sicks’ stadium

interesting little history jaunt.
stan stapp column idea #4662.
jimi hendrix sees elvis perform in seattle…
hmm, sounds promising.

Picture 2

On September 1, 1957, however, one of those Garfield students made a connection with Elvis Presley. That evening in Sicks’ Seattle Stadium, the black rhythm and blues music that inspired Elvis was passed through him to a young African-American who would carry rock’s banner through the following decade.

Fourteen-year-old Jimi Hendrix could not afford to buy a ticket, so with others he watched Elvis perform from a hill overlooking Sicks’ Stadium on the east side. Though he could barely see Elvis, Hendrix saw the excitement as the 16,000 in the stadium reacted to Presley taking the stage. He heard Elvis sing his hit songs, and as the singer launched into his “Hound Dog” finale, Hendrix clapped his hands and stomped his feet on the hillside.

As Presley exited the stadium in the backseat of a white Cadillac, Jimi got his closest look at the rock ’n’ roll star as the car drove by on the street below him. Two months after the concert, Hendrix acknowledged the effect it had on him by drawing a picture of Elvis in his notebook. Around the image of the guitar-playing Presley, Jimi wrote the titles of a dozen of the singer’s hit records.

In 1970 Jimi Hendrix, by then arguably the world’s most famous guitar player, performed in concert at Sicks’ Seattle Stadium, just as Elvis had done thirteen years earlier. By the time he died of a drug overdose later that year, however, Sicks’ Stadium had been torn down. Still, the two-hundred-car funeral procession that accompanied Hendrix to Greenwood Memorial Cemetery in Renton, south of Seattle, passed by the former stadium site where both he and Presley had performed. It was a sad but vivid reminder of the fluidity of American rock music as it passed through giants from one generation to the next.

Inciting the Civilized People

The connection between the Islamist insurgents in Mali torching medieval manuscripts and the Taliban in Afghanistan demolishing the Buddhas of Bamiyan couldn’t be more obvious.  Now that Afghanistan has become America’s longest running war, it is worth reflecting on what leads “civilized” nations to decide it is worth the lives of citizens and treasure to fight wars.  The Buddhas of Bamiyan were undoubtedly helpful in convincing your average peace loving citizen that the Taliban were different and that all out war was an appropriate reaction.  Eleven years later, lonley bloggers try to raise consciousness about drones bombing “high value targets” at wedding parties, and about the cost to society of injured soldiers, but they are not heeded.  Let the Buddhas of Bamiyan remind us that people with a certain type of education, who are normally peace loving, can become incensed at the loss of cultural relics and documents, and that this is also the best time for war hawks to manipulate them and get them on board for a bloody affair.

onion rings

“As you can see, the question of what object a mentally ill person uses to harm another human being is not the issue, but rather a distraction designed to curtail the American people’s constitutionally protected right to bear firearms,” said the National Rifle Association vice president as he stabbed an innocent bystander in the chest with an 8-foot whaling harpoon in order to, reportedly, illustrate a thesis of sorts.

it’s worth it to follow the link just to see the illustration…

what level?

the question that keeps popping up in my head:

what amount of firepower do the gun people think they should be allowed to buy?
rocket launchers?
flamethrowers?
napalm?
and if they reach a level of weapon that they believe should be banned, then what is their logic? why would they think that the max has been reached? if the fight is only about what is the maximum firepower that citizens can have, then it should be easier to win the argument in favor of some gun control.
either that, or i get to keep my tank and i can drive it through any city i please…

peaceful tribe

In the current rhetorical climate people seem not to want to say: I think guns are kind of scary and don’t want to be around them. Yes, plenty of people have them and use them safely. And I have no problem with that. But remember, handguns especially are designed to kill people. You may want to use it to threaten or deter. You may use it to kill people who should be killed (i.e., in self-defense). But handguns are designed to kill people. They’re not designed to hunt. You may use it to shoot at the range. But they’re designed to kill people quickly and efficiently.

this hit me hard when i read it.

i do not want to be around guns either.
it just seems like a smart aversion.

guns do not have rights.
but people do have the right to be safe.

no-one hunts with an assault rifle,
no-one needs ten bullets to kill a deer…