Well, it's official. Our Lady Peace will headline Spring Fest, with Robert Randolph on the under card, which promises to be the rock 'n' roll event many on campus have clamored for after the last two fests were hip-hop driven. And that's the problem.
Rock music today, with the exception of a few national acts such as Green Day, isn't the monolithic genre of music it was when The Who, Stones, and Beatles invaded America in the early '60s. In fact, the division found in rock today makes it hard to put on music festivals along the model Lollapalooza put forth 15 years ago, which is more suited to Our Lady Peace's "alternative rock" era. Simply put, rock music now cuts across the lines of the past, and has diversified to the point where there are literally hundreds of subcategories encompassing every kind of influence imaginable.
That's why bringing a rock act to UB for the sake of balancing the fests is actually counterproductive. There aren't many rock bands with wide appeal today. SA's hands were tied, the quality rock acts available was pitifully scarce, so UB wound up with a band whose big hit, "Starseed," came out 11 years ago. The paradox is in balancing the fests musically, as many who regularly listen to rock are unhappy with Our Lady Peace's selection. They aren't a band that appeals across rock's broad spectrum like Incubus did two years ago, and certainly do not approach the popularity of recent headliners Snoop Dogg and Kanye West.
What's needed is for the current system to be eliminated. It brings weak concerts to UB. Some candidates running for SA office have proposed bringing smaller rock shows to UB with more frequency than the fests. This is a good idea that will allow SA to break away from the two-fest system that traditionally books one as hip-hop, and the other rock, for the sake of balance. Because booking bands along the lines of Our Lady Peace to appease UB's rock 'n' roll fans doesn't satisfy anyone.
Tearing down fences
Anti-immigration laws need balance between Senate and House ideas
The passionate protests erupting nationwide over the anti-immigration debate on Capitol Hill highlights the urgency of the issue. Many in Congress are pushing for laws that all but close the U.S.-Mexico border, but what's needed now is practical and humane immigration policy reform that secures immigrants' vital role in our nation, and respects the rule of the law in the process.
The House passed draconian anti-immigration measures last December that would have made "aiding" illegal immigrants a felony. What exactly constitutes "aiding" isn't clear to us, but the reclassification of illegal immigrants as criminal felons certainly was crystal. The measure also included a 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico boarder from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, dividing one third of the border in the process, along with an increased presence of border patrol agents and reformulation of deportation law.
The immigration issue is complicated, as evident by the split in the Republican Party over the issue, and needs immediate attention. It isn't going away. The massive protests made clear the frustration felt by millions who support legal recognition of undocumented workers, estimated to be in the range of 12 million in the United States.
But closing the borders isn't the answer, and building a giant wall is one of the worst ideas to ever come from Washington. Facing reality should be the No. 1 priority of any immigration bill that eventually passes. We feel the Senate Judiciary Committee's version of immigration reform is closest to what we envision. The bi-partisan bill proposes a guest worker program that paves the way for citizenship, and throws out the harsher measures championed by the House. Finding the right balance is the key, codifying law that holds illegal immigrates accountable, yet balances reality. That is what Congress needs to pursue sooner rather than later.
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
