SPENCER,+Kelsey


 * Kelsey Spencer's page **

=A8= ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY **CHECK** -Brent Walters and Cole-Turner, Ronald, ed. __God and the Embryo: Religious Voices on Stem Cells and Cloning__. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003.

I'm going to use this source to expand upon the ethics of stem cell research and explain the views of the opposing side that says stem cell research should not be performed for ethical reasons. This is a book that gives the argument against stem cell research.

-Holland, Suzanne, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth, ed. __The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy__. Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 2001.

I'm going to use this source in order to give a general explanation of why stem cell research is being debated. I'm going to explain both sides of the issue with the help of this book. This is a book that explains why stem cell research is as big of an issue as it is.

-Levin, Yuval. __First Things__. March 2009.

I'm going to use this article in order to explain an alternative to using embryos for stem cell research, with the alternative being adult skin cells. I'm going to use this article in order to support my argument for stem cell research and explain that this alternative is not only more ethical, but also less expensive.

-Peters, Ted, Karen Lebacqz, and Gaymon Bennett. __Sacred Cells? Why Christians Should Support Stem Cell Research__. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008.

I'm going to use this source in order to explain why people should not be against stem cell research, and to back up my argument that stem cell research is useful and may be a very important medical aid in the future for many illnesses and diseases.

-Sell, Stewart, M.D., ed. __Stem Cells Handbook__. New Jersey: Humana Press, Inc, 2004.

I'm going to use this source in order to give a general definition of stem cells and research. Then I'm going to go into more detail about stem cells with the help of this book. This is a really good book if you want to know about the technicality of stem cells and their role in science. = =

=A7= Research Questions 1. Is stem cell research risky? 2. How far will stem cell resarch take us in the future?

KELSEY: I HAVE READ AND RESPONDED TO YOUR DRAFT OF PAPER 3: [|kelseyWITHCOMMENTS.doc]

= = =A6= My least favorite review was the one titled "Bad End" by Richard Schickel, published in //Time Magazine//. First of all, the title of the review leads me to believe that Schickel didn't even take note of the memoriam at the end of the movie, which reveals that the film was based on a true story. The ending of the movie was not up to the movie makers. The film itself was an adaptation of an event that had happened in real life--an event that ended tragically. Second of all, Schickel makes a mistake with the date, saying that Christopher McCandless graduated from Emory University in 1992 when in reality Chris had graduated in 1990 and was found in Alaska in 1992. Schickel's terminology is very casual and lead me to believe that he's not very professional when it comes to reviewing movies. "It's a little difficult to see what's bugging him" is one of Schickel's lines (in reference to Chris). I think "bothering him" would have been more appropriate, but let's move on. Schickel seems to babble in his review at times, especially about Chris's parents. The last line of his paragraph concerning them reads, "Plenty of young people have slithered through the cracks in their facade". What the heck is this supposed to mean? I have no idea. Of Chris's survival skills, Schickel says, "[They] are about what you'd expect of a nice middle-class boy, who may have read his Thoreau, but who neglected to cultivate a Ralph Waldo Emerson he could count on for a warm bath and square meal when he really needed them". I honestly don't understand what he's saying here, either. Who's Ralph Waldo Emerson? I think Schickel needs to stop pretending to be smart and witty and just write about the movie--preferably after watching it throughoughly for the second time. He goes on in his review to mention some person by the name of Dilbert and then even Britney Spears and //American Idol//. He even calls Sean Penn, the director of the film, a "knothead" and includes the word "screwiness" in his review. I cannot take what he says seriously, so I'm deciding to disregard his review altogether. I'm sorry I had to read it.

I mostly agree with the review in //Christianity Today// by Frederica Mathewes-Green. Mathewes-Green contradicts herself by calling the movie "infuriating" in the beginning of the review and then praising it later, but she admits to doing so. I don't know what to say about her comparison between Chris and Shirley Temple because I've never seen the Shirley Temple movies. I liked how Mathewes-Green stuck to the movie, though. She summarizes it throughout her review and praises the acting at the end.

My favorite review is the one in U.S.A. Today, titled "'Into the Wild' Explores the Wander of It All" by Claudia Puig. She summarizes the movie well throughout her review and uses adjectives to describe what she thought of it--"haunting" and "moving". She also describes the music as "evocative". I agree with Puig's point that Sean Penn, the director of the film, doesn't judge Chris by his actions and thus, portrays him as a character that should only be understood by his audience. This is a very good point. Puig makes you think about the movie and Chris as a person by asking questions such as "Was McCandless an innocent dreamer, a sensitive soul yearning to be closer to nature?" and "Was he a childish and self-absorbed tenderfoot who took unncecessary risks?" She goes on in her review to talk about the actors in the movie. This was a very understandable review that I definitely agree with and enjoyed reading.

