Category Archives: Archives

The Benefits of Pursuing Stem Cell Research

Leave a reply

Jocelyn Gunter

Since the fall of mankind, disease has been rampant in the world. Today, it is the leading cause of death in the United States. Diseases like cancer, heart problems, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and others have affected millions of people. For most of these diseases, no cures exist. Some are treatable but affect the patient for his/her whole life. In recent history, scientists have discovered a possible cure for these diseases, which is a tiny organism called a stem cell. The research of stem cells has been very promising, but more still remains to be learned about them. Every day, researchers come closer to real cures. Stem cells and the research of them have positively influenced the course of American history and should be continued so research may further benefit medicine and society.

To begin, a definition of stem cells is needed. Stem cells are a universal cell, specifically called the precursor cell. The cells contain information on the genetics for all of the cells in the human body (Solo xii). Stem cells are the basis for every type of cell in a multicellular organism. From these tiny cells come all other cells, like heart, lung, skin, tissue, blood cells, etc. There are three main types of stem cells. The first is embryonic. Embryonic stem cells are found in embryos and have the ability to differentiate into or become any cell found in an organism. These stem cells are the ultimate stem cell because of their universal ability to differentiate into any type of cell, but they have also caused much controversy in the scientific world, which will be discussed later. The next type is adult. Any stem cell from an organism after it is no longer an embryo is considered adult. Adult stem cells can be gathered from bone marrow, the brain, digestive system, heart, pancreas, skeletal muscle, skin, and umbilical cord blood, to name a few locations (Panno 42-43). Adult stem cells are just as useful but not as universal as embryonic. This is because adult stem cells can only differentiate into a cell from where the adult stem cells were taken. For example, stem cells taken from bone marrow can only be used to create bone and blood cells. The last type of stem cells is induced pluripotent cells. An induced pluripotent cell is a differentiated cell, like a skin cell, that has been converted to resemble and contain the same properties of an embryonic stem cell (Panno 74). These cells play an important part in the ethical controversy of embryonic stem cells because induced pluripotent cells could replace embryonic stem cells without the ethical controversy.

The research of stem cells has only been around approximately 50 years. Stem cells were discovered in the 1960s by Drs. Earnest McCulloch and James Till of Canada (Morgan 18-19). This discovery began the intense research of stem cells. Despite the intense research, it took almost forty years after the discovery before the first human stem cells were collected. In 1998, Dr. James Thompson at the University of Wisconsin collected the first human stem cells from a five-day-old embryo donated by in vitro fertilization with parental consent (Panno 33). He used the stem cells to create stem cell lines, which are still used today (Morgan 34). The stem cells from the embryonic stem cell lines can still be used today because of a special characteristic of in vitro stem cells. These stem cells have the ability to grow and divide while retaining their basic cell characteristics over an indefinite period of time (Panno 27). Collecting and growing stem cells are only the first steps for the stem cell research process. While being grown in cultures, the cells are tested to determine what type of cell it will differentiate into. This step is called directed differentiation. During this phase, the cells are exposed to several growth factors that determine different types of cells. These growth factors are naturally occurring in the body, like hormone or a protein. For example, one factor could produce neurons, skin, liver, pancreas, muscle, bone, kidney, or heart cells. Another factor could create cartilage and smooth or striated muscle cells; while another factor produces insulin-producing pancreatic cells (Panno 51-53).

For these processes, adult stem cells create another step. All cells taken from an embryo are stem cells, but not all cells taken from the body are stem cells. The cells taken are a mix of several kinds of specialized cells and stem cells. To separate the stem cells from the specialized cells, researchers use a machine called a fluorescence-activated cell sorter. Fluorescent dye is mixed in with the cells, and stem cells have certain markers that are picked up by the dye. The machine identifies these fluorescent markers and separates the stem cells from the other cells. The machine can separate one stem cell from 100,000 other cells in less than an hour (49). After the adult stem cells are separated, they can be grown in cultures and tested for differentiation. Once the stem cells are tested to determine what they produce, they can be used for beneficial medicine.

However, stem cells cannot be used to benefit medicine if the research is not supported by the citizens of this country. America protests against stem cell research, especially public funding of stem cell research. People should begin to more actively advocate for stem cell research and for the funding of research because of its opportunity to tremendously improve medicine, the availability of successful cures for diseases, the costs of living with a disease, and other medical treatments. Stem cell research needs to be advocated for because the improvement of medicine requires funding to evolve and change and there is no better time than now to investigate the healing properties of stem cells with all of the modern technology available to researchers. Stem cell research could help improve the lives of those currently around us that are affected by medical issues, like my boyfriend who has Type 1 diabetes, and through stem cell research, therapies could be available for our future spouses, sons, daughters, grandsons, or granddaughters who may have a medical problem.

To prove stem cell research should be pursued, I will confirm the following three arguments: stem cell research is beneficial to the search for cures for life-threatening diseases, stem cell research can be beneficial to other medical uses outside of diseases, and stem cell research could effectively reduce the cost of living with a disease and yearly medical bills. I will also refute the following three counterarguments against my thesis: stem cell research should not be pursued because of embryonic stem cell research, stem cell research should not be pursued because it is used for cloning, and stem cell research should not receive public funding.

My first argument is stem cell research is beneficial to the search for cures for life-threatening diseases. Stem cells are the origin of all specific cells in the body and can be stimulated to create these specific cells or replace them, and since diseases are caused by malfunctioning cells in the body, stem cells could be used to replace these malfunctioning diseased cells as a possible cure for the disease. Stem cell research could positively impact the chances for cures for cancers, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

Cancer is a disease that kills the body through the spread of tumors that eat away bodily systems. There are hundreds of types of cancer. Many of these cancers have no cure, only temporary treatments. These treatments, like chemotherapy and radiation, weaken and damage the body to kill the tumors, if the treatment works. Stem cells are possible alternatives because of their ability to heal and replenish cells in the body, instead of destroying the cells.

For example, leukemia is a cancer of the blood. Leukemia affects thousands of people, mainly children. The typical treatment for leukemia is chemotherapy focused on killing off the tumors being formed in the bone marrow, where the body produces new blood cells; the bone marrow is then replaced with a healthy bone marrow transplant from either the patient or a donor. Bone marrow is full of stem cells, and the transplants only work because of the stem cells. The stem cells rebuild and replenish the damaged bone marrow by differentiating into bone marrow cells and therefore revive its ability to create new white, red, and bone cells. Dr. E. Donnall Thomas first started working on this cure in the 1950s in the United States. He performed the exact cure for leukemia explained above and found it to be very successful. His research has saved many lives and fifty to ninety percent of people diagnosed with leukemia survive. Around 15,000 American cases and counting have been successful using his cure (Morgan 24).

Another use of stem cells is a cure for diabetes. Diabetes is the failure in the pancreas. The pancreas stops producing cells that create insulin, called β cells or beta cells. Diabetes occurs in two types. If a person has type 1 diabetes, the pancreas cannot produce insulin. If a person has type 2, the pancreas does not use insulin properly. Type 2 is normally due to bad diet, high sugar levels, and being overweight. Type 1 is more common in children and type 2 is more common in older adults. The disease can be lived with, but if not managed properly, it is extremely dangerous and even deadly.

The National Institute of Health in the United States has discovered a way to cure diabetes, specifically tested on lab mice, with embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are collected and turned into β cells and then injected into the patient. Many successful research trials on mice with diabetes have been performed, but in 7% the stem cells have created untreatable cancerous tumors. Because of this 7%, no clinical trials for humans with diabetes have been performed, but these trials could be around very soon if scientists can find a way to use the treatment without creating tumors. Pursuing advocacy and funding for stem cell research could help that “if” become a “when” because more funding means more research opportunities and a better chance of discovering the answer to the tumor problem with this specific treatment. Other research groups are trying to find a cure with adult stem cells and/or induced pluripotent stem cells. The researchers collect adult stem cells from the patient, and differentiate the cells into β cells by stimulating the genes in the stem cells to create β cells. Once the stem cells are β cells, they are injected back into the patient. The hope is the stem cells will colonize by producing more β cells through stimulation in the pancreas and revive the creation of β cells, curing diabetes in the patient (Panno 94). The same process would be used with induced pluripotent stem cells, but so far neither type of stem cell has fulfilled the hope of colonization, which is why there are no clinical trials with these stem cells yet, but scientists continue to work on colonizing the pancreas with stem cells.

The third disease is Parkinson’s disease, a neurological disease. It affects the elderly by attacking the central nervous system, affecting movement and causing tremors. Adult stem cells can be taken from the brain or somewhere else and then differentiated and injected back into the affected part of the brain. The stem cells have been shown to help improve the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease by improving the patient’s ability to control motor skills and lessening trembling in the limbs. Dr. Dennis Turner was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in the 1990s. His neurosurgeon, Dr. Michael F. Levesque, collected a small tissue sample from Dr. Turner’s brain and then identified and isolated the stem cells. He then grew the stem cells in his laboratory until there were hundreds of thousands of the stem cells and then injected the stem cells back into Dr. Turner’s brain. A year after the procedure, Dr. Turner reported his symptoms having lessened. In 2004, Dr. Turner addressed the U.S. Senate about his disease and the procedure, saying, “My trembling grew less and less, until to all appearances it was gone” (Morgan 47). The stem cell treatment helped lessen the trembling caused by Dr. Turner’s disease by replacing the cells in his brain affected. Stem cells could improve treatments for many other diseases, and cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease are just a few key examples of the power and hope stem cell research could provide in disease medicine and thousands of lives.

My second argument is stem cell research is beneficial because it can be applied to other medical uses outside of the treatment of diseases. Stem cell research can be used for vision problems, skin grafts, and organ transplants. Blindness and vision problems affect millions of people. Blindness is caused by damage of the cornea, the outer layer of the eye. Doctors take stem cells from the eye and then grow the stem cells into sheets of cells in a laboratory. The sheet is then placed back on the eye and held in place by a membrane that dissolves as the cells attach to the cornea. The stem cells trigger the eye to start repairing itself, helping heal the damage to the cornea. Patients who have undergone the procedure reported an improvement of sight in a few short weeks after the procedure (Morgan 42).

Stem cells can be used to fix damaged tissue and organs, like in the heart. Many problems affect the heart, but a major one is heart attacks. Heart attacks are caused by many things, such as blocked arteries, and cause damage to the heart tissue. Researchers are investigating a procedure using stem cells to help repair the damage caused by heart attacks. Stem cells are collected from bone marrow, differentiated, and then injected into the damaged heart in hopes of helping speed up a patient’s recovery (Morgan 44). Many patients need a new heart. Hearts, or any organ, are very hard to come by because a donated organ needs to be genetically similar to the person who needs it. If the organ is not genetically similar, the body may reject the transplanted organ because the immune system will think the organ is a foreign disease that needs to be destroyed. Finding a genetic match for someone who needs an organ is very complicated because every person’s genetic code is different, so patients can be on the Organ Transplant List for years, and some may never receive the organ they need.

Stem cells, in partner with 3D printing, could help solve this problem. A team from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School has created beating human hearts by using 3D printed heart segments made from biological material and using it as a scaffold for stem cells. The 3D printing creates a foundation for the stem cells and the stem cells, which are taken from the patient who needs the heart, are injected into the 3D created heart segments and allowed to recreate through cell growth a new heart. Another way the hearts were created was by taking actual human hearts considered unsuitable for transplantation and immersing them in solutions of detergents that strip away the cells of the heart that cause graft-vs-host disease or GVHD. After the heart is immersed to prevent GVHD, all which is left of the heart is a blank canvas for stem cells, differentiated from skin cells, to grow and build on, which is exactly what the stem cells did. After a few weeks, the heart segments injected with induced stem cells had created an immature but normal heart. The scientists shock the hearts with bursts of electricity and the hearts started beating. This research could be used to eliminate the transplant list and eliminate any worry of GVHD because the skin cells would be taken from the patient, therefore the new heart would have the same cellular structure of the patient (Andrews par. 2-7). This process could be used to create many different types of organs, using 3D printing and an individual’s stem cells. Because the own person’s stem cells would be used, the need for an organ with similar DNA and long wait times would be no longer exist.

Stem cells can also be used to help with paralysis. Paralysis is when one loses complete nerve and motor control of a part of his body or his whole body. Paralysis occurs because the spinal cord or part of the spinal cord becomes damage or destroyed. Paralysis can occur because of many things, but in many cases it occurs because of an accident. Car accidents, falls, and sports accidents are common reasons for damage to the spinal cord and nervous system that are not genetically caused. Stem cells could be used to repair the spinal cord. This would be done by differentiating the stem cells into nerve cells.

An example of stem cell therapy being used for paralysis is Kristopher Boesen. Kristopher became completely paralyzed from the neck down after his car lost control and slammed into a tree and telephone pole. He was given the chance by doctors to try stem cells to possibly help improve his paralysis. He received ten million stem cells from in vitro fertilization. These stem cells were injected into his cervical spinal cord. After only three weeks of therapy, Kris began to show improvement and after two months he was able to write, answer the phone, and operate his wheelchair. He regained function in two spinal cord levels. Kris became the first paralyzed human to regain control of part of his body through stem cell therapy. Doctors keep experimenting in hopes of possibly improving his paralysis to the point he regains full control of his body (Aldrich par. 1-9).

My third argument is stem cell research could effectively reduce the cost of living with a disease and yearly medical bills. Diseases place an enormous financial burden on families. For some, the only way one can afford to pay to treat the disease is through medical insurance. Without the medical insurance coverage, the family or individual would be unable to afford to treat and fight their disease. Stem cell treatments would still be costly because it takes money to harvest stem cells, differentiate them, and place them back into the body, to pay the doctors and to pay for the machines and tools used to separate and differentiate the stem cells, but in the long run, it would be cheaper than the current treatments for most diseases. It would be less expensive because by paying for the stem cell therapy to eliminate the disease or medical issue, one will not have to pay anymore for the supplies to keep up with the disease or medical issue. A ball park figure, because many of these treatments are still in clinical trials and therefore not FDA approved or legal to be distributed to the public, is $10,000 per therapy treatment with an average of three to four treatments. Some treatments may be less and some may be more, but around $30, 000 for the total treatment. Currently, treatments are not covered by insurance because many are not FDA approved, like a cure for diabetes. Insurance companies cannot legally cover these treatments until they have the FDA stamp of approval (“How much?” par. 2, 4).

