You already know what your choice is, you need to speak with a real person and for the past several minutes, you have been ushered through a half dozen voice menus. You have pressed one, three, five and pound.  You have entered document numbers, loan numbers, trailing digits of your social security number and still no human voice.  You are about to give in to your frustrations when at last, the words you have been waiting for, “if you need to speak to a representative press 1 now.” 

There is call screening and call screaming.  The first is a way to minimize the requirement to employ a cadre of receptionists to do nothing more than direct your call.  The latter however, is the result of the final gasp of tolerance, from the person desperately trying to acquire specific information relative to their own issue or account.  Yes, you know the point of breaking, when you scream into the mouthpiece of your telephone, “expletive a bunch of numbers, just put a person on the line!”  And the earpiece responds, “please press 1 now.”  

Voice menu telephone systems assume that callers will be able to satisfy their inquiry from the myriad of options and sub-menus.  Callers meanwhile, have to play mental gymnastics to decide just which of the sixty-seven items they heard most closely approximates the issue they called about.  Yes, you guessed it, the option you picked wasn’t the one that addressed your issue and you have been re-directed to the main menu to choose again.  AARRrraaaaagghhhhhh!

For large institutions, there is value added in providing a voice menu to guide callers to their most frequently asked questions.  Those who use computers would recognize this as the acronym “FAQS.”  For courtesy’s sake however, one of the first options in the menu should be to choose to talk to a human.  This is especially true, after you have succumbed to the drudgery of sifting through the labyrinth of nested menus, entered all digits as prompted and are rejected anyway because you weren’t calling from the phone you originally listed. 

Productivity has its point but people are the key to successfully resolving people issues that cannot and never will be a subset of telephone messaging.  Businesses have an obligation to operate as efficiently as possible, to maximize their profitability to their business and their investors.  They have an even greater obligation to their customers however, to ensure their needs are met with dignity and not the indignity of an automated response system.   

Imagine the frantic person who just received an erroneous statement, declaring them in egregious default of until that point, an impeccable account. Consider the range of emotions from frustration and bewilderment to exasperation and anger, as they furiously pound on the number pad of their telephones in response to a digitized voice.  Worse, the distraught caller reaches an East Coast business at 4:00 PM Pacific Coast time.  “We’re sorry, all of our offices are closed.  To leave a voice mail on our automated voice response system, please press 1 now.”  

Nothing will ever surpass the quality of doing business in person, whether over the phone or face to face.  Only people have the ability to understand and respond to the personal circumstances that affect our daily lives. 

If you believe you have received this message in error or you wish to leave a message, please press 1 now. 

It is said of Republicans this year, and especially the conservative base, that there is no enthusiasm, no excitement in the party as the November elections approach.  Nowhere is this condition touted more than by the liberal media.  There is a word to explain this present state of languishing lethargy -- leadership. 

Liberals are willing followers; they enthusiastically embrace the phrase du jour of liberal enlightenment, as long as it allows them to believe that they care.  As long as they can assuage their guilt for their largess, as opposed to the needy, they can feast on the finest and feel no shame, because, they care.  It is why Barack Obama is so perfect for the left; he epitomizes every cliché, every cause, and every banner they wave.  With Obama at the helm, it is set it and forget it.  Obama will do their caring for them to say nothing of demonstrating their racial harmony. 

Republicans, as opposed to their Lemming counterparts, are not looking for someone who will act as a substitute for the personal responsibility in their lives.  They seek someone with the strength of character, high moral standards and conviction to conservative principles to whom they can delegate the management duties of this country. Simply stated, they demand leadership, not stewardship. 

In the run up to the elections in 2000, Republicans were enthusiastic about George W Bush.  He spoke of reducing taxes, the size of government and restoring dignity to the office of the President of the United States.  Most importantly, he said he would lead.  While he has honestly tried not to engage in petty partisan squabbles, by his reluctance, he has appeared weak and the Democratic Party has exploited that weakness.  Republicans expect the leader of both the nation and their party to drive the agenda, not the opposition. 