=A5= __**Into the Wild**__ Sean Penn's __Into the Wild__ is a movie about a young man named Christopher McCandless who has recently finished college. He wants to get away from society and go into the wild; he's sick of the materialistic life that he's been living and he wants to seek adventure--particularly in Alaska. He leaves home without telling anyone and makes sure that, while he's on the road, no one knows where he is--he even goes under a different name, "Alexander Supertramp". When Alex is in his car in the desert, a storm comes up and the next morning he abandons his car and walks to his next destination, and hitches rides when he can during the rest of his trip. He meets a lot of people during his journey, but he makes sure not to get to close to any of them because he wants to stay on track--he has to keep going north in order to get to Alaska. The movie is narrated in more ways than one: sometimes his sister, Carine, is heard narrating about his and his family's past, other times it's Alex himself. The movie is not set up in chronological order; it switches between Alex being in Alaska and him being on his way to Alaska. The cinematography of the film is very unique, in my opinion. There's a lot of variety to it. Sometimes shots are flashed really quickly, and other times quick, important scenes in the movie are depicted in slow motion. This gives the movie a dramatic flair. The shots of Alex when he's in Alaska, though, are much calmer than the ones of him in the city. It makes the audience realize how Alex's feelings contrast when he's in the two different settings--busy city life makes him nervous while life in the wild makes him relaxed. This helps the audience to understand his reason for leaving society--he feels a lot less stressed when he's out on his own, enjoying himself and surviving alone in the outdoors. The lighting in the movie is very natural when Alex is outside. When he's in the city, though, it gets strange--there are a lot of dark blue and green hues which made me, as a viewer of the movie, feel anxious. I think the lighting was very effective. There were a lot of gorgeous shots in the movie as well. The nature scenes were beautiful. I loved the Alaskan mountains the most. One of my favorite things about this movie, though, was how many animals were shown on the screen. It was neat to see what types of animals live in Alaska and it made the film appealing to me as an animal lover. I think the characters were good overall. My respect really grew for Alex when he was about to shoot the elk, but then saw its young come up behind it and changed his mind. It showed a lot about his moral character. At first I thought that all the hippies were too alike and that the movie crew could have expanded on different types of characters for Alex to meet, but as soon as I learned that this movie was based off of a real story, I realized that those were the type of people Alex seemed to run into a lot in reality, and that's something that shouldn't be represented incorrectly. The casting was done really well, and if I'm going to be honest, I might as well say that this movie did make me cry--particularly at the part where Alex leaves Ron and the camera focuses on Ron with a tear falling down his face. I just felt so bad for him...he'd lost his family and was offering to adopt Alex, and Alex said, "We'll talk about this when I return from Alaska"; Ron knows that it's very unlikely that he and Alex will ever meet again. Overall, I think this was a good film. It was a bit long and a bit confusing at times when scenes switched back and forth from Alex being in Alaska to him being on the road to Alaska, but it was a memorable movie that even managed to tug at my heartstrings at one point, which was actually unexpected. It had its flaws, but, hey, what movie doesn't? If I had to rate __Into the Wild__, I'd give it...an eight out of ten.

=JOURNAL (for Monday, February 17th)=


 * YOUR PERSUASIVE ESSAY **
 * Did you have a title already? Have you revised or changed it? Why? If you did not have a title yet, what are your ideas for a title? What do you want to emphasize with your title?** No, I did not have a title already. I have yet to come up with one! Um...one idea is something like "Teachers...to Like or Not to Like?" Haha, or something like that. I want to emphasize how I liked some teachers and disliked others, despite their genders.


 * Describe your introduction in your first/rough draft(s). What strategy did you use? Have you decided to revise it? How will you revise it? Why will this improve your introduction?** I used summarizing of the myth that some people believe that a student's success in school depends on the sex of the teachers that teach them. I think I'm going to revise it a bit by making it more convincing...instead of saying a myth, I'll talk about what people say about teachers and gender. We'll see.


 * Describe your conclusion in your first/rough draft(s). What strategy did you use? Have you decided to revise it? How will you revise it? Why will this improve your conclusion?** I summarized my paper in a few sentences. I think I'm going to leave it alone...for now.

**
 * YOUR DEFINITON ESSAY
 * Did you have a title already? Have you revised or changed it? Why? If you did not have a title yet, what are your ideas for a title? What do you want to emphasize with your title?** No, I don't have a title yet. I have no ideas, either. I'll think of something.


 * Describe your introduction in your first/rough draft(s).** **What strategy did you use? Have you decided to revise it? How will you revise it? Why will this improve your introduction?** I defined the word "grace" and different perspectives of it. I think I'm going to leave it alone for now.


 * Describe your conclusion in your first/rough draft(s). What strategy did you use? Have you decided to revise it? How will you revise it? Why will this improve your conclusion?** I summarized my paper and restated my thesis. I think I'm going to leave this alone, too...maybe.