For example, diabetes can cost an arm and a leg, physically and figuratively. Diabetes can cause damage to a diabetic’s body, like nerve pain or vision impairment. Diabetes requires many costly supplies to manage. Insulin, for example, is expensive and the price continues to rise, along with the prices of pumps, shots, and other medical bills. According to the Sacramento Bee, a ten milliliter vial of insulin cost $ 254.80 in 2015, and the amount of insulin is less than a month’s supply of insulin for an adult. Diabetes cost America $101.4 billion in 2013 and on average an individual with diabetes personal’s expenses is about $13,700 per year (Buck par. 1,3,5). Insurance covers a lot, but the costs can still hinder a diabetic and their family. Through stem cell research, a cure for diabetes could be found, which would reduce the cost of living for the patient and reduce the damage diabetes could cause. A stem cell cure, although costing around $30,000 without insurance, would be less in the long run because if one lives for 70 years with diabetes, the cost of living would be around $960,000, not including inflation. A stem cell cure could save an individual with diabetes $930,000. The cure would be expensive upfront but save close to a million dollars for an individual. A million dollars is an enormous amount of money, something a stem cell cure could fix, along with the stress and exhaustion of living with diabetes. To me, looking for a stem cell cure is a sensible medical pursuit, even if you look only at the numbers.

Another example is cancer treatments. Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and transplants are all costly procedures because of the cost of anesthesia, paying the doctors, and the tools and materials required. In many cases, these costly procedures also produce a significant amount of damage to the body. Radiation destroys cancer cells, but it can also cause damage to normal, healthy cells. Chemotherapy can also destroy healthy cells, and it can severely destroy the immune system, making a patient more susceptible to other illnesses. Surgery alone is expensive, and for many cancer patients, surgery is futile as an attempt to rid the body of cancer. Surgery may be able to remove a cancerous tumor, but it will not for sure stop the cancer from coming back in another part of the body. Transplants can require a long wait time on the organ donor transplant list because of the need for finding a match with similar genetics to the patient. The transplant also runs the risk of failing because the body may not accept the transplant and attack the transplant. Stem cell therapies from stem cell research could be a key to transforming the medical world by supplying more efficient and less expensive treatments and cures for diseases and other medical issues.

The first counterargument I will refute is stem cell research should not be pursued because of embryonic stem cell research. A majority of the world, specifically conservatives, believes research that uses and destroys the human body, especially the usage of embryos in research, is unethical. Some types of stem cell research, like embryonic stem cell research, use aborted embryos and unused embryos to conduct stem cell research. For embryonic stem cell research, embryonic stem cells are taken from aborted babies with parental consent or from embryos created by in vitro fertilization. In vitro fertilization normally occurs when a couple is attempting to become pregnant and needs the help of doctors. This process creates hundreds of embryos, and the couple normally uses only one. This means hundreds are thrown out. Instead, stem cell researchers, with parental consent, use the in vitro fertilized embryos to research on. This is an ethical and moral problem, especially for Christians, because it is not the correct treatment of God’s creation. As a Christian and a conservative, I do not believe embryonic stem cell research is ethical or moral. I do not believe embryos should be used for research, even if the embryos are being thrown out. The use of embryos in research is a mistreatment of God’s sacred view of children, whether born or not, fully developed or not. However, I support non-embryonic stem cell research, which is the answer to this argument and controversy.

To resolve this controversy, researchers started using and still are using adult and induced pluripotent stem cells. Although adult and induced pluripotent cannot be as flexible as embryonic stem cells, they are still successful and researchers are trying to use these stem cells more in their research to find cures and treatments so the need for embryonic stem cells in stem cell research can be erased.

An example of a way adult stem cells are being more widely used is through the storage and usage of umbilical cord blood. Umbilical cord blood is a combination of immune cells and stem cells which can be saved from a child’s birth from the placenta. The umbilical cord blood can be frozen and stored in a cord blood bank to be used if the child ever needs it. The stem cells, which are adult stem cells because when the cord blood is collected the child is no longer an embryo, can be used as possible therapies if the child ever acquires a disease. The cord blood could also potentially help the parents of the child because of similar DNA. A use of cord blood is in diabetic treatments.

Umbilical cord blood may save the life of Lucy Hinchion, an almost two-year-old Australian girl who tested positive for possibly becoming a Type One diabetic, like her older sister. Lucy’s mom decided to save Lucy’s cord blood in hopes of possibly helping her diabetic sister. However, Lucy received a transfusion of her own cord blood in hopes of preventing or delaying the onset of Type One diabetes. Umbilical cord blood could potentially prevent many, like Lucy, from developing life-threatening diseases (ASweetLifeTeam par. 1-3). Therefore, although embryonic stem cell research is deemed unethical by many, including myself, stem cell research as a whole should be pursued because there are other ways to conduct stem cell research that does not include embryos. The counterargument of stem cell research being unethical will no longer exist because with adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells are not needed in the research. When the embryonic research is removed, the controversy goes away because the research is no longer dealing with the problem of unethically using embryos and the increased usage of umbilical cord blood as a stem cell therapy contribute to the rise of adult stem cells and decline of embryonic.

The second counterargument I will refute is stem cell research is used for cloning, which is immoral. Many are afraid with the usage of stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research, scientists will be able to create new animals, humans, or make identical ones. Cloning is unethical, in a Christian point of view, because of the issue of whether or not the clone has a soul or is a real person or animal. I do not believe any research involving the creation of new animals or people by modifying cells is ethical. Stem cell research is not unethical because it is using the stem cell’s ability to become any type of cell and its ability to recreate over an indefinite period of time. Unlike cloning, stem cell research does not create a completely new animal, species, or person through genetic modification. Stem cell research enhances and changes gene coding already present; it does not create a new complete organism.

Cloning became a possibility with embryonic stem cell research because scientists hoped to use the cell specific clones to avoid GVHD but also cure a patient whose cells are diseased. The clone’s cells wouldn’t cause GVHD in a patient because the cells would have the same unique cell surface (Panno 62). However, so far in history, there have only been a few successful clones and one was a cloned sheep, nowhere near a cloned human being. The cloned sheep did not live for long. The sheep was named Dolly and created from stem cells in 1995. She lived for only six years, when her research team euthanized her. Dolly was euthanized because her DNA was not correctly protected from being destroyed, which caused her to age rapidly (Panno 86). Cloning should not be an issue in stem cell research because of its unsuccessful history and because of the discovery of adult and induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells were discovered by Drs. James Thomson and Shinya Yamanaka in 2007 (Holder and Morrow par. 4). “Cloning died with the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells, which are patient specific, easy to create, and don’t require human eggs or embryos” (Panno 73).  Induced pluripotent stem cells also alleviate the worry of GVHD, because the induced pluripotent stem cells come from the patient’s cells, like skin cells. “Induced pluripotent stem cells, with their indefinite potential, have already made therapeutic cloning and human embryonic stem cell research obsolete” (Panno 87).  Controversies come with any scientific research, but it shouldn’t stop the research of an amazing possibility to make human life better. The future of cloning is bleak to nonexistent, and the future of embryonic stem cells becomes bleaker as scientists continue to research and experiment with adult and induced pluripotent stem cells.

The third counterargument I will refute is stem cell research should not receive public funding. Because current stem cell research utilizes embryos, many Americans are not willing to have their tax money spent on funding this research. However, as proven before, there is a way to research stem cells ethically with little or no need of utilizing embryos. The use of adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells could make stem cell research more ethical and less controversial. Another way to make stem cell research more ethical is to actually have the research publically funded. Public funding can occur in many ways, like through tax dollars, but another popular way is the funding public universities receive for scientific research, like stem cell research. Public, and some private, universities actively participate in groundbreaking research. For example, the University of Virginia is known for her research on diabetes and possible solutions to diabetes, like stem cells. As a high school senior headed to college, I am excited for research opportunities and these research opportunities are a great way for college and future college students to public advocate and receive funding for a cause they believe in, like stem cell research. For others, they can donate money and support the funding of public university research. We can also advocate for more public funding from institutes like the National Science Foundation or National Institutes of Health. By bringing stem cell research into a more obvious public light, stem cell research will be under more scrutiny. This allows the American people to better understand what researchers are accomplishing and hold them to the legal policies the government, specifically the courts, places on the research. Publically funding and advocating stem cell research would allow the people to have a better knowledge of the research and the people could help hold the research to a more ethical standard than it currently is being held to through private funding only. Public funding and support of stem cell research would also allow research to be more productive and increase the chances of cures being found more quickly because more people funding and participating in the research increases these opportunities for discovery and a breakthrough.

“All life deserves our reverence and respect; stem cell science has the potential to improve countless numbers of lives; and the best way to be sure that research is conducted with the highest scientific and ethical standards is to encourage public debate, public funding, and public oversight,” Mary Tyler Moore said on stem cell research, the ethical controversies, and public awareness. If stem cell research becomes a public research operative, and not a private one, it could be scrutinized at a closer level and held to a higher standard of research and respect than it does with private funding.

Stem cells and their uses can and continue to radically improve medicine and the study of diseases. If the research of stem cells is continued and publically funded and overseen, it can flourish into a life-saver for many patients and families. Stem cells can reduce the medical costs for patients of any disease and greatly improve their lives. Americans should be the greatest advocates of stem cell research, because stem cells have enhanced American history and will continue to change medical history. We should follow in the footsteps of Nancy Reagan and Michael J. Fox who publically voiced and championed the stem cell cause. Consider the words of Nancy Reagan on stem cells and her husband suffering with Alzheimer’s:

And now science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that have for so long been beyond our grasp. I don’t see how we can turn our backs on this. There are so many diseases that can be cured or at least helped. We’ve lost so much time already. I can’t bear to lose any more (Kaplan par.9).

Stem cell research is so very promising for medicine and cannot be abandoned.

As Americans, we can advocate for stem cell research in many ways. First, we can use our right to freedom of speech to advocate by sharing the tales of benefits of stem cell research on social media, in articles, and by word of mouth. We can make donations to centers that fund stem cell research, like we make donations to places like St. Jude’s Research Center for Cancer. We can use our voices to write to our state government leaders, like senators, and convince them to vote for laws for stem cell research. We can vote for laws championing stem cell research. We can pursue careers in medical research and become part of a team of researchers who study stem cells and apply them to medicine and encourage the next generation to do the same. We need to be innovative and vocal because stem cell research is important to medicine and may be the key to saving so many people, including those who mean so much to us and are affected by medical issues. Be loud, be honest, and go out and support stem cell research and the funding of it.

Works Cited

Aldrich, Meg. “Experimental Stem Cell Therapy Helps Paralyzed Man Regain Use of Arms and Hands.” USC News. 8 Sept. 2016. Web. 10 Feb. 2017.

Andrews, Robin. “Beating Human Hearts Grown in Laboratory Using Stem Cells.” IFL Science. 21 March 2016. Web. 5 April 2016.

ASweetLifeTeam. “Toddler Reinfused With Own Umbilical Cord Blood in Attempt to Halt Type 1 Diabetes.” ASweetLife, 09 Jan. 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Buck, Claudia. “Diabetes has become one of America’s most expensive diseases.” The Sacramento Bee. 5 Feb. 2017. Web. 10 Feb. 2017.

Holder, Julie, and Dwight Morrow. “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: A Model For Transforming Drug Discovery.” Drug Discovery World. 2010. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

“How Much Do Stem Cell Treatments Really Cost?” The Niche. N.p., 05 May 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.

Kaplan, Sheila. “Nancy Reagan: A ‘True Champion’ of Alzheimer’s Disease and Stem Cell Research.” StatNews, 6 Mar. 2016. Web. 10 Feb. 2017.

Morgan, Sally. From Microscopes to Stem Cell Research: Discovering Regenerative Medicine. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2006. Print.

Panno, Joseph. Stem Cell Research: Medical Applications and Ethical Controversies. New York City: Facts on File, 2010. Print.

Solo, Pam. The Promise and Politics of Stem Cell Research. Westport: Praeger, 2007. Print.

The Frontier of Space is a Worthy Challenge that will Benefit America

Leave a reply

Matthew Nalls

We meet in a time of rapid change. Our epoch is one of significant knowledge, but also one of significant ignorance. What mankind knows now is nothing compared to what mankind does not know now. We have come a far way as well. Condense with  me the last 50,000 years of man’s recorded history into only half of a century. In these terms, by the end of the first 40 years, advanced man learned to use animal skins to cover them. Then 10 years ago, man constructed outside shelters. Five years ago, man learned to write and invented the wheel. Christianity began less than two years ago. This year, the printing press was created. Less than two months ago, the steam engine provided a new, revolutionary source of power while Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month, we invented electric lights, telephones, automobiles, and even airplanes. Only last week was penicillin developed, followed by television and nuclear power. In the words of John F. Kennedy, “This is a breathtaking pace” (Kennedy, par. 6-8).

Now, this condensed history of man should illustrate to us one thing in particular. In his unending quest for knowledge, man is determined. Man will not stop until he has answered every question he has regarding God’s creation. Thus, man will look to space when he seeks to satisfy his desires for knowledge and progress. The question is simply a matter of when, and my humble recommendation is we pursue this now. The exploration of space is a worthy challenge that will benefit America.

To understand this thesis, it is essential to understand what space exploration actually means, what NASA is, and what the terms “private sector” and “habitable planet” refer to. Space exploration is the investigation and expedition into the universe beyond Earth’s atmosphere, and the use of information gathered to increase knowledge of the cosmos (Logsdon, “Space Exploration”). A key leader in space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an independent agency under the executive branch of the United States government. NASA focuses on aeronautic and aerospace research, while spearheading the American space program. NASA’s vision states, “We reach for new heights and reveal the unknown for the benefit of humankind” (sec. 1). The “private sector” refers to the section of the economy not directly controlled by the government (“Private Sector”). Finally, the term “habitable planet” refers to a planet that lies in a habitable zone, the “orbital region around a star in which an Earth-like planet can possess liquid water on its surface and possibly support life” (“Habitable Zone”).

Space exploration encompasses a lengthy history, which I will now summarize. Since the earliest days of recorded history, man has gazed at and beheld the stars above him. Early astronomers grappled with Earth’s place in the cosmos since antiquity, while space made special appearances in several religions as well. The most notable of these religious appearances is in Christianity, as shepherds and wise men were led to the birth of Jesus by a brilliant star. While man studied the galaxies above him, he could not truly be among them until only the 20th century. Following the close of the Second World War, man finally took his place among the stars. 202 miles above the Earth’s surface, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit the Earth during April of 1961 in his ship, Vostok 1 (Redd, sec. 4). He was succeeded by the American astronauts Alan Shepard and John Glenn in 1961 and 1962 respectively.

These journeys into space were the culminations of an intense technological and scientific contest between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Each superpower desired technological superiority over the other. To “win” this competition, President John F. Kennedy set an ambitious goal for America in 1961, declaring America would land a man on the moon and safely return him within the decade.  Although President Kennedy would not survive to see it, on July 20th, 1969, Neil Armstrong left man’s first footprints on the moon. This lunar mission was subsequently followed by six more Apollo missions until 1972 (Redd, sec. 6).

