From the article:

(T)he shrewd approach is to stake out a position far from the opposition so that moving toward them during negotiation still yields a pretty satisfying outcome.

Exactly right. If a strong public option (without which there is no real reform but instead merely a gift to big pharma and big insurance) was the end point, then single payer (Medicare for all) should have been the starting point. That Obama began with what should have been the compromise position which he required the opposition to propose and "force" on him reveals the entire kabuki dance for the fraud/sham that it is.

First it was FISA "reform" which Obama pledged to filibuster...but voted for. Then it was a stimulus package that was larded with tax cuts as the starting point instead of actual effective stimulus. Then it was billions in bailouts for Wall Street...and "voluntary" help for mortgage holders which, oddly enough, the mortgage companies are not lining up in droves to volunteer for. And lessee here...rule of law and holding torturers and their superiors/enablers to account? Not so much. Actual withdrawal (as opposed to on-paper "we won't call 'em combat troops so they no longer count as combat troops") from Iraq? Stopping the slaughter of civilians from the air via drones in AfPak because we "suspect" that there are militants (which we now call terrorists) in the area? Reining in obscene executive compensation for companies which have received billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to bail them out? No, no and no.

Obama seems to have some great facility in making liberals and progressives think he is their ally. He isn't. He's a wholly owned subsidiary of big money and everything he does proves it.

Why will we get the shaft on health care reform? Because that is exactly what Obama means to do. And he means for us to like it.

I don't know how to effectively excerpt this article and stay within the terms of fair use, so let me just encourage people to follow the link and read. It's a short article and it explodes some cherished (by Americans anyway) myths.

Copy and paste the link or click on my sig:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

I needed a good laugh today. Your letter ("Poor Amanda, the Apple phans will descend upon you like a plague of cockroaches...", linked at my sig) was just the ticket. Spot on! Thanks again.

Note that the rules says this:

Permit sellers to obtain the required permission for prerecorded message sales calls from a consumer in any manner permitted by the Electronic Signatures In Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act)

What does that mean as far as "written" permission? Mouse Print (see http://bit.ly/ygkG6 or click my sig) explains it:

The E–SIGN Act defines an ‘‘electronic signature’’ as ‘‘an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.’’ 15 USC 7006(5). The Act further defines an ‘‘electronic record’’ as ‘‘a contract or other record created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means.’’ 15 USC 7006(4).

The following types of things would also qualify as an electronic signature, depending on the wording:

• Clicking a link in an email
• Clicking a “yes” button on a website
• Pressing a key on a touchtone telephone
• Orally saying “yes” in a telephone call that is recorded

So, getting you to agree “in writing” to receive robocalls may be easier for a telemarketer to accomplish than you originally thought.