Listening to Obama now in his press conference, I think there is one message that he is trying to send: E PLURIBUS UNUM. "Out of Many One."
It underlies his answers - which are focused on American values, on things like smooth transition, on following procedures, on minimizing Trump's outrageousness. "The president still is in transition mode.. . There's a whole different attitude and vibe when you're not in power as when you're in power. . . We have to wait and see how they operate when they are fully briefed on the issues, have their hands on the levers, and have to make decisions."
But lest people miss the message, just look at the camera view of the president at the conference.
Screenshot from White House feed of Obama press conference Dec 16, 2016
Look carefully at the lower right corner of the image. It's the presidential flag. E PLURIBUS UNUM fits neatly into the corner of the image. There is no way that was an accident. Look at the presidential flag and think about how it has to be folded so that E PLURIBUS UNUM folds so perfectly into the corner of the image. You'll also notice that much more of the presidential flag is in the image than the American flag.
As an amateur photographer and blogger, I know that I don't capture that kind of image accidentally.
And if you listen to his comments, he tells us over and over again, in his words and in his tone, that we have to improve the public discourse, that we have to stand together as Americans or foreign nations will exploit our disarray. We are the strongest nation and that we are the only enemy who can defeat us.
The first response to the post from the dentist was a threat of legal action. I sent a response to the threat [in Part 1] via email Tuesday night - a week ago. Wednesday morning there was an 8:04am email waiting for me.
Steve,
I am proactively looking into why this happened in the first place as I was not aware that the SEO company that we work with was doing this. The internet, though, is a free market and what they did is completely legal. If it was a problem that you didnt want this comment on your log, it would have been as simple as to call my office and request that we take it down or like your website states“Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. . . Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers(my call) will be deleted.” It seems that you are going completely out of your way to make calls to the local paper and have a reporter check into it and waste your time. The first line of your blog states that "..I have better things to do than this, but I can't help it." but it doesnt seem that way. I appreciate that you are educating people about this matter but I do not want my practice specifically mentioned as your comments about sleezy dentist and XXXXXX Dental Arts can be easily misconstrued by any patient or potential patient of mine. I understand you have an opinion, but I am respectfully asking that you take the XXXXXXX Dental Arts name out of your blog.
"It started out as a snarky post about a tacky dentist. Now I'm not sure how tacky the dentist is..." -This negative opinion has no baring and is not helpful and doesn't compare at all to your example of diagnosing a cavity
"They are a tacky, factory dental clinic that will do whatever it takes to get customers." -All of this information is deduced from from one comment on one blog?
"I still think there are signs of tackiness here on the dentist's part - the long hours, the heavy push on SEO, including a staff member who knows the term, and the multiple offices in the area." We have long hours as to accommodate patients at all times due to the patient population that we see. We are one of only 3 medicaid providers in the greater XXXXXXX area. There are about 140 dentists in the area that do not take insurance or only take a few of the best insurances. I pride myself and my practice on the ability to see all of these lower middle class and low income families that nobody else wants see because of the very low insurance reimbursement. This is in no way tacky. Also, my marketing team is very familiar with the term SEO as they should be considering that is what their job entails...marketing. And Im not sure what multiple offices in the area means either since this is my only practice.
These are just a few of the things that are offensive and untrue. I do not want them associated with any names at my practice or the name of my practice. Otherwise, say what you want but I hope this is a lesson to you that things aren't always what they seem.
XXXXX XXXXXXX
I took some time to think about it. I'd like to think I'm not into win-lose type competition. Most situations can be imagined in new ways that allow everyone to come out ok, if not well. What did he want? What did I want? Most of what I wanted had already happened. We'd moved from "Take this down or I'll sue" to "I'm respectfully asking . . ."
But underlying that, and even more important, we went from trying to use power to get one's way to using reason and persuasion to work out an acceptable solution for us both.
I don't agree with everything said in the email. I didn't make statements as much as speculate possibilities, for example. But I don't need to quibble with him about the details. [Readers can read the original post and then Part 1 of this post to see for themselves.]
And he made some good points. Do I have an invalid stereotype about chain dentists just being out to make money? I even said "factory dentists." But if one moves from the professional model of dentistry to the business model, then one moves from the polite to the rough and tumble, including occasional bad reviews. But dentists always had to run a business as well as care for their patients. And I certainly think assisting medicaid patients is a good thing but it's not without risks. I heard many tales from my mother who worked in a doctor's office about how medicaid (and medicare) often didn't cover the doctor's expenses and how easy it is to get in trouble over paperwork mistakes.
Am I biased because all my life I've only gone to small private dental offices that got patients through word of mouth, not a marketing team? Does that mean that there aren't other legitimate models? I don't need a fight with a Dental Center in the Eastern time zone. I made my point that businesses should be careful about hiring sleazy SEO operations. (BTW, the original post collected two more dental spam comments and I had to delete two comments from an airport taxi service.) There's no real need to have a particular dentist's name in the post. (The one dentist whose spam/comment to this post I left as an example, put his own name there.)