By the 1970s, satellites purposed with facilitating communication and easier navigation experienced wide usage. In the 1980s, such communication expanded to include TV and radio broadcasting. Satellites were then used for a variety of purposes: The Aerospace Center for Space Policy Analysis observes, “Satellites discovered an ozone hole over Antarctica, pinpointed forest fires, and gave us photographs of the nuclear power-plant disaster at Chernobyl in 1986. Astronomical satellites found new stars and gave us a new view of the center of our galaxy” (par. 9). From 1972 to 2011, space shuttles also experienced a wide usage as they were utilized in twenty-four successful missions to space in the 1980s alone. The International Space Station began initial assembly in orbit in 1998 and was completed in 2011, allowing astronauts and researchers to conduct experiments outside of the Earth’s atmosphere (par. 11).

These illustrate the promising progress of man’s exploration into space. Unfortunately, when the Space Shuttle Program ended in 2011, so did America’s vision of exploration into space. Republican Representative from Texas Lamar Smith, who was Chairman of the House Science Committee in 2016, points out the steady decline of government funding that supports this assertion. He states, “President Obama’s 2017 budget proposal shrinks our deep space exploration programs by more than $800 million … this proposal shrinks space exploration priorities within NASA’s budget” (par. 28-30). NASA’s funding in the past 51 years also demonstrates this declining commitment. Under President Lyndon B. Johnson, at its height, NASA funding took up 4.4 percent of total U.S. spending in 1966, standing at around $31 billion of a $708 billion federal budget (when adjusted for inflation up to 2014) (8-24; InsideGov, sec. 1-3). In 2016, this percentage dropped to a mere 0.48 percent of total U.S. spending, standing around $19 billion of a $3.54 trillion federal budget (InsideGov, sec. 1).

I will now address the relevance of this issue to the American people. Currently, space exploration is under intense scrutiny and dispute because Americans no longer invest exploration with the priority it once boasted. Americans now question the relevance and financial return of space exploration. Americans ask, “Why should exploration to lifeless planets and empty expanses be important to me?” They ponder, “Why is a decrease in funding for exploration necessarily a ‘bad’ thing?” The answer is quite clear: because space exploration directly affects every American household in the country technologically, financially, and culturally. Space exploration, or lack thereof, impacts both you and me. It impacts the direction of the nation and the course of world history. Space exploration stimulates the economy and the creation of new technologies. Furthermore, all mankind shares in every milestone of discovery ever achieved, not only those few individual pioneers. A plaque that currently sits on the moon left behind by the crew of Apollo 11 says it all: “HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON, JULY 1969 A.D. WE CAME IN PEACE, FOR ALL MANKIND” (“NASA”, sec. 1).

My thesis is the exploration of the frontier of space is a worthy challenge that will benefit America. I will confirm this thesis with four arguments. First, America will experience a sense of unification, which is especially necessary today. Second, space exploration will move forward whether America moves with it or not. Third, technological growth will occur. Fourth, if Christians are to understand God’s creation, it is essential they support space exploration. I will also refute three counterarguments against space exploration. First, space exploration is not worth the investment. Second, the private sector should lead exploration, not NASA. Third, there are no habitable planets for man to live on.

My first argument supporting the pursuit of this thesis is America will experience a sense of unification, which is especially necessary today. “We meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear” (Kennedy, par. 1). These words, although uttered by President John F. Kennedy over half a century ago, could not be more true today. Our country is riddled with conflict, strife, and tension. To release this pent-up tension, America is crying out in protest and demonstration. In some cases, these protests turn violent. America is not free from the weight of intense domestic disagreement; however, this is not the first time America has experienced such strife. In 1967, nearly 100,000 people marched on Washington D.C. while another 50,000 people amassed before the steps of the Pentagon (“Thousands Protest,” par. 1). Enter the Space Race. On Christmas Eve of 1968, three American astronauts became the first humans to orbit the moon and transmit communications back to Earth. Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders read from the Book of Genesis in one of the most widely-viewed televised programs of the time. This reading united America for a short time at the end of yet another turbulent year, in which both President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated. If America pursues space exploration now, this benefit will repeat itself. National support for such exploration will be potentially greater now than in the 1960s and 1970s. The Economist supports this assessment, explaining, “Today polls suggest more Americans know Mr Armstrong’s name than in 1970 — his exploits are taught at school, and celebrated in such works as The Right Stuff, a hit book and film. The moon landings are popularly remembered as a bright spot in a bleak period” (1). Not only will Americans once again take pride in the technological feats and discoveries made by their nation, but America will benefit from space exploration, as she will experience renewed unification in a time when she needs it most. American astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell attests to this feeling of unification, as he states, “You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you (expletive)’” (Tyson 3). In a time when leaders across the county call for unity, such unification will come from looking at ourselves from the outside. As Edgar Mitchell observed, only when we view ourselves from the outside will we be able to solve problems causing societal division.

My second argument is space exploration will move forward whether America moves with it or not. This fact is one which has been understood since early space exploration. As President John F. Kennedy remarked in 1962, “The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not” (par. 4). Space exploration now will benefit America in the future. America will have a greater stake in progress or discoveries made in the vastness of space, much like she did when landing on the moon. America is still the only country to ever have achieved this feat, which illustrates the technological superiority she once boasted.

To wait will put her behind other countries capable of reaching the stars such as Russia, Canada, France, or Germany. America is currently slipping into this disadvantage, as American astronauts are transported to space in Russian rockets. America is dependent upon other space agencies (Berger, par. 4). Furthermore, other space agencies are ramping up their programs while America’s plateaus. For example, the country of Brazil is looking to grow independent of other countries in the means of communication. The country seeks to send numerous satellites into orbit to safely transmit government and military communications, rather than relying on satellites manufactured and owned by other countries (Haynes, par. 1). While America continues to rely on others, even countries like Brazil are throwing off this dependence in search of space technological independence. Thus, it is essential for America to step up in its pursuit for space. Even Wernher von Braun, the aerospace engineer who was the Chief Architect of the Apollo missions, knew this in the 1960s. When asked about a trip to Mars, he explained half a century ago, “What curious information will these first explorers carry back from Mars? Nobody knows, and it’s extremely doubtful that anyone now living will ever know. All that can be said with certainty today is this: the trip will be made” (Whipple 21-23).

My third argument is technological growth will occur. The people of the United States currently use numerous technologies developed from the Space Race. Among these technologies are laptops, satellites used to operate TVs, cell phones, radios, power tools, global positioning systems, and even ear thermometers (Lockney). As obstacles rose in the path of exploration, science rose to meet such challenges. Through research and development undertaken by NASA and contracted companies, the invention and implementation of advanced technology allowed astronauts to overcome such obstacles. The products used by Americans today are the marketed versions of these technologies.

Such products have also protected life on Earth. The European Simulation Language is a key example of this protection. Developed in the 1980s, the European Simulation Language is simulation software designed for the European Space Agency yet is also used in a variety of other engineering applications. In one such application, the software was used by a waterworks company located in the United Kingdom to design a water filter. This water filter is purposed with preventing the spread of a harmful bacteria known as Cryptosporidium, which claimed over 100 deaths in America from 1993 to 1994. Using the software, the company designed a system known as rapid gravity filtration, which is now used across the globe in numerous countries to protect from this lethal bacteria (Rootes 11). As America attempts to explore the unknown frontier of space, she will continue to encounter such obstacles and will continue to develop such new technologies that will be used on Earth. This progress will usher in an increased rate of beneficial technological progress in America.

Such technologies will improve the quality of life on Earth through being applied to issues “back home.” For further example, the application of power tools has produced efficiency and productivity in areas such as home development and factory production. In our local area, these tools have significantly benefited shipbuilding. Furthermore, the increasing use of cell phones has allowed for a revolutionary new age of communication. Finally, the application of global positioning systems has increased the efficiency and lethality of American military forces when coordinating assaults. Therefore, not only will the invention of new technologies allow America’s brave pioneers to continue their exploration into space, but it will also solve problems and improve the quality of life on Earth.

One issue which may be resolved through future exploration is cancer. Currently, space agencies are researching methods of preventing astronauts from developing cancer from exposure to harmful radiation particles in space. These particles simply multiply when reacting to a ship’s hull, are found throughout space, and are also known to cause cataracts and lead to Alzheimer’s. According to estimates by NASA, astronauts spending 6 months aboard the International Space Station will already have exceeded the Department of Energy’s worker radiation exposure annual limit due to these particles. Those who will make the trip to Mars will also exceed this limit within merely 180 days (Wired Staff, sec. 2). The solution space agencies develop to combat this obstacle may yield results to those suffering on Earth, as historical precedence shows.

My fourth argument is if Christians are to understand God’s creation, it is essential they support space exploration. It is essential for Christians to support this exploration for two reasons. First, Christians are called to be stewards over the Earth, and (ironically) space exploration will help them accomplish this. Genesis 1:28 states, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Space exploration allows man to more effectively accomplish this task of stewardship through the technologies which result from it. For example, pollution remediation technology is now available to consumers and industries thanks to earlier space research undertaken by NASA engineers. This technology, known as Petroleum Remediation Product, uses thousands of tiny balls of beeswax to clean oil spills. Crude chemicals within oil are absorbed and trapped within the beeswax, while water is filtered out as it cannot enter the revolutionary microscopic capsule that holds the beeswax in its shape (Lockney, sec. 18). Thus, thanks to space exploration, man is now a better steward over the Earth, as he better protects the sea from the harmful effects of oil spills on the environment.

Second, man is commanded in two places of the Bible to understand space and all it contains. 1 Corinthians 4:1 explains, “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” Currently, space is a vast mystery to man. While man feels he knows plenty regarding space, as he sees it through images such as those captured by the Hubble Space Telescope or watches science fiction fantasies based off of it such as Star Wars or Babylon 5, there is still a plethora of knowledge man does not have regarding what space contains. Scientists still ponder hundreds of questions regarding black holes, potentially habitable planets, asteroids, resources on other planets, and even extraterrestrial life. Thus, if man is to be a steward over the mysteries of God, a commendable place to continue this stewardship is space. Psalm 8:6a affirms this, stating, “You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands.” Space is a result of the works of God’s hands and is something we have anything but dominion over. Therefore, this thesis will benefit Christians in America particularly, by making them better stewards over the Earth and the other “mysteries of God.”

While the heavens above appear alluring to the eye, several valid counterarguments exist against space exploration. The first counterargument I will refute states space exploration is simply not worth the investment. There is little financial return from it, critics claim. To facilitate further space exploration, an increase in funding for NASA is required. Thus, opponents may question the worthiness of increasing NASA funding and ask where such funding will come from.

NASA is projected to receive $19.3 billion from the $4 trillion federal budget in fiscal year 2017. While an increase to this current spending may worry some in a time when federal debt stands at nearly $20 trillion, it is important to consider the returns on such an investment. According to a study undertaken by the Space Foundation, nearly $10 is added to the economy per every $1 invested in NASA (Dunbar). The foundation estimates in 2005 nearly $180 billion was contributed to the economy. The majority of this was contributed by companies with research contracts from NASA. As space exploration leads to the invention of new technology, companies purposed with researching such technology for NASA subsequently market the revolutionary technology they invent. Products invented and marketed by the companies contracted to research include goods and services used throughout the globe such as ATMs, freeze-dried food, CAT scanners, weather and communication satellites, power tools, and even heart defibrillators. A 2002 study by Professor H.R. Hertzfeld of George Washington University shows the financial return for companies marketing such items. After studying 15 companies, Hertzfeld observed companies received $1.5 billion from a $64 million research and development investment from NASA. Essentially, the 15 companies made a total profit of $1.5 billion from the $64 million research and development contract they had. Thus, from a financial standpoint, the investment is worth the return (par. 1).

Furthermore, an increase in NASA funding would lead to the creation of jobs, which lead to economic stability. According to an article published by The Pew Charitable Trusts, nearly 420,000 were working for NASA in 1966 during a time when America was wholly determined to reach for the stars. This workforce has since waned to a mere 18,000 working for NASA in 2013, according to its fiscal year 2013 report (Clark, par. 5). This significant decrease in jobs is not totally attributed to the increased use of technology as well. In December 2012, a report from the Aerospace Industries Association predicted the 5,000 jobs lost from a funding decrease of only 8.2% (par. 2). Thus, an increase in funding for NASA would work in reverse. A funding increase leads to a rise in jobs to support space exploration missions. Such job creation would prove beneficial for an economy struggling with the weight of unemployment. Furthermore, such job creation would lead to a “trickle down” effect. As new jobs arise, especially to operate new technology, new skills will need to be known in order to adequately fulfill the new jobs. Thus, to train employees to adequately fulfill the new job, employees will need to be trained. Therefore, need arises for new teachers, professors, and trainers in schools and other preparatory fields. The new skills learned here may also enhance the value and knowledge of the employee, as the employee may bring these new skills with him if transferring to another program, field, or company.

Such an investment in NASA funding would similarly lead to a technological benefit. As NASA continued to sustain financial relationships with private companies and contracted more companies thanks to increased funding, simply more technological progress will result. This progress will not only lead to its own financial return as outlined above but will also continue to make America a scientific pioneer while solving problems on Earth as well. Any space exploration generated technology used today, which range from enriched baby food, to water purification devices, to even LEDs, proves this. The creation of the artificial limb is a clear example of this process. Environmental Robots Incorporated developed artificial muscle systems in 2004 with robotic sensing and actuation capabilities. While these systems were originally designed for NASA to use during space robotic and extravehicular activities, they are now  adapted to serve as functionally dynamic artificial limbs to civilians (Lockney, sec. 3).

The second counterargument I will refute is the private sector should lead exploration, not NASA. According to astrophysicist and cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson, NASA should be the ones to lead space exploration, as private companies could not effectively lead space exploration on their own. He explains:

The private sector could never lead a space frontier, period. It could never happen because the space frontier is expensive, dangerous and has unquantified risks. Combine all three of those together, and you cannot establish a capital market valuation of that activity. You can’t say who is going to invest and what is the return because you don’t know what the return is. You can’t get investors, so there’s no business model (2).

Now, rather than private sector companies leading in the space frontier, history shows the financial success of private companies supporting NASA. We outlined several of these financial successes already. NASA puts together a plan, contracts companies to make this plan possible by researching or inventing new technologies, then executes the plan using those technologies. Typically, after companies have developed the necessary technology, as discussed earlier, they reap financial benefit from marketing this technology. A perfect example of this cooperation is the work being undertaken to once again transport astronauts into low-Earth orbit or transport them to the International Space Station in American spacecraft. NASA desired to send her astronauts to complete low-Earth orbit missions in American designed and manufactured spacecraft, as astronauts typically hitch a ride with the Russians. To accomplish this goal, NASA contracted two companies: SpaceX and Boeing. The companies were each purposed with building a spacecraft to fit this mission. Boeing specifically designed the CST-100 Starliner spacecraft, which underwent several tests with NASA engineers at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia on August 24, 2016 (par. 1-3). With private companies supporting NASA as it paves the way into space, as seen with Boeing, we can continue to guarantee an efficient rate of progress. Furthermore, private companies will make greater profit through supporting, rather than leading, the exploration effort. Tyson continues, “Once the patents are given, then [private companies] can make a buck off of it and do it for cheaper and more efficiently than the government … with tourism or mining or (anything else). Go for it, but you can’t have one without the other” (par. 4).

