While the health care plan that passed in the House on Saturday elicited mass celebration amongst advocates of health care reform, for a largely voiceless group of Americans — namely, low-income women — this historic bill hardly signifies a “courageous vote,” as President Obama suggests.

You can picture it, I’m sure: It is 2 a.m. My body is a tightly coiled slinky of stresserosity, ready to go springing out of my house, roll down the hill and into Beebe Lake. My hair is a frizzy mess, my eyeballs are bugging out at all sides and I have a Jason Segel-sized bowl of soymilk and entire box of Life cereal (think: Forgetting Sarah Marshall), two cooling cups of coffee, a beer and a pack of cigarettes in front of me. I am a crazed person. I qualify for a straightjacket.

I have a paper due.

Quick quiz: Whom are we fighting in Afghanistan? If you say “the Taliban,” you’re only giving the easy answer. What exactly is “the Taliban?” Who comprises it? What are its motives, its goals?

Most people would say that the Taliban is a hardened group of “terrorists,” an extremist group of murderers bent on destroying freedom and eliminating the West. This view is understandable — it’s all anyone hears from the politicos and pundits, who, in their laughably narrow debate over the war (has anyone in power seriously advocated immediate withdrawal?), paint “the enemy” in broad strokes and leave little doubt that we’re engaged in a conflict of ideas.

Most students don’t give a damn about Cornell’s Code of Academic Integrity. That is, until I see them shaking uncontrollably, sobbing hysterically, scared that one mistake or misunderstanding has ruined the academic record they have worked so hard to build. I have sat on the Academic Integrity Hearing Board of the College (AIHB) of Arts and Sciences for two years — the group which hears appeals of all violations of academic integrity in Arts and Sciences courses. I have seen how students’ legal and moral rights have been violated by a few professors who should know better. I have witnessed how the ambiguities in Cornell’s Code of Academic Integrity have caused leaders around campus, straight-A students, and most often, students who never had any intention to cheat to be convicted of violations of academic integrity. Our code is deeply flawed — its inconsistent application leads to excessively harsh punishments for some, none for others, and injustice for all Cornellians.

So I was going to write another kitschy column about how I’ve morphed into a frat bro. It was going to be pretty great, too, replete with mid-’90’s hip-hop references and copious use of the phrases “legit,” “bro” and “yo.” But I am experiencing a brief bout of self-righteousness, so please excuse this foray into the semiserious. Don’t worry: Next time I will return to talking about myself.

As the health care debate nears its climax, it’s only natural to look ahead to the next big political showdown in D.C. — energy reform. It’s an issue with far reaching environmental implications, and one that contemporary society seems hard-pressed to tackle head-on.

Whatever legislation emerges from the Senate, it’s a good bet it will be watered down and ineffectual, owing to the ubiquity of the energy lobby in our nation’s capital. Which begs the question: What can realistically be done to combat the growing carbon specter? Distinguished University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt wondered as much himself, and set out to get some answers.

It’s difficult to glean any concrete predictions from the task force reports. I applaud the administration for this surprisingly high level of transparency during this process, but some of the ideas being tossed around in the summaries of the reports unsettled my stomach. In Cornell's effort to rapidly streamline our university, I fear we may lose some of the unique programs that make me so proud to be a Cornellian.

The Sun has spilled much ink on the Student Assembly’s decision to reduce Cornell Cinema’s part of the Student Activity Fee and the subsequent affirmation of that decision on appeal. The issue has ruffled feathers, and I want to give readers my idea of how it all played out.

The strongest aspect of the coverage is that after reporting the story, The Sun’s pages served as a forum for people on both sides of the issue to be heard. The weakest, however, is that the news coverage — and even some of The Sun’s own editorial product — was somewhat underreported, missing important facts that could have provided better context.

Look to your left. Now look to your right. If all three of you are reading this article and just looked at each other, give yourselves high-fives.

Haha. Yeah. Also, three of you will live in a shitty apartment next year. Possibly together.

Inmates have a unique perspective on the criminal justice system. Those I know have been in prison for a long time — some have been in since they were sixteen and one I met entered the prison system in 1985 and will not get out until 2030. All have learned to cope with oppressive architecture, consistent isolation and arbitrary rules. Most have also committed heinous crimes and serious prison infractions. Many speak of political and legal power in near-conspiratorial tones, convinced anonymous moneyed interests — “them” — hold onto power regardless of superficial changes in the power structure. Nearly all seem to feel that the system has failed them.