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?

The largest challenge faced by the ARC seems to be organizing such a large group of volunteers for specific response. There are so many different pieces to disaster respones, and with mostly volunteers organizing things, a strong central leadership is needed, which seems to be lacking in the group as a whole. 

This article claims that after the disaster and initial relief efforts Haiti has not changed for the better and is "back more or less to normal." However many Haitians are suffering from cholera after a water polution mishap with the United Nations initial relief efforts. 

The film best addresses any audience that has an interest in the medical field or care of patients. The film does not target a specific audience or require any background knowledge to understand the concepts occuring. 

The rise and emergence of infectious diseases has led to a number of puclic health "scares" over the years. The creation of national and international frameworks, as well as focus groups, has brought the struggle of infectious diseases like AIDS to light. Looking at diseases with the combined inputs of governmental and philanthropic organizations has had a positive influence on the fight against them. In the realm of bioterrorism, many factors are at play. First is the terrorist act itself and the social issues that lead to a terrorist being created. Then there is themethod, which is the numerous diseases that can be weaponized. These diseases are researched at the government level as potential additions to the arsenal of weapons a country has. However, they are also used at the individual level. With highly educated individuals and any number of social ideologies, the risk for bioterrorism increases. By looking at bioterrorism through the lens of both a social expert and scientist, the roots of bioterrorism can be examined. 

The causes for these examinations are events that have had a largescale effect on multiple levels of expertise. These "focusing events" have a lot of factors and players, and thus require a lot of different views to analyze, as the article argues.