As we now approach the elections of 2008, Republicans once again are faced with a nominee that not only falls short of conservative ideals; he is allowing his opposition to dictate the rules of engagement.  John McCain has shown the ability to respond immediately and forcefully to those who disparage his positions on the issues.  Unfortunately, it is the members of his loyal staff that incur his wrath for criticizing his opponent.  Such hostility to your base of support and timidity in the face of your opposition hardly instills confidence. 

In truth, there is enormous energy building among Republicans and especially conservative Republicans to return the platform of the Republican Party to its conservative foundation.  This segment no longer looks to the presidency as its focus for change however; it understands that it will take leaders in both houses of congress as their starting point.  They understand that there will always be “Republicans in name only” in congress but they also have every intention of forcing these RINOs to behave as Elephants. 

Those who do not fall for the false liberal promise of having every aspect of their lives administered for them now fully realize that we are a nation of the people no more.  When those we elect to serve as our representative voices in congress use that office to further the whims of government and ignore that which is in the best interest of the people, truly, it is time for a change.  Change however, is not more government, change is not more entitlement spending, change is not holding the budgets of the people hostage to the high cost of energy for partisan benefit. 

The lack of an outward display of enthusiasm and excitement among Republicans is not a function of disinterest or despair.  It is sadness from witnessing so many being manipulated by a political party underwritten by a partisan media.  It will take a true leader to effectively challenge this liberal, socialistic threat, someone driven by principles and conviction, not political power and a personal agenda.  True Republicans and conservatives stand ready to fight but there is no one to lead. 

When the Democratic primaries began, no one knew who Barack Obama was.  Now that he is the presumptive nominee for his party, we still do not have an answer to that question.  Is he the staunch liberal his record says he is?  Is he the centrist that he is now trying to portray himself?  Can he act stand-alone with conviction and purpose in the midst of world leaders or flounder, searching for the words to answer their questions?  Most important is the quality of his character.  Will he be guided by sound principles, solid judgment and determination or does his moral compass have a broken bubble?

We are either sitting on or are surrounded by enough oil to meet domestic demand for the foreseeable future.  When you add the potential of shale oil to the mix, we become the world's largest oil cartel. 

As the per barrel price of oil increases on a daily basis and as we completely rearrange our lives as the price of gas destroys our budgets, our congress tells us, "we can't drill our way out of the problem." 

Saudi Arabia says it doesn't see any need to increase supply, our supply from Mexico is endangered because of outdated equipment and drug wars, and Hugo Chavez, a complete hostile to the United States, just nationalized his oil reserves. 

Islamic fundamentalists are sabotaging the Nigerian supply, Israel is gearing up to take out Iran's nuclear program and Iran has threatened to choke off the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic should they try. 

And what does our congress propose to meet this very real threat to our economy and national security?  Lower the speed limit to 55.  by doing so, we save some 180,000 barrels of oil per day they claim.  When you compare that to a 23 million per day usage you get less than one percent relief and that is if you trust their numbers. 

As for ANWR, the area designated for exploration is 2000 acres out of 19.6 million acres.  Do the math.  That is less than one ten thousandth of one percent of the total area.  Please present the charts that clearly show that 99.999% of the Polar Bears and Caribou live on that spot.  Better yet, please provide the annual tourist data for that location.   

The danger to our national security outweighs environmental extremism.  The instability of the oil supply by those nations on which we most depend, demands we become self sufficient.  We face the very real potential for the collapse of our entire energy and economic infrastructure and all congress can do is come up with slogans and investigate the oil companies. 

We need an investigation allright, an investigation into just why in the hell congress is the key impediment to the solution of the problem.   

