg Roll festivities, the White House conducted a basketball clinic for kids featuring pro players. As reported by ABC White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, the balls being used had a large image of Barack Obama’s face on them against the American flag with his name spelled out in bold letters on the red part of the stripes. It’s the United States of Obama!

Let’s see, what adjective shall we use … Narcissistic? Egocentric? Self-absorbed? Self-aggrandizing? Arrogant? Take your pick. And Obama and his supporters paint Romney as an out-of-touch elitist? What a joke. Imagine if George W. Bush had stuff made with his face printed on it: The press would have had a field day. Besides the outlandish arrogance of printing Obama’s face on basketballs, you have the question of the extra government spending to manufacture them at a time when our country is in deep debt.

But it sort of all fits the profile. Remember that this is the same guy, who as a presidential candidate in 2008, had his own “presidential seal” designed with his name on it. And he said the “oceans were going to rise” if he became president.

Item #2: Easter Bunnies hiding colored eggs, Easter baskets brimming with candy, Marshmallow Peeps, Sunrise Services, pastel colored Easter bonnets — there are so many lovely and charming Easter traditions. And then there’s this one … “the burning of the Jews.” That’s right, hold on to your Cadbury Eggs because you’re not going to believe this.

A newspaper in Mexico is detailing last Easter Sunday’s “burning of the Jews,” an annual tradition in Coita, a small town in the state of Chiapas. As part of the custom, locals spend the middle of their Holy Week making Jewish effigies — a reference to Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus before his crucifixion.

The fake Jews are then displayed for three days in different parts of the town, serving as an example of poor conduct. They’re ultimately paraded through the streets on Easter Sunday, with local children assigned to stand in front of them and collect money for flammable materials.

The news article notes that the tradition differs in Coita, where locals set fire to the effigies on Easter itself, rather than the day before, as in other towns. The burning is followed by a dance, where locals eat a corn treat made with cocoa. The article says the custom “strengthens” the culture of the Zoque, an indigenous people in Southern Mexico who were converted to Catholicism. The Chiapas Herald takes an uncritical view of the ritual, reporting that it “fosters unity and respect” and “purifies the soul.” How charming.

Item #3: To celebrate the “Arab Spring,” Muslim Brotherhood officials were in Washington last week, largely to meet with Obama administration officials. White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said representatives from the world’s largest Islamic supremist movement, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, met with National Security Council staff last week because the group plays a “prominent role” in Cairo. Further, NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor explained, “It is in the interest of the United States to engage with parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence.”

Either Vietor is a liar or he’s really, really stupid, because anyone who knows anything about the history of the Brotherhood is aware of its violence and hatred of anything that is not in keeping with strict Sharia law. The Muslim Brotherhood is anti-democratic, anti-woman, and anti-Western civilization. That they are committed to the death of Jews and the destruction of Israel goes without saying.

The White House spokesman said, “We have broadened our engagement.” Sure, you might say that by hosting the Islamist group that gave birth to al Qaeda and Hamas, praises Iran’s Hezbollah, and will transform Egypt into a Sharia compliant state that seeks Israel’s destruction and creates a new terrorist sanctuary you “have broadened the White House engagement.”

The group’s intent in coming to Washington is to secure President Barack Obama’s support as Egypt transitions from a caretaker military council government to one monopolized by Islamists. By hosting them, the White house gives them “street cred,” as they say. That is, enhancing their reputation in the world and the Middle East as a viable, legitimate governing entity. And, oh yeah, another thing the Muslim Brotherhood got from the White House was $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt.

By the way, at the same time that the Brotherhood was visiting the Obama White House, Israel was hit by a missile fired out of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Crazy coincidence? Or maybe a jab from the “Bros” to Israel as a reminder that with a little help from their friends at the White House Egypt has gotten a bit of that “hope and change” thing for themselves.

Yep, spring is in full bloom.

In this redistribution scheme, the people who work hard and earn a lot of money need to give a sizable portion of that money to those who do not work. This system works out nicely for those who don’t work. For those who have worked hard to make their money, it’s not so good. And by the way, it’s a great way to kill ambition, creativity, and hard work in people. Why knock yourself out if the government is just going to take it away and give it to other people?

