How many of us enjoy receiving mail? I know I do. It’s one thing to get an e-mail or a text, but when someone takes the time to send you a letter it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Last week I received a banana in the mail. It wasn’t in a box, it was just a banana. My friend wrote my address and put the stamps on the skin of the banana. It was even postmarked.

I got a text from her asking me to check my mail box. I opened my mail box and was extremely confused.

When I asked her why she sent me a banana she said she wanted to see if they would send it.

The moral of my story is to send more mail. It’s important to make people feel loved and will take the time to go out of your way to send them something special. 

It doesn’t have to be a letter; it can be a banana or a pineapple. Just something to let them know you’re thinking about them.

During their freshman and sophomore years of high school, many students simply daydream about their careers. The future seems far away, so the teenagers feel at ease with running a variety of careers through their minds, occasionally considering a few jobs as serious possibilities.

However, when students enter junior year, these carefree daydreams turn into a frantic game to determine one of the most important decisions a young adult will ever make – which college to attend that will not only suit the student’s intended major but cost as little as possible. At this point, the students not only will research a college’s atmosphere, majors, and dorms, but what kind of scholarships are available.

Scholarships are lifelines for many incoming college freshmen who are in dire need of financial aid. They can be the deciding factor in whether some students will be able to attend not only a certain college, but any college.

In a world where financial aid for college is at least partially needed in most households, scholarships seem like the perfect solution to give hard-working students a chance to pursue their interests and develop successful careers. But where should the line be drawn over what certain qualifications a student must possess in order to receive help financially for college?

Organizations such as The Imagine Fund are offering scholarship money to students based upon uncontrollable factors or a specific religious faith supported by the youth. The official website of The Imagine Fund has clearly stated its view: “Students of color, of diverse ethnicity, religion and national origin, women, LGBT students, and students with disabilities who are currently enrolled or interested in attending college are eligible to apply [for scholarships].”

The Imagine Fund defends these character biases through the belief that the only way students will grow to respect different races, cultures, and beliefs is if diversity is present in the classroom. This is true, but where is the line drawn over what specific races, ethnicities, and religions receive financial aid?

It seems as if scholarships are present for every single race except Caucasian. The other races are deemed minorities, and are granted attention and aid from organizations determined to level out the apparently unfair playing field.

It seems like now, in the 21st century, society has gone to great lengths to equalize opportunities for all races, and has been successful. Still, as far as scholarships go, whites are largely excluded; a Caucasian-only scholarship would be considered “racist,” even though scholarships granted only to African-Americans or women are considered generous and philanthropic.

That’s not to say Caucasian-only scholarships should exist. Scholarships highlighting certain races may be intended to prevent segregation of races and promote equality, but by purposely pointing out minorities and differences in ethnicities and races, how will the cause for equality ever advance?

Many women would be offended by receiving scholarships simply because they are female. They would rather be rewarded for intelligence or skill than for characteristics they cannot control.

The goal of universities should be unifying all people, regardless of differences, be it a darker shade of skin, a gender, or height. Instead of granting compensation to minorities, all cultures and beliefs should be treated equally, and scholarships should be based on equality and respect.

I’m currently a sophomore in high school, but I’ve known what I have wanted to do for a living since the sixth grade; I’ve known that I wanted to become a librarian, what I would need to become one, and even what colleges I would like to attend.

Not everyone is like this; I know many people that have no idea what they want to do, let alone how they would go about doing it. That’s okay, though. I’m not judging these people; I think it’s perfectly fine not to know what you want to do with the rest of your life.

But, at some point in high school, you need to start really thinking about it. We won’t be in high school forever.

We are going to leave our parents’ houses and go live in our own. It’s up to us whether we are successful or not. But you have to know what you are going to do to be successful.

It doesn’t always “click” right away with people. You might not know exactly what you want to do with your life. That’s what high school is here for, in my opinion.

High school lets you learn and experience new things. It lets you discover what truly interests you and what you’re really good at.

So, I say don’t be worried if you don’t know what you want to do. Take your time and let yourself experience life.

Sooner or later you will discover what it is that you want to do for the rest of your life. And then you’ll want to look at colleges and programs. You’ll be excited to do so because you know that that is what you want to do for the rest of your life.

The house is made of steel and took about 10 weeks to build.  It has two roofs, and there is no chance of termites or water damage.  The carbon footprint is 95 percent less than that of its wood neighbors, and the power saved while building it could light a 70-watt lightbulb for 15 years.  Instead of melting down the containers when they are no longer needed, they are put into structures made for families.  Not only are these houses extremely efficient, they are incredibly durable and safe.  A house made of steel sounds ugly, but SG Blocks, one company that builds these green houses, can put brick, stucco, or anything else on top of the metal exterior of the boxes. 

So many shipping containers are found lying useless in the United States that hundreds of neighborhoods could me made from them.  Why don’t people see the benefit?  These homes are actually cheaper to build than most other family homes.  They need barely any maintenance.  Container homes offer superb protection against severe weather.  Yet only some extremely green families choose to build their home from containers. 

