Cohabitation,female sacrifice,and judge-made law

This paper shares results of a study of judgments applying the common law as adapted to the cohabitation context. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that couples who formed a ‘joint family venture’ may need to share the wealth gained during cohabitation. The study compares the couples leading to positive and negative findings of a joint family venture. Positive findings correlate with traditional markers of family and economic integration, such as joint bank accounts and the presence of children. Despite the discourse of family diversity, gendered patterns run across all the couples, with women assuming primary care of children, shouldering domestic labour, and making career sacrifices for the family. In a sign of the limits of judge-made reforms, the doctrine may be harder for some claimants to access than for others, in ways not necessarily tracking commitment and economic integration.     

A thousand tales of dead men: the forensic anthropology cases of William R. Maples, Ph.D.

This paper examines the nearly 1000 forensic anthropology case reports authored by the late William R. Maples during his 28 year career at the University of Florida, Gainesville. The types of case files reviewed include C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory reports; 999, US ARMY-CILHI reviews; 226, and historical or prominent persons. Although Dr. Maples performed private casework, these files were not available for examination. A demographic profile for the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory sample is presented.     

Visions of (In)Security and American Strategic Style

This essay was stimulated (provoked) by discussions in three separate venues: (1) a U.S. Naval War College conference on Alternative Futures in War and Conflict: Implications for U.S. National Security, held in late 1999; (2) several recent widely circulated blue-ribbon reports on the subject; and (3) recent papers emerging from the U.S. defense bureaucracy speculating on strategic visions of the next ten to twenty years. My contention is that the prevailing official and quasi-official debate exhibits excessive and overly definitive emphases on: (1) particular facets of insecurity; (2) attributions to the U.S. of benign intent and capacity; and (3) assumptions that most others share that interpretation of our words and deeds. There also tends to be unwarranted neglect of representation and standing issues which discriminate for and against different policy perspectives and forms of program expertise. A plea is offered for an alternative approach based on what we know about how persons, organizations, and communities can best position themselves for (in)security futures.