The scary thing is that with each passing year, more and more people are on the receiving end of government handouts leaving the few of us who actually earn money to support them. This will ultimately change America into something far different than our founders intended. And eventually it will destroy us, as it has some European countries such as Greece.

As reported by the Heritage Foundation, this year’s Index of Dependence on Government showed alarming findings about the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance. In America today 70 percent of all federal spending goes to dependence programs.

But the most jaw dropping number was the percentage of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, which now makes up nearly half of the U.S. population. And most of that population receives generous federal benefits. Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell wrote that “One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public. The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. And this doesn’t even take into account the millions of illegals who do not report their income at all or/and are on some kind of government assistance programs. As Beach and Tyrrell warn, this trend does not bode well for the future of the American form of government. The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes coupled with higher spending on government programs is already proving to be a major fiscal challenge.

“This trend should concern everyone who supports America’s republican form of government,” they write. “If the citizens’ representatives are elected by an increasing percentage of voters who pay no income tax, how long will it be before these representatives respond more to demands for yet more entitlements and subsidies from non-payers than to the pleas of taxpayers to exercise greater spending prudence?”

A great question. Of course when it gets to that point, only the politicians that promise more government handouts will ever get elected. More and more people will demand more and more free stuff. And the burden of giving all those people the free stuff will continue to fall on the few who earn money. Right now that means the half of us who pay taxes are giving to the half who pay nothing.

Which half are YOU in?

Ike was the general in command of the European theater and one of the architects of victory in World War II, as well as a two-term president whose standing has risen steadily over time. As part of a $100 million memorial park, Gehry has decided to portray this leader as a barefoot farm-boy gazing up into the clouds, not as a mature man. This approach completely diminishes the man and his achievements. It’s a disgrace!

The other presidential memorials on the mall in D.C. are either majestic in their abstract simplicity, such as the Washington Monument, or they pay tribute to past leaders like Lincoln and Jefferson in their maturity, portraying them as they were when they made their singular contributions to our common heritage. Eisenhower’s contributions and legacy as an American speaks for itself.

Ike understood like no president before him the security issues of a post-World War II world. He was a West Point graduate and five-star general, who had seen as much of war as any American, and who had presided over a significant expansion of America’s strategic nuclear arsenal in the 1950s. Nonetheless, he ends his second term with a message to his countrymen about the dangers of unchecked military/industrial power, what he coined as the “military-industrial complex.” His efforts were geared to advance the cause of peace.

Ike ended the Korean War faster than Obama got us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, declined to get ensnared in France’s debacle in Indochina, quashed the boneheaded Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956, and generally avoided costly military entanglements afterwards. His foreign policy record wasn’t perfect by any means, but he compares quite favorably to virtually all of his successors.

Eisenhower not only led the Normandy D-Day invasion that liberated Europe, he also liberated the victims of the Nazi Holocaust. During his presidency he successfully desegregated the Armed Forces of the United States and the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. He passed two landmark civil rights bills — a fact that is often overlooked — and sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to force the integration of public schools.

He presided over an economic boom that balanced fiscal austerity — he was the last president to cut the budget in real dollars. He began our exploration of space with the creation of NASA and invested tens of billions to create the interstate highway system — the largest public works project in history — which has been re-paid with incalculable dividends in economic growth over the years.

The Eisenhower family has publicly opposed the Frank Gehry design for the memorial. The president’s grandson, the family’s sole representative on the Memorial Commission, has resigned from the Commission. The family members of Dwight D. Eisenhower are upset over a memorial for the late president that prominently features a small monument showing Ike as a child and barefoot rather than giving greater attention to the war hero and world leader he became.

A couple of weeks ago, at a House Natural Resources Subcommittee meeting on National Parks and Public Lands, Susan Eisenhower, the president’s granddaughter, testified that “President Eisenhower’s contribution to this nation is not the central theme to this design.” Susan Eisenhower said the design of the roughly 80-foot-tall statue has a “Horatio Alger” narrative that portrays the late president as a “dreamy boy.” The family has said it finds the main theme of the memorial offensive to Eisenhower’s legacy as a two-term president and a Supreme Allied commander during World War II.

