Last week I was thrilled to talk with Jian Ghomeshi, host of The Q on Canadian radio, about the career, influence, and legacy of James Gandolfini.
We had a brief, but fun and lively conversation about the legendary actor. It is available for listening at the Q’s website on the 6/21 podcast. My segment begins around the 12 minute mark.
Jian Ghomeshi is a sharp host and he runs an entertaining and stimulating show. I was honored to receive his warm welcome to the airwaves.
It is tough to measure the void left by the loss of greatness. The hole grows wider especially when one considers that an important inquiry Americans must work to answer is whether or not America still has the infrastructure to support the production of greatness.
Few works of art have touched my life with the punch and staying power of The Sopranos. I’ve made my way through the DVDs several times, and those who know me, have often accused me of having an obsession with the iconic television program.
Writers are people of many obsessions. Our obsessions are often what drive us to spend so much time living in our own heads, and to spend so much time alone in quiet rooms working hard to release what we find while living there.
Although I did not know the man, and my heart goes out most to those who did, I was shocked and saddened by the death of James Gandolfini. His legendary, game changing, and ground breaking performance as Tony Soprano changed the way I thought about storytelling, American art, and American culture.
I was thrilled and honored to pay tribute to James Gandolfini, focusing on his role as Soprano, but also mentioning some of his other great performances in film, for The Atlantic. In my essay I argue that Tony Soprano was the Marlon Brando of television. He changed the medium forever, and he did so by bringing uncanny and unmatched depth and complexity to the small screen.
He was also one of the few remaining American actors who could authentically represent the working class in his performances. I hope that everyone will read my essay, and revisit the challenging, brilliant, and entertaining work of James Gandolfini.
Last week, the Indianapolis Star ran my column on the tyranny of political correctness. Norman Mailer might have put it best when he said, “I detest political correctness. It is the enemy. There are many enemies, but they all come under the one rubric of one person telling another person how to think.”
It is not with the words of Mailer that I begin my column, but with the words of another artistic genius and free speech warrior – George Carlin. The hilarious and rebellious provocateur explained that in his life he had witnessed a shirt in which the biggest threat to free speech went from the hysterics of the right wing to the PC policing of the left wing.
As I make clear in the column, those who still value free thought, robust conversation, and flirtation should prepare for a battle, because the Department of Justice recently issued a new policy to all colleges that receive federal funding to hideously restrict the exercise of free speech.
Read about the policy and my indictment of it at the Indianapolis Star.
Every summer in Chicago, police, residents, and reporters expect hundreds of murders to occur in the city. Headlines of drive by shootings that leave a corpses curbside are routine. For the first time, lawmakers are proposing a plan for the destruction of street gangs in Chicago.
Illinois Senators Durbin and Rich have crossed party lines to collaboratively secure $30 million in federal money to fund the use of racketeering laws against street gangs. For too long, evil and empty-headed thugs have terrorized the streets of poor neighborhoods – intimidating law abiding people into silence, holding children hostage to their pathetic turf wars, and driving middle class people away.
Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois responded to the smart idea with race baiting demagoguery. He called federal targeting of all gang members for arrest an “elitist, white boy” solution, and insisted that what gang members really need is “jobs and education.”
In my new article for The Atlantic – “Senator Durbin’s and Kirk’s ‘Elitist, White Boy’ Plan to Fight Gangs is Right” – I celebrate the Senators for their bipartisan aggression in the attack of a serious scourge on our society.
I also show how the disingenuous “jobs and education” lament undermines, disrespects, and insults all of the murderous gang members’ victims – the decent, law abiding and working poor who inhabit their “territory.”
Readers here have probably noticed that I’ve been writing political commentary regularly for the Indianapolis Star. I am happy to report that I have now joined the staff as a columnist. My column will appear once every two weeks. I’ll be writing tough essays on politics with a spirit of aggression. I’ll post all articles here. Stay tuned.
I’m generally supportive of alcohol and tobacco. Even those that are not, however, might want consider the insights into politics and economics that the history of alcohol in America provides.
The transformation of the beer industry, for example, shows that governmental regulation often creates a monopoly supportive of big business, while deregulation and limited government empowers entrepreneurs, encourages cultural variety, and improves options for consumers. Needless to say, reality is opposite of the poison most pundits and politicians brew every day.
In my new article for the Indianapolis Star – “Craft Beer Shows Why Americans Should Toast Deregulation” – I take readers through the colorful history of beer in America, and I end with a toast to President Jimmy Carter, who was most responsible for the deregulation of the beer industry, and a tribute to small government.