I sent the new email to my attorney and proposed that I would delete references to the specific dentist office and town, but add the follow up emails. I didn't hear from my attorney. [I just found his quick Wednesday response in my spam folder.] I did see him at the film festival though on Monday.
I told him the dentist had called me that morning (I wish East Coast people would check time zones before calling Alaska.) We had a pleasant conversation and I spelled out my proposal and he was agreeable as long as his name was left out of things.
So, we each got what we wanted through civil rational discussion. Neither of us will have to pay for an expensive legal battle. Both of us are satisfied with the resolution.
I will quibble on one point. I simply called a reporter in his area to find out if this dental center had a reputation or not since I had no local connections I could check with. I wasn't trying to stir up trouble.
On the blogging side, yes, we have the First Amendment that allows us to say quite a bit. But just because we have the right doesn't mean we should always use it. We should be mindful of the unnecessary harm we can cause others. There should be a good reason for inconveniencing (or worse) others in our exercise of free speech. And there are also times when we need to hold our ground. I respect a dentist willing to care for this medically under served population and I have no reason to disbelieve what he says.
Thanks, Dr. XXX for engaging me civilly. I learned something through this, and I hope that you've taken something positive from this as well.
And other bloggers, you might want to consider joining a blogging association if only to get some coverage for unanticipated legal expenses. [I tried getting a link to the Media Bloggers website, but I got "Forbidden" messages.]
Blogging has its hazards. I put up a post about a spam dental comment on Monday 11/28/11 at 10:52pm. I got this email [dated 11/29/11 7:52am (Alaska time)]:
To Whom it May Concern,
My name is Dr XXX XXXXX I am the owner of XXXXX Dental Arts. I was made aware of your blog today and I wanted to know what, exactly, is the purpose of this negativity in your blog? You do not know who I am or what I do in my practice but to say such things is considered defamation of character and is illegal. The way in which I advertise on the internet or increase traffic to my website shouldn't be any concern to yourself. You do not know me, nor do you know anything about me. I ask that you take down your recent post about XXXXXXX Dental Arts. I do not want to escalate this to my attorney but if nothing is done within 24hrs, I will be forced to take legal action.
Thanks,
XXX XXXX
This happened once before when an attorney for the Alaska International Film Festival sent a longer letter. In that case, I contacted attorney John McKay who wrote a long response letter.
In this case, this was directly from the dentist, not his attorney. And he did say, "thanks" at the end. And he didn't use his title in his signature. Those are good signs to me. So I drafted a response and checked with my attorney and then sent it off Tuesday night:
Dr. XXXXXXXXX,
Let me try to address your questions:
1. “I was made aware of your blog today and I wanted to know what, exactly, is the purpose of this negativity in your blog?”
You mention negativity as though talking about something negative is a bad thing. Surely, when you find that a patient has a cavity, you must raise that negativity with your patient so you can proceed to fix it.
The purpose of the post is to point out the dangers of legitimate businesses hiring SEO firms that use sleazy tactics. Like filling a cavity, I’m trying to help businesses, like your own, protect themselves from sleazy SEO tactics. And like filling a cavity, it might hurt a bit, but I mean you no malice, as you mean your patients no malice.
2. "You do not know who I am or what I do in my practice. . .”
I do not know much about you, nor do you know me. But I do know
something about your marketing practices because an advertisement for your business was posted on my blog. Your SEO came to me, I didn’t go looking for you. My blog has a warning above the comment box that says (in part):
“Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. . . Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted.”
Despite this warning, a spam advertisement was left as a comment directing my readers to your dental clinic. The comment had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the blog post. In my mind this is tacky, because it pretends to be a comment, but really is an ad. In this case, there was not even an effort made to find a post about dentistry (I have some) or to even pretend to relate to the post at all. (Some SEO people write things like “This is a very interesting post” before leaving their links. And, in fact, another dentist has left another spam comment, but it talks about dentistry at least on this post which mentions 'dentist' though the main topic is SEO and spam.)
I went to the effort to call your office to check if you knew about the ad. Someone who identified herself as YYYYYY said this must be related to your SEO. I posted that on the blog so that my readers (and you) could see that I had checked and that your office was not aware.
3. “but to say such things is considered defamation of character and is
illegal.”
I’m a professor emeritus of public administration at the University of Alaska Anchorage. I write carefully and I try to present different possible interpretations rather than state things as fact. The post speculated different possibilities and provided evidence for the different possibilities. As I review it I see nothing that could be considered defamation.
