April 17 roundup

by Walter Olson on April 17, 2013

  • “The Consortium has hired Arnold & Porter, and they can threaten whomever they want, the facts be damned.” [Popehat]
  • Former Social Security administrators: NPR’s just imagining things, pay no attention to that report on the growth of the disability program [NADR.org, earlier] Ronald Reagan got rolled on the SSDI disability program, and we’re all paying the price [Avik Roy]
  • Katrina qui tam: “Jury returns verdict for the Rigsby sisters against State Farm” [Freeland, earlier]
  • Probate dispute had become cause celebre in Connecticut: “Judge Rules In Favor Of Caretaker In Smoron Farm Case” [Hartford Courant]
  • Judge’s text message complains of “‘docket from hell,’ filled with tatted-up… gap tooth skank hoes” [Above the Law]
  • “FTC Clarifies Obligations of Product Reviewers, But Does Not Ease Concerns” [DMLP]
  • “Trump Dismisses ‘Spawn of Orangutan’ Lawsuit” [Lowering the Bar, earlier]
  • If you’re one of those who occasionally send me links from the Alex Jones site InfoWars, now you know why I never use ‘em [Dave Weigel]

{ 2 comments }

1 David Eggers 04.17.13 at 1:26 am

Poor guy, thinking conspiracy theorists won’t be able to find some way to connect the US government to the Boston attacks. They already “know” it was a pre-planned false flag attack. That’s their starting point. That plus 2 misinterpreted Twitter messages and its a proven fact.

2 DEM 04.17.13 at 8:23 am

The response of the former social security administrators is quite telling: in their view, any attack on the status quo, no matter how data-intensive, is “anecdotal.” Ironically, that dodge is followed by their own meaningless generalities: hey the statutes impose strict criteria! SSA employees are doing their level best! Ah, ok then, nothing to see here, I guess. Whenever government administrators speak to the dedication and hard work of their employees, reach for your wallet.

Of course, how can the disability criteria be strict if many of the conditions that qualify as disabilities are inherently unverifiable? If you say you have back pain, as just one example, then you have it. That a doctor also says so is nearly meaningless — he’s just parroting the patient — and if you visit enough doctors, you’ll always find one sympathetic enough to validate your pain. That’s especially true when many doctors are basically expert witnesses for the SS disability bar.

Comments on this entry are closed.