Before Carter deregulated the beer industry, there were 73 breweries in the United States. Right now, there are 2, 416. Consider all the tax revenue, jobs, and beer America would lack if proponents of big government interference in small business won the debate. For more on the history, and for the truth behind the numbers, read the full article.
This is the first installment of a new feature on DavidMasciotra.com. Once every couple of weeks, I will post the content of an email I receive from an angry reader and write a brief response. Enjoy a look at the friendly correspondences I receive as part of my profession and trade.
Angry Reader #1 (In reply to “…Nanny State Attack on Freedom, Personal Choice”)
::Unaddressed::
Your awkward use of the term “socially inept” is what caught my eye. Are those who dislike people huddling around the entrances of public buildings puffing on smokes the socially inept? Are those who find it discomforting and bothersome to watch people who can’t eat a meal, have a drink, take a break, drive a car, or do anything for that matter, without lighting up a cigarette? Are they socially inept because they don’t want their clothing smelling like smoke, because they find the littering of butts filthy, or because they don’t accept the compulsive, addictive habit of smoking as socially acceptable?
Most importantly, you are talking about a school, an institution of higher learning (even if it is just Ball State). And as such, schools have an additional responsibility to those who attend. Schools have an additional responsibility to care for the health an well-being of those students who attend.
Freedom and independence are not the only values of a college education. Structure, discipline, responsibility, thoughtfulness, creativity, learning how to learn, health, hygiene, respect, etiquette, and many other qualities are just as important. Learning good skills and habits, making good choices should be encouraged.
College is a transitional time. It is not a free for all. It should provide a balance between a structured environment, and the freedom to make one’s own decisions.
Those who teach should be held to a higher standard, too. Just because class is over, doesn’t mean Professor Masciotra needs to rush out of the building to light up that ever relaxing cigarette, or pour that much needed glass of scotch.
::Unsigned::
Dear Angry Reader,
The term “socially inept” came in a juxtaposition with the term “politically correct.” It was a tongue-in-cheek remark castigating the politically correct for their uptightness, lack of humor, and love for phony outrage that makes them socially irksome. The joke isn’t hilarious, but it is clear enough to anyone but the comically inept.
You might want to reorient the priorities of your life. Stop spending so much time watching smokers, especially if the sight of them lighting up infuriates you. The next time you see someone smoking, just look away. It really isn’t necessary for you to stop what you are doing and stare in silence, while your blood pressure rises and head begins to ache. Do yourself a favor and leave smokers alone. That’s one of the privileges of living in a free society. You can stay away from people engaging in behavior that bothers you. Similarly, why are you allowing the compulsions of strangers to upset you? If you’re only worry involves the addictions of people you hardly know, I envy you.
If my phrase “socially inept” caught your eye, then you gave yourself away with the phrase, “even if it is just Ball State.” I’m not sure if you received an Ivy League education or you just like to pretend as if you received one, but the next time you write an angry letter to a columnist who condemns the arrogance of “enlightened” elite, try not to expose your own snobbery. I have enough respect for students and employees at higher educational institutions – even ones like Ball State, and God forbid, junior colleges – to believe they should have the right to make their own decisions. When you insult an entire college, especially one that claims John R. Seffrin, the CEO of the American Cancer Society, Jeffrey D. Feltman – former ambassador to Lebanon, and David Letterman as graduates – you position yourself in the argument with the subtle tyrants who believe they are smarter than most people and can, therefore, impose their lifestyle choices on the masses.
The rest of your rhetoric is vague and bizarre. Sure, colleges should encourage their students to make good choices, but at what cost? You do realize that those students – all of whom are legally adults – are paying tens of thousands of dollars to attend classes. It would be more productive for the institutions of higher learning – even Ball State – to focus on providing the best and most cost efficient education possible for students, rather than policing the legal behavior of its students and employees. Brady Hoke – head coach of football at the University of Michigan, John Schattner – founder and CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, and Jim Davis – the cartoonist creator of Garfield, all seem unharmed by the presence of smokers at their alma mater, which by the way, is Ball State University.
I don’t drink scotch. I drink bourbon.
Cordially,
David Masciotra
I’ve hated the nanny state since Illinois passed its indoor smoking ban in 2007. I wrote a column in the (Joliet) Herald News condemning the oppressive move as an infringement on freedom, personal responsibility and choice, and private property rights.
Since then, several more states has passed smoking bans, many cities and counties have passed transfat bans, Las Vegas and Orlando have criminalized feeding the homeless outdoors, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel has mandated that Chicago vending machines include “healthy snakes.” Marijuana and narcotics remain illegal, and there are many proposals in New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere to expand restrictions on the consumptive and dietary habits of law abiding citizens.
