Building shared power: the Trans-Arabian Pipeline and the technopolitics of anti-sectarian labor mobilization in Lebanon, 1950–1964

ABSTRACT

This article examines anti-sectarianism and the technopolitics of labor mobilization at the facilities of the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) company in Lebanon between 1950 and 1964. It argues that although Tapline helped sustain a Lebanese elite strategy of cross-sectarian power-sharing, it also unintentionally fostered specifically anti-sectarian labor mobilization. Pursuing a line of inquiry into the technopolitics of worker mobilization around oil infrastructure opened by Timothy Mitchell’s Carbon Democracy, this article specifically examines how Lebanese Tapline workers construed their actions, and did so in anti-sectarian terms. It also proposes that similar studies of labor and the technopolitics of infrastructure could offer productive avenues for inquiry into the origins of anti-sectarian politics in Lebanon.     

Causes of death of patients in an institution for the developmentally disabled

The causes of death of 53 severely to profoundly developmentally disabled patients who died in an intermediate care facility were reviewed. Respiratory disease, predominantly pneumonia and aspiration, accounted for 72% of deaths. Seven patients died of nonrespiratory causes, and in 8 patients, no cause of death could be determined, even after a complete autopsy or investigation. The median age at death was 20 years. The weights of these patients' organs at autopsy were lower than those for normal individuals of the same age. The lifespan of these severely impaired individuals continues to be significantly shortened, even with improved methods of care.     

Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling

This paper responds to criticisms/misconstruals of our measure of the maximum probative value of evidence (D. Davis & W. C. Follette, 2002), and our conclusions regarding the potentially prejudicial role of intuitive profiling evidence, including motive. We argue that R. D. Friedman and R. C. Park's (2003) criticisms and example cases are largely based on inappropriate violation of the presumption of innocence. Further, we address the merits of our absolute difference measure of probative value versus those of the Bayesian likelihood ratio championed by D. H. Kaye and J. J. Koehler (2003). We recommend methods for presentation of measures of evidence utility that convey complexities of interdependence between new and existing evidence. Finally, we propose a probable cause standard for admission of potentially prejudicial evidence, dictating that admissibility of such evidence should be contingent upon other substantial evidence of guilt.