As of late I have really enjoyed the Pretenders' song "My City Was Gone." I watched them play it on their induction to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I looked up the lyrics, and as I read them, I almost laughed/cried at how applicable they were to Buffalo. I decided to make a few changes and make the song about Buffalo. Here is my adapted version followed by the original:

Buffalo Version:
I went back to Buffalo
But my city was gone
There was no train station
There was no downtown
The zoo had disappeared
All my favorite places
My city had been pulled down
Reduced to parking spaces
A, o, way to go Buffalo

Well I went back to Buffalo
But my family was gone
I stood on the back porch
There was nobody home
I was stunned and amazed
My childhood memories
Slowly swirled past
Like the wind through the trees
A, o, oh way to go Buffalo

I went back to Buffalo
But my pretty countryside
Had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride
The parks of Buffalo
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And muzak filled the air
From West Seneca to Niagara Falls
Said, a, o, oh way to go Buffalo


Original Version:
I went back to ohio
But my city was gone
There was no train station
There was no downtown
South howard had disappeared
All my favorite places
My city had been pulled down
Reduced to parking spaces
A, o, way to go ohio

Well I went back to ohio
But my family was gone
I stood on the back porch
There was nobody home
I was stunned and amazed
My childhood memories
Slowly swirled past
Like the wind through the trees
A, o, oh way to go ohio

I went back to ohio
But my pretty countryside
Had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride
The farms of ohio
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And muzak filled the air
From seneca to cuyahoga falls
Said, a, o, oh way to go ohio

Here is an article from the March 7th issue of time. I could not agree more with the author. I believe (and have for a while) that the abortion debate is ridiculous. Noone is proabortion. Rather than fight to make abortion legal or illegal, why don't both sides fight to make it unneccessary.

-Jesse

Time Magazine
March 7, 2005

The Case for Compromise on Abortion;
How the pro-choice side is wielding a new principle that's tough to argue with

Andrew Sullivan

Something very unusual is happening to some Democrats and pro-choice abortion activists. They're getting smarter about their strategy. For years, they've harped on and on about a woman's right to choose, while failing to capture in any meaningful way the moral qualms so many of us have about abortion itself. So they often seemed strident, ideological and morally obtuse. They talked about abortion as if it were as morally trivial as a tooth extraction--not a profound moral choice that no woman would ever want to make if she could avoid it.

But that obtuseness seems--finally and mercifully--to be changing. Senator Hillary Clinton led the way in a recent speech to abortion-rights activists. She said something so obvious and so right it's amazing it has taken this long for it to be uttered: whatever side you're on in the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, we surely all want to lower the number of abortions. Whether you believe that an abortion is a difficult medical procedure for a woman or whether, like me, you believe that all abortions are an immoral taking of human life, we can all agree on a third principle: we would be better off with fewer of them. And the happy truth is, abortions have been declining in numbers. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control, since 1990 the number of reported legal abortions dropped from 1.4 million a year to 853,000 in 2001. The number of abortions for every 1,000 live births dropped from 344 to 246.

How did this happen? No one is quite sure. It could be related to less access to abortion providers, but more likely it is a function of declining teenage pregnancies, more widespread use of contraception, abstinence programs and cultural shifts toward sexual restraint among young women. None of these strategies separately is a panacea, but each has a part to play. So what's the new pro-choice line? Let's keep up the progress. Let's defend the right to an abortion while doing all we can to ensure that fewer and fewer women exercise it. Leave the contentious issue of Roe v. Wade for one minute, quit the ideological bickering about when life begins for a while, take down the barricades, and craft a strategy that assumes abortion will be legal for the foreseeable future, but try to reduce it.

Both sides have something to contribute. Sure, we should fund abstinence programs, as many pro-lifers argue. They can work for some women. But so too does expanded access to contraception. The pro-life Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, has a bill called the Prevention First Act that would expand access to birth control. Or you can focus on expanding adoption as an alternative to abortion (which means adoption by gays as well as straights). NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League, actually took out an ad in the conservative Weekly Standard last month, appealing to pro-life groups to join in the antiabortion crusade--not by making it illegal but by increasing access to contraception.

What's the downside? I cannot see any. Both sides can still fight to keep abortion legal or illegal. But both can also work hard to reduce the moral and human toll of abortion itself. Why shouldn't a future Democratic candidate commit to an actual goal of reducing abortions nationally by, say, one-fifth in a four-year term? Alas, the pro-life side is leery. A key part of their coalition is made up of conservative Catholics who oppose any kind of birth-control devices; others are hostile to any adoption rights for gay couples. Still others may fear that if the number of abortions drops significantly, their argument for making it completely illegal may become less salient.

But none of those arguments makes sense on its own terms. If abortion really is the evil that pro-lifers believe it is, they should stop at nothing to reduce its prevalence--now. Is it really better that someone should have an abortion rather than be on the pill? Is it really preferable for an unborn life to be snuffed out than to allow him to have loving gay parents? Those are the questions that pro-choicers should be posing to pro-lifers. Saving human life is the priority. Why are you so reluctant to do it? Call this position the pro-choice, pro-life compromise. If Democrats want to regain credibility on moral issues, it's a great way to start. And if Republicans want to prevent abortions rather than use the issue as a political tool, they can get on board. We have nothing to lose but trauma and pain and politics and death. And we have something far more precious to gain: life itself.