Office buildings have been built around the world out of these materials, yet most homeowners insist on going the traditional course with wood homes.  Wood that can be infested by termites.  Wood that used to be living forests.  I wonder if it is just that people refuse to care about the environment or if they simply aren’t aware of the choices they have when building a home.  

Hopefully, within the next 10 or 20 years, more buildings will be built not of resources that are quickly being depleted but of materials we have sitting taking up space.

The question involoves national laws of both the Unites States and Brazil and international law. The answer is not based the law or what is legal; it is based on morality. Should a boy live with a man who has no blood relation to him or his biological father whose son was abducted from him.

Goldman obviously has the right of custody to his son. He has done nothing wrong and just wants to play, laugh and spend time with his own son. However, Sean needs to be considered as well and what is best for him. He has been raised by his stepdad for the past four years. He has lived in Brazil and become part of his community. He also has a new sister. He may not want to leave Brazil. But isn’t that the reaction when any kid finds out that he or she might be moving out of his or her home?

Nobody wants to leave the place they have been living for the past four years. Kids don’t want to leave their school and their friends. But when they do move, they make new friends and get used to the new school and community. So despite the fact that Sean might be reluctant to move to New Jersey with his true father, it would be the same as if his whole family were moving as well. The boy should be with his true father, both for the son and Goldman.

Some argue that it would be wrong to take him away from his stepdad despite him having no blood relation. The boy has been raised by him. Let’s say a boy is kidnapped by a stranger for several years. He is raised by the stranger and the boy is told that he is the boy’s father. Then the boy is found by his true father. What these same people are saying is that this boy should stay with the stranger because that is who has raised him.

So you can kidnap a kid and keep them long enough they become yours. That just doesn’t seem to make sense to me. What about the father’s right to his son. Is that totally discarded. He is the creator of the child; the boy belongs to him. It is only right for a boy to live with his true father unless there are valid reasons not to such as child abuse.

However, there are no such reasons in this case. Goldman is a worthy father who deserves to have his abducted son returned to him. The mother is dead and, however tragic, no longer creates an argument that she also deserves custody. Goldman is Sean’s only real parent left who deserves custody. Forget the legalities of it all and look at the morals. There should be no reason why a boy’s true, deserving father should be prevented from raising his own son.

Personally, I would never, no matter what, attack someone because of their beliefs, race, gender, or sexual orientation. It’s petty and unfortunate that when someone is different, they get punished because of it. No one should have to go through that, no matter what. No matter how different her or she may be. It makes me think.

What if the anti-Semitics who attacked the museum had been in the place of the Jews they ultimately dishonored. How would they feel if someone attacked a commemoration to their family and people. Chances are they wouldn’t be happy.

While some people may view the fact that it was an 88-year-old man who committed this crime as a recognition that the Holocaust is so far in our past and doesn’t need to be remembered or honored, they are wrong. This old man may have been stuck in his ways and his beliefs, but this just shows that attention should still be given to the tragedies of our past.

Hopefully in the future, something this shocking won’t have to happen. Our school systems need to take the initiative to educate their students, to try to extinguish all prejudices and bias from their hearts and minds. The sooner younger children are taught to accept, not disregard, different people, the sooner our society, and ultimately our world can begin to change for the better.

But like many of Obama’s other plans, this idea is still flawed. The government plan could help the uninsured get coverage, but the quality would be poor. Look at the other “businesses” that the government has run: the U.S. Postal Service, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others. All have poor track records. Don’t expect the government to do a better job with selling and providing health insurance.

But there’s another issue. Most Americans like their insurance provided by their employers. If the government plan is introduced as it is, it would undercut the prices of insurance companies. Employers would surely jump at the government plan, eventually driving insurers out of business. Once this happens, it would be a nightmare. With a sizeable portion of Americans on the government plan, the government would hold a monopoly over health insurance, and could jack up prices as they pleased.

This monoply would also make government-run health care easier. In almost every country in which this has happened, the results have been disasterous. The cost of healthcare is ridiculous and draining; Obama’s plan would cost at least $1 trillion to implement. And quality, has been forsaken, as there are waiting lists stretching on for months, which rarely (if ever) happens now. People have died waiting for treatment in these waiting lists.

Some say that this won’t happen, that no one wants government-run health care. Obama didn’t want to take over GM or the banks either, but now he controls much of both. He also stated that he didn’t want big government, but the size of government has expanded faster than ever. Based on what I have seen from Obama, the administration will surely seize any chance to control health care.

I might be slightly paranoid, but I still find this plan troubling. The government insurance plan is a good start, but there’s too much potential for abuse. If it is implemented, then there must be strong oversight, and should be limited to uninsured. Otherwise, the catastrophic ripple effect will occur.

