A Futuristic Argument?

     The above video is meant to give the viewer a "shock-and-awe" feeling over how the world has changed and is changing in terms of population, education, and technology. The video is bases around facts meant to surprise the viewer as many do not know how quickly the world is changing or at least do not know the mathematical statistics presented here. The video is arguing that people across the world are slowly losing touch with their past and present in order to accelerate into an unknown future. It is arguing that people as a whole are moving towards a face pace style of life: instead of looking for a consistent job or using what they have they are leaving to try and find the "next big thing", a thing that may not even be in existence. The "Did You Know?" logo is repeated throughout the video alongside the suspenseful yet tense music in order to remind the viewer that most likely they did not know many if any of the facts generated here. An interesting point to make also is that the video is not from a credible source: although I was inclined to believe all the facts presented here at first, predictions can be made by anyone and anyone can throw together "facts" to make one question where society is going: a well-crafted video just helps to make one think. Overall the argument is a fair one even IF one cannot fully rely on the source of the information: people are moving towards an uncertain future rather than working with what they know is in the present.
     As already stated above the video's use of music is one way in which the creator or author of the video conveys their argument: it is tense at first, making one curious until more facts have been revealed and the view is interested. To ensure that the viewer remains comfortable the music becomes excited: does the creator want the viewer to leap onto the futuristic idealism it describes? It also uses common topics to either provide one with a sense of worry or curiosity. An example of this is when the video begins speaking of education at 0:38. "Researchers predict that 65% of today's grade schoolers will hold jobs that don't yet exist"; those children could be your children. Moments later the video says that "We" are preparing students for jobs that don't exist with technology that doesn't exist for problems that don't exist yet. It makes those with children of their own and even those without children wonder if they want that for their child or for children: in a sense children are being taught to deal with problems for a later time instead of helping to make what is in existence today better. As teenagers we (or at least I) am pushed to find a part-time job and soon a job to help build responsibility and earn my own income: yet another scenario to relate to. However the video presents the "fact" that the same students mentioned before will have between 10-14 jobs by the time they reach the age of 38: does this mean that our ability to be content with what we have is fading, or that we are prepared to embrace the future as we should be? This is yet

again an argument. Populations are huge, be it in a country such as China or on a mass-media website such as Facebook. Using technology such as Vine we again push our ability to maintain focus, as it is a sight that only requires our attention for six seconds at a time. People search for questions on Google that, at one point in time, were asked to grandmothers and grandfathers instead of a non-living technology. The number if internet devices has more than doubled since 1984, and the same can be said about the number of words in the English Language.
      Authors such as Shakespeare were able to write magnificent works with far less than what we have today, so I believe that the core of the video is trying to hit the point of this: we study people of our past because of the great feats they have achieved throughout history: each historical figure, Lincoln, Gandhi, da Vinci, were without a great deal of the things we have today. Although they fought and prepared for the future, they also were sure to exploit what they had to work with for the time being. Without this we as a race lose touch with what surrounds us mentally and physically: family, dreams, love: instead we focus on tomorrow when in fact, we never know what tomorrow will bring. Certain ideas within the video excite me, but some also worry me greatly. There are benefits in being ahead and preparing for the future as long as we do not lose touch of ourselves: of what it means to be the only creatures with our capacity for thought, expression, and emotion. For such things that help us to do this, I am excited. However I fear the thought that we are bound to rush to quickly into things, that we are not fixing what global problems are happening now and that we are not enjoying what we have now. I worry that we will not have time to do anything but work towards the thought of "better" when our best may be what's right in front of us. A super-computer able to handle more than the human mind or even the human race is beautiful but also tragic. It is beautiful that we are able to create such a thing, but the question is not if we are able, but if we should. Because I know how to lift an axe, should I cut a tree down simply because I can? I believe it depends on how the tree is used in the end.
     Overall there are many arguments to be made from this video and I have described how they are portrayed above: some involve the video's color and style, the music, while others involve a psychological method meant to relate to the viewer while forcing them to question themselves and their future, such as with schooling for their children or possible careers/jobs. Although both hopeful and worrying, the future is a thing we must all wait for, prepare for, and anticipate. However for the time being I plan on focusing most on what is now and what I can do now, rather than dwelling on the future v.s. the past.

Law or Loyalty? Lincoln's Narrative To Enforce The 13th Amendment.

     The following is an analysis for an AP Literature class concerning how President Lincoln's use of a narrative in the movie Lincoln helped to effect the overall argument he was making to his advisers concerning the 13th Amendments. The narrative tells of Lincoln's encounter with Melissa Goings. For reference, see the movie Lincoln.

   

     While in a conference with his Cabinet concerning war-strategies against the South, President Lincoln is confronted by a member who questions why Lincoln has his intentions set on the 13th Amendment rather than effective war-strategies. In response Lincoln first jokes with the Cabinet, allowing them to relax before beginning a short narrative about his encounter with a defendant named Melissa Goings. Lincoln goes on to explain that he was representing Goings in a trial in which Goings had been accused of murdering her husband while being choked by him. It ends with Lincoln explaining that he had called for a short conference with Goings while in a courthouse: during this conference Goings had asked where to find a good drink of water, and Lincoln had answered with "Tennessee". Lincoln emerged from the room without Goings; a window was found open and when Goings was not found, her chargers were dropped. Although the Cabinet is at first unsure as to how the narrative relates to the pressing matter of slavery, Lincoln is able to relate the story with his actions concerning both the Emancipation Proclamation and the upcoming 13th Amendment. 

   

     The use of Lincoln's anecdote/narrative effects the entirety of his speech by letting his audience (his Cabinet) know that he holds morality above law. Although he does not verbally admit it, it is suggested that Lincoln allowed Goings to escape the courthouse: furthermore it can be assumed that Lincoln would allow this because Goings had only committed the crime in order to save herself and would not do something of that nature again. Therefore, the narrative relates to Lincoln in the sense that although it may not be in his legal powers to press so thoroughly towards abolitionism, he continues to push the boundaries because it is the morally correct thing to do. Goings protected herself from her husband because she was attacked: because her freedom and life were in danger. Lincoln in a sense is replacing Melissa Goings with slavery. Slavery, or slaves, are in the same situation as Goings was during Lincoln's narrative: they are being attacked, with their freedom and lives being taken away and just like Goings, they are trying to save themselves. Lincoln uses the narrative to portray why he has taken such a strong sense towards the 13th Amendment instead of war and the firm legal processes. If Lincoln had followed the firm legal processes and the sense of "war monger" when dealing with the case of Goings, Goings might have spent her life in jail or even paid with her life when she was just defending herself. Overall Lincoln knows that he could possibly have limited time to get the 13th Amendment approved or even on the table: the 13th Amendment is Goings' window. Without it there may not be an escape.  

     The use of Lincoln's narrative while addressing his advisers in the Cabinet gives the members a scenario where they can possibly look inwards at what they would do themselves in the scenario of having to choose: give the innocent (or quite possibly innocent in Going's case) a fighting chance to stand for themselves, or continue to focus on war and what the law "restricts" the President from doing? The narrative opens the Cabinets ideas about what is quite possibly most important in the battle against slavery: even if the Amendment isn't carried through, it gives people hope and a chance to fight their own battle. The quote in the image to the right is closest to President Lincoln's view on the matter. By passing the 13th Amendment with success, others will be able to achieve success.