Search

The documentary is missing because the documentary is as safe as the fence it mocks in its title.
In the beginning we are asked to bear witness to the construction and use of the most devastation weapon of indiscriminate death the world has ever seen, and all the harm the construction of such a tool, yet its construction and its use is justified near instantaneously by repeating the same old propaganda.
In continuation, we are asked to bear witness to the continuous production of similar weapons and the devastation caused by the mishandling of the waste that accumulated in their production, yet why such a production took place is not only left unquestioned, but simple hints of cold war propaganda is left in their places for safekeeping.
In the end, we are asked to bear witness to a sombre victory, same spectres of patriotism and nation-of-God watching over our shoulder, yet how the pitiful situation of being forced to celebrate even such a small victory is never explored.
To sum up, we are shown people, good people, who struggle against the symptoms of a disease, yet this disease itself never named, nor challenged. It could not have been challenged, as it would force a complete change in their discourse.

If we sincerely would like to critique how the bodies of these workers were made disposable; used, harmed, dislocated and discharged as deemed necessary; if we wish to explore this topic as the necropolitical issue it is, we cannot stop halfway through. This inability to stop chasing connections, relationalities wherever it fits our ideology, is not a call for “objectivism”, it’s a call to respect the term of Anthropocene with all its rhizomatic connections.

An investigation of nuclear waste, that does not factor the use of its product, the socio-political effects of said product, and the historical conditions that even led to the possibility of producing it in such ways and such quantities, are of no use for us.  It cannot penetrate the barrier of capitalist realism. If it could, at least a single mention of workers unions would have existed. Instead, it has confessionals by atomic weapons lawyers whose heart goes out to these workers.
An America that refuse to face up to the fact that it is what it is by the great necropolitical project it led for hundreds of years, I struggle to accumulate sympathy for, what I can easily accumulate is rage however, which this documentary is missing..
Wish the documentary would have at least attempted to say something radical, instead of praising these disposable bodies for being patriotic about it. There are lives who never had false fences built as idols for safety, the collective idols of old America, the patriotic nation under God were built upon their broken bodies, what would you ask of them?

1. "as Richard Danzig has argued in the case of bioterrorism, despite the striking increase in funding for biodefense in the U.S., there is still no 'common conceptual framework' that might bring various efforts together and make it possible to assess their adequacy."

2. “Who should lead the fight against disease? Who should pay for it? And what are the best strategies and tactics to adopt?”

3. In contrast to classic public health, preparedness does not draw on statistical records of past events. Rather, it employs imaginative techniques of enactment such as scenarios, exercises, and analytical models to simulate uncertain future threats.

4. emergency response is acute, short-term, focused on alleviating what is conceived as a temporally circumscribed event; whereas “social” interventions—such as those associated with development policy—focus on transforming political-economic structures over the long term

The college was created to continue New York State's position as a leader in homeland security, cybersecurity and emergency preparedness and as a response to the growing need for professionals in those fields. Advances in technology, and increased threats to terrorism and cybersecurity in the past few decades called for the formation of this college. Overall it was a strategic political and economic decision by Governor Andrew Cuomo as it would provide training in a field that's expected to grow by 650,000 employees (for cybersecurity) in the next decade*.

*http://www.albany.edu/news/57214.php

The argument is supported with case studies, anecdotal evidence from medical officers, research on the history of the article, and news reports regarding the law. 

The policy doesn't specifically address the elderly or children, who are very vulnerable populations during disasters/ emergencies (but it does address pets and animals in Title IV).

The central argument is that healthcare professionals are not trained well enough in mentally/ emotionally handling patient relationships when providing end-of-life care for terminal/ chronic illnesses.