And so what if he was? Not all Republicans are rabid Rush Limbaugh types.

You mean the talkers who were too lazy to register to vote and collected unemployment , until after they became rich and famous?

Who cares?

Lennon may or may not have been a Republican, although I strongly doubt it. What's not in dispute is that Seaman was and is a liar, a cheat, a crook, a thief, a scoundrel, etc., barely one step above Mark David Chapman.

As if the political leanings of a dead rock artisit had any signifigance, on any level.

J Edgar Hoover, among others, would disagree:
http://lennonfbifiles.com/

Well, when he was alive, yeah.  I meant "have" (as in presently and currently dead), not "had".  Man, I totally screwed that up. 

The lyrics to Imagine have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with an imagined utopia.

Or, less cynically, an exercise in framing the context of our beliefs. Orwell defined politics as the "Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after." 

I don't think there was anything cynical in what I said.  Orwell also warned us of a large, invasive government, but that hasn't stopped anyone from trying to make it happen.

________________________________

Orwell strongly identified himself as a Democratic Socialist. Having read every word he's ever written I can say with some authority that he was not warning us about nationalized health care, or social security, or environmental regulations, or even raising the tax rate on millionaires from 35% to 39%. I don't believe he was "warning" us about anything. But he was disgusted by thoughtlessness and apathy.

Did I say anything about those things you mentioned?  Nope.  I said he warned us, whether you believe 1984 to be a warning or not, of large, invasive governments.  It would have been nice if he had warned us that Social Security would fail.  We could have avoided a lot of headaches.  But according to the Democrats (you brought them up), we can throw money at everything and it will work better, especially rich people's money, even though rich people are the most giving philanthropists on the planet, usually giving money to private charities because they know the money will get to where it's supposed to instead of being tied up in government bureaucracy.  

________________________________

Large? Absolutely false. Nothing in Orwell's writing criticizes the "size" of government, however you define that. And "invasiveness" wasn't entirely the point, either -- and again, I suspect your definition of "invasiveness" would differ greatly from his. The point was rather about holding power for power's sake, and a morally obtuse disregard for the citizenry.

The point was also about the dangers of subscribing to false propaganda. Social Security has not failed, and will not come even close to failing in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime. There will be a 30% solvency gap decades from now that is easily fixed through a variety of methods.

But there I go -- the John Lennon in me is dreaming again.

Ok.  You're obviously going to make assumptions no matter what, so I'll leave you to that.  You have no idea whether Orwell and I would see eye-to-eye or not, but (my turn to make an assumption) I'm sure you believe that you and he are best buddies. Assuming what an author means, especially when that author has long since left this mortal coil, is just as dangerous as assuming you know everything.  Also, if Orwell was not against the size of the government or its invasiveness (I coined a word to fit my needs, sue me), why was he a DEMOCRATIC socialist?  They believe in decentralizing government, or breaking it into SMALLER pieces thereby decreasing its power (invasiveness) over the people. Or do you want to debate semantics too?

One last thing, the Social Security system is indeed in danger of failing in our lifetimes if it is not overhauled.  But we can continue to dream.  

________________________________