Opening in theatres today is David Leaf’s documentary, The US vs John Lennon. The film details the evolution of John Lennon from one of rock n’ roll’s innovators as a member of the Fab Four to his emergence as political activist.

The Beatles were part of our early years, and in some ways we grew up alongside John Lennon, maturing from pop culture to social consciousness as the boomer generation that was going to change the world. John traded on his Beatle name and fame to bring attention to political and social issues.

John’s awareness of social and class distinctions in society often led to his expressing his views in humor that was at once disarming but with an undertone of cynicism and sarcasm. Performing at the Royal Variety Show in 1963, in the presence of members of British royaly, John advised the audience, “Those of you in the cheaper seats can clap your hands. The rest of you, if you’ll just rattle your jewellery.”

The film chronicles the efforts of the government to deport John, and his struggles to stay in the country. The conservative government saw him as an undesirable, his anti-war protests and music too influential. John eventually won the battle and his green card. Strangely it was not long after that John retreated from the spotlight to become a househusband and raise his son, Sean.

John re-emerged from his self-exile in 1975 to record the Double Fantasy album, but in the final irony, this proponent of peace and love again had his name and fame used, but this time it was by a madman who shot him to achieve some maniacal fantasy of legendary status of his own. John Lennon died on December 8, 1980.

So much history was crammed into his short life, so many lives changed forever by the music, the lyrics, the ideas and the tragedy. Although the murder was witnessed, the inevitable conspiracy theories arise and have fingered everyone from then president Ronald Reagan to J. Edgar Hoover (from his grave apparently) orchestrating the death of John Lennon. I think that, for those of us who remember the early days, the end is too depressing to live through again.

Over at Fox News, Lis Wiehl has written an important and thought-provoking piece on “appearance discrimination” and the double standard that still operates when it comes to men and women of a certain age.

Lis points out that men don’t worry about aging or sporting a few grey hairs and some extra pounds, even in the television industry. Women in a high-profile job, such as news anchor, are judged on everything including appearance. But studies (such as that done by New York University researchers Dalton Conley and Rebecca Glauber regarding the effects of body weight on economic outcomes) seem to indicate that, for women, appearance is linked to income in all sorts of careers.

Following the recent installation of Katie Couric as anchor of the nightly news at CBS, much of the furor involved publicity photos that were altered to make her appear thinner.

And her detractors are still deciding if this cheery blond is tough enough (read: man enough) to take the helm of a serious news program. Sharks have been snapping at everything from the color of her hair to the length of her skirt.

Wiehl points out that critics have been kinder to Meredith Viera, whom NBC has chosen to replace Couric on the “Today” show, but possibly because she is replacing another woman and not a man.

Our current laws must go a step further and protect women from discrimination as most of us eventually gain a few pounds and add a few gray hairs — and all of us age. As for Katie, I think she’ll do just fine — not because she got a new hairdo or “lost” twenty pounds, but because she’s a newswoman with character and content. And ask yourself, would we even be having this discussion if Meredith were “Murray” and Katie were “Ken?”

A Big Fat Double Standard - Lis Wiehl

A recent survey conducted by Harris Interactive asked 2000 married men and women ages 40 - 70 what was most important in a relationship - health, money or sex. Not surprisingly, sex won with 84%. But half of those who rated sex as the most important aspect of the relationship said they were unsatisfied with their own intimate physical and emotional relationships.

I say it is not surprising because if one stops to consider the survey question and the possible choices, it is only natural that most respondents chose sex. Why?

Because what they really wanted to choose was compatibility and friendship, communication and intimacy. But they weren’t given that choice, so they chose the one aspect of a relationship that employs those things.

It is in this way that surveys and statistics can be arranged to say pretty much anything the survey-taker wants them to. I doubt it would have mattered much if the respondents had answered money or health. Those would make sensational headlines too. “Baby Boomers More Interested in Money than Intimacy”, or how about “Baby Boomers Lose Interest When Spouses Fall Ill”?

Financial woes can put a great strain on a relationship as can ill-health. But they don’t destroy strong relationships where an intimacy of a deeper nature exists. Neither do sexual issues. Men and women both want deeper and more satisfying physical and emotional intimacy, according to the survey. The problem is that the survey lumps all intimacy under the word “sex” and concludes that sex is the most important aspect of a relationship to baby boomers.

I guess you would have to say - I disagree.

Key To Boomer Relationship? - Burlington Free Press