The third counterargument is there are no habitable planets for humans to survive on. This argument is invalid for two reasons. First, while a planet may initially be unable to support life on its surface, man can still survive on the barren planet through the means of colonization, thus, technically making the planet habitable. Second, there are numerous potential habitable planets scientists have already discovered. Therefore, we cannot accurately assert there are no habitable planets in our vicinity.

The planned colonization of Mars is a perfect example of man making a planet habitable. NASA suggests in the plans it released in 2015 detailing its vision for Mars, “Humans will be living and working on Mars in colonies entirely independent of Earth by the 2030s.” NASA’s report cites the early colonization of North America as colonists grew independent as they learned to live off the environment and resources around them. While Mars certainly lacks the abundant resources North America boasted, NASA still expects colonists on Mars to survive likewise and will empower them with the ability to do so. NASA admits Mars’s environment is certainly more hostile than North America’s but expects to have technology developed by the 2030s to give colonists the capability of living off the planet’s environment (NASA rept. 7-14), thus making Mars a habitable planet.

Concerning the second point that makes the argument false, there is a surprisingly lengthy list of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy. The University of Puerto Rico organized these planets into a list based on distance from our solar system. This list includes all 44 potentially habitable planets currently known to exist, all either the same size or larger than Earth. Likewise, none of the 44 planets are smaller than Earth either. The closest of these is the planet Proxima Centauri B, which is only 4.2 light years away from Earth. In astronomical terms, a lightyear is “a unit of length equivalent to the distance that light travels in one year in a vacuum or about 5.88 trillion miles” (“Lightyear”). The farthest of these is the planet Kepler-62 f, which is 1200 light years away from Earth (sec. 1). While scientists do not know for certain if these planets are habitable or not, the shortlist of 44 shows the assumption there are no habitable planets whatsoever may be incorrect.

Thus, as our proud nation realized decades ago, for man to continue his determined search for knowledge, he must look to the stars. Above him in the glistening heavens lie the solutions to problems that plague him here on Earth. He will not be daunted by the hazard and risk that await him outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. Rather, he will take pride in the pursuit of intellect he carries on. He will remember he is not the first to carry this torch. Leif Erickson, Christopher Columbus, Lewis and Clarke, and Amelia Earhart are only a few of those who furthered this quest for knowledge, as he will soon do as well. Let’s affirm this goal of man and not lose sight of this destiny of exploration. After all, was the New World not discovered by those who explored? Were the colonies not established by those seeking new frontiers? Was the United States of America not founded by those who pursued the exceptional? America cannot remain a “city on a hill” if she does not pioneer the exploration of this vast frontier that lies before her. We are equipped with the means to accomplish this goal, as our nation unleashed the motivation and genius of man unlike any other country on this planet. Therefore, we must re-embark on this journey of revolutionary proportions now. As we create a better world for future generations through the exploration of this frontier, as we take the next step upon man’s “greatest adventure,” as we push forward in the pursuit of knowledge, we ask our Father’s blessing of “Godspeed.”

Bibliography

“1966 United States Federal Budget.” Insidegov.com. N.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2017.

“2016 United States Federal Budget.” Insidegov.com. N.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

“A Brief History of Space Exploration.” The Aerospace Center for Space Policy Analysis. N.d. Web. 4 Feb. 2017.

Berger, Eric. “For Russia’s Space Program, 2016 May Be a Make-or-Break Year.” Ars Technica. 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 6 Dec. 2016.

Clark, Maggie. “Thanks to John F. Kennedy.” Stateline. The Pew Charitable Trusts, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Dunbar, Brian. “NASA Administrator Griffin Discusses Value of the Space Economy.” NASA. 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Haynes, Brad. “Brazil Ramps up Domestic Space Satellite, Rocket Programs.” Reuters. 22 Mar. 2017. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Hertzfeld, H. R. “Measuring the Economic Returns from Successful NASA Life Science Technology Transfers.” The Journal of Technology Transfer. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 27 Dec. 2002. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.

Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001. Print. English Standard Version.

Kennedy, John F. “Rice Stadium Moon Speech.” Rice University, Texas. 12 Sep. 1962. Public Address.

Kremer, Ken. “Obama Administration Proposes Smaller 2017 Budget…” Universetoday.com. 13 Feb. 2016. Web. 5 Feb. 2017.

Launius, Roger and Andrew Johnston. Smithsonian Atlas of Space Exploration. Piermont, NH: Bunker Hill Publishing, 2009. Print.

Lexington. “America and the Space Race.” The Economist. 2 Aug. 2014: 1. Print.

“Light Year.” Merriam-Webster. N.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.

Lissauer, Jack J. “Habitable Zone.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 24 Sep. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.

Lockney, Dan. “NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives.” Nasa.gov. NASA Spinoff Transfer Technology Program. N.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Logsdon, John M. “Space Exploration.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 14 April 2016. Web. 4 Feb. 2017.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Nasa.gov. MLA, Nov. 2015. Web. 2 Feb. 2017.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget Estimates. F.Y. 1966. NASA HQ Digital Library. Web. 5 Feb. 2017.

“Private Sector.” Investopedia. N.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.

Redd, Nola Taylor. “Yuri Gagarin: First Man in Space.” Space.com. Purch, 24 July 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

Rootes, J. “Down to Earth.” Nature (2001): 1-527. ESA. June 2001. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Ryan, Molly. “Will NASA Fall off the Fiscal Cliff?” Houston Business Journal (2012): n. p. The Business Journals, 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Siceloff, Steven. “NASA Chooses American Companies to Transport U.S. Astronauts to Intern.” NASA. 02 Mar. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.

“The Habitable Exoplanets Catalog.” Planetary Habitability Laboratory @ UPR Arecibo. Google Sites, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

“Thousands Protest the War in Vietnam.” History.com. A&E Television Networks. N.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.

Tyson, Neil deGrasse. Space Chronicles. New York: Norton, 2012. Print.

Whipple, Dr. Fred L. “Can We Get to Mars?” Collier’s. 30 Apr. 1954: 21-23. Print.

Wired Staff. “The 12 Greatest Challenges for Space Exploration.” Wired. Conde Nast, 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Hi! I’m a Used Bookstore

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

I like to put sticky-backed price tags on rare comic book covers and paperback covers and all over jewel cases of compact discs (despite the fact thieves of this generation have no desire to purloin them).  After all, why wouldn’t you, the consumer, want something as large and destructive as a sticky price tag defacing the value and diminishing your enjoyment of the product you want to own and I don’t care about?  That just doesn’t make sense.

Oh, you have five boxes of goods, rare vinyl albums, pristine books, compact discs, and digital video discs?  That’s swell.  We can give you either four dollars and eighty-six cents in cash or $117 in our special trade-in Storebucks™ (not valid on new releases, quality merchandise, Blu-ray discs, or items you’re looking for).  Don’t let the fact we will be selling one of the paperbacks in box number three for over $8 by itself bother you.  We pamper every customer with such royal treatment.

Speaking of which, you are probably wondering where the restrooms are.  Fortunately, we removed three of the bathrooms to make more room for the Harlequin Romance section expansion (the fifteen bookcases’ worth we had before, frankly, was not enough).  Thus, due to the daily frequency of customers requiring use of such facilities averaging only about five hundred and twenty per hour, we decided to limit our capacity to one sole multi-gender bathroom, enabling customers to socialize and enjoy each other’s company in meaningful, life-affirming ways while showing each generation how to wait patiently in a line.  That’s what book stores are all about, right?

On your left, you’ll see our Items We’re Really Proud Of sections, cases A through WW.  In those sections we have randomly assigned prices to various albums, books, concert videos, and miscellaneous items.  Basically, we don’t want you to buy any of those items.  Yes, you will find albums from the same band in our Items We’re Fine With You Buying sections on the right-hand side of the store, with mildly decent prices ranging for ninety-nine cents to four dollars and ninety-nine cents, but the albums by them in the Items We’re Really Proud Of sections typically cost anywhere between eight dollars and ninety-nine cents and the GDP of Uruguay.  I can’t really explain to you the thought process behind which albums get placed in which sections, but I can go ask my shift manager if you want?  He should be done playing this round of Magic: the Gathering in a little under a fortnight?  No?  Okydoky.  If you have further questions later, please feel free to contact Customer Service, conveniently located in the foothills of the Himalayas.  No phone.

Next to that is our Vinyl Collection: the ones no one wants are four dollars apiece.  The Contemporary Reprints of Classic Rock Albums You Might Want are only thirty dollars each, though there is a non-refundable cover charge of sixteen fifty if you want to browse through them.  Original Vinyl Albums are located in the Don’t Even Think You Can Afford These annex at our downtown branch.

Oh, and books by that author you are interested in are scattered higgledy-piggledy throughout the store.  The books you already have (including the ones you special ordered from the UK last week) are located in our Buy 1 Get 7 Free section awkwardly located between the Wicca shelves and the Gentlemen’s Club shelves (you can’t miss them, they’re right next to the Children’s Books and Play Area).  The two books you are missing are available in hardcover large print versions (so they won’t match your set) under lock and key in the glass display cases toward the Local Interest Yet Reeking of Desperation twirly racks at the front of the store.  They are only available for sale two weeks ago last Thursday. We were selling them for six hundred dollars for one, or both for a special fifteen hundred dollar companion sale.  We are going to sell them again the day after you move to a different town.  Possibly there may be mass market editions in our Vaguely Alphabetical by Author And/Or Series shelves toward the middle of the store.  We monitor the accuracy of the alphabetical shelving every time a new Pope is elected.  So any day now, yes.

If you are interested in applying for a job here, we have applications located on the back bulletin board next to the flyers for the Shabbily-Dressed Buskers Convention at the Learning Annex from two years ago (it was a good time, sorry you missed it) and hiding under the Babysitting by Druselda the Goth Clown Slash Tattoo Artist (no, not the symbol “/” the actual word, yes) flyers.  Part 1 is the “Do You Know Less About Books Not By Your Professors Than, Say, A Turnip?” questionnaire.  That weeds out the brainy types who have actually read books and thus can comment about the selections we have for sale.  Sometimes customers are offended by people who know what’s actually in some books.  Part 2 is the “Can You Come In Every Day You Aren’t Scheduled?” survey.

We do have a water fountain, yes.  It’s located next to the Manga You Don’t Want section in the basement.  You have to go up to the second floor and use the down staircase adjacent to the Manga You Are Interested In Trying But We’re Missing the First and Last Volumes shelves.

Some board games are located in the Basically Like Risk, Yes corner below the All Things Potter Shrine.  It’s mostly versions of Munchkin, I hope that’s what you wanted.  We do have some inappropriate for children and dictionary-definition “mature” adults “party” games as well.  There may be some other games Various Social Media Personalities and Target told us to get.  Conveniently for you, we are offering them at 20% above MSRP.  Additionally, we have some used games for sale located in a plastic crate under the drinking fountain.  Just like you do with your games at home, we have sealed them up tightly with packing tape so you can’t check to see if all the pieces are included before buying it.  Similarly with our gigantic price tag stickers, any attempt to remove the tape will end up removing anything printed on the covers.  Prices were taken from eBay searches by someone who has never played any board games and thought the game was close enough to the most expensive thing he could find while searching for random items.

Now that you have made your purchase, let me tell you about our Loyal Customer Reward Program that would have helped you had you enrolled before your purchase.  For every $100 you spend, you are entered once in a monthly raffle for a $2 Off A Purchase Of $50 Or More coupon.  Purchase totals do not expire until the end of the month.  Also on the back of your receipt is a survey opportunity: if you enter the thirty-two digit passcode within the next forty-five minutes, you will be directed to a simple survey about your experiences today, should take you no more than three hours to complete.  At the end, it will send you a link to a non-printable coupon for seventy-five cents off your purchase at the fast food restaurant next door that went out of business last month.

Sadly, no, we don’t accept returns or offer refunds: our receipts are printed with special disappearing ink so all written proof of your visit here vanishes as soon as you leave the store.

Thanks for shopping with us!  Have a nice day!

Who’s Your James Bond?

Leave a reply

Destiny Phillips Coats

Who is James Bond? James Bond is a sixty-four-year-old British secret service agent, played by six different film actors since his birth in the first Ian Fleming novel of 1953. Because the James Bond character in the novels has been so memorable, the actors who have played this character have been so as well. Anyone who is a Bond fan probably has his own personal favorite “James Bond.” So again, the question is posed: Who is James Bond to you? Is he Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, or Daniel Craig? This article will walk through which actors played in which movies, which novels those movies spun from, details about the contracts the actors had to sign to play the character, and who is arguably the most famous “James Bond” and why.

From my last set of research, I learned there were 39 novels and 26 films about James Bond’s many adventures. With my most recent research, I have learned there are 42 novels and 25 James Bond films. Because books can cover much more than a movie in greater detail, the films do not hit on every single escapade of Mr. Bond. A few of the films were also remakes of the same excursions as previous movies. All the movies are inspired by the films directly. Most are directly titled after the book they seek to visualize. In the case of Skyfall, there is no Fleming novel entitled Skyfall but many of the scenes and themes are redone from previous films. For example, Bond appearing dead and receiving an obituary is taken from the story You Only Live Twice.

The first actor to take to the screen as James Bond is Sean Connery. Connery’s first Bond film was Dr. No in 1962. He was born to a working-class family in 1930 in Edinburgh, Scotland. He joined the Royal Navy when he was just 16 years old. While in the navy, he got two tattoos. One reads “Mum and Dad” and the other “Scotland Forever.” A stomach ulcer cut his military service shorter than he intended. Upon moving back home, Connery took on many trades. To balance his work life, he took up bodybuilding as a hobby. This would be the bridge that would cross him into acting. Connery’s highlight of his bodybuilding career was his third-place achievement in the Mr. Universe competition in the year 1950. After this success, it took eight years of modeling, small theatrical parts, and work for him to land a supporting role in Another Time, Another Place with actress Lana Turner. This success got him to his first James Bond movie that would change his life forever. Sean Connery would go on to play in five more Bond films and 43 other movies. Connery is said to be one of the greatest actors of all time, earning an Academy Award, two BAFTA awards, three Golden Globes, and knighted Sir Thomas Sean Connery by Queen Elizabeth. Connery is a true testament of how hard work, determination, and humble beginnings can aid anyone in reaching one’s goals.

