The Island President (Documentary)

Maldives - an island nation like no other. Known for its high-end luxury resorts and mesmerizing reefs, it has long been the ultimate destination for divers, honeymooners, and people who enjoy the serenity of lying on a perfect beach with the sounds of waves crashing nearby. Called a "cross between paradise and paradise", this string of islands in the Indian Ocean is the height of "good life".     

Maldives - an island that has been through a turbulent past. Unbeknown to majority of the world, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom ruled, almost like a dictator, over the country for a period of 30 years which resulted in speculations of brutality, unlawful imprisonment, solitary confinement, and even killings in his name.

Maldives - an island with a new hope. The people of the nation that comprises of 2000 islands saw a savior in President Mohamed Nasheed who fought against the regime of Maumoon Gayoom for 20 years and finally took charge of the presidential office in 2008.

Maldives - an island that is slowly dying. Having just risen after its first "free elections" in 2008, the stark reality of global warming hit hard on Maldives with the rising water levels submerging the islands slowly but surely.

The Island President is the story of a man on a mission. President Mohamed Nasheed had to not only run a pro-democracy movement to give Maldives its first free elections, but since had to tackle the harsh nature of global politics to try and get governments of the world to agree upon carbon emission levels to slow down global warming and in the process save his country from drowning. He has also taken on the charge of making Maldives the first carbon neutral country.

Maldives, and subsequently President Nasheed's fight for survival takes them to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference. The documentary by Jon Stark follows the president during his first year in office as he prepares for the conference and tries to make an impact on the world.

The films through the voice and ideologies of Nasheed, and his team of advisors and ministers, presents the dire necessity of the nation as it is at risk of completely losing its identity and culture. With fisheries getting affected and islands submerging at increased rates, Nasheed takes on an unprecedented hands-on-approach, meeting the people and understanding their problems.

The Island President stands out as a documentary because it does not sugarcoat the views of the President. President Nasheed speaks his mind, be it about the absurdity of the reasons for not passing a pact limiting the carbon emissions or the political tactics employed by some of the countries like India, China, and Brazil. The documentary is an eye opening look at world politics and how every country has their own agendas and deal making procedures. President Nasheed uses his position as an underdog and spearheads a campaign, including an underwater cabinet meeting, that literally makes every nation pay attention to his plight. His appeal to save not only the future for his country, but also its past is heartfelt and impact-full on those present at the conference and on us, the audience watching the documentary.

Although in 2012 President Nasheed resigned after a military coup, he was able to make a positive impression on world leaders and also the common man by working towards a goal that would not only save his people from becoming "environmental refugees" but also one that would eventually safeguard the human race. Whether his attempts were in vain, only time will tell. 

The Island President is one of the most honest and direct documentaries I have seen, almost to the point that its frankness is shocking at times.

The Island President is highly recommended and essential viewing.

DVD Info:

Title: The Island President

Release Date: 27 August 2012      Running Time: 101 minutes

Distributor: Dogwoof              Certificate: E

Language: English

                   

Save Yourself the Trouble

When it comes to politics, you can keep the sanctimonious ramblings to yourself because I'm not buying it. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but just because you can enthusiastically talk about a subject matter doesn't mean I'm going to believe you. Anyone can be passionate about anything and with the 'correct' information in the 'correct' manner, present something that seemingly supports their argument to the 't'.

Only one problem, I learned from the best. My Grandfather was a Air Force Sergeant for 20 years before becomming a school teacher for another 20 and retiring. These days, now ate the ripe old age of 81, he can tell you stories that would pry the envy from even some of the most hardened souls (just ask him about his time as a mechanic on the SR71 Blackbird). It's safe to say I admire the man greatly. Particularly one aspect of his life that I've often heard about - the encylopedias.

You see, my Grandfather had a great approach to any debate going on around him. He only formed an opinion about an issue if he learned about himself. If you came up to him with a thought on something and he wasn't familiar with the subject he'd go home, whip out his encyclopedias, and read up on the key points. Once he felt like he understood the material at hand, then - and only then - would he partake in the debate. It's a state of mind I sincerely wish more people would take up.

Of course, that style may not work quite so well in this day and age. After all, I'm sure given the time and effort you could prove or disprove anything with the vast resources of the internet at your disposal. The problem I find is that people just lack the drive to do the research themselves. They'd much rather watch a game of football, go out drinking at the club, or spend their time downloading apps for their phone than learning the information.

Research? Isn't that something that weird 'geeks' do? Yes, and even they can be guilty of pandering the research to meet the consumer. How else do you explain the shocking number of advocacy and lobbying groups, each with convincing sounding numbers to back up their widely conflicting claims on various issues? In an age where information travels at the speed of light, misinformation still manages to travel at twice that.

Why? Because the internet is often guilty of being one world-wide scale game of telephone. What starts out as "Scientists discover new particle" in the original form is taken, read, rewritten, referenced, opinionated, and eventually comes out "Scientists discover new death ray particle capable of annihilating a planet" on the other side. Even though near on all of those words have no respective foundation in the original article. Yet by the time it's reached that level hundreds of other websites, chain mails, and social media postings have followed and that's the story we all believe.

So here are some basic tips for getting the most truth for your buck:

1. Check the references of the sites you read. If it's an advocacy/lobbying group study, or an opinion article, turn on your skeptical radar immediately. Try and trace the story back to its original source.
2. If they're saying "in history" or any variation there of, odds are they're just wrong. It's a big go to phrase for saying something (or someone) is the worst/best in history, but history is a long time and if you're going that big, you're probably reaching.
3. Hyperbole isn't just restricted to numbers. Be careful of the way articles are written, and people speak, because grossly exaggerated claims and 'worse than they really are' power words are the benchmark of politics.
4. It's what the founding fathers would have done. I'm not saying the founding fathers aren't important, but you must remember that not only did they live long lives, but they also said lots of things, vehemently disagreed on an assortment of issues, had to maintain the peace between some violently different political viewpoints, and were - in many instances - politicians themselves. Any quote which isn't immediately backed up by the context in which it was said (year, timing, point in life) should immediately put you on alert.
5. Read more than one article. Perhaps the facet of society we're most often guilty of is reading only the articles which reinforce our own political bias. There is no greater power than the repression of information, and by only focusing on one very particular view, you're giving that power to them.

Above all though, I plead that you take an active interest in politics. We as a society are often guilty of only caring about things once they begin directly affecting us, and unfortunately that generally comes too late. But if we began to care beforehand. To worry about what would occur to us twenty or thirty years from now, then - and perhaps only then - can we begin pushing the political discourse into a proactive stance.


Note: While I respect the viewpoint of each and every one of you, please keep your comments respectful, helpful, and on the topic at hand. Non-constructive liberal and/or conservative bashing comments will be subject to moderation.