I don't like Yoko's singing--sounds like a beached whale screaming for help--but I applaud her for protecting the memory of her husband like she does. I agree that using this particular song makes it seem like John Lennon would have approved of the movie's message, which I highly doubt. I hope she wins the suit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in this case I am behind her 100%. I think if this case gets publicity, it will bring the issue of "intelligent design" to the attention of people who have, perhaps, been unaware of this cock-eyed idea. People who have seen Ben Stein only in "Ferris Bueller's Day Out" or as a sometime commentator on CBS's Sunday Morning may not realize what a backwards concept he is supporting here, believing him to be more intellectually competent than his rôle in this film reveals. I suspect there are many liberals and agnostics/atheists who might not have read any articles or prerelease publicity about "Expelled" and for whom the inclusion of Ms. Ono's name would be the point that would pique their interest. Only when we shine a light into the corners of dark and unenlightened thinking can we dispel this sort of delusionary BS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If anyone would know the rules on fair use, Ben Stein should. I haven't seen the film, don't plan to, but it would have to be a miniscule snippet, I'd think. Ironic,since one line of Imagine goes "no religion, too." Is he trying to get publicity by baiting her?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have only read a review of this idiotic film - and that took up more of my time than the film would be worth.

I have a fair recollection of the song 'Imagine' - though it's been a while since I've heard it. Looked up the lyrics, just to be sure I hadn't fogotten anything.

How the heck did they fit that song into that film?

Tell me it isn't the phrase 'no religion' that they use to show that they are being 'persecuted' by an atheistic, religion-hating, Darwinistic left that won't give them 'equal time' in science classes.

Isn't 'intelligent design' touted by these fanatics as science - not religion? (Yeah, I already know: the illogic of their arguments knows no bounds.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

he should know better. Obviously, he shares the corrupt situational ethics of the shrubya/neocon rabble: easier to take the heat than to ask permission.

As for Yoko, I chuckled at the comparison of her so-called singing to a beached whale in a previous post. I always likened it to a nanny goat. Her "art" is just too avant to garde. But I give her complete credit for scrupulously protecting all things John Lennon.

I hope she gets to "Take ALL of Ben Stein's Money". She'll donate it to a liberal cause of which John would have approved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I also know that due to misogyny and racism, she is already one of the most reviled figures in musical history, and her very name is used as an insult against any uppity woman who feels that she is an equal to her boyfriend/husband's friends."

Misogyny and racism are the reasons she's "...one of the most reviled figures..." in musical history? While that might be true, I kind of doubt that they're the only reasons.

Right or wrong, she was/is still blamed for coming between John and the rest of the band. And yes, I know that much has been said and written about the subject. But some people won't let go of that grudge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

for most of my life. On a trip tp London in 1967 at age 15, I read an article about her and her work in the International Times. My mother was appalled by the newspaper, ripped it in half and consigned it to the trash, but I fished it out and taped it back together. Yoko's vision and rampant creativity fascinated me... I was a young girl who had NO idea that a woman could live and think like that!
She was/is a fabulous role model, one of my small cadre of wonderful Goddesses, including Molly Ivins, Helen Thomas.....
Hope she skins that worthless cynic Stein.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do so many viewers feel the need to prefice their comments by stating their opinion of Yoko as a musical artist in some derogatory way when the issue here is John's music? Over the years I have bought all of Yoko's solo albums and then gleaned my favorite songs onto one very enjoyable collection. Whenever I hear someone make these crude and uninformed comments on her I give them a copy of my compilation and they soon come back with a newfound respect for Yoko the musical artist. Be informed, don't base your opinion on some musical clip you may have seen 40 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm glad to hear she didn't "sell out", (not that I thought she had), and that she's not just rolling over and letting the powerful patriarchs desecrate Lennon's sacred music.  His words were meant for enlightenment and empowerment of the People, not for entrapment into arbitrary, dysfunctional, misogynist paradigms. Good luck, Yoko! I'm behind you 100%!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pious lackwits conversing when they didn't think you were listening? Their conversations are almost always devoid of anything resembling the use of critical analysis or factual knowlege, and practically never the result of original thought, but repetitions of some claptrap somebody else said. I heard two twits describing anyone not in complete agreement with their non-thought as pagans. It was obvious that neither of them knew the meaning of that word. It would've been amusing to hear their opinions on John Lennon's "Imagine", since the words "NO religion too" are part of that song. He was probably a pagan too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YOUR ALL WRONG !........YOKO ONO SOUNDS LIKE COUSIN IT ON THE ADAMS FAMILY !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bravo, Carla for defending a wonderful artist and humanitarian (and pacifist)...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go Yoko, bark that Stein fucker down! Bite 'im in the neck and make 'im bleed!