Five out of six actors who played 007 starred in more than one movie. The famed one-hit wonder who played Mr. Bond is George Lazenby. Lazenby is also the only Bond actor who is not of British Isle decent. Born in 1939 in Australia, Lazenby peaked in his acting career as James Bond at age 29 in the 1969 film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. With no prior movie roles, Lazenby was a used car salesman who had a small screen career appearing on television commercials for Big Fry’s chocolate bars. Like Connery, George Lazenby had a pretty successful modeling career in London prior to his role as James Bond. When Lazenby heard the news of Connery’s departure from the film series, he did his best to earn the role as Mr. Bond. Buying a tux, Rolex, and getting a haircut like Connery before auditioning for the role all paid off for Mr. Lazenby. After the success of landing the role passed, things no longer looked up for him as Mr. Bond. George Lazenby did not get along with the directors of the film nor his co-stars. He accused Diana Rigg of eating garlic on purpose before their kissing scenes. After the film was released, he received nothing but bad press. He was called a mediocre replacement to the great Sean Connery. A quotation from an article on BBC America explains Lazenby’s departure from the Bond series in more detail:

Lazenby announced that, despite being offered a contract calling for him to perform additional Bond films, he was departing the role. Lazenby’s agent seemingly had convinced him that Bond wasn’t cool enough to survive into the sure-to-be even more swinging 1970s and that he was made for even bigger things. The Bond series producers, already fed up with Lazenby’s oversized sense of entitlement, were happy to see him go.

His prediction about the success of the series could not have been more wrong. After his negative publicity from the film, Lazenby struggled to find other roles.

The third actor to take to the silver screen the same amount of times as Sean Connery is Roger Moore. Moore, now 89, starred in his first bond film Live and Let Die in 1973 at the age of 46. Moore was born in England in 1927. His acting career started in the ’40s and ’50s during his appearances on Broadway. Like Connery, Moore quit school and began work at Publicity Picture Productions at age 15. He started there as an animation apprentice. This would seem like a dream job a young actor would do everything possible not to ruin. Unfortunately, Roger Moore got himself fired shortly after getting hired. Based on his looks, he landed a small role in his first film Caesar and Cleopatra in 1945. Based on his performance in this film, the director decided to enroll and fund him at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. Like many young men living during this time, his career was cut short due to the military draft. At age 18 Moore was stationed in Germany for three years. There he married his first wife of four. After serving his time, he went back to London to continue his career as an actor. He landed a role on The World by the Tail, which made his acting career take off. He signed a contract with MGM for $250 a week but was cut short because of the lack of popularity his films had at MGM. He later signed with Warner Bros. With them he started acting as a television star on The Alaskans and The Saint, the series that landed him the role of James Bond.

Similar to George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton did not have an extremely successful Bond career. Dalton starred in two James Bond movies starting with The Living Daylights in 1987. Dalton, born in 1946 in Wales, was a Shakespearean actor who landed a role in The Lion in Winter in 1946. His role in sci-fi show Flash Gordon landed him his role as James Bond. At a young age, many thought Dalton would join the military and serve like his father. After seeing a performance of Shakespeare’s Macbeth at 16 years old, Dalton made a career of performing in theater. After much success as a young adult, Dalton was approached about succeeding Connery in the James Bond series at 22; however, he turned the offer down because of his young age and experience. Despite his initial “no,” he developed his talent to a place he thought was good enough for the Bond franchise and played 007 19 years later. His first Bond film was a success though the second was a flop, causing his five-film contract to fall by the wayside.

Mr. Pierce Brosnan, born in Ireland in 1953, assumed his role as James Bond in 1995. Brosnan played in four Bond films starting with GoldenEye. After a rough childhood in Ireland, Brosnan moved to London and joined a theater school. Studying there and landing several roles on London’s stage, he moved to Los Angeles, where he starred as the lead role in the detective series Remington Steele. He received an offer in 1986 to play Bond while in his contract with Remington Steele. Because he could not get out of it, his first opportunity as Mr. Bond passed him by. After the show ended, he finally landed a role as 007 after his success with American film projects in between. After his four successful films, he decided to pass the torch to the most recent Bond film star, Daniel Craig.

Finally, my personal favorite, Daniel Craig assumed the role of James Bond in 2006 in the film remake of David Niven’s spoof Casino Royale. Born in Chester, England in 1968, Craig moved to London at age 16 to join a performing arts school. His first performance in a film was The Power of One in 1992. His career took off after the miniseries Our Friends in the North. This contract landed Craig many more film opportunities that put his career on a linear path to stardom. After working with Stephen Spielberg on the film Munich, Craig landed his role in 2006 as 007. After performing in four successful Bond films, questions of his return to the series or a new Mr. Bond are still in the balance.

Most millennials would probably call Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan their “James Bond.” Does this mean the younger generations cannot truly appreciate the personality, style, and artistry the other four great film stars gave to Mr. Bond before these two?  No, of course not. It is simply a matter of opinion. The best part about this opinion question is, no matter who a person calls Mr. Bond, all six actors brought 007 to life in a way only Ian Fleming himself could have anticipated. They are in sync with how he claimed his novels would affect the spy entertainment category: “I am going to write the spy story to end all spy stories,” he said, and the James Bond novels and films have done just that.


Bibliography

“Daniel Craig.” Biography.com. A&E Networks Television, 2 Nov. 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“The Official Website of Sir Sean Connery.” Sean Connery.com, 11 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“Order of James Bond Books.” OrderOfBooks.com. Order of Books, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“Pierce Brosnan.” Biography.com. A&E Networks Television, 2 Apr. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“Roger Moore.” Biography.com. A&E Networks Television, 4 Nov. 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Rozen, Leah. “50 Years of James Bond: George Lazenby, One-Hit Wonder?.” BBC America. New Video Channel America, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“Timothy Dalton.” Biography.com. A&E Networks Television, 14 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

The Origin of Bond

1 Reply

Destiny Phillips Coats

“Name’s Bond. James Bond,” is one of many famous quotations from Ian Fleming’s 1953 novel character James Bond or agent 007, a British secret intelligence agent. Ian Fleming was born on May 28, 1908 in London, England. Fleming’s book character has taken the entertainment world by storm over the last 64 years. Fleming’s exciting adventures of James Bond have inspired many other writers to develop exciting narratives about Mr. Bond that would also enthrall its audiences. EON Productions, a film production company, is known for producing films associated with James Bond and his many endeavors. Most of the world is familiar with these films, but not so much with the origins of Mr. James Bond found in the original novels by Ian Fleming. This essay seeks to inform readers of the origin and development of its beloved hero, Mr. 007.

To know where the character came from, we must uncover what inspired the author. Believe it or not, Ian Fleming himself and some of his friends were his inspiration for James Bond. Fleming served in the British Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, where he met many agents from his division and elsewhere that were involved in similar adventures as his character 007 would be. He chose this subtle name, Mr. James Bond, to contrast the exciting adventures he would have on his many missions. Fleming once said, “When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument … when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.” Ian Fleming gave 007 many similar attributes and likes he himself had. For example, Mr. Bond’s love for gold and gambling were inherited from his author Mr. Fleming. Fleming used names of friends, acquaintances, and old lovers as names for supporting characters in his books. Fleming’s real life and friends played a big role in the making of the most famous secret agent story of all time. Fleming is quoted proclaiming the future success of Mr. Bond to one of his friends saying, “I am going to write the spy story to end all spy stories.” Whether they believed him then or not, it is obvious to us he spoke nothing but the truth.

Fleming wrote the first book, Casino Royale, while in Jamaica in 1952 with his pregnant fiancée. After two months of writing, Fleming asked his friend William Plomer to proof his story. Plomer enjoyed the manuscript. Fleming took his novel to Jonathan Cope who did not like the book very much. On the word of Fleming’s brother Peter, an accredited author, Fleming’s first novel was published in 1953 by Gildrose Publications under Mr. Cope. Jonathan Cope would then publish all of Fleming’s works as the years went on. Because of the success of his book, Fleming bought the publication company. Gildrose desired to have many authors pen stories of James Bond under a common name “Robert Markham,” but unfortunately the idea fell through. Fleming wrote ten James Bond novels and two short story compilations over 12 years.

Ian Fleming died of a heart attack in 1964 as a result of a drinking and smoking problem. Despite his death, Ian Fleming’s legacy lived on among other writers such as Christopher Wood and Kingsley Amis. In his honor, the publishing company was renamed Ian Fleming Publications in 1999. Gildrose honored Fleming’s wishes to not let the James Bond legacy die by handpicking authors to continue the serious up to the present time.

The next James Bond author was John Gardner. Gildrose Publication signed a contract with Mr. Gardner in 1981. He then wrote 16 James Bond novels, two of which became films made by EON Productions. His last Bond novel was published in 1996. Gildrose asked Raymond Benson, an American, to write the next series of Bond novels. Like Gardner, Benson was asked to bring James Bond into the modern era. He did this; however, he was criticized for Americanizing Mr. Bond. Despite criticism, he was praised for returning to Fleming’s original James Bond roots. He wrote his first novel, Zero Minus Ten, in 1997. Benson left Ian Fleming Publications in 2002 after three of his novels were made into films. The next three novelists chosen by Ian Fleming Publications contributed one novel each to the James Bond series. The most recent novelist, Anthony Horowitz, was tasked with creating the thirty-ninth James Bond novel. He used compilations of Fleming’s short stories for inspirations to create the most recent Bond book, Trigger Mortis, released in September 2015. As Ian Fleming Publications has maintained the written Bond series over the last 64 years, EON Productions took on the task of turning James Bond’s adventures on paper into a visual fantasy land for all to emjoy for decades.

Based on Fleming’s novels, James Bond was visually developed in his first film Dr. No in 1962 by EON Productions. Bond’s appearance according to the book and even more so in the movies are a fitted suit, gun, fancy car, and cool gadgets. Iconic images of James Bond include him in a suit with either a cigarette, gun, alcoholic beverage in hand, or a combination of the three. There have been eight actors who have played the character of James Bond on screen in a total of 25 movies and 1 spoof over the last 54 years. The first being Sean Connery, then David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and, most recently, Daniel Craig.  Four other men have been noted for portraying James Bond on the radio and in the first television episodes: Barry Nelson, Bob Holness, Christopher Cazenove, Michael Jayston, and Toby Stephens. Often the changing of an actor to the same character can anger and cause distaste for the series with the public. However, the love for James Bond has only grown over the years to the point his actors will be remembered and honored for all time.

Sean Connery, the first face of James Bond, is arguably the most famous 007 actor. In his first film, Dr. No in 1962, the classic James Bond theme music was played. This music was written by Monty Norman and performed by the John Barry Orchestra. Another essential of the Bond movies is a song played by a well-known artist during the title sequence of the production. The most recent song was Sam Smith’s “Writings on the Wall” in the 2015 bond film Spectre. These songs have become not only hits by the artists who sing them but also will forever be symbols of James Bond productions.

Classic James Bond items like his gun, car, and gadgets have changed over the course of Fleming’s writings in the ’50s and ’60s and the movie adaptations from the ’60s to the present. For example, a fan of the Bond novels in the ’50s, Geoffrey Boothroyd, suggested a change to Fleming of Bond’s weapon, the Beretta 418, because it was a “lady’s gun.”

In thanks, Fleming gave the MI6 Armorer in his novels the name Major Boothroyd and, in Dr. No, M introduces him to Bond as “the greatest small-arms expert in the world.” Bond also used a variety of rifles, including the Savage Model 99 in “For Your Eyes Only” and a Winchester .308 target rifle in “The Living Daylights.” Other handguns used by Bond in the Fleming books included the Colt Detective Special and a long-barreled Colt .45 Army Special (Daily News Dig).

Also Bond’s cars have ranged from Bentley to bus and BMW to Aston Martin.

Bond’s most famous car is the silver gray Aston Martin DB5, first seen in Goldfinger; it later featured in Thunderball, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, Casino Royale and Skyfall. The films have used a number of different Aston Martins for filming and publicity, one of which was sold in January 2006 at an auction in the US for $2,090,000 to an unnamed European collector (Daily News Dig).

Interestingly, Fleming’s novels and first screenplays consisted of very few gadgets. The films developed by EON Productions are what we thank for the extensive and exciting briefings with Q Branch, Bond’s tech support from whom agent 007 receives his many trinkets that aid him in fighting crime and completing his missions. Thanks to the creativity of Ian Fleming, his fans, Ian Fleming Publications, and EON Productions, we have a series that has lived on for over 60 years and hopefully will continue for generations to come.

Novel after novel and movie after movie, James Bond has landed a place in the hearts of men, women, and children from 1953 to 2017. Over the course of these 64 years, James Bond has been developed by 7 authors, 12 actors, one publishing company, and one entertainment group. There are 42 James Bond books and 26 films. A new James Bond actor is being chosen as of this writing, along with the making of another action-packed film. Unlike many other series, James Bond is an entertaining work known for being adapted by many. Ian Fleming meant it when he said, “I am going to write the spy story to end all spy stories,” and we can all agree that this is exactly what he did.

Bibliography

Daily News Dig. “James Bond History — Discover The Secret Agent’s Origins And More.” Daily News Dig. Daily News Dig, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

Fandom. “James Bond Books.” James Bond Wiki. Wikia, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

“James Bond — Ian Fleming.” Ian Fleming. Ian Fleming Publications, 2016. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

“Who Played James Bond: A Complete History.” Who Played James Bond: A Complete History. 007 James, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2016.

Why Wait?

Leave a reply

Katie Kenney

The temptation of procrastination is so easy to fall into. Don’t want to write your English paper? Don’t, you’ll have time to later.  Don’t want to clean your room? Don’t, it will still be there looking like it was hit by a tornado and an atomic bomb all at once. Don’t want to make amends in your friendship just yet? Don’t, that person and the problems that seem to come with them will still be at school tomorrow and the days following. Putting things off is easy to do and it doesn’t hurt at first. Eventually, however, problems will arise. Maybe the stress of writing a long paper the night before it’s due is too much to handle and a mental breakdown ensues. Maybe your mess isn’t there in all its glory, but instead has moved to the smaller bedroom that was previously your younger sister’s. And maybe, just maybe, your friend is no longer your friend because the damage has settled in and there’s no way to repair the relationship. There are consequences of every, single thing that we do in our lifetime. The consequences of procrastination are not normally the happy kind. Putting off what can be done today isn’t the best decision, even though it is incredibly enticing. Procrastination may be the easier and more appealing thing in the short run, but doing something and taking advantage of the time you have in the now is better for everyone in the long run.

There are many different areas in any person’s life that they can procrastinate in. Someone could procrastinate in the athletic aspect of their life by putting off their daily rep of squats or something along that line. Someone could very easily procrastinate in an academic way. Practically every student in high school has, at some point, put off doing some sort of homework, whether it be a math worksheet or a history project. The cleanliness of an area, or a person could be put off as well. Cleaning the dishes or making the bed can just seem so unimportant, so it is put off until further notice. Even though procrastination is usually left to those three main things, someone could procrastinate in the realm of their relationships. This includes putting off a needed conversation with a loved one, saying that you’ll fix your friendship another time, and other things of the like. Humans have the amazing ability to put off practically anything which includes things other than a high schooler’s science homework.

