wrote a memo dealing with Lennon’snalleged pharmaceutical habits didn’tnknow “that ‘downers’—barbiturates—nare not narcotics.” To quote the tide of anLennon song: Imagine.nThe author points out that 20,000npeople had protested during the DemocraticnConvention in Chicago in 1968,nthat 250,000 congested Washington fornthe Vietnam Mobilization, and thatn500,000 grooved at Woodstock. Givennthe facts that musical entertainmentnwasn’t a drawing card in Chicago, thatnthe Viet Mob event had aging folksingersnon its agenda, and that Woodstock hadnno “superstar” of Lennon’s caliber, itnshould be clear that the FBI would havenbeen derelict in its duty if it didn’t keepntabs on a very rich and powerful mannwho publicly favored the subversion ofnlaw. In Ann Arbor Lennon’s point wasnthat marijuana laws were not merely toonrestrictive, but criminal. During thosendays posters appeared in Ann Arbor thatnfeatured automatic rifles entwined withnstalks of cannabis. The main purpose ofnthe posters was to promote some rocknconcert or another—typically a benefitnfor a “defense fiind”—but the ulteriornmotive was there in plain sight. The violencenand deaths of those days, naturally,nare not cited in the article in question.nCertainly only a very small percentagenof those at Crisler Arena would havenconsidered firing anything more destructiventhan a water pistol, but there are alwaysnpeople around like Mark Chapman,nLennon’s slayer.nLennon is now considered by some—nincluding, apparentiy, the author oiThenNew Republic piece—to have been anprophet of peace who was crushed morenby “The System” than by a deranged fan.nThe words spoken in Ann Arbor—“sonflower power didn’t work”—belie hisnputting any oil on troubled waters. Onenpopular photo fi:om the 60’s shows anyoung woman placing a flower into thenbarrel of a rifle held by a National Guardsman.nWhat did Letmon’s comment do tonthat image? Given the death of “flowernpower” that he declared; the rallies simplynfeiscist in nature; the posters featuringn40inChronicles of Cttlturendrugs and rifles; and the appearance ofnrock bands like Ann Arbor’s MC-5,nequipped with Che-like bandoliers, it isnclear that Lennon’s effect as a role modelnfor unformed youth (Chapman reportedlynclaimed that he was Lennon ) was—nand is—^pernicious. Granted, as Lennon-nists would point out, Lennon himselfndidn’t appear with guns, and he did writenand sing a tune, “Revolution,” that includesna disclaimer about participationnin violent action. But the theater of hisnparticipation in the Arm Arbor eventnalone more than destroys any iUusion ofnhis pacifism.nIt would be both too simple and incorrectnto assume that adulation ofnLennon is merely characteristic of ThenNew Republic and its readers. Sadly, it isnmuch more pervasive. For example,nduring the same week that the issue innquestion was available, USA Today ran annumber of opinion pieces about thenFreedom of Information Act on its editorialnpage (April 27,1983). One columnnwas written by a man identified as onenwho “covers the media for GannettnNews Services.” Gannett, of course, ownsnUSA Today and a number of other newspapers.nThe columnist identifies himselfnin his first paragraph as having been “annnnanti-war student journalist in the laten1960’s at Rutgers University.” One thingncan be said for that admission: at least itnindicates that the journalist is forthrightnabout his lack of so-called journalisticnobjectivity. The man, writing on behalfnof the Freedom of Information Act,nclaims that because of the act, “hundredsnof journalists and scholars have been…nsuccessfiil in unearthing governmentndocuments, resulting in revelations ofnpublic benefit and interest.” He then listsnfour of these “revelations.” The first:n”Disclosures about the Nixon Administration’snsurveillance of the late BeatienJohn Lennon.” The New Republic goesnto a minor fi-action of the U.S. households;nUSA Today is rapidly achieving preeminencenin circulation figures among allnnewspapers in the country. And there itnis, Gatmett’s man putting John Lennonnabove the six saUors who died on thenU.S.S. Ranger (number two on the list),nand the design problems with the FordnPinto and Firestone 500 tires, andntampon-related toxic-shock syndromen(collectively number three). His finalnentry puts John Lennon in the correctncrowd, one that is not as laudable as thencolumnist implies that it is: Sacco andnVanzetti, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg,nand Alger Hiss.nPerhaps the most heinous thing thatnJohn Lennon did was to make the use ofndrugs almost de rigueur for young peoplenin America. Marijuana became sociaUynacceptable among groups of teenagersnin the 60’s; Lennon sang about “InstantnKarma” and his listeners wanted it.nMembers of Eastern religions vtho seeknkarma know that it is something thatnthey can spend their lives trying tonachieve and which may not be experienced.nAmerican teens in the 60’s andn70’s regularly led the lists of leading consumerngroups, primarily because of thendisposable income lavished upon themnby parents; the surveys tabulated onlynmoney spent on legal products, notndrugs, which would have sent totalsnsoaring. Such people wanted karmaninstantaneously; they tried to buy it innlittle plastic bags or wrapped in alumi-n