Beth H. | Indy Week

Beth H. 
Member since Jan 13, 2011


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “What it's like to be a grown man whose favorite band is three women

Have all the commenters read the entire article--not just skimmed the headline and photo?

This is a well-written and heartfelt piece, but it is poorly framed. Clearly, the author is genuinely impressed with Sleater-Kinney (and what hearing person would disagree with that?). A PIECE of his story is that his isn't the image conjured when one hears the term "Sleater-Kinney fan". Of course, few Indy readers would see this as a necessary revelation, but it's naive to think everyone out there is so enlightened.

And if you read the whole article (not just the poorly chosen, somewhat inflammatory headline), he seems to question whether Sleater-Kinney means more to female fans because they are feminist icons. Symbolically, they are something more than just skilled musicians to a lot of people (predominantly women but not just).

And this is a different theme than "Ew, I like a girl band--forgive me" which the headline implies. In my opinion, it would have been enough to read about such a loyal live concert-goer (perhaps a rarer creature today than the male fan of a female-only band). (What I would have enjoyed even more would have been an investigation into how Janet Weiss can be so criminally underrated!)

For the (few?), who actually read this article due to their interest in Sleater-Kinney, check out this excellent interview and performance on Sound Opinons:
http://www.soundopinions.org/show/489

And have fun at show!

Sincerely,
Liberal Chick

11 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Beth H. on 04/22/2015 at 12:09 AM

Re: “The Triangle's Top 10 Albums of 2012

Oh, I love the "I can't believe you didn't include ______ in your best of list" game! On one hand, it's sort of ridiculous arguing over an essentially pointless list; how can one distill all of the area's worthy and diverse output down to an objective grouping of 10? On the other hand, list making, as well as criticizing those lists, is irresistible!
So my nomination for overlooked album is Caltrop's "Ten Million Years and Eight Minutes". I can't believe I'm alone in thinking this.
I'm just glad I live in a place where it's easy for a music editor to come up with a Top 10 local album list that's hard to argue with but would be easy to add to. May I suggest a Top 15 or Top 20 next year? Or maybe a Top 10 as voted on by readers? That might be interesting to compare to the "official" list.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Beth H. on 12/13/2012 at 10:48 PM

Re: “The guide to the week's concerts

I apologize; my self-righteousness has turned to embarrassment. I'll go get my eyes checked.
Thanks for the response!

Posted by Beth H. on 07/20/2012 at 7:47 PM

Re: “The guide to the week's concerts

Dear Hearing Aid,
I know you have to squeeze all of your recommendations onto one printed page, but it would have been nice if you could have found room to mention the Valient Thorr show Friday night at Cat's Cradle.
Cutting the KISS/Motley Crue listing would have provided ample space.
Like KISS/Crue, Valient Thorr put on "a show"--a bit cartoonish maybe, but strangely earnest and endearing and certainly energetic. Even if we could travel back to a time when KISS or Motley Crue were relevant, their shows would be big and shiny but calculated. With Valient Thorr, there is actually substance.
Besides, they have impressive opening bands representing a range of locally/regionally grown heavy music.
AND . . . you could go to the Valient Thorr show and bring two friends for the price of one crummy lawn ticket at the amphitheater.
That's value, Hearing Aid! And worthy of notice.

Posted by Beth H. on 07/19/2012 at 11:21 PM

Re: “Amendment 1: Opponents make final appeal and hope the polls are wrong

Top 10 absurdities related to Amendment 1 (I.E. Why it's important to vote NO on Tuesday*):

1. WE DON'T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY. If the strongest argument for the amendment is that Jesus doesn't like gay marriage, that's not much of an argument. It's a moot point.

2. Speaking of Jesus, he never mentioned gay marriage. He does however say specifically that divorce
equals adultry. And, gee, don't both adultry and divorce denigrate the concept of marriage? But no one's proposing any amendments dealing with either of those issues. Also, see 1.

3. Similar "what would Jesus do?" arguments were used as a justification for segregation and for prohibiting interracial marriage. And most would agree now that this thinking was backward, ignorant and ridiculous. It won't be long before this current uproar will be seem for what it is-- backward, ignorant
and ridiculous. Also, see 1 (again).

4. This amendement was a top priority of a conservative General Assembly that supposedly pushes for limited government. How exactly is involving itself in the marriage decisions of individual citizens limiting its reach?

5. Is this really an issue worthy of so much attention and an AMENDMENT TO OUR STATE CONSTITUTION? Shouldn't our legislators be focused on the economy? On education? On health care? Aren't these issues more important in the lives of most individuals than whom their neighbors choose to marry?

6. How is gay marriage harmful? Just because the idea of two guys making out makes your tummy hurt, doesn't mean you've been "harmed". (Under this proposed definition the marriage of transexuals would be fine--just so long as all the important parts line up when they say "I do". So, if the idea of gay marriage bothers you, I hope the idea of transexual marriage doesn't offend you.) This preoccupation with others' sexuality should embarrass an 8th grader, let alone a voting adult.

7. If you are for this amendment, you are intolerant. If you think you have the right to make decisions for a minority because they are different, you are intolerant of their rights. So stop saying "I'm for the amendment, but I'm not intolerant." You are. And if you don't vote against it, you are complicit. And this IS a civil rights issue. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it not a civil rights issue. Members of a minority are being told what they can and can't do with their individual rights. (P.S., voting against the amendment won't make you gay.)