Unless you are some crazy cross-fitter, getting up at the crack of dawn to willingly put your body in pain and sweat out everything you drank in the past three days doesn’t sound too appealing.  Working out is hard and it just doesn’t sound like a bringer of great joy to the average person. Many people want to work out, whether it be to lose weight or just to feel healthier. However, a lot of people just put it off, saying that they are too busy at the moment or that they just need a minute to take a breather because they have been moving constantly all day. That doesn’t help one reach their goal obviously. Sitting down and putting aside physical obligations can be so easy but it is still not good. Good things don’t come easy. You have to work for things and that includes anything in the realm of athletics.

Procrastination is notorious for being a huge part of a high school student’s life, along with a college student’s life. People say that teenagers just put things off because they don’t want to deal with it, but that isn’t always the case. There are instances where doing one more piece of homework feels like it could make your brain explode. Stress can build up because there are times when a large amount of homework, studying, projects, and presentations are present. Sometimes all a student wants is an extra hour of sleep, so they put off finishing their math homework in order to get that precious hour of sleep. Procrastination, in all aspects of life, isn’t always because someone just doesn’t want to do something. Still, that doesn’t make procrastination any better. Getting an extra hour of sleep can be possible but there must be better choices in time management. Doing homework right off the bat is better for your mental health and your schedule. If you get things done right away, then you won’t have to deal with them later on. If you want to go to an event, but you don’t plan properly and have a build-up of school assignments, then it is most likely that you won’t go to that event. Procrastinating can keep you from doing the things that you want to, so just do things when you first get the chance and you’ll be able to do things other than nothing and school work. 

Stress is easily come by when one puts things off. Having to keep track of the things that you have done and the things that need to be done can get messy very quickly in the human mind. Worry about getting everything done seems to be a low mumble in the procrastinator’s head. At some point, panic can ensue and that is when everything falls apart. Whatever was holding the person together shatters into a million pieces along with their sanity. They can feel like they aren’t going to get any of the things that they needed to get done actually done and that can stress a person out beyond belief. No one needs any extra stress in their lives, so it seems like just doing things when you first have the opportunity to is the better option for any person’s mental health. Stress is obviously not good for the mind, but it is also not good for the body. A person who has too much stress in their life can have headaches, muscle tension or pain, chest pain, fatigue, sleeping problems, and some other not so positive things as said by the Mayo Clinic. A person can also experience some behavioral changes such as overeating or undereating, angry outbursts, drug or alcohol abuse, a sudden start in smoking, and social withdrawal.

Pushing things off to do nothing or something less important is an easy way to waste time. Time is precious and we only have so much of it. It is easy to lose track of time, but we should never waste it. We need to take advantage of the time we are given. We need to pursue every moment and do what needs to be done instead of putting it off. When a person procrastinates, they are wasting time. Instead of doing something that they need to, they are saying that they will do it later. This means that they are wasting the time they could be doing something beneficial or something that at least needs to be done. Putting things off isn’t a good use of time, so just following through with your responsibilities can make your time more valuable than wasted time. 

Goals are set often, but so many of those goals are not completed. Things can come up that may make the goal change slightly or even be dismissed entirely. However, a good portion of uncompleted goals are incomplete because of procrastination. A goal set to get homework and chores done by seven can never be fulfilled because the dishes are going to be done later by the teenager who hasn’t even started their math homework. But, you know, at least they finished their history paper and cleaned their room because that’s still something. However, the goal that was originally set is never met because someone put something off to do at a different time that is on a later day. This doesn’t just apply to little goals, but also to the big ones that matter. A smoker postponing their goal of being clean isn’t something that can be taken lightheartedly. Smoking can cause all sorts of medical problems, that is a known fact. So, dismissing a goal of stopping smoking isn’t something that someone should do with a wave of the hand. Smoking can lead to the death and that isn’t something that is widely wanted. Yes, it is hard to quit smoking once it has become a habit, which happens quite soon, but putting it off doesn’t make it any easier. It just makes it harder because if you continue to push things off and nothing happens because of the postponing, why would one want to actually do it? That state of nothing happening because of the procrastination doesn’t last forever. Something will eventually happen when you continue to do nothing. Goals can be hard to achieve, but they aren’t necessarily impossible. Pushing through and doing what needs to be done is better than pushing things off. 

If you have the opportunity to do something, to say something and make a difference why in the world wouldn’t you? It can be scary, so immensely scary, and that is entirely understandable. But keeping quiet and hoping that someone else will do it for you is not comprehendible. No one can say exactly what you want to say because everyone is different and special in their own way. Convincing yourself to stay silent until a later time allows a situation to stay unchanged even though it desperately needs an altercation. Everyone makes an impact and everyone has the ability to make that impact a good one. Human life is only existent for so long and we need to take advantage of the opportunities that we get. No one should aim to hurt others in this world, but aim to better those around them.

Habits are incredibly hard to break. Smokers and alcoholics tend to go back to their old ways even after being clean for a good sum of time. It just seems normal to them, right even. Just because they think it’s right though, doesn’t mean that it is. Procrastination is a cycle that anyone can easily fall into. Once someone starts procrastinating it is difficult to break that habit and start doing things on a more regulated schedule. Procrastination can seem like a good habit sometimes, a habit that isn’t necessarily too harmful and it feels good when you do it for a certain amount of time. No matter how it feels though, it isn’t good for anyone. Bad habits may feel like they aren’t bad, but they really are. That feeling causes it to be more difficult to get rid of the habit, but it is still necessary. Procrastination is a bad habit that we need to be rid of.

Having a deep conversation or a difficult one can be intimidating for any person. Putting a difficult, but needed, conversation off will only make the conversation harder when it is said. In some cases, the conversation could’ve been quick, easy, and over in the matter of two minutes. Overtime, new problems can arise, making that short, little conversation into a long difficult one that brings a multitude of hurt. Sometimes, there can be worse consequences if a conversation is put off. Maybe the person with whom you need to speak with is no longer available for conversation, whether it be because they have lost contact with you due to distance, they no longer want to talk to you, or they just aren’t here anymore. Time is ticking and we need to do things while we still can, say things when we still have the opportunity to. People are constantly changing and that means that the conversations that are held with them are changing too. Sometimes that change is a good one, but other times that change can feel like it’s catastrophic. Waiting and putting it off can make it even worse. Doing things when we first have the opportunity is the best thing to do. It can be hard to do, but it needs to be done. It’s like getting a shot as a kid. Most kids are scared of needles and associate shots with immense pain. And at first, it can be painful, seeing as something is being stabbed into your arm or some other part of your body. To a kid, it can seem like the worst thing in the entire world is getting that shot. So, some kids cry and throw fits, trying to postpone the inevitable shot. It still happens though and it hurts them. Eventually, the pain fades away and the kid can see the benefits when every other kid in their class, who didn’t get a shot is getting sick. Having difficult conversations are painful. It can be exhausting and draining, not only to the body, but also to the soul. It can seem like the worst thing in the entire world, but it still needs to be done. One day, whether it be the day of the conversation or twenty years later, the hurt won’t be existent any longer. Postponing the hard conversations will only cause someone more pain in total. Getting them done and over with is the smart choice. And really, no one wants to be the kid who throws a temper tantrum when they have to get a shot.

Human life has a definite beginning and a definite end. Babies are born and that is the obvious start of a person’s life. And then, after a certain amount of time, which has been chosen by God, a person will die and that is the end of their life on earth. Christians have been given eternal life in Heaven by the grace of God, but that is not life on earth. Heavenly life will be so indescribably better than earthly life. However, we still need to make the most of what we have on earth. We need to spread the gospel and not wait for someone else to or until we feel more comfortable. We have to act in the now because this is what we have. There will come a point in time where you can’t say that you’ll do it tomorrow because you won’t be there tomorrow. On a less morbid note, we still can’t say that we’ll do it tomorrow because we never know how long things last. Everything changes over time unless it is something true that has been by God. We can’t expect things to be exactly the same as we left it no matter what Newton’s First Law of Motion says. Change is a regular occurrence, that is known. So, no one can sit around expecting things to be the exact same way they were before they started to do it. Everything changes and we need to pay attention to those changes instead of putting of dealing with them until tomorrow.

Bibliography

Mayo Clinic. “Stress symptoms: Effects on your body and behavior.” Mayo Clinic. www.mayoclinic.org/helathy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/stress-symptoms/art-20050987 6 Dec. 2016.

O’Donovan, Kirstin. “8 Ways Procrastination Can Destroy Your Life.” Lifehack. www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/8-ways-procrastination-can-destroy-your-life.html 6 Dec. 2016

Is Space Exploration a Good Investment?

Leave a reply

Tim Seaton

Space exploration is a hotly debated topic right now in the world. Some people question if it is worth the time, money, or if it is even important. Countries put millions into space programs, so obviously it is important to them, but what is the result of this investment? Is investing in space exploration so important it is worth the time and money spent on it? If it is, then we should continue investing in it; but if not, then why waste the effort on it?

There are some reasons why space exploration is not a good investment. Some of these reasons are people thinking it will use too much of our resources, we could use the fuel used for the space program here on earth, space exploration is only important to a select few right now, and almost all the planets are too far out to reach in a lifetime.

We could manage our resources by not focusing on space travel right now. We could be improving our technology now and then using it to create more affordable space travel. It could save us tons of time and money instead of starting it now. Also, natural resources are limited on the earth. When we are sending people into space, we are using up some of those resources that can’t be easily replaced, if at all. We should be using our resources to better our planet now, and when it is better, then we should invest because that is when it will become important.

Also, we could be using our fuel for gas here on earth where we could lower prices, save money, and use that extra money to go into research for items that would make space exploration more affordable and easier than it is now. We would be wasting fuel by going to Mars and trying to establish a colony there because Mars is so far away, and they would have to take our limited amount to there at one time. It would be a waste of fuel and space to try and take it all up at one time, so why do it at all? Wait until we can use fuel more efficiently. We use money for the use of other projects that in turn can help the pace program, but we should use the money for projects that will definitely help us on earth until it is necessary.

Right now, space exploration is only important to a few people compared to the whole rest of the world. The price from a Virgin Galactic airlines space flight that is 5 minutes long for one person is $250,000! That is a whopping $50,000 a minute. A flight in a two seater rocket from Xcor will be $95,000 a person. All of the available options right now are much too expensive for anyone but millionaires and billionaires, and even they may be hesitant when they see the exorbitant prices set in place, even when they have the money to do it. They will want to use their wealth on things that are better than what other celebrities have. No common folk can pay these prices, so why invest in what you can’t and won’t make much money on? Put that toward something actually useful like making new technology for businesses that are producing items every person can use.

Also, most of the stars and planets are too far off to reach in a lifetime. Jupiter at its closest is 377,866,000 miles away from us. It would take us 4 years to travel to Jupiter with our modern technology, but as our technology advances, we are able to decrease that time and the amount of money spent to make that trip there and back. We should wait until we can use our resources better and make the time shorter.

There are also many good reasons why space exploration is important. Some of them are understanding and protecting our planet, new technology, answering big questions, international co-operations, long-term survival, fuel, and promoting scientific education, new discoveries, and mapping the solar system and seeing back to our planet.

First, space exploration is important because it helps us understand and protect our planet. For example, when we were trying to build a spaceship to fly through space, we had to learn what the gravity was so we can know how much thrust and fuel we need. We had to know what materials weighed so we could find the escape velocity of the ship. Every little variable played a key part of getting that ship into space. From this we learned just a few of the many wonders and interesting ideas the universe holds for us to discover. If we have all of what we have here on earth, what could we find on other planets humans have never set foot on? We should explore to find out what is there, and so this is important to us as humans and our society advancing. We need to keep exploring what will help us as a society.

Another reason space exploration is important is because of the technology that can be created for the space program. When we are making spaceships, we are finding and creating more and more technology we can use for other reasons. We are finding ways to make ships faster and more aerodynamic. We can apply this to other man-made objects like cars to make them better. We are creating new computers that are smaller and making programs for them we can use in those objects. Many of the technologies we are creating for spaceships can be applied to many other products, so it is important because it helps us improve what is happening here on earth as well as other planets. One example is the parachutes spaceships use upon entry back into the atmosphere. The parachute material was found to be a great material to make tires out of, so now there are tires and parachutes made out of the same material. Also, there are the red light emitting diodes. There is chemical detection used for leaks in spaceships, and so we use that here on earth as a chemical detector in radioactive plants to detect leaks. They help growing plants in space, and they have been converted to help on earth with healing humans. We can keep innovating things like this so we can use more and more of this technology on the earth. We can use pretty much anything if we are creative enough to find uses.

Space exploration will also help with answering big questions. One of the most hotly contested questions is are we the only ones out there in the universe? Some others are how did the universe come to be? and how did life originate on the earth? When we are flying through space, we are able to explore places and find answers to these questions. We can use space exploration to answer questions if we look hard enough, long enough, and use the right resources and manage them. Space exploration will also open up new questions to us as we explore more and more of space. If we keep exploring, we will have new questions opened up to us that will help us understand the world and space more. One example of this is the probe we sent past Jupiter. It found out the big red dot was a storm and Pluto was a dwarf planet. We can keep answering these questions we have by exploring more and more of the galaxy.

Space exploration fosters international cooperation. When countries see a common goal, they will combine. The space program promoted global cooperation. The United States, Russia, Canada, Japan, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, England, and many more made an agreement to work together for the good of humans to explore space. Before, the U.S. and Russia had the Cold War in which they were both trying to get to the moon before the other did. This feud stopped when the U.S. got there first and an international alliance was made for the sake of space exploration. Many ships sent into space have had crews of many different countries. Space exploration is drawing countries who used to be enemies together as allies. The more we keep finding common goals like this, the more we can keep cooperating with those countries.

Long-term survival may also rely on space exploration. Right now, the earth’s population is growing at a crazy rate. Eventually, the world will not be able to hold everybody. Currently, manned missions are being planned to go to Mars to start a colony. The companies running it are hoping for the astronauts to start up the livable arrangements so others can move in and make more room on the earth. If we moved 1 billion people, then we could free up considerable space for others on earth. We have some technology to be able to get to planets, but we are not prepared yet. It is important to get there because humans’ long-term survival may rely on us getting there and being able to live. When others say space exploration is only important to a few, it isn’t. We don’t know when we will need more space, so why not start now? We should be prepared for the worst to happen. If something like a nuclear war happened, would we not want to be able to leave and go to a clean and unspoiled planet?

There is also fuel we do not have here on earth. The fossil fuels here on earth are slowly becoming a less and less reliable source because they are being used up and unable to be replenished fast enough, so sources will eventually run up along with the oil. We will need more fuel soon, and that can be solved by mining fuels on the moon. The main one that would provide us with the most fuel is helium 3. This substance could fuel us a lot better than what we have now. It could last longer and give us more fuel. It would also help with our long-term survival. This is definitely a good reason why we should explore space.