Hillary Clinton's slide down the slippery slope toward losing the nomination to Barack Obama got its first shove during the debates.  When asked what her position was on then New York Governor Spitzer's plan for driver's licenses for illegal aliens, she came out on every side of the question.  Barack Obama made hay with her "in-artful" pandering.  Sen. Obama's latest apparent reversal of his Iraq policy may license the beginning of Obama's fall from grace. 

At least Obama doesn't give different answers in a two minute time span, he takes between four to twenty-four hours to backtrack, waffle and deny his remarks.  Even the New York Times is commenting on Obama's "changing" positions on the issues.  Of coarse they want the old Obama back, the anti-war, no guns, just say no to oil Obama. 

What remains however, is that Obama has now pulled a Hillary and come out on every side of every issue.  If it was the banana peel for Hillary, should it not trip up Obama as well?  Obama must take a consistent stand on the issues.  He must not be allowed to amend his statements after the fact depending on who is criticizing him. It is unconscionable that Obama gets a pass on his inconsistencies by declaring that his position has always been consistent when side by side statements are clearly in complete opposition to each other.   

Such pandering cooked Hillary's goose.  It is time for Obama to start feeling the heat.   

What do I know?  After all, I live in one of those “rural towns;” you know, the kind that you think of as “quaint, rustic, charming,” as you quickly drive through on your way back to civilization.  Yeah, we have a lot of those pickup trucks too, not too many with gun racks though; folks here are fairly protective of the critters anymore.  Nevertheless, it is home; breathtaking Sierra mountain trails, streams still teeming with native trout and hidden lakes just made for camping getaways. 

It is a new era however, I can’t “cling” to the serenity and peace of this unprogressive community, it is time for change!  Change I tell you!  At least I hope it is. 

The first thing I have to do is get rid of that “gas guzzling” SUV.  Pity though, I just paid it off but I won’t let a simple thing like financial independence stand in the way of change.  That shiny new hybrid shouldn’t cost that much and I am sure that the increase in my power bill when I plug it in will be offset by its impressive MPG rating.  Being sequestered in my house on those days when the latest storm just dumped 12 to 14 inches of new snow will be a problem but a growing dependence on government services shouldn’t be all that hard to adjust to. 

There will be that unfortunate change in both my mental and physical health.  Since I can no longer get to those remote trailheads, so perfect for cardiovascular health and mental tranquility, both will suffer adversely.  No worries though, I can take solace in my forced health care plan to cover the cost of the degradation in my physical well-being.  Further, I can wallow in Schadenfreude, knowing those evil rich are paying more in taxes.  I feel better already.         

Those “Big Oil” types will get theirs as well.  Certainly, there must be a modicum of comfort that can be derived from the fact that all those windfall profits taxes are going to pay for new roads and bridges.  Right?  We will get new roads and bridges won’t we?  A moot point really, when I realize that my shiny new hybrid doesn’t get enough miles per Amp to get to them.  When you think about it though, “Big Brother” can’t be half as bad as “Big Oil.” 

This growing dependence on government for what is acceptable speech, personal diet considerations, transportation, regulated television and radio content and income confiscation is for the best isn’t it?  I used to think I was doing a fairly good job of managing those choices but as I said, what do I know.  After all, “people by the government” is working so well in all the places it is being tried. 

As we prepare to celebrate this 4^th of July, we should reflect on the principles upon which this nation was founded:  Freedom from outrageous taxation, no legislation without representation nor an oppressive government limiting our personal freedoms.  Funny, isn’t it, that government today is bent on turning the clock back some 232 years.

Today, this is just a satirical rant, an attempt at making a point with sarcastic humor.  The growing influence our government is exercising over our daily lives however, is no laughing matter.

One specific example that is glowing testimony to the fact that “the government,” to be differentiated from “our government,” has an agenda over and above the wishes of the people would be illegal immigration.  By overwhelming numbers, the people said, close the borders and under no circumstances grant amnesty to illegals.  Congress acquiesced but on at least two occasions has attempted backdoor legislation and still insists that it will enact that which the people insist they must not.  To whom do they answer?