You have not specifically identified what ‘things’ you consider defamation of character or how it is illegal. If you can do that, I will share your comments with my attorney, and consider any edits he advises.
I was threatened with legal action once before. That ended abruptly when my attorney responded to their threat. My attorney has represented news media and others engaged in exercising their First Amendment rights for over three decades, and has taught a university course dealing with these subjects for almost as long.
In conclusion, please identify the specific parts of the post that you consider defamation of character or illegal so I can consider making edits if my attorney agrees with your assessment.
Sincerely,
Steve Aufrecht
This all happened about a week ago. I'll put this up now and Part 2 which includes the dentist's response and mine.
My son sent me a couple of links worth checking. I'm sure a variation of this scenario from XKCD has happened in many households of my blogger compatriots.
And J1 also sent me to Roger Ebert's blog. Here he is conveying pretty much my own concerns about bully radio talk show hosts. In this post, for example, I talk about pollution of public discourse. And I've also discussed bullying as an aspect of this. Here's a bit from Ebert:
I am not interested in discussing O'Reilly's politics here. That would open a hornet's nest. I am more concerned about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society. He sets a harmful example of acceptable public behavior. He has been an influence on the most worrying trend in the field of news: The polarization of opinion, the elevation of emotional temperature, the predictability of two of the leading cable news channels. A majority of cable news viewers now get their news slanted one way or the other by angry men. O'Reilly is not the worst offender. That would be Glenn Beck. Keith Olbermann is gaining ground. Rachel Maddow provides an admirable example for the boys of firm, passionate outrage, and is more effective for nogt shouting.
Much has been said recently about the possible influence of O'Reilly on the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder. Such a connection is impossible to prove. Yet studies of bullies and their victims suggest a general way such an influence might take place. Bullies like to force others to do their will, while they can stand back and protest their innocence: "I was nowhere near the gymnasium, Sister!"
My mother was 11 when Hitler came to power in 1933. As a Jewish girl, she experienced the various laws that step by step made life more difficult for Jews, including when she was no longer allowed, as a Jew, to go to school. She managed to get out of Germany and to the US in 1939, and I grew up hearing these stories. Hearing how the country she took for granted and felt totally a citizen of, slowly deteriorated and made her and her family the evil threat to society. Since then I've
read my share of books about this period to fill in more details. A recent one that I'd strongly recommend is Victor Klemperer's I Will Bear Witness
So when I see similar things happening here, I'm seriously disturbed. Most German Jews, not to mention gentile Germans, didn't believe it could possibly happen there. Just like most Americans don't believe it could happen here. When I've told people that the Bush administration is copying the Nazis in the steps they took to dismantle the rights of German citizens, they look at me like I'm crazy - we don't have concentration camps. I'm not talking about concentration camps, but what the Nazis did before they sent Jews and Gypsies and others to concentration camps. The steps they went through that allowed the citizens of arguably the most educated and advanced country in the world at the time, to accept concentration camps when the time came. [And if a number of blogs are correct, FEMA has set up a series of detention camps.around the country that could be used to put away dissenters and other undesirables. Originally set up for illegal immigrants and used for Katrina refugees, these blogs relate, there are such camps planned and being built all around the US already. The links I could find look kind of flakey, but I've been assured by people I trust and pointed to FEMA regulations for this.]
So I was pleased to find someone who has written a book about the progressive steps to dismantling a democracy. Wolf identifies ten steps that are used to overthrow democracies and shows how they have been used in various regimes and how they are being taken in the US today. Well, it's depressing as hell, but to the extent that this is exposed and people become aware of what is happening, the better our chances of blocking this.
[This is not showing in my preview window, but maybe it will show on the blog itself. Jeremy, at KWMD (87.7 and 104.5 FM in Anchorage) says they've already played this on the air and will play it again tonight -Sunday- at 6pm. You can try YouTube.]
Here are the ten steps as outlined by Naomi Wolf in her book The End of America and discussed in this tape from Youtube from a talk at the University of Washington October 11, 2007.
1. Declare the existence of sleeper cells.
2. Create a secret prison system where torture takes place outside the rule of law and very often establish military tribunals that strip prisoners of due process
3. Create a paramilitary force
4. Create a surveillance apparatus for its ordinary citizens.
5. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens,
6. infiltrate citizen groups
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Recast dissent as treason
10. Declare martial law - months before an election, destabilization
A quote from Naomi Wolf's talk:
Name a society that created a secret prison system outside the rule of law where torture takes place that didn’t sooner or later turn the abuse against its own citizens
I went to a community meeting today (well it's yesterday now) at the BP Center. Alaska Common Ground, with money from the Council on Public Policy Education, is putting together a couple of public forums to get people together to talk about public policy issues in Alaska. This was something of an organizing meeting. Bill Hall has been the main person behind this all. Below is a short clip of video and photos I took at the meeting.