I take back all the fun-making I ever poked at ya, girl. Today you're my hero!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know I'm really setting myself up for a royal flaming here, but a few things must be said:

This country, & one would assume Progressives, are supposed to be about the rights guaranteed by our forefathers. We're supposed to defend those who are attacked because of anything that makes them different. We even call them 'hate crimes'. But attacking ANYONE who believes in a higher power seems to be Open Season now; it's not only allowed, it's encouraged! Gee, I could swear that one of our constitutional rights & founding issues of this country was freedom of religion - no matter what religion or even lack thereof!

But now those who believe in God, whichever God, are deemed as idiots & fools. Odd, because MOST of the people on this planet DO believe in some kind of higher power. And as I mentioned before, THAT was one of the most important issues in the birth of America, from the Pilgrims to the Constitution & the Bill Of Rights.

Back to this movie (NOT made by 'Right-wing propagandists', btw): it's clear that most of those posting here, & perhaps Cara herself, never even saw the film. And yet the opinions against it are strong & unwavering. This kind of hypocrisy is no different than when right wing religious nuts picket films like "Last Temptation Of Christ" when none of them even saw it. And they too, were WRONG!

This film, which I liked a lot more than I thought I would, is NOT taken from some hysterical, right wing zealot stance, but rather from an intelligent, thought provoking position that merely asks WHY those who even propose 'intelligent design' are shouted down, dismissed, & ridiculed the same way that the Neo-Cons have dealt with anyone who disagrees with THEIR views. It asks why scientists are not even allowed to consider ALL possibilities on this issue the same way they are on every other subject. That's pretty much the whole context! The filmakers are not trying to promote the Christian Right (Stein's Jewish) or any other religion in particular. They are merely asking 'why the double standard?'.

OK, like Michael Moore, Stein goes off on some unrelated tangents like the Holocaust. But he DOES show the undeniable statistic that more & more scientists are comdemned & shunned for even entertaining the idea of intelligent design vs Darwinism. It also makes cohesive points of showing some huge gaps of logic in Darwin's theory, like his 150 year old concept of a single cell being eons away from what we now know it to be. But again, the film's main purpose is NOT to prove the existence of God, but merely to point out the hypocrisy of dismissing one 'theory' over another based on little more than an agenda. I thought we were supposed to be against that sort of thinking...

I even unerstand why those against religion feel the way they do. Have many of those of faith squandered 'good will' with judgemental words & actions throughout history? UNDENIABLE! Christians in particular have stepped in it time & time again, acting in ways completely opposite to their faith's namesake.

It also strikes me as odd that the 5 second quoting of Lennon's song is used in support of those who believe in Darwin's theory, & yet it's inclusion promotes ridicule. Legally yes, he should have asked permission first as with any other song, but that's clearly not how it's done these days (remember the Neo-Con's misuse of a Springsteen song?) I mean, the song's copyrights still pay & all. I think a lot of Ono's objection is a making a mountain of a molehill, but I'll always support an author's right to use their own creations as they seem fit.

Remember, it's called "Darwin's Theory" for a reason: like intelligent design, it has not been PROVEN. We shouldn't blindly jump on a bandwagon merely because it supports our agenda. So I invite all to see the movie & process the info. Then make up your OWN mind - no matter who or what made it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]