« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Morning Briefing for July 27, 2012

RS MB CleanMasthead

RedState Morning Briefing

July 27, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

———————————————————————-

1. Obama: ‘We tried our plan and it worked’ – ‘You would think they’d be saying Thank You!’

President Obama’s latest clarification-inducing comment came Wednesday, and it’s eyebrow-raising to say the least. Speaking on employment and the economy, the silver-tongued president declared, “Just like we’ve tried [the Republicans'] plan, we’ve tried our plan, and it worked. That’s the difference.”

Moe, who has graphically shown the fallacy of Obama’s “it worked” claim, summed up his rebuttal by declaring that “the only way that you can possibly justify suggesting that Obama’s economic program ‘worked’ is if you define ‘not working’ as ‘the country is now on fire’.”

Given this obvious state of affairs, Democrats, media, and apologists (but I repeat myself) have once again entered full-on spin-and-clarification mode, claiming (yet again) that their skilled orator and effective communicator in chief has been taken out of context, and that he was actually referring to something else, like the economic policies of President Clinton and his Republican Congress. Of course, a look at the transcript – combined with Obama’s penchant for taking credit for policy successes where (to put it charitably) none is due, makes this claim unlikely at best.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The Ethanol Chickens Come Home to Roost

After a year full of victories for big government legislation in Congress, the forces of statism seemed to have met their Waterloo with the farm/food stamp bill. The more people learned of the profligate food stamp spending and the market distorting, risk-inducing agriculture programs contained in the bill, the more they spoke out against this monstrosity. Speaker Boehner has refused to bring the bill to the floor so far.

Seeing their political stock rapidly diminish, the bipartisan coalition of government-run agriculture took a page out of Rahm Emanuel’s playbook and decided not to let the crisis of the summer drought go to waste. They are using evocative imagery of dead crops and the fear of higher food prices to shove this $957 billion behemoth through Congress. Amazingly enough, the Washington Post of all news outlets has injected some much-needed clarity into this narrative.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Is David Dewhurst a Conservative? Of Course Not.

But don’t tell that to DC’s chattering class who would have you believe there isn’t any difference between Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. They claim this campaign is just about which kind of “conservative” we will get in Washington — a “veteran conservative legislator” (read: guy who make nice with leadership), or a new member of the “doesn’t-play-well-with-others” caucus.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

COMMENTS

  • westcoastpatriette

    They must be getting worried about their liability given that Holmes sent the psych. details re: his plans. And she did nothing? Whoa.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/27/lawyers-for-colorado-massacre-suspect-want-source-notebook-leak/

  • Jack_Savage

    There is precedent for someone who is being treated by a university psychologist then going on a killing spree. Happened in Chapel Hill, NC many years ago. The killer sued his psychiatrist and WON.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I worked in mental health and all professionals in that field have a duty to report when a patient is a danger to themselves or others. I find it very suspicious that they are claiming this notebook had been sitting in the mail room and the doctor had not seen it. Even that is negligence as far as I’m concerned. A psychiatrist also should not ignore or neglect to read correspondence from their patients. Sounds fishy to me.

  • westcoastpatriette

    in the ethics course, the famous case that was cited involved parents that sued a psychologist because he did not report when one of his patients told him he was going to go and kill his girlfriend. The psychologist claimed he was bound by confidentiality laws not to tell but after the patient did murder his girlfriend, the girlfriend’s parents sued and won. The Tarasoff case. It is used to teach ethics classes for any mental health practitioner so they understand that when they have evidence that the patient may harm themselves or others, they must break confidentiality and report it.

  • avagreen

    The psychiatrist is not responsible if the mailroom did not deliver the notebook to her.
    It is not negligent on the mailroom’s part to not have delivered mail even if it had arrived sometime before Friday.

    Concerning the Tarasoff case, the summer of 1969, the University therapist that was seeing Prosenjit Podda had definite knowledge of his patient’s intent to harm another Tarasoff (because she had spurned him) and even turned him into the campus police, who then released him because he was “acting rationally” . But, the therapist did not warn Tarasoff or her family because of patient confidentiality. Neither did the police.
    The last part of October 1979, he carried out the plan. The University was sued and eventually won. Up until that date, all therapists thought that patient confidentiality was sacrosanct.

    This is not the same type case at all. Read all the reports……this package was delivered on Monday.

    ….The University of Colorado, Denver said the U.S. Postal Service delivered the package to its medical campus Monday, and it was immediately investigated and turned over to authorities within hours…
    http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/19115366/colorado-theater-shooting-suspect-described-killings-in-package?clienttype=printable

    Citing unidentified law enforcement sources, multiple news outlets reported Wednesday that mass-shooting suspect James E. Holmes mailed a notebook before Friday’s early-morning theater massacre to the University of Colorado’s medical campus, where he had been a doctoral neuroscience student.

