There she is again. That girl that you really like. That one you have such a good rapport with, that you see every day in Libe Café when she orders an iced skim vanilla latte (this is me putting a mundane, over-ordered drink by the majority of female café customers to make a random reader think that I am writing this article solely about them … or am I?) or that you share your text message joke-of-the-day with every week at your Cornell Cheese Club Exec Board Meeting.

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.

The Faculty Senate will vote today on a measure to support or discourage the University from leasing land to private drilling companies in search of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. We urge the senate to vote against this leasing and drilling.

While natural gas produces far fewer amounts of pollutants than any other fossil fuel, the risks involved in its extraction are, as of now, far too dangerous. Before the University leases any land for drilling, stringent safety measures must be implemented to ensure that the social, economic and environmental impacts are minimal.

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.

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.

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.

Slowing faculty hiring was a common suggestion mentioned throughout the academic task force report summaries as a method for cutting costs. That combined with attrition, however, will make it increasingly more difficult for Cornell to maintain competitive hiring practices. We fear that such an approach will threaten he viability of academic departments across the University. That said, we were intrigued by a mention made by the the College of Engineering summary regarding the prospect of instituting a post-tenure review process — something, if implemented cautiously, could do good for the University.

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.

Provost Kent Fuchs is conspicuously tearing off layers of the Big Red Tape that engulf Day Hall and we applaud him for his work. The decision to make public the 20 reports from the academic task forces was mission-critical for the process of “Reimagining Cornell.” It beseeches the University community to play a more active role in a truly academic debate about the future of cuts, where those who speak out will have facts and figures to support their cause as opposed to mere speculation.