The truth comes out. I am apparently not really a Republican.

On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Liberal (23).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Centrist (45)

Damn you Sam Hoyt!!!

[inlink]mike,317[/inlink]
Mike,
When I come home in may we can awkwardly hang out at spot with Yosepha everyday, if that works for you, and a good time will be had by all.
-Jesse

Ok, so I know I should be doing research and stop slacking but I had to post this.

The other week was the election for our student government. As a big nerd, I am involved in student government so I pay attention to these types of things. After the regular election for president, we have a runoff if no one candidate can get 40% of the vote. I made this post on who I am supporting in the runoff and why on a website www.nakedvoting.com devoted to our student government's elections (I'm not the only nerd at my school). Here is the post and the link to it

"Coming into this election, I thought I knew who I was going to vote for for president. I had worked with one of the candidates before and I found him to be someone who was a good person and cared about the students of AU. He had my vote in the bag.

"Unfortunately, as the campaign progressed, his campaign kept doing things that left a bad taste in my mouth. He kept coming out with statements that seemed like pandering. He would bash the administration in order to get votes without examining the issue and not realizing that if he was elected, he would have to work with them. His statements trashing of the administration could severly handicap him when he actually had to sit down with them and advocate for the students. He was quick to blame Ben Ladner [our University's President] for anything and everything, even if he had little actual influence over the decision.

"He also sought to take political advantage of the elimination of the tennis and golf teams. While I do strongly believe that all of the presidential candidates should follow Polson's [our current student government president] lead and fight for a student voice on the issue, he was trying to use it for political gain. This is a big issue and should not be used to play political games.

"The final straw for me was at the GA [our student legislative body of which I am a part] meeting on Sunday. During the discussion of tennis and golf, everyone was allow to go around and say their piece, which he did. But as the Speaker called for the Assembly to stand at ease to allow the tennis and golf teams and their supporters to leave, he insisted on standing up to showboat. He went on a tirade against Ladner in which he insisted on marching down to the President's office from which he would not leave until he "got an audience" with Ladner. Never mind the fact that it was Sunday and Ladner was not in his office and would not be until at least until monday. That didn't matter. He saw potential voters and said what they wanted to hear even though it was just talk. I do not know if he ever even went down to Ladner's office (I had to stay at the meeting). But it wasn't even about that, it was about showing off and talking big even though it meant nothing.

"I have no doubt in my mind that this candidate is a good person at heart. But his willingness to pander and listen to political handlers, even though it may hurt his administration, makes me question what kind of president he would be.

"In the regular election, I voted for James Gardner. In the runoff, I will be supporting Kyle Taylor and I encourage you to do the same."

Our student paper did not mention any of the showboating in their next issue (Mon), though they reported extensively on the GA meeting and the tennis and golf team elimination. I made that post the day after the Monday issue came out, and in the next issue (Thursday), they made the following endorsement on their editorial page

"In last week's Student Government presidential election, Joe Gallina and Kyle Taylor both won about 30 percent of the vote, necessitating a run-off election between the two for Thursday. Though our endorsed candidate, James Gardner, did not earn enough votes to be part of the run-off, we will follow Gardner's lead and pass on our endorsement to Taylor in the run-off.

"As noted in our Feb. 24 endorsement editorial, Taylor very nearly won our endorsement outright. As we said then, we feel Taylor is enthusiastic and organized, and has done a stellar job in his previous Student Confederation roles of vice president and Eagle Nights director. Taylor has great ideas on improving basic campus services. He is capable and well-prepared to be SG president.

"Though Gallina has a strong personality and a willingness to fight for students, we fear he may be too antagonistic and confrontational toward AU administration to be productive. Just as important, we feel Gallina does not have nearly as clear a plan for the office as Taylor does.

" Gallina has been running posters referencing AU's decision to cut the tennis and golf programs, with an implication that he could or will do something about it. This ad campaign seems almost exploitative of current campus sentiment against the cuts. Even if he were SG president when the decision came down, there's precious little he could have actually done about the cuts. At Sunday's General Assembly meeting, Gallina's grandstanding about marching to President Benjamin Ladner's office came across as the political rhetoric devoid of any real answers. (Ladner in office on a Sunday? Please.)

"Students must remember that even if they voted in this past week's elections, their votes for president won't count in the run-off. Both candidates start with zero votes. Regardless of whom you supported in last week's election, or even if you didn't vote, Thursday's election is a chance to use your voice on how you want to be represented. Voting runs from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Thursday in Mary Graydon Center 120."
When I read that I started cracking up. I wonder if they read the message boards on the election. I just wish they would have cited me. :-p Either way my candidate won handily.

Ok, I will stop slacking.
-Jesse