Exploring space also helps up with being able to map out space and find new objects. With the Hubble Telescope, we have been able to find out about new galaxies and stars. We have been able to track weather patterns with satellites. Space exploration has made all of this possible. We are able to warn people of hurricanes coming toward them days in advance because of the satellites and space exploration. We have been able to map out our galaxy because of space exploration. Many things here on earth have been made possible by space exploration, so it is obviously important to us and we should continue doing it.

We should also explore because once you start exploring and advancing technologically, you start decreasing your ability to keep creating more new technology. We should be able to continue that exploration of finding new technology by continuing the space exploration. One example of this is zero gravity. If we had not explored space, we would never know about this. We should keep exploring because we will find more out.

Finally, space exploration is important because of kids. Space exploration encourages scientific education and kids to delve deeper into the science of it. When people have something that interests them, they want to learn more about it. Through the space program, kids hear about it and are interested in it. They want to know about it and what they can do with it. It interests them in a whole new topic. It pushes us to the limit of what we can do. We are always facing new problems we find, and so it is showing when you face a problem head on, it be easier than trying to avoid it. One example of this is being educated in science class. When we learn about space, we are able to learn about science and the interesting pieces of it, so students get hooked and want to learn more.

In conclusion, there are many parts to each side of this argument. Because of the ability to further our technology, protect the planet more, help students become better educated, obtaining resources we don’t have here on earth, long-term survival, international cooperation, and answering big questions, I say the benefits outweigh the harms. Therefore, I think investing in continuing space exploration is a good idea.

On Sylvia Plath

Leave a reply

Emma Kenney

Sylvia Plath was born in Boston, Massachusetts on October 27, 1932 to Otto Emil Plath and Aurelia Schober Plath. Her brother Warren was born roughly 3 years later in 1935. Plath grew up Winthrop, Massachusetts, located near Boston. Her father worked at Boston University in Boston until his health began to drastically decline leading to his death shortly after Plath’s eighth birthday. The man had thought he was dying of lung cancer, but he had actually died due to diabetes, something which could have been treated and managed with relative ease.

Shortly after the death of Otto Plath, Aurelia Plath moved Sylvia and Warren to Wellesley. This would be Plath’s home from the time she was ten until the time she left for college. After the move, Plath became an exceptional student, having all “A”s but especially excelling in her English courses. The girl’s first poem was published in The Boston Herald in 1941 after the death of Otto Plath when she was only eight. Plath eventually received a scholarship to an all-girls college called Smith College. The college was located relatively close to home, in Northampton, Massachusetts. She continued to write poetry during this stage of her life, though not much of it was published. Though Plath had the technical skill of a successful writer, she had yet to figure out what it was exactly she was trying to say. The stress of trying to maintain the exceptional grades she had gotten before college also affected the quality of the poems and stories Plath produced during these years of her life.

However, by 1953 Plath was well on the track to becoming a successful author. Her works were published in magazines and newspapers alike, such as The Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Hampshire Gazette. Eventually Plath’s writing earned her a guest editor position for a magazine in New York City over the summer. She stayed with a few other women at an all-women hotel in the city, which she wrote about in her novel The Bell Jar. That summer was incredibly difficult for the young woman, and it ultimately did her more harm than good. Plath had been hoping to be accepted into a writing program at Harvard and was devastated when she got the news she had been rejected. This, among other things, led to the woman being physically and mentally drained and eventually having a mental breakdown. Plath returned home in a much worse state than the one she had been in when she had left for New York City only a few months prior. She wrote she could barely sleep or write or even read, though her mother says one of the only things she did was read. Eventually, Plath decided to try to commit suicide. She left a note for her family telling them she was going for a walk, but in reality the girl took a glass of water and a bottle of sleeping pills into a crawl space in the house and attempted suicide. The young woman was found two days later still living but not in good health. She was admitted at McLean Hospital in Belmont where she was treated by Dr. Ruth Barnhouse Beuscher. Though it was hard, Plath would eventually recover and be in good enough shape to go back to Smith College for the spring semester.

Things began to look up after Plath returned to college. She met a man named Richard Sassoon, and the two eventually became lovers. Her grades were once again outstanding, despite everything she had experienced that past year. Plath reapplied for Harvard’s summer program, and this time the young woman was accepted into it. That summer she shared an apartment in Massachusetts with a woman named Nancy Hunter-Steiner, who was also in Harvard’s summer program. Plath returned to Smith College the following year, where she continued to excel. Her honors English thesis was superb, and after the woman graduated she received a scholarship to attend Cambridge in England the following year. Plath returned home for the summer and eventually ended things with Richard Sassoon, saying she preferred to see what kind of men England had to offer her.

Though Plath had been thrilled to be able to attend a university as highly renowned as Cambridge, the woman was in for a rude awakening when she arrived. Plath had not realized how hard it would be to be an American in the midst of British students. She spent her first few weeks in England simply sightseeing before she arrived at Cambridge for the school year. Her first disappointment was the fact her dorm was at the very back of the university. However, Plath soon fell in love with the campus and all it had to offer her. Plath soon realized the British education system was incredibly different from that of America and struggled to adjust to the new way of academics she was being forced to experience. Eventually the woman found a mentor and got used to the new system of college. She ultimately found she had an easier time at Cambridge than she did during all her years at Smith College in the United States. This caused Plath to decide to join something called the Amateur Dramatics Club, which was basically a small theater program for college kids at Cambridge. While she was participating in this club Plath received a small role as a clinically insane poet.

Eventually Sylvia Plath got back together with Richard Sassoon, who was staying in Paris at the time. The two spent their winter vacations together in Paris and other parts of Europe. However, shortly after Plath returned to Cambridge Sassoon wrote to her and requested they take a break in their relationship for a while. Plath soon fell into a horrible depression caused by this breakup and the fact she hated the harsh winter she was experiencing in England. On top of this depression, Plath was ill quite frequently that winter and even ended up with a splinter in her eye. Plath eventually decided to see a psychiatrist named Dr. Davy after it got to be too much for her to handle on her own. The young woman was furious at Sassoon for breaking up with her and was desperate to find someone who would love her at all.

After she left her appointment with Dr. Davy, Plath purchased a literary journal and read poems by a man named Ted Hughes. She quickly found out about a party being held for the poet at the Falcon Yard that night. Plath went to the party with a date, but she promptly ditched him and began looking for Ted. The two found each other, and Plath recited some of poems she had memorized only hours earlier. Hughes was impressed by this, and the two began dating soon after the party. Plath even went on spring break with him that year.

The next year Plath moved in with Hughes instead of staying on campus at Cambridge. Eventually, in 1956, the two married without informing Ted’s family. Plath continued to study at Cambridge until 1957 when the two decided to move to America. By this point, Hughes’s parents knew about the marriage, and Ted’s mother decided to have a party for the couple where the two made lots of new connections. They had both been continuously writing up to this point, and they both continued to do so after. They were given many new opportunities for people to read and experience their works.

Plath took a job teaching, but she found it so much harder than she had originally thought, and her depression began coming back again. She eventually quit her teaching job and went back to writing poetry, but things continued to get harder for her. Her health began to get bad again around Christmas, and she was bedridden for weeks. After that, she began fighting with Ted. It is rumored the man began beating her around this time period. Shortly after, the two had their first child named Frieda. Plath became pregnant again later, but that pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage. Plath got pregnant a third time and give birth to a son. Plath and Ted eventually divorced and Plath moved away with the children. She continued to write frequently throughout this time until her death.

On February 11, 1963, Sylvia Plath used a gas oven to kill herself, first making sure to seal off the door between her and her children and make sure her neighbors weren’t home. Her death was determined to have been a contemplated suicide, with too much detail and thought having gone into it for it to have been a spur of the moment choice. Plath’s depression plays heavily into her image today, and leaves her one of America’s most famous poets.

Bibliography

Beckmann, Leipzig Anja. “Sylvia Plath (1932-1963).” Sylvia Plath Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2017. <http://www.sylviaplath.de/&gt;.

Steinberg, Peter K. “Biography.” Sylvia Plath. N.p., Dec. 2007. Web. 09 Feb. 2017. <http://www.sylviaplath.info/biography.html&gt;.

Your Own Voice

Leave a reply

Katie Kenney

“To gain your own voice, you have to forget about having it heard.” ~ Allen Ginsberg

In today’s world, everyone wants their opinions to be listened to. People yell and scream just for their one sentence to be heard by those around them. Being civil to one another isn’t seen as important when people think they deserve to be heard. On social media, people spew their opinions about everything anywhere they can, whether it be commenting on the media or posting something. In rallies, campaigns, and other events that are similar, the volume rises as people become desperate. They resort to speaking louder and stronger if they are given no attention. Everyone is so desperate to be listened to because it is said if no one pays attention to you then you shouldn’t have said anything at all and you don’t even matter. Validation is found by others and that just isn’t okay. Everyone should have their own voice and not care so much about what other people think. No one should fight to be heard.

Increasing the volume of the voice will not make it heard easier. In a Socratic circle, people sit in a circle of chairs and talk about a given topic. It is supposed to be civil. No one should be talked over or have their words rudely dismissed. However, a point can come where people ignore the “rules” of the Socratic circle. Someone is talked over being another person finds what they have to say is more important. Opinions are said to be stupid so another’s opinion can be seen as smart compared to it. The volume rises and rises, with no limit to the noise apparent. It gets out of control. People just want to be heard so they yell at each other as someone yells right back at them, but neither can hear what the other has to say because they are so focused on getting their words the loudest. Eventually, the circle calms down or is told to tone it down by someone who is outside of the circle. When reviewing what had happened, no one knows what was said by the others because they were trained on being heard themselves. If someone gets loud, then those around that person will get loud as well. It’s a chain reaction that will only end in a crash. There is a difference between speaking up and speaking over. Standing up for what you believe in and putting your thoughts out in the open can be absolutely terrifying. Speaking over someone so what you believe to be true can be heard takes no courage at all, just disrespect. No one can hear the person who talks over another because the words muddle together and the people were originally listening to the first speaker.

In a crowded room or area, it is hard to pick out a specific speaker or even a particular conversation. It is incredibly loud, with the volume rising and lowering when a new speaker joins or leaves a conversation. At times when this pertains, people can get loud so those around them can hear what they are trying to say. However, despite their tries, the people around them might not hear or understand a single word they’ve said because so many other people are doing the exact same thing. All the words mix together, allowing no one to be heard entirely. Trying to get louder than the crowd just won’t work and it can be irritating, but there are other opportunities to finish the interrupted discussion that was being held. There are times when things need to be said right then in that instant, but if it is a regular conversation the words can wait. There is almost always another chance to share your opinion on a topic. There is no need to push people aside so others can hear you.

No one likes to be talked over so someone else can be heard. Firstly, it’s plain rude to ignore and dismiss what someone has to say in order for what you have to say to be heard. The Bible says to put God first, others second, and ourselves last. If Christians interrupt someone spitefully they aren’t obeying what God has said because they are putting themselves above others. Christians are supposed to be kind to others and show God’s love through them, but if they deliberately speak over someone because they think they should be heard instead of the person, they aren’t showing any kind of love, let alone God’s love. Love is patient and love is kind, as said in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. Love also isn’t self-seeking, which people are when they decide they are a large degree better than everyone else. Deliberately disobeying the Bible is deliberately disobeying God and that isn’t at all what Christianity is about.

On social media, it is a common occurrence to see people’s opinions spewed everywhere they can be, whether it be in the form of a meme or just a plain old comment. There comes a point when the freedom of speech seems to have become freedom of cruelty toward everyone everywhere. There are regular fights in the comment section because someone disagreed with what another had to say and it turned into the two getting angry, using the caps lock way too much, and ultimately insulting the other in any way they possibly can. This can happen between absolute strangers on the Internet or it could even be those who talk to each other in real life. Either way, if someone is saying her opinion is superior to someone else’s, then it doesn’t matter who she is arguing with. They will still want to show their supposed superiority and sometimes if they feel as if what they’re saying is less than what someone else has to say, they’ll resort to insulting the person. Insulting someone because you feel like she is better than you is a defense mechanism. It allows someone to ignore her feeling of inferiority and foist a feeling of inferiority on the person who she actually believes is superior.

At some point in everyone’s life, there is a person who is quiet and doesn’t really have anything to say. They don’t contribute to discussion much so their opinion on things is unknown except to those to whom they do talk. One day, there comes a time when a discussion is being had and the shy, quiet person says something and people are amazed because they never hear her opinions. People pay attention to what she has to say because they don’t know how long it will be until they get to hear her speak again. People value her words so much more than they value the guy’s words who screams his opinions at you. When words are meaningful and thought out, they are more valuable than the words thrown at people in a millisecond. In the same way, opinions said by a person who is patient and mindful to what others have to say are better listened to than the opinions of someone who yells over people to be heard and doesn’t care if he is being rude, only that what he says is louder than what anyone else has to say. People are listened to if they are kind and civil toward others and do not tear people down in order to build themselves, or their opinions, up.

In this world, it can be hard to feel like you are listened to, that what you say matters. People everywhere fight to be the best, whether it be in sports, in a debate, or just in casual discussion. If someone’s voice is talked over and stomped by those around them, then that person can easily feel as if she should have no voice at all. There are times when someone is insulted because another person thinks what she said was stupid, or something along those lines and getting insulted can hurt. It can be painful to be told what you thought up and said isn’t worthy of the conversation being held. It can warp a person’s mind into thinking everything she says is stupid and unworthy. She may start to wonder why she even contributes to conversations and why she doesn’t just stop. She can think she should stop because there’s no point in talking if everything that comes out is useless. So, she might stop. It can start out as just speaking less and not getting involved in excessive conversation. It can turn into not starting conversations and barely being able to hold a discussion. Their constant contribution can become a few sentences spoken every day. They might lose their voice, literally and figuratively. If they don’t speak what’s on their minds, then it’s almost as if they’ve become mute and aren’t trying to do anything about it. And they won’t unless they find a reason to. However, the day can come when a discussion happens and they are passionate about the topic. They can say something, whether it be out of pure passion for what is being discussed or be because someone urged them to use their words. Either way, people heard what they said and are taken aback just because the normally quiet people said something. Over time, confidence can grow and fall because relapses and breakdowns are real, and there will come a time when the people are contributing to conversations the same amount of times all around them are. They can get their voices back and they did because they stopped caring so much about what other people thought. They stopped caring about whether they were heard or not and that allowed them to develop into the person who says things and is listened to.