Imagine the Lincoln Memorial not as the inspirational, majestic adult figure of the seated Abraham Lincoln, but as Lincoln as a young barefoot lad happily reading by the light of his fireplace. Or how about the Washington Memorial not as it is now, but as a statue of young George chopping down the cherry tree? If these depictions sound dumbed-down and infantile, you’re right, they are. They are also demeaning and insulting to the memory of those leaders. Just as the proposed memorial will be of President Eisenhower if it goes forward as it is.

I think lots of people who pay attention know that the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream company supports left-wing causes – for many years. Liberals who know this are OK with it and those of us who are not liberal simply don’t buy that brand of ice cream. Years ago when I first found out that Ben & Jerry’s were using a percentage of their profits to support Progressive and socialistic endeavourers I decided then and there that there was plenty of other ice cream brands I could buy without supporting a company with an ideology that I don’t believe in.

However there are many (millions) of people who just don’t pay attention to such things and have no idea that their money goes to Leftist political causes every time they buy Chunky Monkey or any other flavor by Ben Cohen & Jerry Greenfield. Ben & Jerry’s are proud to be liberal ideologues – just go to their web site and see for yourself. I say let them be as liberal as they want.

But every prospective customer should know where their money is going whenever they buy a product from a company with a hard-line political agenda. So to all those who may not have been aware of what you’re helping support when you buy B & J Ice Cream, stay tuned, you just might learn something.

Remember nut job Cindy Sheehan, the “anti-war activist” and darling of the Left who protested at President Bush’s ranch and who still speaks at anti-American rallies around the country and quotes from Chairman Mao? Well, Ben Cohen’s foundation funded the multi-million dollar PR machine for Sheehan’s activities. Cohen’s foundation also helps ANSWER, a neo-Marxist group that promotes Islamic terrorism.

And the Ben & Jerry’s company itself has its own foundation, which you fund when you buy their ice cream. The list of recipients of this fund includes groups who give support for illegal aliens, community organizing, an anti-marriage group, and a foundation that helps teachers turn elementary and middle school kids into far-left critics “of their social and political landscape.”

One of B & J’s most famous flavors is Cherry Garcia named after Jerry Garcia, a druggie rock musician with the Grateful Dead. A regular LSD user, Garcia became one of the symbols of ‘60’s “drop out and drop acid” movement. What a wonderful character to honor with his own flavor of ice cream! Back in 2009 Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream came out with a new flavor, Hubby Hubby (changed from Chubby Hubby ice cream) in solidarity with gays who had attained legalized marriage in Vermont (home of Ben & Jerry’s).

And last fall Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream came out with a statement supporting the Occupying Wall Street crowd. But now it gets even better! As of a few weeks ago Occupy Wall Street (OWS) now has an official corporate backer — that’s right, those wacky ice cream guys. OWS’s corporate benefactor is the so-called Movement Resource Group, a funding venture backed by the left-wing founders of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream as well as other “social justice” lefties. The group has raised some $300,000 so far, and plans to raise around $1.8 million to revive the moribund Occupy movement.

Isn’t that weird? And all this time I thought that OWS was against those rich corporations. I guess if the rich corporation is giving you money then that makes it all hunky-dory, right? No hypocrisy there. Thanks to B & J, the Occupy Wall Street thugs have effectively gotten a “corporate bailout.”

Dispensing funds to a broad spectrum of left-wing groups, from ACORN to the Tides Foundation, the ice cream makers have never seen a contradiction between their commercial success and their intense loathing of free-market capitalism. No hypocrisy there.

In recent years their foundation has endorsed the “Earth Charter,” a document that blames capitalism on the world’s environmental, social, and economic ills. The charter declares that “the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species” and blames capitalism for causing the “gap between rich and poor.”

