prior probability

Dr Marilyn Wedge writes: “In the United States, at least 9 percent of school-aged children have been diagnosed with ADHD, and are taking pharmaceutical medications. In France, the percentage of kids diagnosed and medicated for ADHD is less than 0.5 percent. How has the epidemic of ADHD—firmly established in the U.S.—almost completely passed over children in France?” You probably already know the answer to this question, but here’s a link to Dr Wedge’s post on this subject just in case.

Why won’t the United States and her allies stand up for the territorial integrity of Ukraine? (Right, Ukraine, unlike Kuwait or Iraq, doesn’t have any major oil reserves.) By the way, note the red border line. That is the part of Ukraine’s border that is not under Kiev’s control.

Hat tip: shahanye (via Twitter). More here.

Congress isn’t the only corrupt public body in Washington, D.C.  Check out Andrew Ross Sorkin’s most recent “Dealbook” essay in the N.Y. Times exposing corruption in the United States Supreme Court. Here is an excerpt:

In 2014, Justice [John] Roberts, Justice [Stephen] Breyer and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled on five cases in which they owned shares in companies that filed amicus briefs. In all five cases, the justices ruled in favor of the company filing the brief in which they had a financial interest … From 2009 through 2013, they ruled that way 68 percent of the time — or in 19 cases. It appears that only Justices Roberts, Breyer and Alito own substantial stakes in individual stocks. The other justices, according to their disclosures, have investments in mutual funds and other instruments that would not be as likely to be affected by a particular ruling.

We’ve blogged about amicus briefs before. (Amicus briefs are self-serving legal briefs that are filed by “friends of the court” in a given case, i.e. private parties with axes to grind, and such briefs often contain many factual errors.) Federal judges must recuse themselves if they own a stake directly in a company that is a named party in a case, but at the same time, judges are not required to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a stake in a company that files an amicus or “friend of the court” brief. Talk about loopholes …

Credit: Paul Resnikoff. (Via Randy Picker’s new course on Internet Giants: The Law & Economics of Media Platforms. We strongly recommend Prof. Picker’s course.)