Insecure people can care so much about what other people think. Even the every day person, who doesn’t have many things they dislike about themselves or aren’t very comfortable with, can care about other people’s opinions. Caring too much about what other people think can be debilitating. Opinions can cease to exist, clothing can change, and confidence can decrease just because of what others say. Losing your voice can be a possibility when you care a lot about what other people think about you. Everyone is her own person, with her own thoughts and opinions, desires and pleasures, life and death. Your life is yours for the keeping. No one can take that away. So, no one should live their life in accordance with what anyone other than God has to say. Yes, people should listen to and care about what other people have to say, but they shouldn’t let what others say dictate their lives. To “gain your own voice,” one must stop thinking what other people will say is so much better than what you want to say.

Overly confident people can be a pain to be around. It doesn’t matter if you are talking to them or not, you can hear them from a distance showing off their supposed ultimate superiority. Their bigheadedness is shed off on everyone in their vicinity and everyone can see the size of their egos makes up for any intelligence they may not have. They don’t allow opinions that go against what they believe to be true. They are so concerned with what they say and do is heeded they make sure only what they say is listened to. Because of that, people just stop caring about what the flamboyant kid says. Their words lose value and importance over time. If force comes into the equation, then respect for others is thrown out of the metaphorical window and a disrespectful person’s words are often not the most meaningful. Politely spoken words are taken into consideration more than the rash, rude ones.

Just doing a small act of kindness for someone, like letting him speak without talking over him, can make a person’s entire day, possibly even his week. People in this world can be so rude and just allowing a person to speak when he hasn’t been able to can be one of the only good things that’ll happen to him that week. It can show the person people do listen even though he may not be shouting at the top of his lungs. There can be times in one’s life when one just feels like she isn’t good enough or she just doesn’t matter at all. This isn’t true, as everyone knows. Every single person has worth and the ability to do something with what she says. Whether it is something good or something bad is up to the spokesperson. If someone decides to use her voice to shut people down in order to make herself rise up in her mind, her voice isn’t being used for what it was made for. Our voices were made to spread God’s word and love. If someone tells the group another has been trying to say something but has been talked over multiple times, that someone is using her voice to be helpful and kind to others.

It can be hard to take a step back from speaking everything you think. People want other people to care about them, which includes what they say. The listening ears of others do not determine a person’s worth and neither does another person. Your life isn’t determined by how many people listen to you or how many sentences have been taken into consideration by others There are more important things than being heard. Being kind to others and finding out who you are are more beneficial than having yourself be heard. Anyway, unless the talk is of God, all of the things that are talked about are of worldly things. There is so much more than just this world, this earth. Life after death with God is the ultimate goal, and having people listen to what you think of this topic is not going to get you there. Believing in God’s word and spreading it is more helpful in getting you to Heaven than making people listen to you. Using force is only beneficial in Star Wars. People will listen to you if you let them do it on their own, but making someone else quiet so you can throw your words out in the open doesn’t really make a person want to listen to you. It’s like cleaning: if someone is told to clean her room then it makes the task so much harder and unsatisfying than if that person decided to do it because she either wanted to or thought it was necessary. People make their own decisions and live their own lives. Not a single person needs to find validation from another person. A person’s voice matters whether it is heard or not.

Bibliography

Petit, Zachary. “72 of the Best Quotes About Writing.” Writer’s Digest, 22 June, 2012. www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/there-are-no-rules/72-of-the-best-quotes-about-writing. 23 Nov. 2016.

He is Real and He is Risen

Leave a reply

Destiny Phillips Coats

Faith is an important part of everyday life whether one is an atheist, Buddhist, or Christian. All worldviews and religions are based on a premise or ideal. For that worldview or religion to hold true, humans want to see evidence; however, everything humans believe cannot be scientifically proven with evidence all the time. Nevertheless, we should always try to uncover the truths we can to be closer to the reason why we are here. As a Christian, this is extremely important. With the current vehement attack on religion by secularists around the world, Christians are constantly being questioned if their “Jesus” is real more and more often. It is vital believers of any religion can properly defend themselves against false truths and claims made against them by others. One aspect of Christianity all believers must defend is the case and point of Jesus Christ. The points brought up in the following paragraphs will prove the resolution of the Christian faith Jesus of Nazareth (called Christ) was executed by order of the Roman Governor (Pontius Pilate), was buried, then was resurrected and appeared in bodily form to His followers. There will be six points of proof confirming this resolution. The proofs are as follows: prove the authentication of the New Testament by including the date it was written and if the authors wrote from close experience about the events in which they wrote, prove Jesus was a real man who walked upon the earth, prove Jesus made the claim to be the promised Messiah, prove Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate for the crime of blasphemy brought on Him by the Jews, prove Jesus died by means of crucifixion, and prove Jesus resurrected. Not only believing these proofs but knowing it for oneself to be true can work wonders in his daily walk, the way he evangelizes, and again his personal relationship with Christ. For some, just to believe something is not enough. This essay presents reasoning and evidence why one should believe in the existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

To affirm this resolution, I would like to first prove the authentication of the New Testament.  In doing this, one would need to know the date the New Testament was written and if the authors wrote from close experience about the events in which they wrote. Jesus’ birth marks A.D. 0 on history’s timeline, so all His actions on the Earth would have been done in the first century; therefore, the New Testament would be the most accurate if also written in the first century. Good thing for Christians, it was. Per the book New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, the New Testament was written in “A.D. 50-100” (McDowell 38). It reads

John Ryland’s manuscript, found in A.D. 130, is located in the John Ryland’s Library of Manchester, England (oldest extant fragment of the New Testament). Because of its early date and location (Egypt), some distance from the traditional place of composition (Asia Minor), this portion of the Gospel of John tends to confirm the traditional date of the composition of the Gospel about the end of the 1st century (38).

All manuscripts we have today of ancient writings or documents are copies of copies; therefore, trying to disprove the validity of the New Testament with the argument it is not the original text is disqualified (Hamilton). In comparison to most ancient writings, the New Testament is easily considered the best attested in terms of the number of copies and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it (McDowell, New Evidence 38). For example, Homer’s Iliad was composed in 800 B.C., but the earliest copy found was in 400 B.C. and there are only 643 copies. That is a 400-year gap! The New Testament was composed between the years A.D. 50-100 and fragments were found in A.D. 114. Books were found in A.D. 200, most of the New Testament was discovered in A.D. 250, and finally the complete New Testament was revealed in A.D. 325. On top of that glorious information, there are 5,366 copies (38)! Knowing this, there is no reason why someone cannot believe or at least consider the authenticity of the New Testament. Also, there is proof the authors of the New Testament wrote from close encounters with the main character, Jesus. “The writers of the New Testament wrote as eyewitnesses or from firsthand information” (51). An example of this is Luke 1:1-3:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you and orderly account, most excellent Theophilus (51).

McDowell quotes F. F. Bruce, who said,

The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of…first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and time again. “We are witnesses of these things,” was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.

And it was not only eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which could at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, on the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, “We are witnesses of these things,” but also, “As you yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective (51-52).

Next, I will uncover evidence for why one should accept the facts Jesus of Nazareth truly walked upon the Earth. This argument tends to be easy to prove because so many secular sources outside of the Bible reference the man who Christians call Christ (Hamilton). The excerpt known as the “Testimonium of Josephus,” which comes out of book 18 of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities is enough to prove this point. Josephus was a Jewish scholar captured by the Romans during the first Jewish revolt against Rome. He was made mediator and interpreter for the Romans during the remainder of the revolt. Two of his writings are The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. A portion of the “Testimonium of Josephus” reads, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ…” (McDowell, New Evidence 125). Other writers such as Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus mention this man, Christ, in their writings. Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived from A.D. 55-120, wrote during the reign of Nero concerning Christ. “…the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also” (120-121). Tacitus’ misspelling of Christ, “Christus,” was a common error made by pagan writers of the time (120).

The claim was made by Jesus that He was the promised Messiah. Claiming to be the Son of God or Messiah was considered blasphemy in the Jewish religious system and punishable by death, hence why Jesus was ultimately crucified. Jesus often referred back to the Old Testament prophecies about Himself when hinting to his followers about who He was. Luke 24: 27 reads, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Also, Luke 24:44 declares, “Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled’” (McDowell, Carpenter 97). McDowell says, “the Old Testament contains sixty major messianic prophecies and approximately 270 ramifications that were fulfilled in one person, Jesus Christ. It is helpful to look at all these predictions fulfilled in Christ as his ‘address.’ Let me explain. You have probably never realized the importance of your own name and address, yet these details set you apart from more than six billion other people who also inhabit this planet” (98). “Certainly God was writing an address in history that only his Messiah could fulfill. Approximately forty men have claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. But only one, Jesus Christ, appealed to fulfilled prophecy to substantiate his claims, and only his credentials back up those claims” (99).

Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate for the crime of blasphemy brought on Him by the Jews. The two main groups of Jewish leaders at the time were the Pharisees and Sadducees. On views concerning the Messiah, these two groups were not on the same page but came together when they had a common problem, Jesus Christ. They also had different purposes when it came to governing their Jews (Hamilton). The Pharisees believed the reason the Jews were under oppression by the Romans was because God would not send the promised Messiah until they were worthy enough.  In accomplishing their worthiness, the Pharisees used violent methods for the Jews to strive for purity amongst other people. Therefore, there was such hatred and strife between the Jews and Gentiles throughout history and the Bible. When Jesus came on the scene, He began to break down these barriers the Pharisees had set between the Jews and other people groups. Jesus ministered and dwelt amongst tax collectors, prostitutes, and criminals. In the eyes of the Pharisees, this was completely absurd and totally broke down all boundaries they had worked so hard to set between “God’s people” and others (Hamilton). The Sadducees, on the other hand, were more concerned with staying in good graces with their oppressors at the time, the Romans. The Romans did not care or were not concerned with who the Jews worshipped unless it conflicted with political rule. The promised Messiah did exactly that. The Messiah for the Jews was the one who the Jews believed was going to come and set them free from their oppressors. This in turn threatened the political rule of the Romans and threatened the well-being of the Jews under their rule. During Passover, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey as the Jews surrounded him and called Him “Messiah,” “Hosanna,” the “Christ.” These names carried meaning far more than we credit them with today, which is why the authorities felt threatened. This caused the Pharisees and Sadducees to come together to take down a common enemy (Hamilton). Book 18 of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities reads, “He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and named from him are not extinct at this day” (Hamilton).

With Josephus being a Jew himself, when he writes “us,” he is referencing other Jews (Hamilton). Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived from A.D. 55-120, wrote during the reign of Nero concerning Christ,

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also .

McDowell, New Evidence 120-121

Also, inspired by another Roman Historian Suetonius, McDowell writes, “Assuming Jesus was crucified in the early thirties, Suetonius, no friend of Christianity, places Christians in the imperial city less than twenty years later, and he reports that they were suffering and dying for their conviction that Jesus Christ had really lived, died, and risen from the dead” (122).

Proving the death of Christ is not something debated upon because of the gruesome medical analysis of a Roman crucifixion. The crucifixion process consisted of a flogging or scourging and then the nailing to the cross. Flogging or scourging was done while one was stripped of clothes. The person would be beaten with a leather whip that had pieces of broken bones and iron balls on the end of the whip before being hung on the cross. The victim subjected to the cross would be flogged within inches of his life. The Jews would only allow forty strikes from the whip to the victim. This confirms the account from the Gospels Jesus obtained thirty-nine strikes during his flogging. At this point in the process, the victim could easily die from blood loss or shock from the pain. In the case of Jesus, He did not. After this, the victim had to carry his cross to the venue where he would be hung. Once he reached the chosen spot, he was nailed to the cross near the top of his wrists and feet. The most common cause of death was suffocation. This was because the body weight of the victim was being pulled down by gravity making it hard to breathe. To exhale, the victim would have to push up from his feet, which caused excruciating pain. Eventually, the victim would give up and die. If it took too long for the person to die, the Roman guard would break the knees of the victim so he would suffocate faster (Gidley). This was not done with Jesus because He was already dead after six hours of being on the cross.  But to confirm His death, they pierced Him in the side of His abdomen with a spear. The Babylonian Talmud reads,

It has been taught: On the eye of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): “He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.” But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eye of Passover (King).

Another version of this says, “Yeshu of Nazarene.” “Yeshu” is Greek for “Jesus” and “Nazarene” makes further connection to Jesus Christ. Also the “hanged” is a reference to crucifixion. Luke 23:39 reads, “One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, ‘Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!’” (McDowell, New Evidence 123-124).

The final part to prove of the resolution concerning Jesus’ resurrection is the most difficult to prove, but nonetheless, it has been done. First off, a whole religion took off from this man Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah. The thing that made Jesus significantly different from all the other claimed Messiahs was His resurrection. The other twelve “Messiah Movements” before and after Him dissipated after their deaths, but Jesus’ movement took off because of His incredible death and resurrection. To discredit the resurrection, one would have to come up with an explanation for why the tomb came up empty. The tomb was empty because Christianity would not have been validated if the body had been in the tomb for people to see the disciples were lying; therefore, this “Jesus” would have been just another fake. The Talmud proclaims the disciples stole the body, but that can be easily disproved. When people die for faith, this means they genuinely believe what they believe is absolute truth. For the disciples to steal the body knowing Jesus was not resurrected but all end up dying for his sake would be idiotic (Hamilton). The appearances are also confirmation of how we know Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus appears to the disciples, James (his step brother), the apostle Paul, and 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-7). People try to disprove the appearances by saying they made it up or they had hallucinations (Hamilton). First of all, hallucinations are sourced from previous events or thoughts. If none of these people ever thought or considered a resurrection or a picture of the way his new body looked, how then could they give such vivid accounts and descriptions of how he looked? Also there is no way so many people who were not associated with each other could have had the same hallucination. Then there is the whole theory they made it up. This can be disproved with the fact Paul, who saw Jesus, was actually an enemy of Christians previous to his so-called “hallucination.” He persecuted them on a regular basis. But after his encounter with Christ, he became one of the greatest people of the faith and wrote the majority of the New Testament (Hamilton). As stated above, in the “Testimonium of Josephus” Josephus wrote, “For he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him” (McDowell, New Evidence 125).

As a Christian, writing this essay has not only increased my faith in what I believe to be true but also has given me the ability to witness to nonbelievers with a better knowledge of what it is I am striving to convince them. The evidence provided above is clear and adequately affirms the resolution Jesus of Nazareth (called Christ) was executed by order of the Roman Governor (Pontius Pilate), was buried, then was resurrected and appeared in bodily form to His followers.

Believers with questions of any faith should always desire or seek out truth for what they believe. If one is to travel upon this journey and comes out on the other end less convinced, he must consider his faith. Thankfully in my case, I gained a deeper understanding and love for the great attention God put into helping people who desire to know Christianity is valid.


Works Cited

Gidley, Robert. The Facts of Crucifixion. The Cross Reading. n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.

Hamilton, Seraphim. Summit Christian Academy, Yorktown. 9, 11 Dec. 2013. Lecture.

King, Kevin. The Hanging of Yeshu. Rabbinic Literature. n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2014.

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999. Print.

—. More Than a Carpenter. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 1977. Print.