Still, total coverage alone won’t cure the system. The rules of Medicare and Medicaid need to be revised, as do certain regulations on doctors. More importantly, there needs to be tort reform. Doctors pay out thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance, and frivilous lawsuits both drive up prices and put doctors out of business, which hurts everyone. Tort reform would take much of the expense out of medicine, as doctors would not have to charge so much to pay for malpractice.

So even though the current health care plan has potential, the administration needs to be extremely careful with it. It’s a slippery slope if they get it wrong, and even if they get it right, there are other things they need to do to keep costs down.

With this victory, has the Swiss Federer earned the title of the greatest tennis player of all time?

The fact that the defending French Open champion had not made it to the final sours the argument. Rafael Nadal, who defeated Federer in three of the last four French Open Finals, had been eliminated by Soderling in a five-set match earlier in the tournament. With a losing record against Nadal at 7-13 in previous meetings, many wonder if Federer would have won the match had he been playing Nadal.

One of Federer’s challengers for the title of the greatest in the sport is Australian Rodney Laver. Although he merely won 11 Grand Slam finals, he completed an unbelievable task. He won all four majors over the course of one year, a task that took Federer more than six years. That isn’t even the best part. Laver completed this single-year feat not only once but twice in his career.

People are also losing sight of other great players of the past, including Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker and Sampras, who never even won a final at the French Open. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, but does that stop people from considering him one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game of football?

Being considered a great player isn’t always about who can win every major. The character of the player should also be considered. Federer seems to be lacking little in this department. In a sport where the average match lasts more than three hours, when it seems like the match is going to be kept to a mere three sets, the crowd usually rallies and cheers for the losing player in order to drain as much tennis as possible out of the players. However, on Sunday this was not the case. During the final, the crowd never faltered in their support for the Swiss, from the moment he walked onto the court for warm up until he served the match point in the third set.

During the presentation of the trophy, Federer did the impossible. He gained even more support from the Paris crowd when he gave his acceptance speech in not only English but French, as well. Even his defeated competitor, Soderling, spoke highly of Federer, joking that he was the only man who could beat him 10 times in a row.

Federer has undoubtedly earned the consideration for the greatest tennis player of all time. However, with Roger Federer turning 28 this year in August, he hopes to continue playing well into his thirties. With that in mind, it may be wise for people to leave it merely a consideration until he retires from the sport.

The scientists at IntelliGender say that they have isolated a set of hormones that with a special combination of chemicals reacts and shows the gender.  Of course, the test isn’t completely accurate.  It is only 78 to 80 percent accurate, and Intelligender strongly reccomends to not make any emotional or financial changes before the results are confirmed by a doctor. 

But if this test isn’t accurate, and only requires another test to be certain, then what is the point?  It only causes greater stress and uncertainty while the parents wait for the final word.  Also, some parents, so desperate for a certain gender, may choose to terminate the pregnancy.  This could happen, and then the parents could find out that the child they killed before it was born was in fact the gender they wished it to be.  It is not a pressing issue in America, as most parents are overjoyed no matter what the gender is.  However in other countries, it is considered bad to have too many girls or too many boys.  Especially in countries where the number of children is limited, parents may yield to the temptation of gender selection.  Fortunately, the company strictly refuses to sell to India or China.

So far, since the company began selling in 2006, more than 50,000 tests have been sold online in the United States.  Some drug store chains, such as Walgreens and CVS began selling them last month in stores.  Perhaps the easier it is to know the sex of the baby, more people will choose to know.

President Barack Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt, on June 3. Beginning with the Islamic phrase “Assalamu alaikum,” translated as “may peace be with you” and making a reference to the Koran, the president was able to connect with some of the Muslim faith who feel distant from the Western cultures and practices. Some believe that Obama may be the missing link that can connect the regions, giving his speech high praises.

While he spoke of women’s rights and the future of Guantanamo Bay, he devoted two thirds of his speech to concrete ideas and plans for the future. Although his rhetoric seemed sincere, there are those who will not accept the United States’ changes in policy until the actions are implemented. This doubt finds its roots in promises that were not kept by past presidents and leaders in the region. With the approval rating of the United States a mere 14 percent in Muslim countries, it seems unlikely that one speech can sway the 78 percent who disapprove. That percentage includes the general population as well as the extremist groups who thrive on anti-American sentiment. The violence of these extremist groups influences much of the policy in the Middle East, making it nearly impossible to make drastic changes in how the government functions without drastic changes in the outlook of democracy and the West.

So how can one speech change the outlook of an entire region? It can’t. But what Obama’s speech can do is help rally support for a change in policies which can result in progress in the Middle East. 

The main concern that could benefit from this progress is the Palestinian-Israeli situation, in which Obama decided to remain unbiased during his speech. However, many conservatives are attacking the President for this neutrality. The United States has been backing the Israelis in the conflict and many fear that the impartial approach could end those ties. This would in turn make it difficult to resolve the issue of a Palestinian homeland without the ties with the Israelis.

The question remains whether the speech in Cairo was a success or a failure? One thing is for sure: It seems that the immediate effects of the speech are successful because it has people talking which is the first step towards progress in the region.