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?

""USAID has spent about $1.5 billion since the earthquake,' Johnston told Goats & Soda. 'Less than a penny of every dollar goes directly to a Haitian organization.'"

This quote shows the extreme difference in total money donated compared to the money that is being used to help Haiti directly. I was mentioned that their government is hard to trust, so outside companies tend to hold the money, but that means that they can decide how they want to spend it.

"The U.N. and its agents are "absolutely immune from suit in this Court," Oetken ruled."

This quote shows the irony of the situation, by using the word "immune" it brings light to the fact that the UN's actions had major impacts on Haiti, from with the people of Haiti are very much not "immune", as cholera affects so much of the population.

I was very compelled by the entire film. It was very interesting and revealing of all aspects of the ER. Most people only get to see one perspective ever, let alone at one time, so this helps give perspective and show everyone that everyone else is working hard and trying to help.

When community factors such as transportation and insurance status were minimized as factors preventing HIV/AIDs care, the playing field was leveled within a few years. No longer were those issues much more often seen in the patients that did not survive, rather, they were seen more evenly in those that did and did not survive.

Combining clinic treatments with home-visits and prescription drug deliveries has been found to be most effective for treating all people, regardless of social factors, in places from rural Africa to Boston, MA.

Mutli-faceted approach in rural areas were most effective and able to dramatically reduce Mother-to-Infant-Transmission of HIV. This requires more resources and organization, but it takes care of the issue most efficiently in areas that are very poor and have very rudimentary infrastructure, even worse than in poor cities.

Lakoff has a PhD in social anthropology and is an associate professor of sociology at the Univeristy of Southern California. Collier in an associate professor of international affairs at the New School in New York. Both authors have extensive backgrounds in studying people, but not disease, so their stance in this paper is not looking at the biological or emergency response aspects, but more how people plan and react to such.