Replies

The bottom line is that John Lennon was not all that bright and certainly was not very well educated.

He did have artistic talent as he was a very clever lyricist and wrote some excellent tunes. This cannot be denied and I love a lot of the tunes he came up with.

But I've learned over the years that this means next to nothing when it comes to understanding the issues of the day. In this regard, he was no better at understanding these complex issues than the average plummer or hair stylist (no disrespect meant to those jobs).

My anger is directed at those in the press who put the microphone in his face and tried to use him for their own political reasons. In the mid 1950s when Elvis came onto the scene, nobody cared about his political leanings (if he had any) except to know he was a patroit in that he didn't complain about being drafted. But withing 10 years there was this change in American society. All of a sudden, those in the media began to think it was important that the political views of celebrities should be made public and that it was significant. This is a disturbing trend that hasn't stopped since this time. We have seen Buffoons elected to the governorship of California and the senate from Minnesota simply based on this trend. It's a very negative thing.

In the mid 1950s when Elvis came onto the scene, nobody cared about his political leanings (if he had any)

All I remember is that in 1967 or '68, he was a George Wallace man. Maybe that caused a fuss in the music business, and some press agent or manager had him record the sentimental, implicitly liberal "In the Ghetto" as damage control. Just my hypothesis.

>>The bottom line is that John Lennon was not all that bright and certainly was not very well educated. <<

You couldn’t have posted a more inaccurate statement. John Lennon was an extremely intelligent and articulate man, and all you have to do is read his writings or hear his interviews to ascertain that.

Wow. What planet have YOU been on?