Bold Contemplations

Today's fast-paced world filled with instant gratification often leads to short attention spans and poor communication and listening skills.

How well do you absorb information and follow directions?

Take this fun test to find out!

How far did you get on your first try?

Please stop the hypocrisy. Lawmakers have taken away our freedom of choice in many areas, supposedly in efforts to preserve the good of the common welfare. We can't ride in a car without a seat belt. We can't eat trans-fats. We can't partake in recreational drugs. However, they have consistently back peddled regarding cigarettes. What's worse? French fries with lunch or 2 packs a day?

R.J. Reynold's recent press announcing a new line of cigarettes meant to attract more women smokers to the Camel brand really annoyed me. Why are such blatant dangers to public health allowed such public press and advertising? The legality of promoting such a lethal drug makes no sense. If I don't wear a seat belt, I am the only person who will suffer the potential consequences. However, lighting-up indirectly affects me as well as all those around me.

Obviously, the answer to my questions is money. But how can those who directly and indirectly profit from the sale and advertising of cigarettes not consider their gains to be blood money? How can one morally choose financial gain by knowingly abetting a deadly addiction? I don't think I would be able to sleep at night if it was me.

I am so tired of hearing news stories about public figures who commit some stereotypical faux-paux and, upon a few weeks of "rehab," are cured of their "ailment."

You know what I am talking about: Isaiah Washington of Grey's Anatomy who began "counseling" after using a homophobic slur to refer to his co-star. Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, who is entering "alcohol counseling" after having an affair with his aide's wife. Or, most recently, Ted Haggard who is now "completely heterosexual" after three weeks of "intense counseling."

Give me a break. As far as I am concerned, these marketing tactics are extremely disrespectful to the American public. Is the public really so gullible as to believe that these characters have changed lifelong values and beliefs after three weeks? It seems so. However, sadly, these figures are simply telling the public what they want to hear, not confronting their demons.

Why is it so easy for these public figures to fall back into grace? Most of us wouldn't tolerate such excuses and naivety in our personal lives, so why do we tolerate it from our leaders and public figures?

The manipulation has to stop. Take the blinders off.

How well do you think you know those that are closet you? Would you be surprised if they kept a dark secret of which you had no knowledge? I often contemplate how well we can really know another person, let alone how well we can predict our own behavior when presented with unfamiliar circumstances.

For some reason I was really struck by the bizarre story of the woman who found a mummified baby boy wrapped in 1957 newspapers upon cleaning out a storage locker filled with the belonging of her deceased parents. The remains were found in a suitcase and were extremely well preserved due to the moisture absorption properties of the newspaper. DNA tests are being conducted to see if the baby is the woman's relative.

I can't imagine what the woman felt when she discovered the remains. Can you imagine the questions that she has? How frustrating it must be that her questions may never be answered given that both her parents have passed away. Moreover, was the inability to part with the boy an immense act of love? Or something less noble?

I consider myself to be pretty open minded and objective, but I have to admit that I found this story to be a bit out there. An Israeli family has won a court battle that will enable them to use their deceased son's sperm to impregnate a woman he never met. Their son was a soldier, killed in duty, that was single at the time of his death. Two hours after he died, his parents had the hospital remove a sperm sample from his body. The man did not leave a will, but his parents argued in court that their son desired to have a family. Now that the court has granted the parents access to the boy's sperm, they can select a woman to be the surrogate mother of their grandchild.

I can't say that I agree with the court's decision, especially if I hadn't left a will. If I died before I had the chance to have children and before I had the chance to meet the person I would like to have children with, I would not approve of my parents taking it upon themselves to pass on my DNA. What rights do families have when trying to carry on bloodlines? Who has the right to make decisions about the use of your DNA?

Do you think that the grandparent's motives are purely selfish? Are they trying to replace their son by having a grandchild? Is that fair to the child? Who will care for the child once the grandparents cannot?