In my new column for the Indianapolis Star, I write about the subtle tyranny of the nanny state, and I express contempt for “self-appointed school masters who satisfy their puny visions of grandeur by interfering in the lives of tax paying, free thinking adults, and believe those adults are too stupid to determine their own priorities and preferences.”
How, when, and why did liberals become the scolds? The same generation that took LSD, freely fucked in the mud, and played air guitar with Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock now lecture people for smoking Marlboros, eating doughnuts, and using plastic bags. Worse, they’ve raised generations of younger people who have the same bizarre insistence on interjecting their own pathetic dogmas into the lives of those in their neighborhoods and cities.
As my new article makes clear, anyone who believes these so called “minor” violations are unworthy of our attention are in for a rude awakening. The “enlightened” elite have an agenda, and it includes forcing the unwashed masses into compliance with their lifestyle.
Those of us who prefer to be left alone should make that preference clear. That’s what my new essay is about.
Mark Sanford won a special election for Congress in South Carolina this week after many pundits and politicians believed his career was over due to his irresponsible actions as governor. He left the state for six days to win the affection of an Argentinian journalist with whom he had fallen in love and exchanged emails for over a year. He left his wife and risked his political career in making the trip, and said that he did so, because “he could die knowing that he found his soul mate.” Sanford and the journalist are currently engaged.
I am not sure if it is politically good that Sanford now has a seat in Congress. I don’t really care. Culturally, however, it is very good.
American culture needs examples of romantic bravery and, instead of punishing those who risk everything for love, we should respond with empathy and even measured respect.
I make this argument in my new essay for The Atlantic – “Mark Sanford, Romantic Hero.” It is sad and unfortunate that Sanford hurt his wife and children, but those who understand and appreciate the power of love realize that it is a mysterious and frightening directive. It can inspire beauty, cruelty, and a combination of both. As the Rev. Al Green sings, “Love and happiness / It’ll make you do right / Make you do wrong.”
In the essay, I contextualize the Sanford affair by placing it smack dab in the middle of an American culture committed to denying the power of love – “Sanford’s display of romantic bravery that rivals the depiction of the mysterious directive in tragedies and epics is rare in politics. In fact, it is rare in American culture where more and more people prefer to play it safe. Hooking up, online dating, and resistance to the traditional date are simply ways of disguising a guardedness that betrays a fear of love. Real love will make people behave like Sanford, and that is frightening. As essayist Cristina Nehring points out, American culture offers the twin gods of ‘meaningless sex’ and ‘meaningless marriage’ in order to quiet such fear.”
Life is a complicated affair and those who live it on the emotional edges run the risk of creating messy and hurtful situations. To look at the general response to the Sanford affair, however – and the comment section of my article gives a good illustration – is to believe that everyone has lives that are neat, clean, and never marked by the foibles of love and lust. Human affection and intimacy are good, they have value in themselves, and they deserve honor and respect. Sometimes, they win the day, and in the process, leave a path of wreckage, but that wreckage is easier to manage than the quiet death of ignoring the dictates of the heart and the truth of the imagination.
Read the entire essay to learn how I separate Sanford from Clinton, Craig, Spitzer, and other public officials disgraced by sex scandal, and to learn how I would cast the romantic comedy inspired by Sanford’s story.
Liberals are obsessed with condoms. They are convinced that teenagers, adult couples, and gay men don’t use condoms because they don’t have sufficient “knowledge and awareness,” and they believe that the Catholic Church is primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, because of its stupid policy of preaching against condoms.
In my new essay for The Atlantic – “Why Still So Few Use Condoms” – I take on these myths, and I acknowledge the politically incorrect truth, logic, and reality that most people don’t like or use condoms because they significantly rob sexuality of pleasure, intimacy, and spontaneity.
I also write about how the unlikely and unholy alliance of Planned Parenthood and the religious right have convinced generations of Americans that something they invented call “precum” can impregnate women, despite a mountain of evidence proving that the opposite is true.
It was possible for me to write about all of this, because of the necessary, noble, and heroic work of Bill Gates, who after finding that in Africa most people don’t use condoms because of the pleasure factor, he has offered a $100,000 grant to anyone who can present credibly demonstrate that they are developing a condom that will “enhance pleasure.”
I begin my essay with a few quotes from the mighty Norman Mailer who put it best when telling Madonna, of all people, that “the only thing you can depend on with condoms is that they will take 20 to 50 percent off your fuck.”
David Masciotra 