When Ben & Jerry’s issued their statement of solidarity with the Occupy protesters on their web site last fall they praised them for raising issues of “fundamental importance to all of us,” and pronouncing themselves “honored to join you in this call to take back our nation and democracy.” Ben and Jerry’s also endorsed the movement’s grievances, bemoaning the fact that “corporations are permitted to spend unlimited resources to influence elections while stockpiling a trillion dollars rather than hiring people.”

Interestingly that opposition to corporate money in politics doesn’t seem to apply to Ben & Jerry’s, which is now trying to spend millions to influence the political process through OWS. Maybe it’s time for B & J to name a special flavor after their beloved Occupy Wall Street mob. Occupy Walnut is the obvious one.

Street Filth Fudge or Vulgarian Nut Swirl are two other possible flavors that come to mind. Also Civil Disobedience Delight might have appeal to many B & J fans as well.

As for me, I’ll take vanilla. But I’ll take it from another company, thank you.

Consider this actual post on the internet from a woman to the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd who has been condemning the oil companies:

“My husband worked on a drilling rig 12 hours a day for 301 of 365 days last year in the heat and cold to provide for our family. The petroleum he helps produce created the ink for your protest signs, the strings for your guitars, the contacts and glasses you need to watch your speakers, the ice chests that hold your organic milk, the black nail polish you are wearing, the rubber tires on your bikes and the soles of your protesting shoes, the tarps and tents you are sleeping under, the cameras you use to capture images of police brutality, the port-o-cans you are demanding from the city. Even the microphones you use to condemn the evil oil companies, banks, and corporations are made from petroleum. The pensions you expect contain 27% of oil stock. So, until you’re willing to: A) Do my husband’s job or B) give up your iPhone for a goat and cotton tent – Go home you HYPOCRITES – WE ARE THE 53%”

The fact is “Big Oil” impacts our daily lives much more than just in our gas tanks. According to Rankin Energy, one 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest of that barrel goes into making other products – Rankin estimates there are over 6,000 items using oil in their manufacturing.

Here’s a partial list of products with petroleum as an ingredient (this is only a very small sample):

Hearing Aids, tennis rackets, drinking cups, deodorant, toilet seats, nylon rope, clothing Ink, heart valves, crayons, parachutes, telephones, enamel, transparent tape, antiseptics, nylon zippers, ballet tights, plastic hangers, pantyhose, permanent press clothing, flip flops/thongs, fake fur, polyester clothing, ball point pens, ink, computer diskettes, computers, copiers, magic markers, telephones, microfilm, cameras, earphones, footballs, knitting needles, tennis racquets, golf balls, baby aspirin, stuffed animals, band aids, Vaseline, rubbing alcohol, Pepto-Bismol, hair coloring, soap, cough syrup, hair spray, lipstick, denture adhesives, trash bags, egg cartons, freezer bags, candles, wax paper, nylon spatulas, Teflon pans, Formica, linoleum, garden hoses, plungers, floor wax, Plexiglas, spray paint, Anti-freeze, balloons, dog toys, flea collars, CDROMs, check book covers, shopping bags, video cassettes, credit cards, dice, watch bands, tape recorders, curtains, vitamin capsules, dashboards, putty, percolators, skis, insecticides, fishing lures, perfumes, shoe polish, petroleum jelly, faucet washers, food preservatives, antihistamines, Cortisone, dyes, LP records, solvents, roofing, floor wax, sports car bodies, tires, dishwashing liquids, unbreakable dishes, toothbrushes, toothpaste, combs, tents, hair curlers, lipstick, ice cube trays, electric blankets. Petroleum products all.

This list could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. The point is drilling for oil is a complicated business with ramifications in almost all areas of our daily life. There are no simple solutions. The simpleminded like to think that simple answers exist in simple to regurgitate bumper sticker slogans, but life’s problems can’t be solved by bumper stickers. It is never that easy. The fact of the matter is that no alternative energy source is as efficient as natural gas and oil. And no alternative energy source currently exists today without some kind of negative impact. That’s right. NOTHING IS TOTALLY CLEAN AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. One case in point would be windmills.