    The university said it received a suspicious package Monday, three days after the assault in Aurora, Colo….http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/25/nation/la-na-colorado-notebook-20120726

    Do the math. Mailed before Friday’s late night rampage (could have been that afternoon or that morning?), received on Monday. No one can say that the psychiatrist knew of this notebook, nor that anyone in the mailroom knew of the notebook.

  • westcoastpatriette

    There are conflicting reports at this stage. Yesterday, Fox was reporting that the notebook was in the mailroom the preceding Monday before the shooting on Friday. If what you are reporting is the case, there is no way anyone could be liable. But, if it was sitting there for a whole week as initially reported, then I would have a problem with it. Guess we’ll have to wait and see as more facts come out.

  • westcoastpatriette

    nowadays, I just find it conveniently suspicious that such a crucial package addressed to a school psych. from a patient could be left in the mail room for days on end.

  • avagreen

    until AFTER the shootings. Until then it was just another piece of mail……which was found on Monday after the shooting on Friday night.

    2. “The days on end” is still in question.

    3. Even if it had been delivered earlier in the week to the mailroom, this does not fit the “Need to notify” meaning of Tarasoff case, unless you are saying the University and/or the psychiatrist knew of the notebook and did not warn. I don’t think you are saying that, and I certainly don’t think any sane person would would be that knowingly negligent.

    I think we are talking at cross purposes.

  • avagreen

    nt

  • westcoastpatriette

    :) There’s so much CYA prevalent in the government that at this point, the story sounds flimsy and suspicious to me. If it is true that the package arrived in the mail room the Monday before the shooting, you know there would be major CYA going on. As it stands, they are already trying to stifle the info under the guise of confidentiality and when Fox reported on it today, they left out precisely when the package was sent or arrived at the school. But you know the school would not want it to be known if the package was there several days prior to the shooting.

    And I have never worked any place where mail was not delivered to your inbox on the day it came in — especially a doctor’s mail.

  • westcoastpatriette

    the laws are different from state to state, but here in California, mental health professionals have a duty to report (to police) and a duty to warn (the potential victim) if a patient is threatening to harm themselves or others. It is pretty standard here that they are expected to break confidentiality under those circumstances.

    It sounds like, from what I’ve read, the standard may not be as clear in other states.

  • avagreen

    Which apparently you are choosing to believe.
    For some reason.

    I’ve not worked for or with a doc that ever was this devious or negligent in all my 23 years.
    I guess our experiences have been different.

  • westcoastpatriette

    just stating what’s been reported so far. Conflicting info.

  • avagreen

    You are still hanging your argument that this doctor knew what was in the package and knowingly refused to report it. Which is in direct conflict with the well-known case we are talking about.

    Why would he do that?

  • westcoastpatriette

    At this point, I have never heard that the doctor ever got the mail at all. Without all the facts, its impossible to know what happened. All I’m saying at this point is there is plenty of reason for all involved to be afraid to tell the truth if there was any foreknowledge of the shooting that was not reported, or if the school failed to deliver the mail to the doctor. Either way, I can easily see CYA kicking into gear whether its the school, the doctor or both.

  • avagreen

    If you’re not saying the doctor knew ahead of time and had a duty to warn?
    I’m getting confused with what you are saying.

    I’m not going to respond any more.

  • westcoastpatriette

    because I don’t know how to make my points any clearer.

    I bring up the duty to report just to reinforce that there may or may not have been some legal negligence on the part of the doctor and/or the school. Seems pretty simple to me.

  • gekster

    I don’t see where she said that.
    What am I missing.

    (and I have this exchange through)

  • avagreen

    That’s the only person that would be affected by the “duty to warn”……..
    the psychiatrist. And, only IF, if she knew of this crime aforehand and chose not report it.
    That’s it. She is not to be held responsible, according to the quoted Tarasoff ruling, IF she did NOT know about the crime ahead of time. For whatever reason.

    The mailroom would not as they were free to call whomever they thought needed to be called……. IF they knew in advance of the shooting that this was a package from a dangerous person, which would have a fine case of mind reading, if so.

    Mixing the two does not make sense and is not correct. And, not opening a package or not putting it in someone’s mailbox does not fit the ruling of the Tarasoff case, which is what was implied.

  • lineholder

    Rep. Stearns (R-FL) is requesting Congressional hearing into Ms. Reaves death. It is being suggested that Congress should be playing an additional oversight role into the patient safety aspects that may be involved for patient services being provided by Planned Parenthood.

    This is good news, and I’m glad to see Rep. Stearns pursuing this.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/24/rep-wants-public-hearing-on-planned-parenthood-after-woman-death/