Tag Archives: David Masciotra

New Essay for The American Conservative: Rock for Republicans? How the GOP Misunderstands John Mellencamp’s Heartland Ethic

Posted on by

A few months ago, the editors of The American Conservative flattered me with an invitation to write an essay on the the career and politics of John Mellencamp, and consider why so many Republican politicians play his songs at campaign rallies, when he is a liberal.

The essay – “Rock for Republicans? How the GOP Misunderstands John Mellencamp’s Heartland Ethic” – appears in the newest issue of The American Conservative, which has a focus on localism.

Mellencamp writes what he calls “plainspoken” lyrics. There is no other songwriter who moves me to think, feel, and reflect deeply on my life and my community more than Mellencamp. As I attempt to explain in the new essay, his politics, however, are complicated. There is no doubt that he is a leftist, but “his is a community-based leftism that distrusts bureaucracy and hates paternalism, yet believes in social assistance for the poor, sick, and hungry, the widows and orphans that the Bible identifies. Mellencamp inhabits common ground with libertarians on social issues, and he is a consistent opponent of war and foreign intervention, but he does not believe that an unfettered free market will solve every social problem.”

mellencampcigaretteMellencamp’s firebrand version of antiwar, left populism is exactly what is currently missing from the ivy league, elitist, and impotent liberalism of the mainstream media, the Democratic party, and the sanitized neighborhoods of lefty chic where people believe the world’s biggest problems are plastic bags, inadequately sized bicycle paths, and indoor smoking.

Next year the University Press of Kentucky will publish my book All That We Learned About Living: The Art and Legacy of John Mellencamp. In the book, I will elaborate on Mellencamp’s politics and further draw out interpretation of how his music embodies many important ideas about the American story.

Politics will make up only one chapter of the book, as it is comprehensive and covers Mellencamp’s entire life, but readers who enjoy my essay for The American Conservative, should look forward to additional reading next year.

Interview with Jian Ghomeshi of The Q for CBC about James Gandolfini

Posted on by

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.

promo-qpodcast-sm

New Column for The Indianapolis Star – “Political Correctness about to Get Worse on College Campuses”

Posted on by

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.

carlinAs 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.

New Essay at The Atlantic – “Senators Durbin’s and Kirk’s ‘Elitist, White Boy’ Plan to Fight Gangs is Right

Posted on by

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.”

CT shooting001.JPG

 

Major Announcement: I am Now a Columnist with the Indianapolis Star

Posted on by

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.

the-indianapolis-star

 

New Essay for The Indianapolis Star – “Craft Beer Shows Why Americans Should Toast Deregulation”

Posted on by

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.

beerBefore 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.

Angry Reader #1

Posted on by

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

New Essay for the Indianapolis Star – “…Nanny State Attack on Freedom, Personal Choice”

Posted on by

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.”

smokerHow, 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.

New Essay for The Atlantic: Why Still So Few Use Condoms

Posted on by

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.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAIt 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.”

New Essay for The Atlantic – “Kid Rock, Progressive Hero: Why He’s Right to Charge $20 Per Ticket”

Posted on by

In a capitalist culture and free market society, it is hard to make the argument that any business people should voluntarily charge less money for their product or service than people are willing to pay.

Multimillionaire rock and pop stars leave themselves vulnerable to criticism, however, when they claim to represent and sing for the common man, and present themselves as populist defenders of the dignity of everyday people.

It has become the norm for popular bands and artists to charge hundreds of dollars for admission into their concerts. The current model of exorbitant fees exists only because of the greed of the superstars, and the masochism of fans who pay the absurd costs for a two hour performance.

In my new article for The Atlantic – “Kid Rock, Progressive Hero: Why He’s Right to Charge $20 Per Ticket” – I condemn the avarice of The Rolling Stones, Jay Z, and other major musicians who suck every ounce of blood possible from their fans, and I reserve special ridicule for U2, Neil Young, and Bruce Springsteen, who charge over $100 for tickets, while they sing about helping the poor and bash the greed of politicians and corporate CEOs.

There are few exceptions to the practice of gouging music concertgoers. Garth Brooks enforces a $25 maximum for his ticket prices, despite incredible demand. Brooks has broken records in Missouri, Tennessee, and Canada in the past five years for fastest sell out times. Dave Matthews explains that if he charges $30 per ticket, he will break even on major tours. So, he charges between $40 and $50.

Kid Rock has emerged as a new exemplar of compassion and selflessness in his business policies by co-headlining a tour with ZZ Top, and promising that no ticket will cost more than $20. He is also lowering T Shirt prices from the laughable industry standard of $40 to $20.

It is important to acknowledge that it is not the “champions of the working class” or “social justice” advocates, like Springsteen and Bono, who are taking a pay cut to help more fans afford their concert experience, it is the registered Republican, Romney supporting, Kid Rock.

As I explain in the article, it is my hope that Kid Rock’s new tour will embarrass other rock and pop stars into lowering their ticket prices, if only so that their anthems of liberal outrage don’t provoke enough laughter to drown out the drumbeat. I also hope that it will encourage more music fans to reward bands that respect them, and punish those that don’t.

Neil Young charged $200 for his latest tour, and when he played Chicago last summer, I asked my friend who owns an independent record store in Northwest Indiana why he wasn’t going to attend the show. He answered with words to live by – “I’m not throwing money at the feet of millionaires anymore.”