About 70 golden eagles are killed every year by turbines at California’s Altamont Pass, reports the LA Times. And according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, a study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks — as well as 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act — are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont. And this doesn’t take into account the hundreds of other windmill farms across the country. So much for pure, clean, wonderful wind power.

One other thing regarding windmills: The anti-oil people like to say how those “ugly” oil derricks destroy the natural beauty of the coastline. Well, have you ever traveled through what was once pristine desert or plains and seen hundreds and hundreds of huge, ugly windmills going on for miles and miles? I have and I’ll take a couple of oil derricks out in the sea any day over those turbine monstrosities.

And by the way, facts show that the positive value of wind power as a reliable and viable alternative to our traditional energy sources has been greatly exaggerated to say the least, but that is another story for another column.

Next time you hear someone who is quick to do away with oil, ask them to think about what would replace it and how their life would dramatically change without it.

Beck pushed for this, calling the mandatory 30-day impounds unfair to illegal immigrants, who are not allowed to apply for driver’s licenses. And we certainly don’t want to have any laws that are unfair to people who have broken the law by coming into our country illegally, do we? Clearly this lays the ground work for, at last, giving illegals legal driver’s licenses. Folks, it’s only a matter of time.

In a letter to the Daily News last week, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich responded to an editorial column that supported giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Supervisor Antonovich rightly said that to do so would be stupid and irresponsible since it only provides another incentive to those who break the federal immigration laws. He then went on to list a litany of ways illegals are costing Los Angeles tax payers a fortune.

The so-called “anchor babies” are born to Mexican women who have crossed the border illegally to give birth here in California. These babies are entitled to all kinds of benefits which are paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Just in Los Angeles County alone, children of illegal immigrants born here are receiving over $642 million a year for welfare and food stamps. Antonovich noted that an ICE survey of Los Angeles County jails found that illegal immigrants annually cost taxpayers over $550 million. Additionally, our county costs for medical services exceed $500 million.

Put ‘em all together and they spell $1.7 billion, and that’s not even including the cost of education. This is just L.A. County, mind you. A year and a half ago, the Federation for American Immigration Reform also looked at these kinds of costs nationwide to get an idea of the burden to local governments at a time when many are grappling with budget deficits.

The organization reported that the cost of illegal immigration stands at about $113 billion a year. Nearly half of that amount went toward education costs, according to the study. Costs were naturally higher in states with large illegal immigrant populations like California. Our total annual tab came in at $21.8 billion.

Why so much? Well, because around 62 percent of all illegal immigrants are working and getting paid under the table. That means that these immigrants will never pay taxes on the money they earn or have the motivation to get a legal green card and be allowed to be in a certain country. Also, if their children go to public school, the children will usually need some sort of financial aid.

According to the last U.S. Census, the government estimates we now have twelve million illegal aliens in the United States. Of these, more than half are from Mexico alone. And remember this: The true number may be much higher because many did not report in the census. The average amount each state spends to provide welfare, medical, food stamps, and education alone is between eleven to twenty-two billion dollars a year. This does not include the amount paid from the Social Security and Medicare fund to immigrants who have never worked a day in the U.S.! Not a day!

To those who say, “People who come over the border without papers are just trying to make a better life for themselves” forget that when illegals sneak in here to work they undercut the poor and middle class U.S. citizens. They bring down the job market and make it impossible for legitimate workers to compete against illegals willing to work at half or less than half the going rate. Los Angeles is fast becoming the capital for the Third World’s poorest of the poor in this country.

And then, of course, we have the drug gangs which not only ship billions of dollars worth of drugs into this country, but operate the human smuggling rings. The dangerous lowlifes that come across the border with impunity imbed themselves into neighborhood communities, commit violent crimes, and then hightail it back over into Mexico. According to one stat, every single day 12 Americans are killed by an illegal immigrant.

So, how to solve this problem? Well, it’s a no brainer for our esteemed mayor, police chief, and other high ranking city officials: Just change the laws and if you can’t change them, ignore them. Hey, it’s just your city government doing their damndest to make life easier for the illegal immigrants while they make life a hell of a lot tougher for the average working citizen.