8. Perhaps more scary than absurd is the implication that the purpose of this amendment is to encourage propogation. So, what's next? An amendment banning the infertile from marrying? One prohibiting the marriage of those who choose not to have (or have enough) children? That may sound like a reach, but when the wife of the Senator who sponsored the amendment reportedly told poll workers that the "The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.", you have to wonder how far this intrusion in the lives of individuals will go?

9. If marriage is about the commitment of two individuals to each other, how is banning a group from participating in that institution "protecting" it? That is, homosexuality itself can't be banned. So, if two people of the same gender want to commit to each other, how does an amendment preventing that formal committment "protect" marriage? It does the opposite; it essentially forces gay couples to "shack up" as my granddaddy would say. There's no alternative.

10. If we decide as a state that it's okay for a majority to decide what this minority can do with their individual lives, why stop there? Why not ban marriage/propogation by those with handicaps or low IQs? Or limit the family size of those not of the "right" social class or race? Sound familiar? Didn't we go to war against such a regime? Isn't that why we're in a position to promote democracy around the world? Because we have it all figured out (except, I guess, when it comes to our own citizens)?

*PLEASE VOTE NO ON TUESDAY! THIS WILL BE A CLOSE CALL; YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. DOESN'T IT SAY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE THE ONLY SOUTHERN STATE WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT ALREADY? WE'RE A THOUGHTFUL STATE, AND I'M PROUD TO BE A NORTH CAROLINIAN! DON'T LET A ZEALOUS, HATEFUL MOVEMENT SPEAK FOR ALL OF US. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.

39 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Beth H. on 05/07/2012 at 2:49 PM

Re: “In final week, Opposition to Amendment 1 strengthens

Top 10 absurdities related to Amendment 1 (I.E. Why it's important to vote NO on Tuesday*):

1. WE DON'T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY. If the strongest argument for the amendment is that Jesus doesn't like gay marriage, that's not much of an argument. It's a moot point.

2. Speaking of Jesus, he never mentioned gay marriage. He does however say specifically that divorce
equals adultry. And, gee, don't both adultry and divorce denigrate the concept of marriage? But no one's proposing any amendments dealing with either of those issues. Also, see 1.

3. Similar "what would Jesus do?" arguments were used as a justification for segregation and for prohibiting interracial marriage. And most would agree now that this thinking was backward, ignorant and ridiculous. It won't be long before this current uproar will be seem for what it is-- backward, ignorant
and ridiculous. Also, see 1 (again).

4. This amendement was a top priority of a conservative General Assembly that supposedly pushes for limited government. How exactly is involving itself in the marriage decisions of individual citizens limiting its reach?

5. Is this really an issue worthy of so much attention and an AMENDMENT TO OUR STATE CONSTITUTION? Shouldn't our legislators be focused on the economy? On education? On health care? Aren't these issues more important in the lives of most individuals than whom their neighbors choose to marry?

6. How is gay marriage harmful? Just because the idea of two guys making out makes your tummy hurt, doesn't mean you've been "harmed". (Under this proposed definition the marriage of transexuals would be fine--just so long as all the important parts line up when they say "I do". So, if the idea of gay marriage bothers you, I hope the idea of transexual marriage doesn't offend you.) This preoccupation with others' sexuality should embarrass an 8th grader, let alone a voting adult.

7. If you are for this amendment, you are intolerant. If you think you have the right to make decisions for a minority because they are different, you are intolerant of their rights. So stop saying "I'm for the amendment, but I'm not intolerant." You are. And if you don't vote against it, you are complicit. And this IS a civil rights issue. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it not a civil rights issue. Members of a minority are being told what they can and can't do with their individual rights. (P.S., voting against the amendment won't make you gay.)

8. Perhaps more scary than absurd is the implication that the purpose of this amendment is to encourage propogation. So, what's next? An amendment banning the infertile from marrying? One prohibiting the marriage of those who choose not to have (or have enough) children? That may sound like a reach, but when the wife of the Senator who sponsored the amendment reportedly told poll workers that the "The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.", you have to wonder how far this intrusion in the lives of individuals will go?

9. If marriage is about the commitment of two individuals to each other, how is banning a group from participating in that institution "protecting" it? That is, homosexuality itself can't be banned. So, if two people of the same gender want to commit to each other, how does an amendment preventing that formal committment "protect" marriage? It does the opposite; it essentially forces gay couples to "shack up" as my granddaddy would say. There's no alternative.

10. If we decide as a state that it's okay for a majority to decide what this minority can do with their individual lives, why stop there? Why not ban marriage/propogation by those with handicaps or low IQs? Or limit the family size of those not of the "right" social class or race? Sound familiar? Didn't we go to war against such a regime? Isn't that why we're in a position to promote democracy around the world? Because we have it all figured out (except, I guess, when it comes to our own citizens)?

*PLEASE VOTE NO ON TUESDAY! THIS WILL BE A CLOSE CALL; YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. DOESN'T IT SAY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE THE ONLY SOUTHERN STATE WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT ALREADY? WE'RE A THOUGHTFUL STATE, AND I'M PROUD TO BE A NORTH CAROLINIAN! DON'T LET A ZEALOUS, HATEFUL MOVEMENT SPEAK FOR ALL OF US. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Beth H. on 05/06/2012 at 10:30 PM

Re: “Re: Amendment 1

Amen!

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Beth H. on 04/25/2012 at 9:10 PM

All Comments »

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2016 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation